In the late 1990s, Japan introduced the Administration Reforms to address economic depression and administrative inefficiencies, based on the New Public Management (NPM), aiming for efficient, accountable, and performance-oriented public service delivery. As part of this, various public organisations have undertaken agencification. However, the impact and process of agencification differ across sectors, with variations observed in areas such as management practices and operational autonomy (Verhoest et al., 2021).
Extensive research has attempted to clarify the impact of agencification in the management of various sectors, such as universities, libraries, and hospitals. Nonetheless, research about cultural organisations is relatively underdeveloped (Palumbo et al., 2022). Thus, this paper explores the institutional logic of the museum sector within the broader context of public sector reform, focusing on agencification. It argues what distinguishes the museum from other public organisations in terms of reform drivers and embedded organisational ideas through the lens of publicness and organisational logic.
Japan implemented agencification for ‘streamlining the government’ (Yamamoto, 2003, p.17) and efficient public service delivery. One example is the creation of Independent Administrative Institutions (IAIs) to oversee national museums in 2001, which makes national museums under the National Institute for Cultural Heritage or National Museum of Art, as IAIs. Another example is the National University Corporation, designed specifically for national universities in 2004. While it was enacted in a similar timeframe, it progressed differently with a distinct scope.
The reform towards the national museums is incremental, even though they underwent structural change. The core functions, such as research and preservation, are under the government's oversight while the operational parts are outsourced (e.g., ticket sales and holding events). Furthermore, the collections in national museums are overseen by the government, which limits museums’ autonomy. However, all 86 national universities transformed into National University Corporations, with immediate pressure from the government, such as budget cuts, introducing performance evaluation, and privatising their services.
Likewise, the scope of the reforms differs between the national universities and museums. What distinguishes the museum sector from national universities? How has the agencification unfolded within the museum sector, and how is institutional logic embodied in this sector to shape its changes?
This research methodology involves a one-country case study, Japan, to identify how the university and museum sectors have been transformed and undertaken differently. The paper analyses 1) policy documents concerning agencification, 2) reform plans carried out by institutions, and 3) long and short-term institutional visions and plans.
Reference
Palumbo, R., Manna, R., & Cavallone, M. (2022). The managerialisation of museums and art institutions: Perspectives from an empirical analysis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1397–1418.
Verhoest, K., van Thiel, S., & De Vadder, S. (2021). Agencification in public administration. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1466
Yamamoto, H. (2000). New Public Management – Japan’s Practice (NIRA Policy Paper No. 293). National Institute for Research Advancement. https://npi.or.jp/en/research/data/bp293e.pdf
