The Administrative Project Review to examine the projects of ministries and agencies and visualize the results

External experts verify whether performance targets and indicators for each project are set appropriately

Administrative project reviews are conducted for projects under the jurisdiction of each ministry to verify whether each project for the policy is being implemented appropriately. Based on the review sheets for each project, external experts check whether the project is being implemented in accordance with its objectives, whether the performance targets are in line with the objectives, and whether the performance indicators are set appropriately. The sorting of projects under the Democratic Party of Japan administration used to be a theatrical-style process that tended to publicly accuse government agencies, but now it has changed to the process of properly confirming the details of the projects.

I myself have been involved since fiscal 2023, and every year I review and comment on dozens of projects. If a project is carried out with a wrong understanding, it is difficult for government officials to foresee and achieve its goal. We identify various points, such as whether the set outcomes are possible, how feasible the project is, and whether there is any overlap with other projects, as material for revision.

Achieving performance targets that benefit people proves that policies are being implemented properly and that taxes are being used effectively. Therefore, instead of simply criticizing projects with insufficient results as a waste of tax money, the role of administrative project reviews is to have government officials in the field explore opportunities for improvement. In recent years, various ministries and agencies have not only published their administrative project reviews but also livestreamed the project review sessions by administrative officials and external experts on the Internet. They are realizing that by increasing transparency, they can better promote the projects.

Originally, the administrative project review was influenced by evidence-based policymaking (EBPM), which was adopted by the Obama administration and gradually became widespread. Of course, we have known for a long time that it is important to budget, implement policies, and monitor progress based on evidence. Yet as EBPM has become more widespread, it has become more recognized.

In the case of policies to curb abandoned farmland, it is important to understand what percentage of farmland abandonment the project curbed and the effect relative to the budget invested. There is a growing emphasis on visualizing the results of projects by using the relationship between inputs and outputs as evidence.

Development of causal inference methods to understand the relationship between projects and effects

I feel that society’s understanding of EBPM and using data to assess the effects of policies has progressed more than before. As its background, the method of causal inference has developed dramatically. We can now better understand the relationship between the projects we have implemented and their effects.

Causal inference, roughly speaking, uses data to statistically estimate and analyze the relationship between cause and effect, such as how one event affected another and to what extent. In the administrative project review, progress and the target achievement rate are tracked based on the set performance indicators. With the development of causal inference methods in recent years, it has become easier to understand evidence, and there are more opportunities to enhance the accuracy and persuasiveness of administrative project reviews.

The development of research methods also requires technological developments. Methods previously considered theoretically calculable can now be easily executed on one’s own personal computer, as advances in computers have significantly increased calculation speed. Methods of causal inference, which were said to be theoretically possible, have become applicable to business. As calculation speed increases, research also progresses faster, which is expected to further advance causal inference methods.

I have reviewed administrative projects of various scales, from large to small. The objectives of some projects did not appear to align with their performance targets and indicators.

For example, in a project aimed at stabilizing the supply of agricultural and livestock products, the performance target and indicator were an increase in production. For this project, the performance target and indicator should be how well fluctuations in supply were suppressed, rather than an increase in production. In another project aimed at improving productivity, production volume was set as the performance target and indicator. However, increased productivity does not necessarily mean increased production.

The objectives of some projects, like these, are somewhat unclear. Speaking up from within government agencies can be difficult, so I would like to point out problems from an external perspective and help build a common understanding within the organization.

A system that facilitates collaboration between government officials and researchers would make it more beneficial

With the concept of EBPM becoming widespread, we are now able to think more about what results to consider and how to evaluate them before securing a budget and starting a project. But in the past, it was not uncommon to set performance indicators after starting a project.

For example, the Uruguay Round Agreement in 1993 led to the liberalization of agricultural imports. In order to address this situation, domestic producers were under pressure to enhance their competitiveness, and the government allocated a huge budget for support measures, but much of the budget was spent on so-called “hakomono” (public buildings).

When I visit rural areas for research, I often see facilities built with the budget at the time of the Uruguay Round Agreement. Many of you may be aware because some facilities are totally unrelated to increasing competitiveness or productivity and are still subject to criticism.

If you start a project with a vague objective and a budget-first approach without setting performance indicators, you may waste your budget without being able to correct course. EBPM is also essential for preventing such failures in advance. The administrative project review based on EBPM may be playing a role in reviewing the progress of projects in national administration.

However, after commenting in administrative project reviews, it is left to the government offices, and we have not been able to verify what happened afterwards. In some of my own reviews, I felt that if we had a tracking system, we could provide more useful information.

In addition, while causal inference methods are expected to continue to develop in the future, microdata at the level of management and business entities are required to utilize the methods more effectively. Easier access to such data will provide more robust evidence for policy evaluation and formulating measures.

On the other hand, if researchers conduct research based solely on their own interests, it may not align with what government officials really need. As a researcher, I wish there were a place where we could hear what kind of research they want us to do. If we can build a system that allows ministries and agencies to effectively collaborate with academic researchers, we can make more use of academic knowledge in government and society.

* The information contained herein is current as of July 2025.
* The contents of articles on Meiji.net are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
* I work to achieve SDGs related to the educational and research themes that I am currently engaged in.

Information noted in the articles and videos, such as positions and affiliations, are current at the time of production.