COSLOG Up-to-date Documents on Local Autonomy in Japan No.1

The Development of Municipal Mergers in Japan

Kiyotaka YOKOMICHIThe National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)

Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR)
The Institute for Comparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG)The Development of Municipal Mergers in Japan
Kiyotaka YOKOMICHIThe National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)

PREFACE

Recently in Japan, a number of large-scale municipal mergers have been carried out. In thispaper, I would like, in relation to these mergers, to analyze and comment on their background,purposes, methods, results and issues yet to be resolved.
The first chapter describes the variations that have occurred in the number of municipalities(cities, towns, villages), and explains how the number of municipalities has declined since the Meiji
era, largely as the result of three great consolidations, including the most recent one.
The second chapter describes the history of municipal mergers in Japan, focusing on theprevious two great consolidations (the Great Meiji Consolidation and the Great Showa
Consolidation).
The third chapter describes the background and purposes of the most recent consolidations(the Great Heisei Consolidation).
The fourth chapter describes the methods of this Great Consolidation.
The fifth chapter describes the processes and results of this Great Consolidation.
And finally, the sixth chapter sets out the impact and issues still to be resolved after this Great
Consolidation.

1 The Variation in the Number of Municipalities in Japan

Japan has adopted a two-tiered local administration system consisting of prefectures andmunicipalities.
As wide-area local entities, prefectures are responsible for many matters of broad public
interest, including the establishment and management of senior high schools, upgrading of industrial
infrastructure, and the implementation of job training and police affairs. On the other hand,municipalities as basic local entities deal with basic concerns more closely related to the daily life of
their residents, such as the registration of present and permanent addresses, the operation ofelementary and junior high schools, social welfare for infant children and senior citizens, city
planning, the operation of waterworks and sewer systems, the collection and disposal of garbage andfire prevention.
The variation in the number of municipalities is shown in Table 1. The number has decreased1sharply from 71,314 in 1888 to about one-fortieth, 1,821, in 2006 (however, the number ofprefectures has remained the same, 47, since 1888).
The cause of this enormous decrease in the number of municipalities can be found inmunicipal mergers; in particular, the three Great Consolidations have had a big effect in terms of
reducing numbers. The first of these was the Great Meiji Consolidation 1888-1889, when thenumber of municipalities was reduced from 71,314 to about one-fifth, 15,859. Then from 1953 to1961 the Great Showa Consolidation took place, resulting in a decrease in the number ofmunicipalities from 9,868 to about one-third, 3,472. Finally, the Great Heisei Consolidation has beenin effect from 1999 to 2006, and has resulted in the decline of the numbers of municipalities from3,229 to half, 1,821.
If we look more closely at these results with the aim of separating the treatment of cities fromthat of towns and villages, the following facts become clear: in the Great Meiji Consolidation, thecombined number of towns and villages decreased from 71,314 to 15,820, but 39 new cities werecreated; in the Great Showa Consolidation, the number of villages was reduced from 7,616 to 981,
and the number of towns changed from 1,966 to 1,935, showing only a very small reduction while atthe same time the number of cities increasied from 286 to about double, 556; and in the Great Heisei
Consolidation, the number of villages decreased from 568 to 198, the number of towns decreased
from 1,990 to 846, but the number of cities increased from 671 to 777.
In summary, it is clear that in the first place, there was a fall in the number of villages , andnext the number of towns declined, while on the other hand, the number of cities has continued toincrease throughout all three Great Consolidations. We can say that this shows clearly that Japan haschanged from a rural to an urbanized society as its social economy has improved since the Meiji Era.

2 The History of Municipal Mergers in Japan

2-1 The Great Meiji Consolidation
When Japan carried out its modernization after the Meiji Restoration of 1867, various local
systems were examined. As a result, in 1888, a modern law concerning cities, towns and villages, themunicipal law named “Shisei-Chosonsei” (the institution of the system of cities, towns and villages)
was enacted, with the date of enforcement set as the following year, 1889.
Prior to the enforcement of this law, the Great Meiji Consolidation took place with the aim ofestablishing cities, towns and villages as modern local administrative units. Up to this time, towns
and villages (there were no cities at this time), were basically no different from the village
communities of the Edo era. And these small-scale towns and villages which had 100 households orless accounted for nearly 70% of all units. They were unable to cope with the duties of registeringfamilies or levying taxation, and faced particular difficulties in operating elementary schools, which

2comprised compulsory education at this time. Consequently, nation-wide municipal mergers werecarried out so as to form units ranging from at least 300 to 500 or more households.
As mentioned above, the result was that the number of cities, towns and villages decreased from71,314 in 1888 to 15,859 in 1889.
The Great Meiji Consolidation was not mandated by law, but depended on the planning anddecisions of each prefecture. In other words, on the basis of directions from the Minster of Home
Affairs, the governor of each prefecture（at that time the governor was a bureaucrat under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs）drew up plans which took due account of residents’demands and implemented them with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. Nevertheless,since such a huge number of mergers were accomplished within the scant space of one year, it seems
quite probable that in practice the Great Meiji Consolidation came very close to being mandatory.1

2-2 Mergers between the Great Meiji Consolidation and the Great Showa
Consolidation
The number of municipalities fell from 15,859 to about two-thirds, or 9,868, in the 64 years
from 1889 (the year in which the Great Meiji Consolidation occurred) until 1953 (the year prior to
the Great Showa Consolidation). This shows that no single Great Consolidation accounted for all
mergers; rather, mergers took place in many places in Japan even in the intervening period between
Great Consolidations.
The mergers in this period can be classified into the following three groups. The first groupconsists of those mergers caused by the dissolution of partial-affairs-associations. The Great Meiji
Consolidation permitted municipalities to establish partial-affairs-associations when they wereunable to merge together because of special reasons, including geographical conditions or historicalconflicts. These partial-affairs-associations were dissolved as time went by, and each municipality
within these partial-affairs-associations merged with other member municipalities to form a larger
municipality. The second group consists of those mergers completed as part of the development ofurbanization. Even before World War II, Japan made considerable progress in urbanization as its
social economy expanded. In this situation, municipal mergers were carried out in order tocorrespond to spreading urban areas. These mergers were completed especially in large urban areas
like Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama, Nagoya, and Kyoto.
Mergers belonging to the third group were enforced in order to strengthen Japan’s war footing.
City-areas were expanded compulsorily so as to establish a national system for war and defense.
Mergers in Sasebo City, Yokosuka City, Tokuyama City and Maizuru City were typical of this thirdgroup. These cities had naval bases which were important for national defense.23

2-3 The Great Showa Consolidation
After World War II

the new local government system started to run under the newConstitution (1946) and the Local Autonomy Law (1947). Under this postwar local government
system, the roles of municipalities (cities, towns, villages) were enhanced and they were charged
with the responsibility and duties of operating junior high schools, carrying out fire prevention
activities, and dealing with social welfare matters.
The Great Showa Consolidation was completed to create municipalities able to carry out these
new roles. In particular running junior high schools became a heavy burden for municipalities . Thus,
nation-wide municipal mergers were carried out so as to form municipalities, each of which had apopulation of at least 8,000, since this was considered to be the minimum size needed to run juniorhigh schools efficiently.
We may say that the Great Meiji Consolidation was undertaken to create municipalities for theeffective running of elementary schools, while the Great Showa Consolidation took place in order tocreate municipalities for the effective running of junior high schools, which had been newly
introduced as part of compulsory education.
The Great Showa Consolidation was underpinned by the enactment of two special laws.
Specifically, the Municipality Merger Promotion Law was enacted in 1953 and municipal mergers
were implemented intensively during the three years from 1953 to 1956. Further, thosemunicipalities which could not be merged during this period were consolidated from 1956 to 1961
under the New Municipality Creation Promotion Law (1956).
Like the Great Meiji Consolidation, the Great Showa Consolidation was also not compulsory.
Showing due respect for the independence of municipalities, consolidation was decided by thegovernor of each prefecture on the basis of the decisions of the related municipal assemblies.
However, the central government drew up the Municipality Merger Promotion Master Plan (which
set the goal of reducing the number of municipalities to one–third) and pushed ahead with thesemergers in collaboration with the prefectures. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that theGreat Showa Consolidation was also undertaken under strong pressure from central government
although this was not as strong as in the case of the Great Meiji Consolidation,.
As a result, the number of municipalities decreased from 9,868 in 1953 to 3,975 in 1956 when
the Municipality Merger Promotion Law became invalid, and decreased to about one-third, 3,472, in
1961, when the provisions for merger promotion in the New Municipality Creation Promotion Law
became ineffective. The goal set by the central government (reducing the number of municipalities
to one-third) was achieved.

42-4 Mergers between the Great Showa Consolidation and the Great Heisei
Consolidation
For 38 years from 1961, when the Great Showa Consolidation ended, until 1999, when the
Great Heisei Consolidation began, municipalities decreased in number from 3,472 to 3,229. Thisshows that mergers were still undertaken to some extent during this period, although the number was
not so large as in the interval between the Great Meiji Consolidation and the Great Showa
Consolidation.
These mergers occurred mainly in the form of growing cities merging with their surrounding
towns and villages in order to make them larger and more powerful cities as urbanization developed
rapidly in the context of postwar high economic growth in Japan. These mergers were especiallycommon in large local cities like the seat of the local prefectural office.3

2-5 The Beginning of the Great Heisei Consolidation
The Great Heisei Consolidation started in 1999. Municipalities decreased in number from3,229 in 1999 to about a half, or 1,821, in 2006. The first stage of the Great Heisei Consolidation has
come to an end in 2006, but will be ongoing and will reach its final stage in 2010. The number ofmunicipalities is therefore expected to decline further.
The Great Heisei Consolidation will be discussed in detail in the following chapters.

1“100 Year History of Local Government” .vol.1: pp 347-349.

2.Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI, and Yasushi MURAKAMI. “Empirical Analysis of Municipal Mergers(1)” Autonomy Research, vol.69 No.6: 68.
3. Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI, “Municipal Merger in the Future” Local Autonomy, No.611:3.

3 The Background and Purposes of the Great Heisei Consolidation

The Great Heisei Consolidation began against the background of (1) the promotion ofdecentralization, (2) a declining birthrate and aging population, (3) the deteriorating financial
situation of national and local governments and (4) the expansion of daily living space. These factors
necessitated municipal mergers in order to strengthen the administrative and financial foundation ofmunicipalities and to enable municipal administration to be implemented more efficiently andeffectively.

3-1 The Promotion of Decentralization
With the enactment of the Uniform Decentralization Law in April 2000, the local government
system in Japan entered a new era. It is said that this decentralization must be interpreted as part of5

the “Third Wave of Reform” following the Meiji Restoration and post-war reforms.1 The Local
Autonomy Law was also largely amended by the Uniform Decentralization Law, and municipalities
have to pursue the question of what form local self-government should aim at under the new local
government system.
The biggest change in this decentralization is the abolition of the “Delegated Function
System”.

The “Delegated Function System” refers to the system whereby the central government

appointed the Chief Executive of a local government entity as an executive branch of the national
government and delegated a wide range of administrative duties to the Chief Executive. This kind ofadministration accounted for a large proportion of the administrative operations of local
governments. Therefore, it is fair to say that the abolition of this system is a fundamental reform of
the local self-government system.
Before decentralization, municipalities performed these delegated duties under the direction
and supervision of the central government and the prefectures in which they were located. Perhaps as
the result of a mindset acquired from being in this kind of subordinate position, they even completed
their own administrative business by following directions given in the context of supervision bynational government and the prefectures. In other words, they dealt with various administrative
matters, but they did this not as independent self-governing units but only as bodies implementing
the decisions of the central government and prefectures.
After decentralization, within the limits of relevant laws, municipalities are expected to carryout all their administration independently under the principle of autonomous decision-making anddelegated responsibility. As a result, decentralization will give rise to various differences among
municipalities based on the differences in the administrative performance and regional managementof each municipality. In the initial stages, there is no clear pattern to these variations, but they will
become bigger and bigger as time goes by.
Municipalities are not expected, within the context of this decentralization reform, to have toundertake new duties. On this point, this decentralization differs from the implementation of the newmunicipal law in the Meiji era and the enactment of the Local Autonomy Law in 1947.
Municipalities are expected to deal with their own duties independently on the basis of their own
decisions, in other words, not to expand their administrative performance in quantity but to improveit in quality.2

3-2 Progression of Declining Birthrates and an Aging Population - Toward a
Continually Shrinking Society
Japan had a population of 55.69 million in 1920 when the national census was first taken, andfrom that time on, its population continued to increase. In 2005, the population of Japan was 127.76
million, an increase of 830,000 over the previous census year (2000). However, this figure was6

20,000 lower than the figure estimated in 2004 and it seems that the Japanese population reached its
peak in 2004.3 It is likely that the downward trend will continue from this point onward, and the
population in Japan is expected to be 117.58 million in 2030, 8% less than in 2005.4
In this situation of a progressive decline in the birthrate and a progressive aging of the
population, it is estimated that the percentage of youth fourteen years or younger will drop from
13.9% in 2005 to 11.3 % in 2030, and that of senior citizens 65 years or older will rise sharply from
19.9% in 2005 to 29.6 % in 2030.5
Up to 2004, Japan’s population had been increasing, so even municipalities where thepopulation had been decreasing could expect that the decrease would stop and the population wouldgrow as a result of enhancing the public service level for residents and/or infusing vitality into local
economic activities. However, it has now become difficult for such municipalities to expect this kindof scenario in future, at a time when Japanese society has entered a shrinking stage.
Municipalities, in particular those with small populations in rural areas, have to consider how
to deal with the problems of the declining birthrate and aging population in their own areas and how
to sustain their communities in the context of a society that is experiencing population shrinkage.

3-3 Significantly Deteriorating Financial Situation
Japan had been enjoying uninterrupted economic growth since 1960, albeit with a shift fromhigh rapid growth to lower stable growth. However, the situation has changed dramatically since thebubble economy burst in the early 1990s. In the future, the Japanese economy will continue tomature and international competition will intensify as a result of globalization. Therefore we can nolonger expect uninterrupted economic growth as happened in the past.
These circumstances have a serious effect both on national and local finances. Until thechange referred to above, matching Japan’s favorable economic growth, both national finances andlocal finances increased. However, from now on, it is likely to be difficult to see growth in local
taxes or local allocation taxes (a portion of national taxes) or to see uninterrupted growth in national
and local finances, since we cannot hope that there will be a lot of growth to the Japanese economy
as a whole.
In addition, both central government and local governments have made huge borrowings todeal with economic stimulus packages and the budget deficit. The total of borrowings by central
government and local governments amounted to over 700 trillion yen at the end of fiscal 2004.
Both central government and local governments will be forced to undertake hard fiscal
operations, because they cannot expect a lot of growth in tax revenues and will have to repay theirhuge borrowings in the future.
Municipalities are having to keep up with big changes of this kind in their economic and fiscal
circumstances.

7

3-4 Expansion of Daily Living Space – Development of Wide-area Administration
From the mid 1960s on, motorization spread rapidly in Japan. Finding that they had surplus
funds, many people acquired their own cars, and to meet the demand that resulted from this, there
was a nation-wide expansion of the road network. People used their cars to go to work, to go toplaces of entertainment and to go shopping. As a result, the physical range of activities (living space)of residents expanded beyond the boundaries of municipalities.
Nevertheless, the measures adopted by municipalities at that time to cope with the expansionof living space and wide-area administrative needs consisted not of mergers but of wide-areaadministration.
The wide-area administration measures were made up of two elements. One was the formationof wide-administrative areas. Under the supervision of the Ministry of Home Affairs (now the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications), wide-administrative areas were formed
throughout the country, taking the post-1969 expanded daily life area as a primary criterion. The
other measure was to make use of a cooperative system of local administration. A system ofpartial-affairs-associations or local cooperative councils had been used as an administrative device
for the organization of wide-administrative areas or as a cooperative body for settling administrative
matters in wide-administrative areas. A partial-affairs-association for firefighting or garbage disposal
was typical of these measures.
The measures outlined here continued for more than 30 years after they were implemented in1969. And now, it became increasingly feasible and desirable to merge municipalities on the basis ofan enlarged daily life area, making use of expertise accumulated in wide-area administration, withthe aim of building up municipalities equipped with the ability to respond to the above-mentioned
decentralization as well as to the changing socio-economic circumstances of a declining birthrate
and aging population, and a deteriorating financial situation.
1.

Decentralization Promotion Committee. Ed. “The Intermediate Report - For Creation of

Decentralized Society”, 25 March 1996:p3.
2.

Shigetaka YAMASAKI. “About New Basic Municipality” (“Reformation of the Local

Administration System”, Ed. Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI. 2004)
3.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications HP “Outline of Results in National Census in

2005”
4.

The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. “Estimated Future Populationin Japan (Estimated in January 2003).
5.

ibid.

8

4 Methods of the Great Heisei Consolidation

4-1 Procedures for Mergers of Municipalities
The Great Heisei Consolidation was carried out in accordance with the procedures set out inthe Local Autonomy Law and The Law for Exceptional Measures on Municipal Mergers (hereinafterreferred to as the Municipal Merger Law). The outline of these procedures is as follows (See Figure
1).
1) Municipalities which wants to merge together establish a merger consultation committee
following a vote in each assembly (with reference to the establishment of the committee, residents
have the right to demand the establishment of that committee and to hold a referendum on its
establishment).
2) Within the established committee, ① disicussions are held on the name of the newly
merged municipality and the location of the government office as well as arrangements for businessmatters and ② a master plan for the creation of the newly merged municipality is developed.
3) Each municipal assembly votes on the merger on the basis of the discussions and the masterplan.
4) On the basis of the vote of each municipal assembly, the mayors of the municipalities
concerned make an application for a merger to the governor of the prefecture in which thesemunicipalities are located.
5) The governor who receives the application decides on the merger on the basis of a vote in
the prefectural assembly and reports this outcome to the central government (Minister of Internal
Affairs and Communications).
6) The Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications receives this report and issues apublic notice. The merger comes into force with the issuing of this public notice.
The significant point is that these mergers, comprising the Great Heisei Consolidation, are also
not compulsory by law. Just as in the case of the Great Showa Consolidation, on the basis of thevotes for a merger cast by the members of each municipal assembly, the governor of the prefecture
concerned makes the final decision. It is therefore fair to say that the Great Heisei Consolidation was
carried out on the basis of the voluntary decision of each municipality.

4-2 Amendments to the Municipal Merger Law
However, this above does not mean that the central government (the nation) has had no handin the mergers.
The central government declared its policy of promoting municipal mergers by revising theMunicipal Merger Law.
The Municipal Merger Law is a fairly old law enacted in 1965. In its original form, it did not

9aim to promote municipal mergers, and remained neutral toward them. What it did was simply toestablish exceptional measures which removed legal obstacles in order that the voluntary mergers ofmunicipalities could proceed smoothly.
When the Municipal Merger Law was amended in 1995, its exceptional measures wereexpanded and its character was changed so that it became a law that promoted mergers. At the sametime, central government changed its neutral stance toward mergers into a positive one. Whenrequired amendments were made on the basis of the Uniform Decentralization Law in July, 1999,
central government displayed its positive stance even more clearly.
As a very important measure, the government greatly expanded favorable fiscal measures
implemented through the medium of the local allocation tax with the aim of giving a strong incentive
for mergers of municipalities. Specifically, ① the grace period during which local allocation tax
would not be reduced as a result of mergers was extended from five years to 10 years (a large
extension of the period of the exceptional calculation for merged municipalities), ② in order tofinance the costs of new city planning after mergers, provisions were made for the issue of special
local bonds, redeemed to the extent of which are compensated by 70% of the principal and interest
through the local allocation tax is provided for (the establishment of special merger bonds).
It is fair to say that the Great Heisei Consolidation began with this amendment to theMunicipal Merger Law.
The expiration date of this amended law was March 31, 2005 (in actual fact postponed toMarch 31, 2006). The central government worked on municipalities in various ways so that as manymunicipalities as possible would be merged.

4-3 Activities of the Central Government and Prefectures toward Municipalities
In the beginning, the central government presented the “Guidelines for the Promotion of
Municipal Mergers” to prefectures in August, 1999. And an important point to emphasize in relation
to these Guidelines is that the central government asked prefectures to make “Merger Patterns” formunicipalities which came under the jurisdiction of the respective prefectures. These guidelines had
the status of “notices”, and as such they were not legally enforceable. Nevertheless, all theprefectures in Japan subsequently created merger patterns and put pressure on municipalities topromote mergers on the basis of these patterns.
Next, central government even went so far as to indirectly declare its intention to move
forward with municipal mergers, setting a target of 1,000 in the Comprehensive Program for
Administrative Reform (Cabinet Decision of December 1, 2000).
Moreover, in March, 2001, central government set up “The Municipal Merger Assistance
Headquarters” with the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications as its chief and created an
assistance system whereby the government ministries and agencies concerned would support10

municipal mergers as one body.
In August, 2001, “The Municipal Merger Assistance Plan” was formulated as an integrated
assistance measure including various kinds of support from the government ministries and agencies
concerned. The government recommended municipalities to merge by allowing them privileges
through this merger assistance plan as a strong incentive in addition to exceptional measures createdby the Municipal Merger Law.
Central government also carried on campaigns and public relations activities to promotemunicipal mergers such as holding “Nation-wide relay symposiums for thinking together aboutmunicipal mergers” (beginning in 2000) along with the prefectures (see Note below).
While the central government indicated a standard-unit size (or, a minimum-unit size) formunicipalities involved in mergers in both the Great Meiji Consolidation and the Great Showa
Consolidation, it did not indicate any such unit-size in the Great Heisei Consolidation. In the GreatShowa Consolidation, central government unilaterally decided on the municipal merger plan andcarried out it. However, it did not do this in the Great Heisei Consolidation. It cannot be denied that
central government took the initiative in promoting the Great Heisei Consolidation, but its initiative
was not as strong as in the case of the Great Meiji Consolidation or the Great Showa Consolidation.
In other words, the Great Heisei Consolidation took place with much more respect for municipal
initiatives.

Note: Regarding these activities of the central government and other bodies for the promotion ofmunicipal mergers, see Cf. Toshihiro SHINOHARA. “The Promotion of Municipal Mergers”(“Reformation of the Local Administration System” Ed. Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI. 2004).

5 The Process and Results of the Great Heisei Consolidation

5-1 Transition in the Number of Merger Consultation Committees
As mentioned above, municipalities which aim to merge will set up merger consultationcommittees first and then begin consultations on the proposed merger. Table 2 shows the transitionin the number of merger consultation committees.
As Table 2 indicates, even though the Great Heisei Consolidation started in fiscal 1999 (Fiscal
years in Japan run from April 1 to March 31 of the following year), the number of merger
consultation committees set up from fiscal 1999 to fiscal 2001 is small. We see that in this period,
some municipalities dealt with mergers ahead of time but many of them took a ‘wait and see’approach. This period was the time when every prefecture was creating “Merger Patterns” and it canbe thought of as preparation time or as an approach run for the Great Consolidation.
The number of merger consultation committees showed an upward surge from fiscal 2002 to

11

fiscal 2004. Generally it takes two years to accomplish municipal mergers from the time of the initialconsultations on the merger. Therefore, many of the merger consultation committees were
established in anticipation of the expiration of the Municipal Merger Law. These three years were thepeak period for consultations on mergers nation-wide.
In fiscal 2005, the number of merger consultation committees fell sharply. The fall is due tothe committees being wound up either because of success or failure in the accomplishment ofmergers within the term of the Municipal Merger Law..

5-2 Transition in the Number of Mergers
The transition in the number of mergers is shown in Table 3.
As the table indicates, the annual number of mergers is in the one-digit range from fiscal 1999
to fiscal 2002. However, it increased rapidly to 30 in fiscal 2003, 215 in fiscal 2004, and 325 infiscal 2005.
This shows that a lot of mergers were undertaken two years after the rapid increase of merger
committees between fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2004. Moreover, it is fair to say that the effect of theextension of the time limit of the Municipal Merger Law from the end of fiscal 2004 to the end of
fiscal 2005 was large. Consultations in merger committees which began in and after fiscal year 2004
seem to have entailed considerable hard work because of the existence of the final deadline in March
2006.
The number of merged municipalities increased rapidly corresponding to the increase in thenumber of mergers, from 110 in fiscal 2003 to 826 in fiscal 2004, and 1,025 in fiscal 2005. In total,
1,993 municipalities were merged during the effective period of the Municipal Merger Law. We cansee from this that 60 percent and more of 3,232 municipalities in March 1999 took part in the GreatHeisei Consolidation.

5-3 Transition in the Number of Municipalities
Figure 2 shows the transition in the number of municipalities during the Great Heisei
Consolidation.
The number of municipalities was 3,232 in fiscal 1998. the year before the Great
Consolidation began, and it remained almost the same until fiscal 2002. In fiscal 2003, it decreased alittle from 3,212 to 3,132, and decreased sharply to 2,521 at the end of fiscal 2004, before decreasing
rapidly to 1,821 at the end of fiscal 2005.
These changes clearly correspond to the transition ofmerger numbers previously mentioned.

In a situation in which the expiration of the Municipal Merger Law was imminent, there was anavalanche of municipal mergers in the two years of fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2005. Moreover, thenumber of villages and towns decreased greatly, while the number of cities increased greatly during

12these two years.
The figure of 1,821 at the end of fiscal 2005 when the Municipal Merger Law expired was not
low as the target of 1,000 set by the central government. However, many people said right from the
beginning that the target would be difficult to achieve, so the fact that the final figure was less than
2,000 was regarded as being beyond expectations.

6 The Impact of the Great Heisei Consolidation and Issues Resulting from it

6-1 Strengthening Municipalities and Improving Efficiency
Table 4 shows the transition in the numbers of municipalities according to population strata
before and after the Great Heisei Consolidation.
The result of this Great Consolidation is that the decrease in number was greatest in the caseof municipalities which had populations of less than 10,000, followed by those with populations
between 10,000 to 30,000. The former category of municipalities comprised 1,537 municipalities atthe end of fiscal 1998, half the total of all municipalities, numbering 3,232 at this time, but thisfigure of 1,537 was reduced to 504 (one-third). The latter category comprised 986 municipalities atthe end of fiscal 1998, and reduced to 514 (half) municipalities at the end of fiscal 2005. As aconclusion, we can say that the integration of small-scale municipalities (especially, towns andvillages) has been advanced by the Great Heisei Consolidation.
Table 5 shows the transition in the number of populations and areas according to city, town,
and village.
As mentioned above, what this Great Consolidation brought about was a sharp decrease in thenumber of towns and villages, and on the other hand an increased in the number of cities. From thepoint of view of population distribution, the results show that 88.5% of the whole population ofJapan live in cities, and these cities occupy 50% or more of the land area of Japan. It is in this waythat a city-centered municipality system has been established.
In ways such as these, through the mechanism of the Great Consolidation, by means of the
progress achieved in the integration of small-scale municipalities and the establishment of acity-centered municipality system, the system of municipalities has been strengthened. We can see
from Table 5 that before the Great Consolidation each municipality had on average a population of
36,387 people and measured 114.8 square km in area, while after the Great Consolidation, eachmunicipality contained on average 65,499 people and measured 204.0 square km in area, both ofthese items amounting to an increase of about 1.8 times.
Moreover, the Great Consolidation made it possible to reduce the number of assembly
members by 17,500, and the number of mayors of municipalities by 1,400. In addition, a great
reduction in the number of municipal employees (especially in general affairs sections) has been13

made possible, and plans can be drawn up for the rationalization of expenditures other thanpersonnel expenses. According to the trial calculations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications, the effect of efficiency improvements within the framework of the Great
Consolidation is expected, in the long term, to reach as much as 1.8 trillion yen a year.(See Notebelow)

6-2 Merger Promotion by the New Municipal Merger Law
However, small-scale municipalities, especially those with less than 10,000 people, still
remain, as I mentioned, with a total number of around 500 or more. The issue still outstanding is topromote the merger of these small-scale municipalities with others.
Moreover, there is a need to offer another chance to realize a merger to municipalities whichmight have been expected to merge, or to those which did merge but where the merger was not
successful due to various reasons within the time limit of the Municipal Merger Law.
Table 6 shows the progress of mergers according to each Prefecture. It shows that there are big
differences among prefectures in the progress of mergers. The rate of decrease in the number ofmunicipalities exceeds 70% in prefectures such as Hiroshima, Ehime and Nagasaki, but is only 2%
to 5% in prefectures such as Osaka, Tokyo and Kanagawa. In general, the rate of decrease is higher
in the West than in the East. Therefore, there is a need to advance municipal mergers in theselow-merger areas in order to maintain a balance with other administrative areas.
The above are the reasons why the central government newly enacted in May 2004 the new
Municipal Merger Law, which went into effect in April 2005. This law takes the place of theprevious Municipal Merger Law and represents a decision by central government to attempt
promotion of another round of municipal mergers under the new Municipal Merger Law (Thistechnique resembles that of the Great Showa Consolidation, when municipal mergers were again
promoted by the New Municipality Creation Promotion Law in 1956 after being promoted by the
Municipality Merger Promotion Law in 1953).
The new Municipal Merger Law does not contain such strong fiscal measures as the old
Municipal Merger Law. It is therefore still uncertain to what extent mergers will advance by the endof March 2010, which is the deadline of the new law, though eight mergers have already been
completed on the basis of this law as of January, 2007.

(Note) "The Effect of the Consolidation of Municipalities", Research Committee Concerning theMerger of Municipalities, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (May 10, 2006).

14

References
・Chihoujichi Hyakunen shi [100 year History of Local Government](Volume1 and 2)
・Shinohara, T.(2004) Shichōson gappei no suishin [The Promotion of Municipal Mergers]. In
Yokomichi, K. (ed.), Chihōseido kaikaku [Reformation of the Local Administration System]. Gyosei.
・Yamasaki, S. (2004) Shin kiso jichitai ron [About New Basic Municipality]. In Yokomichi, K (ed.),Chihōseido kaikaku [Reformation of the Local Administration System] ed. Gyosei
・Yokomichi, K. and Murakami, Y. (1993) Shichōson gappei no jisshouteki bunseki (1) [Empirical
Analysis of Municipal Mergers (1)]. Jichi kenkyū, 69(6)・Yokomichi, K. (1998) Korekara no shichōson gappei [Municipal Mergers in the Future] Chihōjichi,
611.
・Yokomichi, K. (2003) Shichōson gappei no hitsuyousei [Necessity of Municipal Mergers]
Jichikenkyū,79(9)15Table 1
Date
1888
1889
1898
1908

The Transition in the Number of Municipalities
City
―
39
48
61

Town
Village(71,314)(15,820)
1,173
13,068
1,167
11,220Total
71,31415,85914,28912,448

1922

91

1,242

10,982

12,315

1930
1940
Oct, 1945
Oct, 1953
Apr, 1955
Sep, 1956
Jun, 1961

109
178
205
286
488
498
556

1,528
1,706
1,797
1,966
1,833
1,903
1,935

10,292
9,614
8,518
7,616
2,885
1,574
981

11,92911,498
10,520
9,868
5,206
3,975
3,472

Apr, 1965
Apr, 1975
Apr, 1985

560
643
651

2,005
1,974
2,001

827
640
601

3,392
3,257
3,253

Apr, 1995
Apr, 1999
Apr, 2005
Mar, 2006

663
671
739
777

1,994
1,990
1,317
846

577
568
339
198

3,234
3,229
2,395
1,821

("The Data Book:National Municipalities 2005” (Daiichi Houki) anddata from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)

Table 2The Transition in the Number of Merger Consultation Committees

Fiscal 1999 Fiscal 2000 Fiscal 2001 Fiscal 2002 Fiscal 2003 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2005
The Number of Merger
12
20
39
241
579
797
360
Consultation Committees(Newly Set Up)
(4)
(8)
(22)
(206)
(369)
(304)
(11)
*When committees were abolished through mergers, we have taken the numbers as those summed up on the day before the mergers.
（Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）

17

The Transition in the Number of Municipal Mergers
Table 3
Number of Mergers

Number of Merged
Municipalities

Fiscal 1999

1

4

Fiscal 2000

2

4

Fiscal 2001

3

7

Fiscal 2002

6

17

Fiscal 2003

30

110

Fiscal 2004

215

826

Fiscal 2005

325

1,025

Total

582

1,993

* In fiscal 2005, one case falling under the New Municipal Merger Law was counted.
（Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）
Table 4 The Transition in the Number of Municipalities according to Population Strata

500,000 or morefrom 300,000 or more to less than 500,000
from 200,000 or more to less than 300,000
from 100,000 or more to less than 200,000
from 50,000 or more to less than 100,000
from 30,000 or more to less than 50,000
from 10,000 or more to less than 30,000
less than 10,000
Nation-wide Total

1999.3.31
2006.3.31
The Number of Entities The Number of Entities
21(0.6%)
26(1.4%)
43(1.3%)
46(2.5%)
41(1.3%)
40(2.2%)
115(3.6%)
150(8.2%)
227(7.0%)
276(15.2%)
262(8.1%)
265(14.6%)
986(30.5%)
514(28.2%)
1,537(47.6%)
504(27.7%)
3,232(100.0%)1,821(100.0%)*the population in 1999 according to the National Census of 1995
*the population in 2006 according to the National Census of 2005
（Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）

18

Table 5

Kinds of Municipalities
City
Town and Village
Town
Village
Nation-wide Total（Ref.）National Average

Kinds of Municipalities
City
Town and Village
Town
Village
Nation-wide Total（Ref.）National Average

The Transition in the Number of Populations and Areas according to City, Town, and Village

Number of Units
670
2,562
1,994
568
3,232

1999.3.31
Population
90,361,923(76.8%)
27,240,709(23.2%)(21.1%)
24,767,689(2.1%)
2,473,020
117,602,632(100.0%)36,387area （㎢）
104,923.0(28.3%)
266,117.5(71.7%)
206,010.3(55.5%)
60,107.2(16.2%)
371,040.5(100.0%)114.8

Number of Units
777
1,044
846
198
1,821

2006.3.31
Population
105,545,442(88.5%)
13,728,323(11.5%)
12,766,683(10.7%)
961,640(0.8%)
119,273,765(100.0%)65,499area （㎢）
207,658.6(55.9%)
163,738.7(44.1%)
138,822.4(37.4%)
24,916.3(6.7%)
371,397.3(100.0%)204.0*The population in 1999 according to the National Census of 1995.
*The population in 2006 according to the National Census of 2005.
*The area in 1999 according to The Summary of National Municipalities 1998 Daiichi Houki.
*The area in 2006 according to The Summary of National Municipalities 2005 Daiichi Houki.
(Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）

19

Table 6

The Progress of Mergers according to each Prefecture

1999.3.31
NumberofPrefecture
Municipalities
1 Hokkaido
2 Aomori
3 Iwate4 Miyagi
5 Akita
6 Yamagata
7 Fukushima
8 Ibaraki
9 Tochigi
10 Gunma
11 Saitama
12 Chiba
13 Tokyo
14 Kanagawa
15 Niigata
16 Toyama
17 Ishikawa
18 Fukui
19 Yamanashi
20 Nagano
21 Gifu
22 Shizuoka
23 Aichi24 Mie25 Shiga
26 Kyoto
27 Osaka
28 Hyogo
29 Nara30 Wakayama
31 Tottori
32 Shimane
33 Okayama
34 Hiroshima
35 Yamaguchi
36 Tokushima
37 Kagawa
38 Ehime
39 Kouchi
40 Fukuoka
41 Saga
42 Nagasaki
43 Kumamoto
44 Oita
45 Miyazaki
46 Kagoshima
47 Okinawa

212
67
59
71
69
44
90
85
49
70
92
80
40
37
112
35
41
35
64
120
99
74
88
69
50
44
44
91
47
50
39
59
78
86
56
50
43
70
53
97
49
79
94
58
44
96
53
3,232

2006.3.31
Number ofTown Village Municipalities

Detail
City

34
154
8
34
13
30
10
59
9
50
13
27
10
52
20
48
12
35
11
33
43
38
31
44
27
5
19
17
20
57
9
18
8
27
7
22
7
37
17
36
14
55
21
49
31
47
13
47
7
42
12
31
33
10
21
70
10
20
7
36
4
31
8
41
10
56
13
67
14
37
4
38
5
38
12
44
9
25
24
65
7
37
8
70
11
62
11
36
9
28
14
73
10
16
670 1,994

24
25
16
2
10
4
28
17
2
26
11
5
8
1
35
8
6
6
20
67
30
4
10
9
1
1
1
0
17
7
4
10
12
6
5
8
0
14
19
8
5
1
21
11
7
9
27
568

180
40
35
36
25
35
61
44
33
39
71
56
39
35
35
15
19
17
29
81
42
42
64
29
26
28
43
41
39
30
19
21
29
23
22
24
17
20
35
69
23
23
48
18
31
49
41
1,821

Detail
City
35
10
13
13
13
13
12
32
14
12
40
36
26
19
20
10
10
9
13
19
21
23
34
14
13
14
33
29
12
8
4
8
15
14
13
8
8
11
11
27
10
13
14
14
9
17
11
777

Town Village
130
22
16
22
9
19
33
10
19
17
30
17
5
15
9
4
9
8
9
25
19
19
27
15
13
13
9
12
15
21
14
12
12
9
9
15
9
9
18
38
13
10
26
3
19
28
11
846

15
8
6
1
3
3
16
2
0
10
1
3
8
1
6
1
0
0
7
37
2
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
12
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
6
4
0
0
8
1
3
4
19
198

Rate of
Decrease
15.1%
40.3%
40.7%
49.3%
63.8%
20.5%
32.2%
48.2%
32.7%
44.3%
22.8%
30.0%
2.5%
5.4%
68.8%
57.1%
53.7%
51.4%
54.7%
32.5%
57.6%
43.2%
27.3%
58.0%
48.0%
36.4%
2.3%
54.9%
17.0%
40.0%
51.3%
64.4%
62.8%
73.3%
60.7%
52.0%
60.5%
71.4%
34.0%
28.9%
53.1%
70.9%
48.9%
69.0%
29.5%
49.0%
22.6%
43.7%

* one case falling under the New Municipal Merger Law was counted.
（Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）

20

Figure 1

Procedures for the Merger of Municipalities

Exchanging Opinions

City
A

Town
B

on the merger

Voting in City A

Voting in Town B

assembly

assembly

Establishment of the merger

City
A

Town
B

consultation committee

Consultation on the merger and formulation of a masterplan for the creation of the newly merged municipality
Voting in City A

Voting in Town B

assembly

assembly

City
A

Preparation of themerger application

Town
B

B市

Making an application for a merger tothe governor of the prefecture in which
the municipalities are locatedVoting in the prefecture assembly
Decision on the merger by the governor
Report to the Minister of Internal Affairs
and Communications
Public notice issued by the Minister ofInternal Affairs and Communications(The merger is enacted)（Data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications）
21

3500

The Number of Municipalities

3000

Figure 2 The Transition in the Number of Municipalities after 1998
3,232

3,229

3,227

3,223

3,212

568

568

567

566

561

3,132
540

2,521

2500

366

2000
1994

1990

1990

1985

1976

1500

1,821
198

1903
1423

Village
Town
City

846

1000
500
670

671

670

675

672

689

732

777

0
1999.3.31

2001.3.31

2003.3.31

2005.3.31(Data from the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications)22