Public opinion and expert critique: reconsidering the role of constitutional scholars in Japan’s security policy

Do experts’ opinions influence public opinion? Although experts with academic backgrounds are gaining a presence in policy debates, empirical studies deliver inconclusive results on whether experts have a cueing effect. Moreover, while most studies focus on cases where experts propose or recommend policies, the influence of their criticism on government policy has not received much research attention. To fill this gap, through an online survey in Japan, we test the effect of constitutional scholars’ criticism on people’s support for a dispatch of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). Since constitutional academics, regarded as influential experts, have historically criticized the constitutional legitimacy of Japan’s security policy, they provide a suitable case to examine. The results show that such criticism has no causal effect on public attitudes even among the most liberal respondents or those with high confidence in constitutional scholars. Contrary opinions from retired general officers decreased support for the dispatch among individuals who were conservative or had high confidence in the JSDF. These findings imply that though people consciously sift through information from different sources, they mostly reject the opinions of academic experts.