should be pointed out. To consider these two aspects will enable us to clarify
backgrounds of each factor.
Firstly, it should be noted that these adopted factors were incorporated into the
calculation formula not merely for the purpose of smooth and acceptable allocations.
Bureaucrats intentionally introduced these factors in an attempt to implement programs
represented by slogans aiming at a future vision of Japanese agriculture. For example, in
the 1980s, the world market of agricultural products, especially grains, became glutted
with developed countries’ overproduction and export subsidies. As a result, the
competition between exporting countries and importing countries became severe, so the
Japanese government attempted to strengthen the competitiveness of Japanese
agriculture by lowering costs of crops such as rice and wheat. This is why the factor
representing the productivity of rice growing was intentionally introduced into the
calculation formula. Furthermore, in this case, the change was officially disclosed, even
often enthusiastically spread around in order to accelerate a nation-wide
competitiveness strengthening campaign involving village offices, agricultural
cooperatives and leaders of farmers.
In this sense, unevenness itself may often have a significant and positive meaning
as a policy message from government to farmers, regional officers and others concerned.
Uneven allocations play a guiding role to regional agriculture. For instance, if the
allocation of set-aside acreage in a certain region is heavy, it can be interpreted that
bureaucrats attempt to lead that region from rice mono-culture to diversified
agriculture4.
Secondly, it is helpful for understanding political meanings of each factor to
consider to what extent each factor reflects the market mechanism. Although,
bureaucrats attempt to artificially and intentionally introduce these factors, it is hard for
4 Of course, unevenness may also often be formed as a passive meaning. For example, if
soil condition of a region shows inadequateness in drainage and the region is considered
to be unsuitable for upland crops, the allocation to that region may be reduced.