Introduction

The size and quality of civil society organizations are key measures of a democracy's health. Associational life in any country can be approached theoretically from three different angles: from the viewpoints of the State, of society, and of the groups themselves. I empirically operationalize these three viewpoints using the indices of state-recognized institutions, social establishments, and active groups (Tsujinaka 2002: 230-50). The State always tries to mold and influence civil society organizations to its liking by means of state-recognized institutions. Society provides such organizations with the resources to hire employees and establish offices. Regardless of institutions and establishments, Citizens in practice form groups, communicate with other groups, and lobby for public policies. Analyzing the role of civil society organizations within a democracy requires this three-pronged approach if it is to comprehend fully the holistic nature of associational life.

Portraying Japanese civil society in this manner has been problematic since the dawn of modern Japan. As Frank Schwartz suggests in the introduction to this volume, Japan's civil society has been analyzed from two contrasting perspectives. First, the institutional-statist perspective emphasizes the relatively strict regulatory environment created either by a strong, interventionist State (Wolferen 1989; Sugimoto 1997) or, conversely, by a socially penetrative public administration that requires maximum mobilization of social organizations to compensate for its weak jurisdictional power (Muramatsu 1994).