• サイトトップ
• 検索
• バックナンバー
• 『一橋社会科学』について
• 『一橋社会科学』の沿革
• 寄稿・投稿について
• よくある質問
• おしらせ

第16巻

[ 要旨 ]

　公共利益団体のアドボカシーはデモクラシーの政治過程において重要だが、集合行為論が説くように、そのような組織の形成や維持は本質的に困難な営みである。したがって、それを可能にする条件の探求が学問的に重要な課題となってきた。しかし、「パトロン」理論をはじめアメリカのデータや事例に基づいて形成されてきた主要な学説は、大きく前提の異なる社会における団体形成・維持の様々な経験を十分に捉えられているとは言いがたい。そこで本稿は、日本の公共利益団体の事例として日本消費者連盟を取り上げ、半世紀以上にわたる組織の歴史とその背景を分析する。日消連は、1970～80年代に、「草の根運動」と呼ばれた地域の消費者運動、市民運動の高揚を背景に発展したが、時代背景が変わり「草の根運動」が衰退すると会員減少が進行し、財政危機に見舞われた。こうしたなかで日消連を支えてきたのは、運動をともにしてきた生協などの存在であった。事例研究からは、「パトロン」理論とは異なる因果メカニズムで外部アクターの支援が公共利益団体の維持につながりうること、その場合に具体的にどのようなアクターが重要になるかは各国の歴史のなかで経路依存的に決まる場合があることなど、重要な理論的含意を導出できる。

[ Abstract ]

　　Advocacy by public interest groups is an important factor in invigorating democratic political process. However, according to the theory of collective action, the formation and maintenance of such organizations is an inherently challenging operation. Therefore, the search for the conditions that make this possible is an important academic endeavor. However, the major theories, including the patron theory, have been formulated primarily based on the data and case studies of American organizations; thus, whether they can adequately capture the various experiences of organizations in societies with substantially different preconditions is uncertain. Therefore, this paper analyzes the history of the Consumers Union of Japan (CUJ, Nihon-Shohisha-Renmei), which has continued its movement and organization for more than half a century, as a case study of the formation and maintenance of public interest groups in Japanese civil society. The CUJ was developed in the 1970s and the 1980s, supported by the rise of local consumer and citizen movements, which were called "grassroots movements.” However, as this situation changed and the "grassroots movements" waned, the CUJ experienced a decline in membership and a lingering financial crisis. In this phase, the organizational maintenance of the CUJ was supported by several consumer cooperatives that have been collaborating with it. From this case study, we can derive two important theoretical implications for interest group research. First, external actors’ support can lead to the formation and maintenance of public interest groups through a causal mechanism that differs from the patron theory, which has been very important in this research area. Second, the specific actors that are critical in such cases may be determined in a path-dependent manner, reflecting the history of politics, economics, and society in each country.