Greater vigor needed in debate on deregulation

Naoyuki Akikusa Vice Chairmen of the Board of Councillors, Keidanren President & CEO, Fujitsu Limited

It goes without saying that deregulation is important for the advancement of information technology. There are many discussions on this subject, but it seems to me that they are lacking in force. This may be because they are for the most part theoretical talk based on hypothetical situations, whereas down-to-earth examinations of what type of deregulation or new policies are required based on actual experience are few and far between.

Take, for example, verification testing on the trade finance EDI system being carried out under MITI's supplementary budget. There are many different affiliated companies involved trade-related business, and transactional details can be extremely complicated. One study revealed that for one particular transaction there were as many as 27 companies involved, 40 different types of documents required, 200 separate data points covered, and that 60 - 70% of the data had to be reentered.

In the process of actually operating this system, however, a number of regulatory issues come to the fore. For example, paper-based applications and reports to the government continue to be required, and the need for revision of particular trade-related laws becomes apparent when dealing with these matters at the operational level.

In this regard, the experience of actually being involved in the work makes it clear which regulations need to be relaxed. I think that by attacking these one by one, an effective approach to deregulation will emerge. Likewise, with the current e-government initiatives, I believe that the actual experience of dealing with enterprises and individuals will make it quite apparent in which areas deregulation needs to occur. In this regard, it would be most effective to gauge the problems and benefits of a particular system after first getting concrete projects off the ground.

Of course, it is also necessary to talk about deregulation from a broader perspective. However, I do feel that more discussion about what is wrong and how to fix it needs to take place at the practical level, based on the experience of getting involved in actual projects. In this way, I feel we can add some vigor to this very important debate.