今井 貴子

Participation and legitimate opposition are two central features of what Robert Dahl identified as polyarchies. Despite normative emphases on the importance of political opposition for 'more' democracy, studies of opposition parties are yet to flourish. By comparing the British Labour Party and the Democratic Party of Japan, this paper will explore the way in which the practice of a political party in opposition has an impact on the party's performance once in government. Both Britain and Japan are known to be parliamentary democracies, experiencing an alternation of power by landslide: Britain in 1997 and Japan in 2009. However, the Labour government in Britain and the coalition government led by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) showed a remarkable difference in their abilities to put their election manifestoes into practice, as well as in their courses of policy position after they took power. To understand the discrepancy between the Labour Party and the DPJ in their performances in government, this paper will argue that the power resources provided for the party leadership, and the intra-party decisionmaking system, both of which are set during the years in opposition, define, to a significant extent, the strength of the political leadership once in government.

This paper aims to explore the tension between integration and autonomy around the state and voluntary associations in civil society, based on empirical research on the subset of an emerging actor, the 'social enterprise', in contemporary British society. 'Social enterprise' is a relatively new concept, drawing on the increasing interest in non-conventional entrepreneurial dynamics addressing present challenges. The social enterprise is not conventional because it acts across three traditional sectors: the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. Since 1997, the Labour government paved the way for social enterprises to play a significant role in delivering public services. In the contest of the welfare mix, the government saw the social enterprise as a vital actor in renovating public services. The focus of their public service reforms was on tackling the problems of 'social exclusion', as well as on seeking more cost-effective ways to deliver services. One of the culminations of such reforms was the introduction of the Flexible New Deal under the Brown administration. Here, private and voluntary actors were expected to take more responsibility for delivering employment programmes to those who were out of the labour market. Nonetheless, the growing focus on social enterprises by the government had, arguably, accelerated the tension mentioned above. To examine this tension, this paper applies a case study of an organisation called the Wise Group, one of the largest and most successful social enterprises in the UK. The Wise Group has delivered employment programmes in communities for more than 25 years, originally through an Intermediate Labour Market model. While this paper shows some evidence of integration, it also extracts their autonomous activities. The paper concludes that, although tension certainly exists in the quasi-market of public services, the social enterprise has still shown its potential to lay a deep foundation for autonomous civil society through its ability to discover and resolve community problems, and to build social capital in the community.