Decentralization Reform and New Trends in Local Governance in Japan:
Neoliberalization and Democratization of a Developmental State

Masao Maruyama
School of Human Cultures, University of Shiga Prefecture

Introduction

This article provides an overview of decentralization reform, the changing aspectsof local governments, and new trends in local governance in Japan from the 1990s
onward. In Japan, the policies of decentralization and devolution of state power havebeen pushed forward since the 1990s. At the same time, the policy of promoting local
governmental mergers, called “Heisei municipal mergers,” was strongly pushed for by
the central government. This series of policies by the central government moved
toward the goal of a “small (central) government” and were carried out as a part of theneoliberal policy of “Structural Reform” (kozo kaikaku) of the state.
On the other hand, a number of civil society organizations (CSOs)—for example,
voluntary associations, non-profit organizations (NPOs), and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs)—appeared on the stage in the 1990s to assume the role of public
service providers in certain fields. In a policy environment moving toward
decentralization and devolution of state power, these CSOs began providing a portionof public services that had previously been provided exclusively by local governments.
Throughout the postwar era, Japanese local governments had acted as the primary
suppliers of public services. However, since the 1990s, the CSOs have started
participating with local governments in new cooperative systems for the provision of
public services.
This article first outlines the policies of decentralization and devolution of state
power in Japan, and the promotion of the Heisei municipal mergers. Next, it provides
an overview of the flourishing of voluntary associations, NPOs, and NGOs, the1emergence of a new system of local governance, and the environment leading to thesechanges. Then, the article looks at examples of new systems of local governance inthree rural areas that experienced the local government mergers under the policy of
Heisei municipal mergers. Lastly, the article explores several agenda items for further
research. Since the late 1990s, many regional and community sociologists haveexamined experientially how Japanese local communities have responded to thepolicies of decentralization and Heisei municipal mergers. This article argues that oneof the most important issues for further research is to evaluate the results of thesepolicies from a critical point of view.

Decentralization Reform and New Trends in Local Governance

Decentralization Reform
In 1993 the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which had held power in the central
government for close to 40 years, lost power and an anti-LDP coalition led by
Morihiro Hosokawa established a new government. Hosokawa, who had been thegovernor of Kumamoto Prefecture and was the first prime minister to have experience
as a prefectural governor, was enthralled with the idea of decentralization. Just before
the establishment of the Hosokawa government, both the lower and upper houses of
the Diet had passed “Resolution Concerning the Promotion of Decentralization.”
Decentralization reform was viewed as a means of breaking up the enormous
controlling power of the national governmental bureaucracy. Transferring greater
control to local governments was enabled by the establishment of the anti-LDP stanceof the Hosokawa government, even though his government was short lived. The
cabinet of the next government under Tomiichi Murayama, who had also been a local
politician as a prefectural and municipal assembly member, did not change course
from the previous cabinet’s policy of promoting decentralization. Under the Murayama
administration, the 1995 Law for the Promotion of Decentralization came into effectand the Committee for the Promotion of Decentralization (chiho bunken suishin
2

iinnkai) was established. This committee made five admonishments and pressed thecentral government to implement decentralization. A 1999 Package Bill on the
Promotion of Decentralization was passed on the basis of these admonishments andimplementation began in April 2000 (see Table 1).

Table 1: Decentralization in Japan, 1993-2003
Year
1993

“Resolution Concerning the Promotion of Decentralization” in both the lower and upper
house
Collapse of the LDP regime and birth of Hosokawa’s non-LDP coalition government

1994

Report of “Promotion of Decentralization” by the 24th Local Government System
Research Council (chiho seido chosakai)
Formulation of “Broad Outline for the Promotion of Decentralization” (chiho bunken
suishin taiko)

1995

Revision of Special Law on the Merger of Municipalities
Establishment of the Act for the Promotion of Decentralization
Establishment of the Committee for the Promotion of Decentralization (chiho bunken
suishin iinkai)

1996

The 1st Admonishment by the Committee for the Promotion of Decentralization

1998

The 5th Admonishment by the Committee for the Promotion of Decentralization

1999

Establishment of Package Bill on the Promotion of Decentralization
Revision of Special Law on the Merger of Municipalities and the start of Heisei municipal
mergers

2001

Establishment of the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts andTelecommunications
Establishment of the Koizumi government and the start of “Structural Reforms” (kozokaikaku)
Final recommendation by the Committee for the Promotion of Decentralization

2002

Start of the “Trinity Reform” (sanmi ittai kaikaku) by the Koizumi government3

Private report, “The Future of Municipal Government” (Nishio shian), issued by Masaru
Nishio, a vice president of the committee of experts at the Local Government System
Research Council
2003

The report, “The Future of the Local Government System,” issued by the 27th Local
Government System Research Council

Source: Compiled by the author with reference to Tamano (2007).

Most Japanese researchers of public administration cite the elimination ofadministrative functions imposed upon regional governments (prefectures) and local
governments (municipalities of city, town, and village) by the central government as
the most important achievement of this series of decentralization reforms. In the
postwar relationship between the central government and regional/local governments
in Japan, the regional and local governments were organized as bodies subordinate to
the central government and were compelled to undertake administrative tasks andservices on behalf of the central government. In the Constitution and the Local
Autonomy Act established after the Second World War, regional and local
governments were established as a system in which the head of the government andassembly members were elected by citizens. However, in reality, regional and local
governments were tightly controlled by the bureaucracy of the central government
through the custom of “imposition of administrative functions” (kikan inin jimu). With
the decentralization reform in the 1990s, this sort of imposition of administrative
functions was abolished and the hierarchical relationship between the central
government and regional and local governments disappeared (Soga 2013: 254-6).
These reforms did not affect the fiscal relationship between the central governmentand regional and local governments. For example, the central government’s subsidies
and system for financing regional and local governments continued even withdecentralization. However, Junichiro Koizumi, who became prime minister in 2001,
did things differently. In order to reduce the huge debts of both the central governmentand regional and local governments, Koizumi carried out “Structural Reforms” (kozokaikaku) with the aim of achieving a smaller (central) government under the slogan of
4

“Structural Reform with No Sacred Cows” (seiiki naki kozo kaikaku). These neoliberal
reforms of the state apparatus included the curtailment of subsidies to local
governments. In 2002, Koizumi began the “Trinity Reform” (sanmi ittai kaikaku) tolower subsidies, reduce local government tax grants, and shift sources of tax revenue.
As seen above, decentralization reform was advanced in the last half of the 1990s
and the first half of 2000s in Japan. Some political scientists have pointed out thatthese reforms of the state apparatus occurred against a backdrop of changing
socioeconomic circumstances due to the globalization of Japanese economy andcompanies. With the sudden appreciation of the Japanese yen from the mid-1980s
onward and the intensification of inter-business competition amid the longer term
economic downturn of the 1990s, major Japanese companies, especially manufacturing
companies that previously led the growth of the Japanese economy in the era of higheconomic growth between the 1960s to 1980s, pushed forward the global deploymentof their production and management. Under these new economic circumstances, many
employers’ associations in the Japanese business community began demanding a
reduction in tax burden and the central government reforms to achieve an inexpensive“small government.” They insisted that devolution of state power from the central
government to the local governments was necessary in order to reduce the range ofcentral government activities and achieve cost savings. For this reason, the Japanesebusiness community demanded decentralization reform as part of the neoliberalsystemic reforms of the state (Kamo 2003; Shindo 2003).

Heisei municipal mergers
Decentralization reform in the central government required local governments tohave the administrative and fiscal ability to provide public services independently.
Because of this, the central government promoted a policy of merging local
governments from the late 1990s through the 2000s. A boom in local governmental
mergers resulted from this policy, which were called “Heisei municipal mergers”(Heisei no daigappei).
Japan’s system of local government since the birth of the modern state in the 19th
5

century has consisted of two tiers: broader administrative divisions at the regional scale(such as prefectures and major cities) and foundational municipalities at the local scale(such as cities, towns, and villages). Between these two levels, the regional
administrative divisions have not been reorganized or merged since the end of 19th
century, but reorganization of the municipalities was carried out countrywide in the
1880s and again in the 1950s. When the Meiji government organized the modern
system of local government in the 1880s, it carried out mergers of rural villages that
had served as the unit of governing for the Tokugawa Shogunate. The number ofvillages, which had numbered approximately 70,000, decreased to roughly 15,000.
This event is now called the “Meiji municipal mergers” (Meiji no daigappei). Seventy
years later, after the Second World War, the authorities in charge of the occupation ofJapan reduced the central government’s power to control municipal governments,
through the establishment of the new Constitution and the Local Autonomy Act. The
occupying powers also demanded that municipal governments be able to operate
independently. The central government developed a policy for the merging ofmunicipal governments, resulting in a decrease in the number of municipal
governments to approximately 4,000. This phase of municipal consolidation is known
as the “Showa municipal mergers” (Showa no daigappei). The Heisei municipal
mergers represent the third boom for municipal mergers in modern Japan (see Table 2).

Table 2: The number of municipality in Japan, 1888-2010
Year

City

1888

Town

Village

Total

71,31471,314

15,82015,859

1889

39

1947

210

1,784

8,511

10,505

1953

286

1,966

7,616

9,868

1956

498

1,903

1,574

3,975

1965

560

2,005

827

3,392

1995

663

1,994

577

3,234

6

Meiji municipal mergers

Showa municipal mergers

1999

671

1,990

568

3,229

2002

675

1,981

562

3,218

2004

695

1,872

533

3,100

2005

739

1,317

339

2,395

2006

777

846

198

1,821

2010

786

757

184

1,727

Heisei municipal mergers

Source: Created by the author using data from a Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunication document

Prior to the 1990s, the central government was not enthusiastic about municipal
mergers. Instead, an option existed for introducing a system of cooperation between
local governments for different administrative operations. The central government
encouraged this option for local governments. However, when the decentralization
reform started, the central government began to demand preparations for local
governments to receive decentralized power and converted to a policy of promoting
mergers (Imai 2008).
In 1999, the central government revised the Special Law on the Merger ofMunicipalities, established the “Special Local Bond for Municipal Merger” (gappei
tokurei sai) for the advancement of local government mergers, and set up a preferential
system for its financing. As pointed out above, the “Trinity Reform,” started at theestablishment of the Koizumi administration, broadly reduced fiscal support from thecentral government to local governments. Due to this reform, many small municipal
governments with limited financial capabilities became unable to maintain independent
governance. This resulted in the merging of many municipalities by 2010, the year inwhich the Special Law on the Merger of Municipalities expired, with the number ofmunicipalities decreasing by nearly half. Through the Heisei municipal mergers, theaverage size of foundational municipalities became drastically larger. The average
population of Japanese municipalities became one of the largest in the world (Soga72013: 258)1.
Many Japanese researchers of public administration and public finance have given
attention to the Heisei municipal mergers. Some regional and community sociologists
have also carried out research with a focus on changes in the relationship between local
government and local community. Some of the areas of focus by researchers include
the mergers of small municipal governments (e.g. Hisaoka et al. 2002; Yoshino 2009,2013; Aoki and Tamura, eds. 2010; Tsukiyama 2013), anti-merger resident movements(e.g. Maruyama 2005; Shindo 2008), and the activities of local communities opposing
the national policy of merger promotion (e.g. Miyashita 2008; Ajisaka 2011). Research
has also been conducted to try to understand the Heisei municipal mergers from theperspective of the “state rescaling” debate (e.g. Machimura 2004, 2013; Maruyama
2012a, 2015).

New Trends in Local Governance
The 1990s saw not only the decentralization reform that transferred authority fromthe central government to the local governments, but also the appearance of new trends
in local governance. While the provision of public services and decision making in
local communities was primarily the domain of local governments and assemblies
before the 1990s, their functions are now provided as part of a cooperative system withresponsibilities shared by CSOs, private companies, and local governments.2
The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake struck Kobe in January 1995 and was one of
the most damaging disasters since the end of the Second World War. Many volunteers
participated in relief efforts for victims of the earthquake. Before the earthquake, someresearchers had focused on the activities of voluntary associations, NPOs, and NGOs.
1

For detail of the political process and a fuller picture of the Heisei municipal mergers,
see Imai (2008), Aoki and Tamura, eds. (2010), and Koeki Zaidan Hojin Goto Yasuda
Kinen Tokyo Toshi Kenkyujo, ed. (2013).
2
Yoshihiko Nawata, a researcher of public law, points out that local society requires
two functions—public service provision and public decision making—by reference to
Max Weber’s debate on “Gebietsverband” (area association) (Nawata, ed. 2009:
chapter 1). These are seen as necessary functions constituting local governance. In thisarticle, the concept of “local governance” is used to include both functions.
8However, for many people, the earthquake was their first opportunity to witness theabilities of CSOs to assume a significant portion of public services in place of thegovernment.
The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake also became an opportunity for theenactment of the 1998 Act to Promote Specified Non-profit Activities under which
volunteer associations, NPOs, and NGOs were able to obtain corporate status. A
specific tax benefit was established for these organization. Legally certificated NPOs
have been increasing each year, with there being more than 50,000 corporate NPO
entities as of 2014 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The number of legally certificated NPOs in Japan

50000
40000

34,36937,192

39,73242,38545,13847,54048,982 50,089

31,11530000

26,394
21,28020000

16,160
10,664

10000
0

23

1,724

3,800

6,596

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FY

Source: Created by the author using data from the Cabinet Office’s website

Decentralization reform requires local governments to independently supply public
services and develop policies. However, the central government did not transfer all thatmuch in the way of fiscal resources. The financial circumstances of local governments
did not improve during the long-term economic recession of the 1990s. Because of this,a portion of public services, which had previously been supplied wholly by local
governments, began to be provided efficiently and effectively through a cooperative
system with CSOs. Many local governments did not have a direct motivation to nurture9

the growth of CSOs. Rather, they simply were in need of a new system for providing
public services cheaply. Many voluntary associations, NPOs, and NGOs used thisopportunity to expand the scope of their own missions and activities. They advanced
the construction of new style of local governance, especially in the fields of welfare,elderly care, child care, education, and urban planning, all of which had been public
services for which local governments were primarily responsible.
Since the mid-1990s, many Japanese regional and community sociologists haveconducted research on voluntary associations, NPOs, and NGOs (e.g., Nishiyama
2005). Some of them have taken an interest in the relationship between the local
community and the new CSOs, and the process for building a new form of local
governance. In recent years some researchers have focused not only on volunteeringand the activities of CSOs, but also on social enterprises and community businesses(e.g., Harada et al. 2010; Shimizu 2010; Fujii et al., eds. 2013).

Constructing New Systems of Local Governance: Case Studies

What are the characteristics of the new system of local governance that emerged
under the policy trends of decentralization reform and the Heisei municipal mergers?
This section examines the cases of three areas—Sakuma in Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka
Prefecture; Yasuzuka in Joetsu City, Niigata Prefecture; and Sanriku in Ofunato City,
Iwate Prefecture—where all of the local governments were merged in the Heisei
municipal mergers. These areas are situated in rural areas. In addition, the three areas
are experiencing population aging and depopulation.
Case 1: Sakuma—Creating a New Public Service Supply System3
Sakuma area in Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Prefecture, is located on the southern
tip of a mountainous region in central Honshu. There is a large and famous dam in3

For detail of Sakuma case, see Maruyama (2015: chapter 9).
10

Sakuma, a symbol of the recovery from defeat in the Second World War. In the area,
forestry was once very prevalent. However, as cheap foreign timber began to beimported, the forestry industry declined. The population of Sakuma area thendecreased considerably along with this. The dam provides electricity but has notcreated many jobs for the area. Because the finances of the Sakuma Town government
became tenuous, the town government was incorporated into a nearby city,
Hamamatsu City, in July 2005 (Maruyama 2015: chapter 5 and 6).
Generally, incorporation of a local government into a larger unit of government
often invites qualitative and quantitative declines in many public services provided by
the local governments for incorporated area. This is because it is difficult for theenlarged local government to provide specific services at the same level. Top officials
and assembly members of Sakuma Town worried about this before the merger of thetown governments. Because of this, they established a non-profit organization, NPO
Ganbaramaika Sakuma, with the support of local residents. “Ganbaramaika” means“Do one’s best!” in the local dialect. This organization was meant to take over a
portion of the public services previously managed and provided by Sakuma Town thatthe government of Hamamatsu City discontinued such as the management of local
events.
In order to establish this organization, most leaders of neighborhood associations in
the Sakuma area helped to recruit members and collect membership fees for
Ganbaramaika. This resulted in approximately 70% of Sakuma households becoming
members of the organization and paying the monthly membership fee of 100 yen.
After its establishment, Ganbaramaika began two new projects. One is the “NPOTaxi” project. In the Sakuma area, there was no private taxi company. While there are
public bus routes, the routes are few and the frequency of the buses is low. In the area
there are also many elderly persons who are unable to drive a car or ride a bike andtherefore have difficulty when they need to purchase groceries or go to the hospital.
For this reason, Ganbaramaika bought two station wagons and started a taxi service(Photo 1). The six drivers are volunteers living in the area. Currently, these taxis are
helping elderly persons to move around Sakuma (see Table 3 and 4).
11

12

Photo 1: Sakuma’s “NPO Taxi”

Source: Photo by the author

Table 3: Utilization of Sakuma’s “NPO Taxi” by age
20-49 Years

50-64 Years

65-74 years

75 years and above(N=69)(N=85)(N=98)(N=118)Service used

1.5%

3.5%

6.1%

30.5%

Service not used

98.6%

96.5%

93.9%

69.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Source: Questionnaire survey conducted by the author in Sakuma in 2010
*Chi-squared test p < 0.01

Table 4: Utilization of Sakuma’s “NPO Taxi” by ability to drive a vehicle or motor
bike
Can drive (N=315)

Cannot drive (N=62)

Service used

7.3%

37.1%

Service not used

92.7%

62.9%

100.0%

100.0%

Source: Questionnaire survey conducted by the author in Sakuma in 201013

*Chi-squared test p < 0.01

The other service that Ganbaramaika began is its “Idobata” project, a restaurantand delicatessen. With the decline in the population, there are almost no restaurants in
Sakuma and few shops. It is difficult for the elderly to prepare their daily meals.
Because of this, Ganbaramaika rented a vacant shop in the central shopping street in
the town and opened “Idobata” where they sell prepared foods and one can eat
Japanese soba noodles and rice balls (Photo 2). There are approximately 20 volunteers
working shifts as employees of the restaurant.

Photo 2: “Idobata,” a restaurant and delicatessen run by Ganbaramaika

Source: Photo by the author	 Case 2: Yasuzuka—Constructing a Democratic System of Local Governance4
Similar to Sakuma’s Ganbaramaika, a non-profit organization was formed in
Yasuzuka Ward of Joetsu City, Niigata Prefecture, in central Honshu on the coast of
the Japan Sea, to provide services following a Heisei municipal merger. The
government of Yasuzuka Town was incorporated into that of Joestu City in January4

For detail of the Yasuzuka case, see Maruyama (2008, 2013a, 2013b) and Maeyama(2009).
14

2005. The residents of Yasuzaka established a non-profit organization, NPO
Yukinofurusato Yasuzuka, after the merger to take charge of public services. The
organization also took charge of local events that the Yasuzuka Town government had
once coordinated. The organization collects membership fees from most of thehouseholds in Yasuzuka Ward.
Yasuzuka is an area that receives heavy snow fall and has had numerous problems
from this climate over the years. In the 1980s, the local government of Yasuzuka began
an event called “Candle Road,” which used heavy snowfall as a tourism resource andinvited tourists to come to the area. At the event, many candles are placed in snow
walls along road and light up the whole town. Many food stalls where tourists canenjoy warm meals are opened throughout the area. While this event was formerly
operated by the Yasuzuka Town government, after the merger Yukinofurusato took
over responsibility for the event. It would be impossible to line up the candles andprepare the food stalls with only the staff of Yukinofurusato. All of the neighborhood
associations in Yasuzuka area help out and nearly all of the residents contribute to theoperation of the event (see Photo 3 and 4).

Photo 3: Preparations by neighborhood association members for the “Candle Road”
event in Yasuzuka

Source: Photo by the author
15

16

Photo 4: Food stalls run by neighborhood associations in Yasuzuka’s “Candle Road”
event

Source: Photo by the author

The local governance of the Yasuzuka area has one more special feature. A
residents’ council based on the Local Autonomy Act called the “Local Council” (chiikikyogikai) has been established in the merged Joetsu City for the 14 wards (chiiki jichiku) within the city, including Yasuzuka Ward. Members of the council are selected by
the residents in an election. In Yasuzuka Ward, Yukinofurusato and this Local Council
are working together to solve local public problems. In other words, the new local
governance of Yasuzuka has unique characteristics for its division of labor andcooperation between organizations involved in the provision of local public services,
including both Yukinofurusato and the Local Council.

Case 3: Sanrikucho-Ryori: Building a System of Local Governance for
Recovery from Large-scale Disaster5
Ofunato City is situated in the southern region of Iwate Prefecture on Honshu’s
5

For detail of the Sanriku case, see Yamamoto, ed. (2014). Refer also Maruyama(2012b) for the politics of recovery and reconstruction after the tsunamis in Ofunato
City.
17

northeast coast. This small city suffered significant tsunami damage in the 2011 Great
East Japan Earthquake. The central area and the coastal fishing settlements in the citywere struck with tsunami waves over 10 meters in height, which resulted in 340 deaths
and 79 missing persons (Ofunato City government documents, September 30, 2013).
The government of Ofunato City incorporated with that of Sanriku Town in
November of 2001, 10 years before the tsunami disaster. Sanriku was a small townwith a population of approximately 8,500 and many residents involved in the fishingindustry. With the decline of the fishing industry and an aging and declining
population, the Sanriku Town government’s finances deteriorated. The fiscal debts ofSanriku Town became a principal reason for its incorporation into Ofunato City
(Maruyama 2005).
The former Sanriku Town area also received significant damage in the Great East
Japan Earthquake. The number of missing persons and deceased totaled 123 persons(Recovery Planning Committee of Ofunato City report, May 27, 2011). The massive
tsunami destroyed fishing ports and embankments and washed away fishing boats.
More than 95% of the fishing boats in Sanriku area were damaged.
The Ryori area in the southern part of the former Sanriku Town was struck by
tsunami waves over 20 meters in height. The number of people dead or missing totaled
26 out of a population of 2,754. The number of buildings damaged was 183, 21.6% of
all houses (Ofunato City government document, April 27, 2011). Of the area’s
workforce of 1,304 people, 25.3% were engaged in the fishing industry (2010 Census).
After the earthquake and tsunami disaster, the residents of Ryori were faced withdifficult challenges to restore fishing ports, seawalls, and warehouses and to restart thefishing industry, in addition to the challenge of how to rebuild their damaged homes
and communities.
The Ryori area once had a branch office of the Sanriku Town government withgovernmental officials. However, with the incorporation of Sanriku Town into Ofunato
City, the number of officials at Ryori branch office decreased. The residents of Ryori
recognized that they could not leave the design of a tsunami recovery plan to the
Ofunato City government. Four months after the earthquake and tsunami disaster, they18

established the Ryori Area Reconstruction Committee (Ryori chiku fukko iinkai) as anorganization that would produce and implement a recovery and reconstruction plan for
the area. The head of the Ryori Fisheries Cooperative served as the chairperson of thecommittee. Representatives from other organization, such as the chamber of commerce
and industry, the construction association, agricultural cooperatives, the senior’s
association, and the women’s organization became committee members. Leaders of the
12 neighborhood associations within Ryori area also joined the committee (see Table
5).

Table 5: Members of the Ryori Area Reconstruction Committee
Chair person

President of Ryori Fisheries Cooperative

Committee members

Chairs of neighborhood associations
Directors of community centers
Executive board member of Ofunato Agricultural Cooperatives
Adviser of Ofunato Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Chair of senior’s association
Chair of women’s organization
Brigade commander of fire company
Principals of Ryori Elementary School and Junior High School
Chairs of Parent-Teacher Association
Chair of anti-crime and traffic safety committee

Source: Compiled by the author from Yamamoto, ed. (2014: 104-105)

The Ryori Area Reconstruction Committee requested help in creating their desired
infrastructure reconstruction plan from regional planning specialists. With their help,
the committee was able to draft a recovery and reconstruction blueprint that they
adjusted themselves. Then, they requested that the Ofunato City government conduct
public reconstruction work for recovery and reconstruction based on this blueprint. The
city government instituted a formal recovery plan based on this blueprint.

19

Findings from the Case Studies
This section outlined the cases of three areas constructing new systems of local
governance. From these, two key findings can be identified.
First, attempts to create new systems of local governance emerged in areas where
there was consolidation of local governments through Heisei municipal mergers. Thesemergers meant that there was a need for a system for provision of local public services
and a system for local public decision making in the incorporated areas. To put it
another way, some functions that had been satisfied by local governments and local
assemblies prior to the mergers were lost as a result of the mergers. This also meantthat the residents themselves had the responsibility for reconstructing these lost
capacities.
Second, new systems of local governance are functioning through community
organizations such as Ganbaramaika in Sakuma, Yukinofurusato in Yasuzuka, and theRyori Area Reconstruction Committee in Sanrikucho-Ryori. Each of these neworganizations exists as a parent organization of various other organizations that werepreviously in the area. Among the various existing organizations, neighborhood
associations such as burakukai, chonaikai, and jichikai are performing an importantrole in the new systems of local governance. Neighborhood associations are organized
for all households in their areas. These sorts of neighborhood associations have long
histories and are highly capable of integrating local communities. Consequently, theparticipation and assistance of neighborhood associations is indispensable in working
to build a new system of local governance.

Concluding Remarks

Neoliberalization and Democratization of a Developmental StateIn the 1990s and 2000s, the Japanese state experienced neoliberal reform of thedevelopmental state apparatus, including decentralization reform and a policy
promoting local governmental mergers. By these reforms, many peripheral areas had
20their local government merge into a larger jurisdiction and then lost their local
governments as the basis of local governance.
On the other hand, the state bureaucracy, including local government organizations,
had previously enjoyed a monopoly in the provision of public services. Therefore, theneoliberal state reforms in the 1990s and 2000s also resulted in a shift of public service
provision away from a governmental bureaucratic monopoly and created theopportunity to build a new democratic system of local governance through CSOs.

Further Research on Japanese Local Governance
Finally, let us discuss an agenda for further research concerning Japan’s new
system of local governance. Up to now, Japanese regional and community sociologists
have examined how local communities responded to the policies of decentralizationand municipal mergers through detailed field work. Some their results are found inchapters of the Lecture Series of Regional and Community Studies (Chiiki Shakaigaku
Koza) (Tamano and Sanbonmatsu, eds. 2006) and the papers in Annals of Regional andCommunity Studies (Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo).
Today, decentralization reform has reached the first stage of completion and theHeisei municipal mergers have ended. A post-event critical evaluation of how thesepolicies of decentralization and municipal mergers affected local community will be an
important next step for regional and community sociology. It is necessary to examine
what sorts of impacts the new systems of local governance have had on the lives of
local residents. At the same time, it is also important to understand the quality of the
new systems of local governance. In the new system, neighborhood associations haveplayed an important role in local governance and will most likely be a focal point of
this future research. It has been shown that neighborhood associations have been key
actors in local governance in Japan. 6 The question of how these neighborhood
associations have changed or have not changed following the recent systemic changes
is an important research topic.

6

For detail of neighborhood association in Japan, see Pekkanen et al., eds. (2014).
21

References
Ajisaka, M., 2011, “Toshi to no tsunagari ga nosanson wo ikasu: Kyoto-fu Ine-cho wojirei toshite (Rural communities are sustained by their relationship with urban
centres),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community
Studies), 23: 35-52. (in Japanese)
Aoki, Y., and M. Tamura eds., 2010, Tatakau Chiiki Shakai: Heisei no Daigappei to
Shokibo Jichitai (Fighting Local Communities: the Heisei Municipal Mergers andSmall-size Local Governments), Kyoto: Nakanishiya. (in Japanese)
Fujii, A., K. Harada, and K. Otaka eds., 2013, Tatakau Shakaiteki Kigyo (Fighting
Social Enterprises), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. (in Japanese)
Harada, K., A. Fujii, and M. Matsui, 2010, NPO Saikochiku no Michi: Patonashippu
wo Sasaeru Shikumi (A Way to Reconstruction of Non-Profit Organizations:
Institutions for Supporting Partnership), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. (in Japanese)
Hisaoka, M., et al., 2002, Inaka no Machi-mura wo Kese! Shichoson Gappei ni Aragau
Mura no Ronri (Extinguish Small Towns and Villages! Rural Logic of Resistanceagainst the Merger Promotion Policy of Local Government), Kagoshima: Nanpo
Shinsha. (in Japanese)Imai, A., 2008, Heisei Daigappei no Seijigaku (Politics of the Heisei Municipal
Mergers), Tokyo: Kojin sha. (in Japanese)Kamo, T., ed., 2003, Kozo Kaikaku to Jichitai Saihen: Heisei no Daigappei, Chiiki
Jichi no Yukue (Structural Reform and Restructuring of Local Government: The
Heisei Municipal Mergers and the Future of Local Autonomy), Tokyo: Jichitai
Hyoron sha. (in Japanese)
Koeki Zaidan Hojin Goto Yasuda Kinen Tokyo Toshi Kenkyujo (Tokyo Institute for
Municipal Research) ed., 2013, Heisei no Shichoson Gappei: Sono Eikyo ni
Kansuru Sogoteki Kenkyu (The Heisei Municipal Mergers: Integrated Research of
the Policy Impacts), Tokyo: Koeki Zaidan Hojin Goto Yasuda Kinen Tokyo Toshi
Kenkyujo. (in Japanese)22Machimura, T., 2004, “’Heisei no daigappei’ no chiikiteki haikei: toshikan kyoso,
shuhenbu saitogo, genshi sareru koikiken (Local backgrounds of ‘Heisei municipal
merger’: intercity competition, reintegration of peripheral area, and imagined local
territory),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community
Studies), 16: 1-22. (in Japanese)
Machimura, T., 2013, “Mihatsu no kokka risukeringu? ‘Sekai toshi’ keisei kara ‘Heisei
no daigappei’ he (Examining ‘attempted’ state rescaling as a political strategy inJapan: from global city to ‘Heisei municipal mergers’),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai
Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community Studies), 25: 49-60. (in Japanese)
Maeyama, S., 2009, Chokusetsu Rippo to Shimin Orutanatibu: Amerika ni okeru ShinKokyoken Sozo no Kokoromi (Direct Legislation and Citizen Alternative: Social
Endeavor for Creation of New Public Spheres in the United States), Tokyo:
Ochanomizu Shobo. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, 2005, “’Heisei no daigappei’ wo meguru chiiki shakai no ishi kettei tojichitai zaisei: Iwate-ken Ofunato-shi, Sanriku-cho gappei wo jirei ni (Local
politics on the ‘Heisei municipal merger’: a case study of the Ofunato City-Sanriku
Town merger),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community
Studies), 17: 109-25. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, M., 2008, “Posuto ‘Heisei no daigappei’ no rokaru gabanansu no joken:
rokaru demokurashi no kanten kara (Local governance after the Heisei municipal
merger: shifting the democratic conditions),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals
of Regional and Community Studies), 20: 103-18. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, M., 2012a, “Kokka no risukeringu to toshi no gabanansu: ‘Heisei nodaigappei’ no chiho seiji wo rei ni (State rescaling and urban governance in Japan:
a case study of territorial restructuring in a city municipality),” Shakaigaku Hyoron(Japanese Sociological Review), 62(4): 476-88. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, M., 2012b, “Local regime after the Great East Japan Earthquake: for astudy on the politics of post-disaster reconstruction,” Disaster, Infrastructure andSociety, 3: 53-60.
Maruyama, M., 2013a, “’Heisei no daigappei’ to chiiki jumin soshiki no saihensei:
23

Niigata-ken Joetsu-shi Yasuzuka-ku no jirei (Heisei municipal mergers andrestructuring of neighborhood association: a case study of Yasuzuka Ward, Joetsu
City, Niigata Prefecture),” N. Iwasaki et al. eds., Zoho ban Chonaikai no Kenkyu(Study of Neighborhood Association, augmented edition), Tokyo: Ochanomizu
Shobo, 485-500. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, M., 2013b, “Yasuzuka-ku: NPO gata jumin soshiki wo do ugokasu ka(Yasuzuka Ward: the role of NPO-type resident organization),” K. Yamazaki and T.
Muneno eds., Chiiki Jichi no Saizensen: Niigata-ken Joetsu-shi no Chosen(Bleeding Edge of the Japanese Local Autonomy: A Challenge of Joetsu City),
Kyoto: Nakanishiya, 105-23. (in Japanese)
Maruyama, M., 2015, ‘Heisei no Daigappei’ no Seiji Shakaigaku: Kokka no
Risukeringu to Chiiki Shakai (Rescaling the Developmental State: Political
Sociology of the ‘Heisei Municipal Mergers’), Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo (inJapanese).
Miyashita, S., 2008, “’Heisei no daigappei’ seisaku ka ni okeru jiritsu no ronri to chiiki
shakai no saihen (Logic of local autonomy and the reorganization of local
community in ‘Heisei municipal merger’: a case study of Takagi Village in
Nagano),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community
Studies), 20: 119-35. (in Japanese)
Nawata, Y., ed., 2009, Komyuniti no Jichi: Jichitai-nai Bunken to Kyodo no Kokusai
Hikaku (Autonomy of Community: International Comparison on Internal
Decentralization and Partnership in Local Government), Tokyo: Nippon Hyoron
sha. (in Japanese)
Nishiyama, S., 2005, Borantia Katsudo no Ronri: Hanshin-Awaji Daishinsai kara
Sabushisutensu Shakai he (The Logic of Volunteering: Emergence of SubsistenceSociety after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995), Tokyo: Toshindo. (inJapanese)
Pekkanen, R. J., Tsujinaka, and H. Yamamoto, 2014, Neighborhood Associations andLocal Governance in Japan, Abingdon: Routledge.
Shimizu, H., 2010, “Jichitai sabisu no saihen katei ni okeru shakaiteki kigyo no tenkai:
24

Rondon kouhai chiku ni okeru jirei kenkyu kara (Development of social enterprises
in reorganization process of public services: based on a case study in a deprived
area in London),” Chiiki Shakai Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional andCommunity Studies), 22: 83-96. (in Japanese)
Shindo, H., 1997, “Chiho bunken ‘kaikaku’ to jichitai undo (Decentralization ‘reform’and local governments’ movements),” O. Watanabe and M. Goto eds., Koza
Gendai Nippon IV: Nippon Shakai no Taiko to Koso (Lecture Series Contemporary
Japan IV: Alternative and Vision of Japanese Society) Tokyo: Otsuki Shoten,
317-77.
Shindo, H., 2003, “Chiho bunken kara chiiki kozo kaikaku he: Nippon ni okeru shihon
shugi kokka no saihen to shin jiyu shugi gata chiho bunken no tenkei noseijigakuteki bunseki (From decentralization to structural reform of local
autonomy: a political analysis of the Japanese capitalist state restructuring and theevolution of neoliberal decentralization),” T. Kamo ed., Kozo Kaikaku to Jichitai
Saihen: Heiseri no Daigappei, Chiiki Jichi no Yukue (Structural Reform and
Restructuring of Local Government: Heisei Municipal Mergers and the Future ofLocal Autonomy), Tokyo: Jichitai Hyoron sha, 285-327. (in Japanese)
Shindo, K., 2008, “Shichoson gappei wo meguru jumin tohyo undo no tenkai to chiiki
kenryoku kozo no henyo: Gunma-ken Fujimi-shi wo jirei to shite (Referendum
movement of municipal merger and the transformation of community power
structure: a case study of Fujimi City, Gunma Prefecture), Gendai Shakaigaku
Kenkyu (Contemporary Sociological Researches), 21: 1-17. (in Japanese)
Soga, K., 2013, Gyoseigaku (Public Administration), Tokyo: Yuhikaku. (in Japanese)
Tamano, K., 2006, “Chiiki seisaku to gabanansu (Regional policy and governance),” K.
Tamano and M Sanbonmatsu eds., Chiiki Shakaigaku Koza III: Chiiki Shakai no
Seisaku to Gabanansu (Lecture Series of Regional and Community Studies III:
Regional Policy and Local Governance), Tokyo: Toshindo, 135-53. (in Japanese)
Tamano, K., and M Sanbonmatsu eds., 2006, Chiiki Shakaigaku Koza III: Chiiki
Shakai no Seisaku to Gabanansu (Lecture Series of Regional and Community
Studies III: Regional Policy and Local Governance), Tokyo: Toshindo. (in25

Japanese)
Tsukiyama, H., 2013, “Shichoson gappei to nosanson no hendo: Nagano-ken
kyu-Ooka-mura wo jirei to shite (Changes of rural and mountainous areas causedby the Heisei municipalities merger: a case study from Ooka-Village, Nagano
Prefecture),” Nenpo Sonraku Shakai Kenkyu (Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies), 49:
155-95. (in Japanese)
Yamamoto, T., ed., 2014, Higashi Nippon Daishinsai ni okeru Shien Katsudo to Chiiki
Shakai: Iwate-ken Ofunato-shi wo Chushin ni (Disaster Relief and Support
Activities and Local Community under the Condition of the Great East Japan
Earthquake: A Case Study of Ofunato City, Iwate Prefecture) (JSPS Kakenhi
Report). (in Japanese)
Yamazaki, K., and T. Muneno eds., 2014, Chiiki Jichi no Saizensen: Niigata-ken
Joetsu-shi no Chosen (Bleeding Edge of the Japanese Local Autonomy: A
Challenge of Joetsu City), Kyoto: Nakanishiya. (in Japanese)
Yoshino, 2009, “Nosanson chiiki ha shukusho shakai wo kokufuku dekiru ka:
chusankan chiiki ni okeru seisaku to shutai no keisei wo megutte (The possibilityof bridge over shrinking society in the rural region: concerning about the buildingof new policies and subjects in foot-hill and mountain areas),” Chiiki Shakai
Gakkai Nenpo (Annals of Regional and Community Studies), 21: 15-34. (inJapanese)
Yoshino, 2013, “Showa, Heisei no gappei ni okeru chiiki togo seisaku no tenkai tokadai: Aomori-ken Hachinohe-shi Nango-ku wo jirei to shite (The process and theissue of a regional integration policy of local government through consolidations in
Showa and Heisei era: a case study in Nango Ward of Hachinohe City in Aomori
Prefecture),” Nenpo Sonraku Shakai Kenkyu (Annual Bulletin of Rural Studies), 49:
115-53. (in Japanese)

Acknowledgment
This article was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants-in-Aid (No. 25518011 and2626245057).

27