The term *public* appears in many different contexts. We speak of public facilities, public transportation, public policy, and public works. Yet the meaning of the public is not always clear. Some people understand it as governmental activity, while others see it as the common good shared by society as a whole.
However, such understandings seem increasingly insufficient in a society undergoing profound change. Population decline, demographic aging, the diversification of values, and digitalization are transforming the environment in which society operates. Many of the challenges we face today extend beyond individual policies or institutions. They concern the structure and sustainability of society itself.
For this reason, I believe it is important to reconsider the meaning of the public from the perspective of social systems.
The public is not something created by social systems. Rather, social systems exist within what may be called *public society* and have been formed to sustain and develop it. By reconsidering the relationship between public society and social systems, it becomes possible to think more clearly about institutional reform and the redesign of social systems in an era of population decline.
There are various ways of understanding the public.
One view regards the public as governmental activity. From this perspective, the public consists of the services and policies provided by national and local governments. Infrastructure, firefighting, welfare, and education are typical examples.
Another view understands the public as the common good. In this interpretation, public interests are distinguished from private interests, and the public is seen as what benefits society as a whole. This perspective is widely used in political science and public administration.
A third view associates the public with civic engagement, volunteer activities, and mutual support within local communities. In recent decades, the importance of such activities has often been emphasized under the concept of the “new public.”
Each of these perspectives contains an element of truth. Yet each explains only one aspect of a broader reality.
What, then, is the public ultimately for?
Governmental activities, public services, and civic initiatives are not ends in themselves. They all exist because people live together in society.
The essence of the public therefore lies not in government or policy, but in society itself. To understand the public, we must first focus on society.
Human beings cannot live alone. Producing food, constructing housing, providing education, ensuring security, and delivering healthcare are tasks that no individual can accomplish independently. Our lives depend upon cooperation with others.
This shared way of life begins within families, expands into local communities, and eventually develops into larger social formations such as nations.
Although we rarely reflect upon it in our daily lives, we continuously rely on roads, railways, schools, hospitals, and countless goods and services provided by others. The foundations of our lives are supported by the cooperation of innumerable people.
The totality of this shared human existence may be called *public society*.
Public society is society itself: a social order in which people live together and depend upon one another.
Public society is not created by politics or government. Politics and government are merely parts of public society. Businesses, nonprofit organizations, local communities, and families are also parts of public society.
Public society exists first. Various organizations and institutions exist within it.
For this reason, it is not appropriate to limit the meaning of the public to governmental activity or the public sector. The public refers to public society itself—the shared social world in which human beings live together.
For public society to exist, a wide range of social functions must be maintained. Security, resource allocation, education, healthcare, welfare, economic activity, and conflict resolution are among them.
Throughout history, human societies have developed institutions and organizations to perform these functions. Together, they constitute what may be called social systems.
Social systems are the totality of functional arrangements formed to sustain public society.
Political systems provide collective decision-making. Administrative systems provide public services. Market systems coordinate the production and distribution of goods and services. Educational systems transmit knowledge and values. Healthcare and welfare systems support human well-being and security.
These systems do not exist independently of one another. They interact continuously and collectively support public society.
The important point is that social systems exist within public society.
Institutions and organizations are often treated as if they constitute society itself. Yet it is more appropriate to understand social systems as arrangements that have been formed to sustain public society.
Social systems emerge because public society exists. They perform the functions necessary to sustain human life within public society. Social systems are therefore both components of public society and instruments that serve its maintenance and development.
Many of Japan’s postwar social systems were constructed under conditions of population growth and economic expansion. Local government institutions, social security systems, educational arrangements, and infrastructure networks were all designed for a society that was expected to continue growing.
Today, however, these assumptions no longer hold.
Population decline is advancing. Society is aging. Values are becoming more diverse. Digital technologies are transforming the way people live and interact. Individual lifestyles and social expectations are also changing.
As these changes unfold, a growing mismatch has emerged between public society and the social systems that were created to support it.
Social systems are intended to serve public society. In practice, however, the maintenance of institutions and organizations often becomes an objective in itself.
Maintaining administrative organizations. Preserving existing institutions. Protecting budgets. Sustaining facilities.
Such ways of thinking can cause us to overlook the changing nature of public society itself.
In an era of population decline, the challenge is not to preserve individual institutions. The challenge is to sustain public society.
To achieve this, social systems must not be regarded as fixed structures. They must be continuously reviewed and redesigned in response to changing social conditions.
Social systems should therefore always be evaluated in terms of their contribution to public society in their own time.
The purpose of studying social systems is not merely to study institutions themselves. It is to explore the mechanisms that support the sustainability of public society.
Likewise, the purpose of institutional reform is not simply to modify rules in response to emerging problems. It is to redesign the relationship between social systems and public society so that society can adapt to changing conditions.
Reconsidering social systems from the standpoint of public society provides an essential starting point not only for institutional reform but also for the broader redesign of social systems in an era of population decline.