アメリカにおける報告調整法制度の展開 : 「連邦報告法」から「秘密情報保護・統計効率化法」まで(第三部 寄稿論文集)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The aim of this paper is to identify one of the fundamental factors which bring about substantial difference in the information management policy, including statistical adjustment among official statisticalagencies, between U.S. and Japan. Three U.S. laws: the Federal Reports Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (hereinafter referred to asFRA, PRA and CIPSEA, respectively) are examined to spell out to the characteristics of relevant legislative frameworks. Results obtained by this study may provide an effective implication for Japanese statisticsin introducing an extensive information management policy that is expected to cultivate its new frontier. The Federal Reports Act of 1942 (Chapter 35 of U.S. Code) was the first full-dress legislation to establish an order in coordinating thepractice of information collection by Federalagencies. The Office of Management and Budget(hereinafter referred to as OMB) was authorized by this law to conduct an appropriate policy to administer Federalagencies' information collecting activities.The information management policy to reduce the cost to the Government of obtaining information and to minimize the paperwork burden upon business enterprises and other persons through adjusting the information collection among Federal agencies was generally regarded to be transplanted into Japan by the enactment of the StatisticalReports Coordination Law (hereinafter referred to as SRCL) in 1952. Despite the seeming resemblance of systems introduced in both countries, SRCL and FRA are distinct in many dimensions. Firstly, FRA authorizes OMB to coordinate Federal agencies' information collecting activities which cover a wide range of information obtained from written reports to data collection with application forms, schedules, questionnaires,and other similar methods calling for answers to be used for statistical compilations. In contrast, SRCL, being moldedthrough tough negotiation with Governmentagencies which intend to keep competence for an exclusive autonomy in their information collection, is characterized by strictly limited scope of its application. Only information collected through reportingforms by agencies from more than ten persons or businesses, where reporting forms are defined only as written questionnaires andundocumented inquiries such as telephone survey do not fall under the provision. Moreover, the agency that is in charge of statistical coordination is requested by law to exert its competence by heeding consideration on avoiding improper disturbances about agencies' competencesand to perform coordination exclusively from statistical aspects. Secondly, in addition to the wider coverage of the law, OMB isauthorized by FRA, under due procedures, to designate one agency as the central collection agency in case when some Federal agencies have plan to collect the same information. As the result of the due coordination, agencies which are not designated as the central collection agency,are not qualified to obtain information for themselves. FRA also furnishes a set of provisions to supplement the OMB's coordination policy to designate the central collection agency. Among other differences, FRA stipulates as one of the purposes of the law, the maximum use of collected information as "information collected andtabulated by a Federal agency shall, as far as is expedient, be tabulated in a manner to maximize the usefulness of the information to other Federal agencies and the public." Powerful legal framework to adjust information collection among Federal agenciesbased on the effective data sharing among them is inherent to FRA. Comparable provisions are totally missing in SRCL.While succeeding from FRA the basic information management policy to minimize respondents' paperwork burden by eliminatingunnecessary duplication in agencies' information collection and to maximize the usefulness of obtained information, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, put in force in 1981, has expanded substantiallythe scope of its application to liquidate the previous patchwork in information policy.The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (hereinafter referred to as OIRA)performs agencies' information collection request clearance and other paperwork controlfunction under the new law by reviewing and approving the information collection requests submitted by agencies. The new law requires the agencies in advance to the submission of the proposal to eliminate information collection that may be obtainedfrom another source within the Federal Government through the use of the Federal Information Locator System (hereinafter referred to as FILS) maintained by OIRA, to reduce the paperwork burden on personswho will provide information to the agency, and to formulate plans for tabulating the information in a manner which will enhance its usefulness to other agencies as well as to the public. The agencies are requested to notice the assessment of paperwork burden regarding the data collection. OMB's information collection request clearance shall assess whether the collection of information by an agency is necessary for the proper performance of its functions or not. The proposed rulemaking of information collection request by the agency shall benoticed to the public in the Federal Registerand the agency should be accountable for an appropriate response to the comments raised by the public before its final submission to OMB. PRA shares the same characteristics with FRA in terms of an effective use of obtained information. OMB shall promote, through the use of FILS, expanded sharing of information among agencies. In order to realize a wider use of obtained information the Director of OMB may direct an agency to make available to another agency, or an agency may make available to another agency, information obtained pursuant to an information collection request in case when the disclosure is not inconsistent with any applicable laws. PRA is also distinct from FRA in furnishing the self-evaluationmechanism to check the implementation of the law. OMB shall, with the advice and assistance of the Administrator of General Services, review at least once every three years the information management activities of each agency and report their results to committees of the Congress. OMB shall also fully and currently inform to the President of the Senate and others of the major activities under this law and submit a reportwhich contains proposals for legislative action needed to improve Federal information management. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 that constitutes title V of E-GovernmentAct of 2002 consists of two different segments: [subtitle A] Confidential Information Protection and [subtitle B] Statistical Efficiency. Despite a set of applicable laws and regulations relating to confidentiality including the Privacy Act, the collection, maintenance, use anddissemination of confidential information by the Federal agencies were not totally organized in terms of its legal protection. Disproportionate penalties have been imposed by each agency for the violation of confidentiality. Subtitle A of CIPSEA was laid down to liquidate the current patchwork of confidentiality protection measures and to establish a new order. Subtitle B ofCIPSEA highlights the manner and conditions under which individually identifiable information acquired for statisticalpurposes are shared among three designated statistical agencies: the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As the discussion in this paper has identified, despite many differences in their informationmanagement policies, FRA, PRA and CIPSEA are common in stressing more effective or maximumuse of obtained information by Federal agencies. The idea that underlies theU.S. information policy seems to derive from the principle that information is collected not to be used exclusively by the competent agency, but to be shared widely for the better performance of governmental services.Apart from U.S. laws examined in this paper, provisions of SRCL are devoted mostly to describe procedures of coordination that FRA, for example, assign to the regulation. SRCL has no provisions regarding the use of collected information, nor its sharing among agencies. Information is, in principle, collected, stored and used exclusively by acompetent agency and rarely shared in Japan even within the agency. Wider sharing of information collected by each agency may contribute not only to alleviate paperwork burdens of respondents, but to expand the periphery of statistical data to meet the increasing social needs. Many leading countries have already institutionalized the system for the extensive use of administrative records for statistical purposes. Japanese official statistics, however, lay fairly behind those of othercountries in the information management policy due substantially to the premodern paradigm that information obtained belong primarily to the competent agency. A revolutionary turn of this paradigm seems tobe prerequisite for future development of Japanese official statistics.
- 法政大学の論文
- 2006-03-03