Up-to-date Documents on Local Autonomy in Japan No.3

The Debate on the Introduction ofa Regional System in Japan

Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI
Professor
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)

Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR)
Institute for Comparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG)
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)Except where permitted by the Copyright Law for “personal use”
or “quotation” purposes, no part of this booklet may be
reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission.
Any quotation from this booklet requires indication of the source.
Contact:
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR)(International Information Division)
Shin Kasumigaseki Building 19F, 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
100-0013 Japan
TEL: 03 - 3591 - 5482

FAX: 03 - 3591 - 5346

Email: webmaster@clair.or.jp
Institute for Comparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG)
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(GRIPS)
7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8677
Japan
TEL: 03 - 6439 - 6333

FAX: 03 - 6439 - 6010

Email: localgov@grips.ac.jp

Foreword
The Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) and the National
Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) have been working since 2005 on a “Project on theoverseas dissemination of information on the local governance system of Japan and its operation”.
On the basis of the recognition that the dissemination to overseas countries of information on theJapanese local governance system and its operation was insufficient, the objective of this project was
defined as the pursuit of comparative studies on local governance by means of compiling in foreign
languages materials on the Japanese local governance system and its implementation as well as byaccumulating literature and reference materials on local governance in Japan and foreign countries.
In 2007, as a continuation of projects which were begun in 2005, we continued to compile“Statistics on Local Governance (Japanese/English)” and to conduct a search for literature andreference materials concerned with local governance in Japan and overseas to be stored in theInstitute for Comparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG).

We also compiled a “Glossary

on Local Governance Used in Japanese Official Gazettes (Japanese/English) (FY 2007 Edition)”.
In addition, continuing from the previous year, we finished compiling “Up-to-date Documents on
Local Autonomy in Japan” on two themes and “Papers on the Local Governance System and its
Implementation in Selected Fields in Japan”, for which we took up 6 themes.
This project is to be continued in 2008, and we aim to improve the materials so that they will
be of real use and benefit to those who are working in the field of local governance.
If you have any comments, suggestions or inquiries regarding our project, please feel free tocontact the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) or the Institute forComparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG) of the National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies (GRIPS).

March 2008
Michihiro Kayama
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR)
Tatsuo Hatta
President
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies

Preface
This booklet is one of the results of research activities conducted by the Institute forComparative Studies in Local Governance (COSLOG) in 2007 as one part of a 5-year project thatstarted in 2005 entitled “Project on the overseas dissemination of information on the local
governance system of Japan and its operation”, sponsored by the Council of Local Authorities forInternational Relations (CLAIR). For the purpose of implementing this project, a “Researchcommittee for the project on the overseas dissemination of information on the local governancesystem of Japan and its operation” has been set up, and a chief and deputy chiefs with responsibility
for the project have been designated from among the members concerned with each research subject.
“Up-to-date Documents on Local Autonomy in Japan” (2007, Volumes 3-4) were written
under the responsibility of the following two members:(Chief)Kiyotaka Yokomichi, Professor of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(Deputy Chief)
Hiroshi Ikawa, Professor of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
This booklet, the third volume in the series, was written by Professor Yokomichi on thesubject of the debate concerning the introduction of a regional system in Japan.
In Japan, this debate has become one of the major issues in the context of local government
system reforms, along with the continuing advance of municipal mergers.

This booklet introduces

the history of the debate concerning the introduction of a regional system as well as recent
movements directed toward realizing such a system in Japan.
We will continue to take up new topics, and add to the series.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Yokomichi, and also to othermembers of the research committee for their expert opinions and advice.
March 2008
Hiroshi Ikawa
Chairperson
Research committee for the project on the overseas dissemination of informationon the local governance system of Japan and its operation
Professor
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies

The Debate on the Introduction of a Regional System in Japan
Kiyotaka YOKOMICHI
Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
１ Introduction ― From mergers of municipalities to the introduction of aregional system
In recent years in Japan, mergers between municipalities have undergone verysignificant developments. In March 1999, there were 3,232 municipalities inJapan, but by March 2006, this number had been reduced by 44% to a total of
1,821. This major change completely justified the appellation of The Great Heisei
Consolidation. It is furthermore anticipated that by the time of the expiry of the
New Municipal Merger Law in March 2010, there will be still further municipal
mergers. (Note 1)
Given that the process of municipal mergers has developed to the extent
outlined above, the time has now come to examine what should happen withprefectures which encompass a large geographical area. Specifically, as a result of
the fact that merged municipalities have become larger in size, the need has
arisen to reexamine the allocation of roles, and to look again at the distribution of
responsibilities and the distribution of authority between municipalities andprefectures respectively. It has also been suggested that there may be a need toreexamine the land area of prefectures.
At the present time, the debate that is developing is concerned with whether ornot, taking as a basis the system of prefectures as it currently exists, this system
as such should be abolished, and a new system of regional autonomous bodies,
covering a wider area than prefectures, should be introduced.
Since the modern system of local government was introduced into Japan in
1888, the prefectures have existed in their present form, and the total number of
47 has remained unchanged. This is in contrast to the situation at the level ofmunicipalities, the basic units of local government, where during the same period,
municipalities have experienced 3 large consolidations, including the Great Heisei
Consolidation, as a result of which the number of municipalities has greatly
decreased, while the size of each has expanded.
The debate on the system of regions is concerned with abolishing this system ofprefectures, which has remained stable over the long period of 120 years, andcreating large administrative entities, the area of which exceeds that of thepresent-day prefectures. The present debate centers on the fact that such a reform1

would not simply mean changing the size of local government bodies, but would
bring with it the possibility of having a significant influence on the Japanesenation-state as such in terms of the relationship between the central and local
government.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the debate, including its historicaldevelopment, concerning the introduction of a system of regions (do-shu-sei) in
Japan.
2 The history of the debate over regions
As explained above, the current system of 47 prefectures has been a very stableone, but this does not mean that there has been no debate until now about
revising it. On the contrary, this kind of debate was going on even before WorldWar II, and became quite heated at one point during the 1950s. It has come to theforefront again in recent years, as mergers of municipalities have developed.
2–1

The pre-war debateWith regard to the pre-war debate about the introduction of a system of regions,the most notable proposal to introduce such a system is the plan foradministrative reform put forward under the Cabinet of Prime Minister Giichi
Tanaka. An overview of this plan now follows.
1. Establish regions with a land area encompassing several prefectures, namely:
・ Tokyo Region, Sendai Region, Nagoya Region, Osaka Region,
Hiroshima Region, and Fukuoka Region.
・ If Hokkaido is added, this makes a total of 7 regions
2. Establishing a regional office within each region, and appointing a head ofeach region.
・ Selecting the most important area within each region for the location of
the regional office. Specifically, the 6 cities of Tokyo, Sendai, Nagoya,
Osaka, Hiroshima and Fukuoka.
3. Give existing prefectures the status of pure local autonomous bodies, andpublicly elect the head of the executive organ ( governor).
A precondition for understanding the theory underlying this kind of regional
system is in the first instance an understanding of the system of local governmentthat existed before World War II. Under the prewar system, municipalities (cities,
towns and villages) existed as local government bodies, and above these were2

prefectures, which had a dual character. On the one hand, they were units of local
government, and at the same time, they were local administrative organs of thestate. Specifically, at the same time as they carried out the responsibilities of a
local government body with a publicly elected assembly, they also functioned asadministrative organs of central government under the direction of a governor
dispatched from the Ministry of the Interior. Putting this another way, thegovernor dispatched from central government also performed the duties of thehead of a local government body.
This concept of regions saw prefectures with their dual character as having only
the character of local autonomous bodies, like that of municipalities, while above
them, newly established regions would function as local administrative organs of
the state. Specifically, the thinking envisaged a 3-tier local system of regions (local
administrative organs of the state), prefectures (local government bodies) andmunicipalities (local government bodies).
Under the system as described here, the governor of a prefecture would be
publicly elected in the same way as the mayor of a city, town or village(municipality), and the duties of a prefecture would include, in addition to thehitherto existing duties of an autonomous local government body, as many as
possible of the duties previously carried out in the capacity of an administrative
organ of central government, with the exception of policing duties. On the other
hand, the regions, since they would act as the administrative organs of central
government, would have no regional assembly, and the chief officer of the region
would be dispatched by central government, and would perform the duties ofsupervising the prefectures and the municipalities.
With regard to the prefectures, under the reform plan, they would have adevolved structure, and since they would no longer be serving as the organs ofcentral government, they would have a publicly elected governor and prefecturalassembly, and would carry out a wide range of duties as local government bodies.
However, the regions on the other hand, since they would be local administrative
organs of central government and not local government bodies, would be part of acentralized system and have the responsibility of supervising prefectures andmunicipalities.
In Japan as a whole, it was envisaged that, including Hokkaido, there would be
7 regions. With regard to Shikoku, a particular characteristic of the plan was that,reflecting the state of communications at that time, the 3 prefectures of Kagawa,
Tokushima and Kochi would be included in the Osaka Region, while Ehime
Prefecture would be included in the Hiroshima Region.

3

In addition to the above plan, various other regional systems were proposed in
the prewar period, including a 2-tier system under which prefectures would be
abolished, leaving regions (local administrative organs of central government) andmunicipalities (local government bodies). Taking an overview of the proposedprewar regional systems, it is noticeable that many of them showed centralizing
tendencies, with regions acting as local administrative organs of the state (Note2).
2–2

Regional systems proposed in the 1950s – The Report of the 4th

Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems
When we enter the 1950s, we see the re-emergence of a lively debate over the
introduction of a regional system. In the background to the debate at this time, 4factors can be cited: (a) the claim that the land area of a prefecture is too limited(particularly from the point of view of national land and comprehensive
development); (b) the demand for enhanced administrative efficiency; (c) the
progress made in the area of municipal mergers (the Great Showa Consolidation);and (d) the impoverished nature of prefectural finances.
The debate over the introduction of a regional system came to a peak on October18, 1957, with the publication in that year of the report of The 4th Committee toInvestigate Local Government Systems, entitled “Report on the Reform of Local
Government Systems”. This report (“Local Regions” draft), which supports theintroduction of a regional system, was adopted by the use of the unusual methodof a majority vote, but a minority report (“Merger of Prefectures” draft) was also
appended.
2 – 2 – 1 “Local Regions” draft (Majority opinion)
The majority opinion, which was adopted in the report mentioned above, begins
by making the following comments about the size of prefectures: “A striking
imbalance has arisen between prefectures in terms of the ability required to
implement a modern system of administration, and there are many cases where
the existing area of prefectures is too small to enable administrative projects thatcover a wide area, such as resource development or land conservation to be dealt
with in a rational manner. Moreover, if we also look at this situation from theperspective of efficiently managing highly sophisticated administration as well asfrom that of reducing administrative costs, it is reasonable to presume that it ismuch more rational to deal with such administrative matters within the context
of a much larger land area.”With regard next to the character of prefectures, the report continues as follows:4

“The larger part of the work carried out by prefectures has the character of workthat should be categorized as being part of the state as a whole, and despite thefact that this tendency is at last being seen as a trend to be taken forward,changes in the character of prefectures since World War II and accompanying
these, the string of reforms of prefectural systems in such ways as the public
election of the prefectural governor, may be insufficient in terms of safeguarding
cooperative relations between central and local government and maintaining a set
level of administration in the country as a whole”.
Following these comments, the report presented its conclusion in the following
terms, advocating the abolition of prefectures and the introduction of regions as
something to be welcomed: “Abolishing the existing system of prefectures andsetting up between central government and municipalities a “block”, which would
fulfill the dual function of being an intermediate body and of being acomprehensive local outreach organ of central government, would, by means ofsuch methods as having one and the same person, with necessary support staff, be
responsible for carrying out both functions, provide a guarantee of unified,comprehensive management. In this way, the establishment of a comprehensive
line of administrative management running from the state at the center throughto local government entities can be considered as the most appropriate method tobe adopted from the perspective both of satisfying the demand for more efficientadministration and properly arranging relations between the center and local
government in a way that is appropriate to the state of the nation.”
The specific content of the regional system (“Local Regions”) as shown in thereport is as follows:
1. Abolish the existing system of prefectures.
2. Set up an intermediate body between the state (central government) andmunicipalities.
(1) Let the name of this intermediate body be “Local Region” (provisionalname).
(2) Let the “Local Region” have the character both of a local autonomous bodyand an organ of the state.
(3) Regarding the area to be encompassed by the “Local Region”, let the areaof each region be one of 7 to 9 “blocks” or groupings dividing up the country
as a whole, taking into consideration in a comprehensive way, natural,social economic and cultural factors.

5

In principle, such areas of “Local Regions” are to be decided without
splitting up the area of a prefecture.
(4) Establish an assembly as the decision-making organ of each “Local
Region”.
(5) Establish a “Head of the Local Region” (provisional name) as the executive
organ of each “Local Region”.
・ Let the “Head of the Local Region” be appointed by the Prime Ministerwith the consent of the assembly of each “Local Region”. The status of
the said person shall be that of a national public servant.
(6) The “Local Region” shall carry out those functions transferred to it fromthe functions currently carried out by the state (national government) as
well as those functions currently carried out by prefectures that cannot betransferred to municipalities.
(7) The functions carried out by currently existing outreach organs of central
government shall be transferred as far as at all possible to the “Local
Region”, and the existing outreach organs shall be abolished.
(8) From among the functions currently carried out by prefectures, thosefunctions that can be transferred to municipalities shall as far as possible
be so transferred.
3. A “Local Regional Office” (provisional name) shall be put in place as acomprehensive outreach organ of central government to exercise jurisdiction
over the area of a “Local Region”.
(1) The “Head of the Local Region” shall be the head of “the Local Regional
Office”.
(2) Those functions of national outreach organs that cannot be transferred toa “Local Region” shall in principle be integrated with a “Local Regional
Office”.
The intention of this plan was to introduce the regional system in the form ofregions which would have the character of local autonomous bodies as well as thatof central government. The appointment of the head of the “Local Region” has tohave the approval of the assembly, but since the appointee has the character of anational public servant and is designated by central government, it is fair to saythat the intention was to revive the prewar prefectural system in the form of aregional “bloc”.
It is possible to discern in the proposal to introduce a regional system anintention to order and unify national outreach organs. Specifically, when we look6

at the functions carried out by national outreach organs, we see that as far as
possible these should be transferred to the “Local Regions” and that existing local
outreach organs should be abolished. Moreover, with regard to functions thatcannot be transferred, these should, as far as possible, be integrated into thenational comprehensive local outreach organ, the “Local Regional Office”. In
addition, it is clear from the fact that the head of the “Local Region” is to be
designated as the head of the “Local Regional Office”, that the intention was toguarantee unified, comprehensive management under one and the same person.
2 – 2 – 2 “Merger of Prefectures” draft (Minority Opinion)
In contrast to the above proposal, the minority opinion in the report was
expressed as follows: “We have the deepest respect for the fundamental spirit of
the local government system which totally renewed the appearance of postwar
Japan, and we evaluate very highly the role that this system has played inestablishing democratic government in Japan. We therefore believe that the
keystone of reform must be placed on extending this system still further. On thebasis of this fundamental presumption, it is appropriate to limit reform to theabsolute minimum that is necessary to establish a system that will correct faults
in the existing system and at the same time, respond to demands for a modern
system of administration.” The minority opinion continued: “The result of recent
mergers between municipalities is that, by and large, municipalities have now
reached an appropriate size, and their financial strength has markedly improved,
but it is impossible to deny that at the present stage, there are still tasks whichcannot be dealt with appropriately by municipalities, and it seems unavoidable
that for a while, prefectures will be responsible for supplementing the ability ofmunicipalities in a transitional fashion.” With comments such as these, theminority opinion in the report argued that prefectures should continue tomaintain their present role as local autonomous bodies.
The above said, the minority opinion admitted that some expansion of the sizeof prefectures was needed, and proposed a “merger of prefectures”, whereby 3 or 4
prefectures would be unified, resulting in a reduction from the existing number of
47 to between 15 and 17.
2 – 2 – 3 Differences between the two approaches
The differences between the two approaches, the majority opinion favoring“Local Regions” and the minority opinion favoring the “merger of prefectures”
were succinctly expressed in the following words of Shigeo Miyoshi, a member ofthe 4th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems.
“The proposal to unify prefectures into groupings of 3 or 4 prefectures is based

7

on the idea that local government autonomy at prefectural level is essential for
local autonomy. Putting things in a rather extreme way, the presumption is thaton the basis of this fundamental thinking, prefectures must continue to becompletely autonomous. However, under the “Local Regions” proposal, theimportant point is that local government autonomy should be strengthened inmunicipalities as the basic units of local government, while, speaking frankly, it
doesn’t matter if prefectures have no autonomy. One other important difference isthat under the “Merger of Prefectures” proposal, any revision would only be to theexisting prefectural system. However, under the “Local Regions” proposal,
revision would not stop there; rather, the question that would be asked is how, on
the basis of a state-oriented or centralist standpoint, a unified administrative
structure, moving away from the present state of Japan, could be brought about.
And at the same time, as I have already indicated, municipalities would be
strengthened as the basic units of local government. The thinking that underlies
this proposal is of a system that rests on these two pillars.” (Note 3).
2 – 2 – 4 Subsequent developments
The “Local Regions” plan issued by the 4th Committee to Investigate Local
Government Systems did not subsequently reach realization and was left as it
was. However, in connection with the “Merger of Prefectures” plan, that formed
the basis of the minority opinion, in 1962, proposals to merge 2 groups of 3
prefectures each in central Japan (Group 1: Aichi prefecture, Gifu prefecture andMie prefecture ; Group 2: Osaka prefecture, Nara prefecture and Wakayama
prefecture) were put forward.
In addition, as a kind of response to these movements, in 1965, the 10th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems produced a “Report on the
Merger of Prefectures”, and after receiving the report, the government submitted
to the Diet in the following year, 1966, the draft of a Special Law on the Merger ofPrefectures. However, neither of the merger proposals by the two groups ofprefectures mentioned above got as far as being realized, and the draft submitted
to the Diet did not pass into law.
2–3

Discussions on a regional system in recent years – The idea isreinvigorated
Spurred by the growth of decentralization and the development of mergers
between municipalities, the debate about the introduction of a regional system
has once again become increasingly lively.
Since 2000, many different kinds of bodies including political parties, economic

8organizations and think tanks, have put together and publicized their ideas on aregional system. In addition, ideas relating to a regional system have begun to be
examined both within prefectures themselves and within the National Governors’
Association (NGA), a nation-wide organization of Governors of all prefectures.
Within the context of movements such as those described here, particular noteshould be taken of the report produced by the Committee to Investigate Local
Government Systems, which was set up in response to a request from the Prime
Minister.
In 2003, the 27th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems issued a“Report concerning the Future System of Local Government” (November 13, 2003),
in which a basic framework for a regional system was put forward. Following this,in 2006, the 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems issued a“Report concerning the Regional System” (February 28, 2006), in which an evenmore specific design for a regional system that might be adopted was set out.
3 The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems: “Reportconcerning the Regional System”
In this chapter, I would like to give a detailed introduction to the “Reportconcerning the Regional System”, issued by the 28th Committee to Investigate
Local Government Systems (February 28, 2006), since it marks an epoch in recent
discussions on the introduction of a regional system.
3–1

The thinking regarding the introduction of a regional system

The report says firstly, regarding the current prefectural system, that for aperiod of around 120 years, prefectures have maintained their composition andarea, but asks whether change is possible in response to socio-economic
developments such as the development of municipal mergers and the increase inadministrative projects covering a large area in excess of the area of current
prefectures, and raises the question whether the current system is appropriate for
ongoing decentralization reform.
Next, in response to these issues, the report says that while maintaining thesystem of prefectures, it is possible to think of dealing with the issues by means ofsuch methods as wide-area alliances or prefectural mergers, but if this route ispursued further, wide-area local government reform will have to be located not
simply in the context of responding to problems concerned with the prefectural
system, but in that of reevaluating the nature of the nation of Japan. Specifically,
the thinking set out in the report is to reconsider, through the medium ofwide-area reform, the mutual relationship that exists between central and local

9

government, to restrict the roles of central government to what must properly be
performed by the state, and in terms of domestic administration to take as a basis
what can very broadly be carried out by local governments.
And the conclusion reached in the report is that, if this perspective is adopted,
the introduction of a regional system (do-shu-sei) can be thought of as appropriate
in terms of a specific measure for realizing wide-area local government reform.
3–2

The direction of a regional system plan

The report says that a concrete system plan for a regional system should be
carried out in line with the following 3 directions.
(1) Development of decentralization and strengthening of local autonomy
In the event that a regional system is introduced, there should be asystematic review, on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity and proximityof the respective roles to be carried out by central government, wide-area local
government and basic local government.
After that review, devolution should be carried out on a massive scale from
central government to wide-area local government, and from wide-area local
government to basic local government.
(2) Realization of a land area with autonomy and vitality
In the event that a regional system is introduced, in order to correct thestatus of Tokyo as a national land structure of extreme concentration, andmake a reality of a land area that has both autonomy and vitality,, and so that
regions can carry out their role within their land area as political andadministrative entities, it is necessary to radically reassess the distribution ofduties between central and local government and put in place a regional
system equipped with functions, structures and financial powers appropriate
to this role.
(3) Construction of an efficient administrative system running through central
and local government
In the event that a regional system is introduced, to enhance the efficiencyof administration from national through to local level and to clarify thelocation of responsibility, regions should be able to implement the duties
attached to their role in a consistent way from the initial planning formulation
stage through to the implementation stage.
Moreover, efforts should be made to determine and to realize, by means of
reductions in national administrative organizations and the reorganization ofduties moving from prefectures to regions, a reduction in number of bothorganizations and personnel and a reduction in administrative costs from10

national through to local level.
3–3

The basic system plan for regions

On the basis of the 3 directions outlined above, the report sets out as shown
below the basic system plan for regions.
(1) Setting up the location of a region
・ Locate in place of a prefecture a wide-area region (do-shu) that will havethe status of a local autonomous body・ Let the local government system consist of 2 layers, regions andmunicipalities.
(2) The land area of a region
・ Make the basis of the land area of a region a wide area that encompasses
several prefectures.
However, in the case of Hokkaido and Okinawa, taking into account theirgeographical characteristics and historical circumstances, it is reasonable
to think of the land area of a region as that of the prefecture alone.
・ Taking note of the outreach offices of central government, show 3
examples in which the land area of regions is basically in conformity with
their jurisdictional area. (Reference document 1)
・ 9 region plan
Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kita Kanto-ShinEtsu, Minami Kanto, Chubu, Kansai,
Chugoku-Shikoku, Kyushu, Okinawa.
・ 11 region plan
Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kita Kanto, Minami Kanto, Hokuriku, Tokai, Kansai,
Chugoku, Shikoku, Kyushu, Okinawa
・ 13 region plan
Hokkaido, Kita Tohoku, Minami Tohoku, Kita Kanto, Minami Kanto,
Hokuriku, Tokai, Kansai, Chugoku, Shikoku, Kita Kyushu, Minami
Kyushu, Okinawa
Furthermore,

Metropolitan

Tokyo,

whichisincludedinthesouthern part of the Kanto area (Minami Kanto) in every case, might bethought of as one region.
(3) Means of transition to a system of regions
・ In principle, the transition to a system of regions should be carried out
over the whole country at the same time. However, the report sees it as
possible to effect the transition by moving forward on the basis ofconsultation between national government and the prefectures concerned.
(4) The administrative duties of regions11

・ The larger part of the duties currently carried out by existing prefectures
should be transferred to municipalities, and regions should be mainly
responsible for duties covering a wide area.
・ The duties currently carried out by central government ( in particular, theoutreach offices of central government) should as far as possible betransferred to regions, with the exception of those duties which it is properto think of as being carried out by central government.
・ Present a specific image of those duties that should be carried out byregions within a regional system. (Reference document 2)(5) Regional assembly・ Establish an assembly as the decision-making body of a region. The
assembly members shall be directly elected by the residents of a region.
(6) Executive organ of a region
・ Establish a head of a region as its executive organ. The head shall bedirectly elected by the residents of a region. Multiple re-elections of a head
shall be forbidden.
(7) Adjustment of relations between the central government and regions
・ The mechanism for intervention by central government in the affairs of aregion should be fundamentally the same as at present, and a systemanalogous to the Agency Delegated Function System shall not beestablished・ Establishamechanismforadjustingrelations

betweencentralgovernment and regions.
(8) The system concerning large cities
・ When a regional system is introduced, in the case of large cities, it isappropriate to set up a mechanism which is suitable for the area of large
city, to arrange special measures for the allocation of duties, and toestablish a fiscal system that matches these.
・ With regard to Tokyo, as a capital city, it might be reasonable to explore
special treatment corresponding to its special nature.
(9) Dealing with the areas of prefectures
・ Given the fact that the areas of prefectures have a long history and are
deeply embedded in the consciousness of the Japanese people, it might beappropriate to think of assigning some special designation to these areas(or to areas which can be further differentiated because of some special
historical association).
(10)

Fiscal arrangements under a regional system

12

・ Given an expected increase in demand accompanying a transfer of duties
from national government, the transfer of appropriate revenue sources
should also be implemented.
・ Aim to strengthen the local tax system, of which the core is a type of tax
with a low level of maldistribution, and realize a local taxation system
which is suited to a decentralized society.
・ Investigate a system which is suitable for carrying out appropriate
financial adjustment measures in response to tax revenue and financial
demand.
3–4

Issues to be faced in connection with the introduction of a regional

systemIn its final section, the report raises issues and problems that have to be faced
in connection with the introduction of a regional system.
Firstly, the report says that the introduction of a regional system should not end
with simply taking a fresh look at the prefectural system, but should involve a
reconstruction of the patterns to be adopted by both central and local government,
and the issues that are discussed in this connection must cover wide areas such as
the future pattern of the national politico-administrative system, the future
pattern of central and local administrative structures, and the development ofadministrative reform throughout the system from central through to local
government.
Furthermore, the report points out that the abolition of prefectures and theestablishment of a regional system, in addition to setting out the long-term
direction of the future pattern of the land area of Japan, will have a major
influence on the lives of the Japanese people.
It will be clear from the above that the thinking presented by the report is along
the lines that judgments concerned with the introduction of a regional systemshould be carried out on the basis of the trends shown in a national discussion on
the wide-ranging problems referred to above.
The report makes clear that the government is expected to take discussions
forward, and to play an appropriate role in ensuring that the national debate is
deepened, and that the people as a whole are expected to take this report as thebasis for wide-ranging discussions.
3–5

Summary of the report

As already pointed out, this report is aligned with the thinking set out in the“Report concerning the Future System of Local Government ” issued by the 27th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems, but this report is even more13

specific. For example, the earlier report simply said that “the head of a region andthe members of the regional assembly should be publicly elected”, but in the later
report it is made very clear that both the head and the assembly members shall beelected directly by local residents, and a prohibition on repeated re-election of thehead is included. In addition, there is a clear image of the area of a region and theduties to be carried out by a region.
The basic thinking of the report is comprised in the abolition of prefectures,
which constitute the current wide-area local government bodies, and theestablishment of regions as new, wide-area local government bodies. And theseregions that are designated in the report are not simply expanded areas resulting
from the merger of prefectures, but local public bodies that will take over many ofthe duties and powers of existing outreach bureaus and offices attached to central
government ministries and agencies. And the proposed regions are to have a form
that will enable them to carry out these duties on their own account as local
autonomous bodies with a publicly elected head. It is fair to say therefore that thisreport is in line with the general trend of the recent debate over a regional system.
Furthermore, the report makes no mention whatever of a federal system. Thisis due to the fact that this system was already rejected in the Report of the 27th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems, which pointed out that afederal system would necessitate a revision of a fundamental part of theConstitution of Japan, and that a federal system requires as a precondition theexistence of federal constituent units with a high degree of historical, cultural andsocial unity and independence, and that seen from the perspective of Japanese
history and the current state of consciousness of the Japanese people, it was not
appropriate to make the choice of a federal system an option in terms of system
reform.
4

Types and historical directions of regional systems
In this chapter, I would like firstly to typify regional systems in theoreticalterms, and then to examine in what kind of ways the debate of regional systems
has changed over time in Japan, seen from the point of view of such theoreticallyextracted types.
4–1

Types of regional systems

If we look at regional systems from 2 points of view, namely the character of theregion itself and the number of tiers in a local system, the following 8 types can be
identified.
A:

Regions as administrative organs of the state (central government)14

A – (a) Regions (administrative organs of the state) – municipalities (local
autonomous bodies)A – (b) Regions (administrative organs of the state) – prefectures (local
autonomous bodies) – municipalities (local autonomous bodies)
B:

Regions as intermediate bodies (administrative organs of the state + local
autonomous bodies)B – (a) Regions (administrative organs of the state + local autonomous
bodies) －municipalities (local autonomous bodies)B – (b) Regions (administrative organs of the state + local autonomous
bodies) – prefectures (local autonomous bodies) – municipalities(local autonomous bodies)

C:

Regions as local autonomous bodies
C – (a) Regions(localautonomous

bodies)–municipalities(localautonomous bodies)C – (b) Regions (local autonomous bodies) – prefectures (local autonomous
bodies) – municipalities (local autonomous bodies)
D:

Regions as constituent units of a federal stateD – (a) Regions (nation states) – municipalities (local autonomous bodies)D – (b) Regions (nation states) – prefectures (local autonomous bodies) –municipalities (local autonomous bodies)

4–2

Historical trends in the debate of regional systems

Adopting a historical perspective, the image of regions found in the prewar
commission of inquiry corresponded to category A, the region as an administrative
organ of state. This changed to type B, the region as an intermediate body, in theReport of the 4th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems (“Local
Regions” draft). And the type of region found in the Report of the 28th Committee
to Investigate Local Government Systems corresponds to type C, a region as alocal autonomous body. These changes can be thought of as reflecting thedominant pattern of thinking about regional systems in the various periods
concerned.
In terms of a broad current, what can be emphasized is the change from the
prewar concept of a region as an administrative organ of the state (central
government), type (A), to the postwar concept of a region as an intermediate body,
type (B), and then to the present concept of the region, type (C), as a local
autonomous body. Specifically, one can say that the debate over regional systems
in Japan has moved in the direction of decentralization. But that said, movement15

has not gone as far as type (D), where the region is seen as a constituent organ(nation) within a federal state system.
With regard to the number and the structure of tiers in a local government
system, the regional system that can be identified in the prewar commission of
inquiry was a system of 3 tiers, which envisaged the continued existence ofprefectures, while both the 4th Committee to Investigate Local Government
Systems and the 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems
envisaged a regional system of regions consisting of 2 tiers, in which prefectures
were abolished.
Specifically, a transition in thinking has taken place, from the concept of a 3-tiersystem, leaving the prefectures in place and superimposing on them a system ofregions, to the concept of a 2-tier system that envisaged the abolition ofprefectures and the creation of regions. In the background to this transition, 2
factors can be identified, namely the increased emphasis on administrative
efficiency in the postwar period and the continuing development of mergers
between municipalities.
Thirdly, there is the question of the administrative authority of regions. In the
prewar commission of inquiry, regions were seen as organs which carried out thegeneral administrative work of the state (central government). Specifically,
excluding some added duties, regions were seen as existing to carry out, fromamong the tasks carried out by hitherto existing prefectures as administrative
organs of central government, tasks other than those transferred to prefectures aslocal autonomous bodies. Furthermore, quite apart from regions, individual
outreach organs of central government existed in parallel to them.
In contrast to this, in the “Local Regions” plan put forward by the 4th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems, it was envisaged thatcomprehensive administrative bodies(intermediate bodies)would be set up which
would also have the authority hitherto possessed by outreach organs of central
government in each area. However, the report also proposed setting up at thesame time “Local Area Offices”, which would be comprehensive outreach organs ofcentral government, with the result that almost all the authority of existing
national outreach organs would be transferred to these new offices, with thepossibility that regions would have only one part of the authority hitherto
possessed by prefectures.
This proposal was changed, in the Report of the 28th Committee to Investigate
Local Government Systems to a concept whereby regions would be comprehensive
administrative bodies (local autonomous bodies) which would also take over the16administrative powers of central government local outreach organs. Moreover, no
mention is made of setting up separately comprehensive local organs of central
government in the form of the “Local Area Offices” referred to by the 4th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems.
With regard too to official authority held by regions under a regional system,
the first historical change was one from a system under which a part of national(central government) duties was dealt with by general local administrative
national organs (special outreach organs of the state also existed separately tohandle individual administrative matters) to a postwar system, under which
national government matters as well as those of local autonomous bodies are dealt
with by comprehensive local administrative bodies (intermediate bodies), while atthe same time, still separately, comprehensive local administrative organizations
continued to exist. And then, change moved in the direction of decentralization,
under which the duties of local government bodies, including national duties (asfar as possible, national outreach organs were to be abolished) were handled bycomprehensive local administrative bodies (local government bodies).
In ways such as these, when we look at events from a historical perspective, we
can see how the concept of a regional system in Japan has changed from acentralized concept of regions to a decentralized or devolved concept. Furthermore,in terms of the number of tiers in a local system, there has been a change from a
3-tier theory to a 2-tier theory. It follows from this that in the future too, it isreasonable to assume that the system of regions that will continue to be deepened
and developed further is that centered on that presented in the 28th Committee toInvestigate Local Government Systems as C – (a) Regions (local autonomous
bodies) – municipalities (local autonomous bodies).
5

Major trends concerning a regional system since the Report of the 28th

Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems
It is appropriate, at this point in this paper, to refer to the major trends or
movements with regard to a system of regions that have taken place since thepublication of the “Report concerning the Regional System”, issued by the 28th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems.
5–1

Formulation of the Law to Promote Special Regional Areas

On December 13, 2006, the Law to Promote Special Regional Areas(formally:“The Law Concerning the Promotion of Wide-Area Administration in Special
Regional Areas”) was enacted, and on January 26. 2007, it came into force.
In the event that a regional system is introduced, without requiring any form of17

merger between prefectures, the land area of Hokkaido prefecture is to beconsidered as equivalent to the area of Hokkaido region.
Under this law, the pioneering model regional area (special regional area) was
thus established in the land area of Hokkaido with the aim of carrying out on an
experimental basis tasks transferred by central government.
This same law specifies 8 items of business hitherto carried out by central
government in respect of which authority is to be transferred to Hokkaido, and amechanism is also established for expanding the scope of authority transferredfrom central government in accordance with suggestions made by Hokkaido.
However, the above said, the matters in respect of which authority has beentransferred are very circumscribed, so that at the present time, it is not possible tospeak of a pioneering mechanism headed in the direction of a full-scale regional
system. Close attention will be paid to the extent to which, from now on, the areaof authority is expanded in respect of matters transferred by central government
in response to suggestions from Hokkaido, but it is reasonable to presume that
there are likely to be a large number of difficult matters to be faced.
5–2

Establishment of the Council for Creating a Vision for Regional Systems

On January 26, 2007, the day on which the Law to Promote Special Regional
Areas came into force, central government established a Council for Creating a
Vision for Regional Systems. The Council was established with the objective of
debating such basic matters concerned with a regional system as the shape of
local society, and the shape of economic society after the introduction of a regional
system is realized, the new face of government in terms of central government andlocal government relations under a regional system, and so on, and formulating
the “Vision for Regional Systems”.
Composed of 15 members, the Council is expected to bring together a vision ofregional systems within a period of 3 years. As the first step, it is to produce byMarch 2008 an interim report setting out points for debate concerning the concept
and broad framework of regional systems.
In addition, at the same time as establishing the Council for Creating a Vision
for Regional Systems, the government also established a Conference on Regional
Systems. This body is composed of 11 economic leaders from each block
throughout the country, and its role will be to stimulate debate among the people
on a regional system.
5–3

The 2nd Interim Report from the Liberal Democratic Party Investigative

Committee on Regional Systems
The Liberal Democratic Party, the ruling party in the Japanese Government,

18

established in November 2004 an internal Investigative Committee on Regional
Systems, which debated the introduction of regional systems and issued its firstinterim report in July 2005. The “2nd Interim Report on Regional Systems” bythis Investigative Committee was issued on June 14, 2007, after the report by the
28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems.
In terms of the basic thinking in this “2nd Interim Report”, there are many
points in common with the Report of the 28th Committee to Investigate Local
Government Systems, such as the proposal to introduce a system of regions inplace of the currently existing system of prefectures, or the proposal that thedivision of role between central government, the regions and the municipalities,
forming the basic constituent units of local government, should be based on theprinciple of subsidiarity. However, it is not as specific as the Report of the 28th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems when it comes to questionsof the land area of regions, the duties of regions, or the process of choosing thehead of a region. In addition, a special characteristic of this report is that it puts
forward a unique proposal concerning the fiscal system to be introduced in regions,and it includes a time schedule for the process leading to the transition to aregional system.
However, the above said, this LDP document is still an interim report, and there
are many issues that have still to be investigated further. LDP will continue its
investigations.
5–4“Basic Thinking concerning a Regional System” by the National

Governors’ Association
It goes without saying that if a system of regions were to be introduced, thegreatest impact would be on existing prefectures. In August 2004, the National
Governors’ Association (NGA), whose members comprise the governors of all
Japanese prefectures, established a Research Committee on Regional Systems. In
July 2005, this committee was restructured as the Special Committee on Regional
Systems, and it continued to investigate and deliberate on various problems
concerned with the pattern to be adopted by wide-area administrative bodies,including a regional system.
Following the deliberations of the Special Committee, The NGA issued on
January 18, 2007, a document entitled “Basic Thinking concerning a Regional
System”.
Issued by the NGA, the document expresses cautious views about moving
forward on the premise of the introduction of a regional system, but judging thatas concerned parties, the NGA must react positively to the introduction of a19

regional system, the document clarifies the NGA’s standpoint.
Specifically 7 basic principles are listed as preconditions for an examination of aregional system.
Many of these conditions are the same as those found in the Report of the 28th
Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems, with a central focus on
replacing prefectures by regions as wide-area local autonomous bodies. However,the Report emphasizes the need for further progress in decentralization, such as
the point that the introduction of regions must be accompanied by a fresh look at
the structure of central government, including the breakup and reorganization ofcentral government ministries and agencies. Furthermore, the report expresses adesire to see the establishment of a single deliberative body, including both thestate (central government) and local government, to look at ways of taking
forward an examination of the system of regions.
After this report was issued, the NGA set up 2 project teams under theleadership of the Special Committee on Regional Systems, to be responsible for amuch more detailed investigation of several issues concerned with the basic
design of a regional system.
6

Issues Surrounding the Introduction of a Regional System – More Time

Needed for Debate and Deliberation
Up to this point in this paper, we have looked at the debate on regional systems
in Japan both in terms of historical developments and in terms of recent trends.
At the present time, the debate can be seen as focusing on 2 major issues, firstly
the replacement of prefectures by regions, and secondly, a 2-tier system of local
government, comprising regions as wide-area local autonomous bodies, andmunicipalities as the basic units of local government.
It is a reasonable presumption that from now on too, these two same issues,
namely regions as wide-area local autonomous bodies, and the 2-layer structure of
local government consisting of regions and municipalities, will be further
developed in debate.
However, once the debate moves into the area of specific issues concerning a
regional system, it can be anticipated that very many issues will have to be
examined, such as the land area to be encompassed within each region, thepattern that should be adopted for the division of roles and the apportionment of
duties between regions, the state (central government), and municipalities, theway in which central government should intervene in the affairs of regions, therole of large cities under a regional system, the fiscal system to be adopted in20

regions, etc, and there will no doubt be an equally diverse range of opinions
concerning each of these topics.
And as reasons for introducing a regional system, one could cite the ongoingprogress of decentralization, the realization of a local area imbued with vitality,
and the construction of an efficient system of administration linking central andlocal government. Whether or not these aims can be achieved, will differ greatly
according to the specific way in which a regional system is introduced.
Furthermore, with regard to the specific design of a regional system, it may bethat some revision of the Constitution will be needed. For example, Clause 2 ofArticle 93 states that the chief executive officers of all local public entities shall beelected by direct popular vote, so if a system were introduced whereby the head ofa region were to be elected indirectly by the regional assembly, that part of theConstitution would need to be amended.
At present, the level of public interest in a regional system is not particularlyhigh. Moreover, there are many issues that have to be debated. It follows that asof now, we are at a stage where more time is needed for examination and debate ofthese issues, including the pros and cons of introducing a regional system.
(Notes)
1. Yokomichi K.(2006) The Development of Municipal Mergers in Japan,
COSLOG Up-to-date Documents on Local Autonomy in Japan No.1,CLAIR &COSLOG
2. The Toshi Mondai (Municipal Problems), Vol. 22, No.5, 1936
3. A stenographic record of the second day, the 9th Special Committee (on the
Prefectural System), The 4th Committee to Investigate Local Government
Systems, October 8, 1957, pp. 86-87
References
References other than those shown above:
1. The 8th Research Committee on Local Autonomy Systems,:Grand Design II
for Securing Local Autonomy, National Governor’s Association (NGA),2006
2. Kimitaka, Kuze.(2002) Do-Shu-Sei wo kangaeru – To-Do-Fu-Ken kaikakuron
josetsu (1)-(4) [Thinking about Regional Systems - Prolegomena to the Reformof the Prefectural System (1)-(4)], Jichi kenkyu, Vol.78, Nos. 8-11
3. Hideaki, Matsumoto (2006), Do-Shu-Sei ni tsuite (1)-(4) [About the Regional
System (1)-(4)] ,Jichi Kenkyu, Vol.82, Nos.5-8
4. The 4th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems: Report on the21

Reform of Local Government Systems, October 18, 1957
5.

The 27th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems: Reportconcerning the Future System of Local Government, November 13, 2003

6. The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems: Reportconcerning the Regional System, February 28, 2006
7. The Liberal Democratic Party’s Investigative Committee on Regional
Systems: 2nd Interim Report on Regional Systems, June 14, 2007
8. National Governors’ Association (NGA): Basic Thinking concerning a Regional
System, January 18, 2007

22

（ Document 1）

Area of Regions (Example 1: 9 Regions)

Hokkaido

TohokuKansai

Kita Kanto

Chugoku-Shin-etsu-Shikoku

Minami
Kanto
Chubu

KyushuOkinawa(Data from The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems “Reportconcerning the Regional System”)

23Area of Regions (Example 2: 11 Regions)

Hokkaido

TohokuHokuriku

Kansai

Kita Kanto

Chugoku

Minami
Kanto
Tokai
Shikoku

KyushuOkinawa(Data from The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems “Reportconcerning the Regional System”)

24Area of Regions (Example 3: 13 Regions)

Hokkaido

Kita Tohoku
Hokuriku

MinamiTohokuKansai

Kita Kanto

Chugoku

MinamiTokai

Kita
Kyushu

Kanto

Shikoku

Okinawa

MinamiKyushu(Data from The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems “Reportconcerning the Regional System”)

25(Document 2)

A specific image of duties to be carried out by Regions in a regional system
Administration

Duties by Regions

Area
Infrastructure

Maintenance of National Roads*
Maintenance of Local Roads (Wide-Area)
Maintenance of First Class Rivers*
Maintenance of Second Class Rivers (Wide-Area)
Maintenance of Specified Important Ports
Maintenance of Second Class Airports*
Maintenance of Third Class Airports
Maintenance of Facilities to Prevent Sand
Encroachment*
Designation of Forest Reserves*

Environment

Provision against Organic Chemicals*
Provision against Air Pollution*
Provision against Water Pollution*
Provision against Industrial Waste
Maintenance of National Parks
Protection of Wild Animals
Supervision of Hunting (Scarcity, Wide-Area)

Industry/Economy

Provision for Small & Medium Enterprises*
Local Industry Policy *Tourism Development Policy *Agricultural Development Policy*
Permission to use Farmland for another purpose*
Permission to undertake Specified Fishery*
Fishing Rights License

Traffic/Information

Transportation Business License*
Automobile Registration & Testing*
Travel Agency and Hotel Registration*

Employment/Labor

Employment Introduction Service*
Vocational Education*
Advice on Labor Problems*Security/

Regulation of Dangerous Objects*

Disaster

Provision against Large-Scale Disaster

Management

Making a Wide-Area Disaster Prevention Plan
Order of Evacuation in Wartime26

SocialDesignation of Nursing Care Businesses

Welfare/Health

Provision of Facilities for Heavily Disabled Persons
Advanced Medical Services
Permission to Establishing a Medical Facility
Provision against Infectious Diseases

Education/Culture

Permission to Establish a School Facility
Permission to Establish a High School
Preservation of Cultural Treasures

Coordination

Coordination between Municipalities

betweenMunicipalities
Notes: Duties with an asterisk are basically to be carried out by Regions, including
authority newly transferred from Central Government.
(Data from The 28th Committee to Investigate Local Government Systems “Reportconcerning the Regional System”)

27