Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
成と確保を進め、事務局体制を強化することを求める。また、これらの職員の活動実績を適切に評価し、処遇に反映することを期待する。

## （４）科学技術イノベーション政策におけるPDCAサイクルの確立

## ① PDCAサイクルの実効性の確保

科学技術ノノベーション政策を効果的、効率的に推進するためには、PDCA（Plan-Do-Check-Action）サイクルを確立し、政策、施策等の達成目標、実施体制などを明確に設定した上で、その推進を図るとともに、進捗状況について、適時、適切にフォローアップを行い、実績を踏まえた政策等の見直しや資源配分、さらには新たな政策等の企画立案を行う必要がある。このため、国として、PDCAサイクルの実効性のある取組を進める。

## <推進方策>

・国は、政策、施策、プログラム又は制度、個別研究開発課題という研究開発システムの階層毎に、目的、達成目標、達成時期、実施主体等の可能な限りの明確化を図る。その上で、これらに基づく評価の実施を徹底するとともに、評価結果を政策等の見直しや新たな政策等の企画立案、資源配分の重点化、効率化等に適切に反映する。

・国は、戦略協議会において、それぞれの重要課題に対応した戦略全体の進捗状況を踏まえて、研究開発や推進体制、資金配分等の見直しを行うなど、戦略の柔軟かつ弾力的な推進を図るとともに、これを戦略に適時、適切に反映する。

・国は、アクションプランに関して、予算への反映状況や施策の進捗状況等に関するフォローアップを行い、その改善に反映する。その際、戦略協議会における検討の成果も十分に活用する。

・国は、東日本大震災を受けて、大規模災害に対する科学技術の役割を含め、これまでの科学技術政策の課題等を評価、検証した上で、資源配分や研究開発マネジメントなど、科学技術政策の推進の在り方について幅広い観点から検討を行い、必要に応じて、政策の見直し等に反映する。

・国は、第4期基本計画の進捗状況について、適時、適切にフォローアップを行い、その結果を、基本計画の見直しや新たな政策の企画立案に活用する。

・国は、新成長戦略やエネルギー基本計画、原子力政策大綱など、政府が定める他の計画等の検討結果を踏まえ、第4期基本計画の内容についても、必要に応じて見直しを行う。

## ② 研究開発評価システムの改善及び充実

研究開発の実施段階における評価は、研究開発の質を高め、PDCAサイクルを確立する上で重要な役割を担っている。一方で、研究開発の高度化と複雑化に伴い、評価に求められる視点も多様化し、これも一因となって、評価の重複や過剰な負担の問題が指摘されている。このため、「国の研究開発評価に関する大綱的指針」（平成20年10月31日内閣総理大臣決定）に沿って研究開発評価システムの一層の改善と充実を図り、優れた研究開発活動の推進や人材養成、効果的、効率的な資金配分、説明責任の強化等への評価結果の活用を促進する。

## <推進方策>

・国は、研究開発の各階層（政策、施策、プログラム又は制度、研究開発課題）を踏まえた研究開発評価システムの構築も含め、科学技術イノベーションを促進する観点から、研究開発評価システムの在り方について幅広く検討を行い、「国の研究開発評価に関する大綱的指針」について必要な見直しを行う。

・国及び資金配分機関は、ハイリスク研究や新興・融合領域の研究が積極的に評価されるよう、多様な評価基準や項目を設定する。研究開発課題の評価においては、研究開発活動に加えて、人材養成や科学技術コミュニケーション活動等を評価基準や評価項目として設定することを進める。また、それが有効と判断される場合には、世界的なベンチマークの適用や海外で活躍する研究者等の評価者としての登用を促進する。

・国及び資金配分機関は、優れた研究開発成果を切れ目無く次につなげていくため、研究開発が終了する前の適切な時期に評価を行う取組を促進する。

・国及び資金配分機関は、評価の重複や過剰な負担を避けるため、他の評価結果の活用を通じて、研究開発評価の合理化、効率化を進める。

・国は、評価に関する専門的知見や経験を有する人材の養成と確保を進める。国は、大学及び公的研究機関が、
業務運営のための情報システムを研究開発評価にも活用できるようにするなど、評価を効果的、効率的に行事務体制を整備するとともに、これに携わる人材の養成やキャリアパスの確保を進めることを期待する。

### 4. 研究開発投資の拡充

天然資源に乏しく、少子高齢化の進展や人口減少が見込まれる我が国にとって、科学技術、そしてそれに基づくイノベーションは、将来に向けた唯一とも言うべき競争力の源泉であり、その意味で我が国の生命線と言ってもよい。このような観点から、我が国ではこれまで、基本計画において研究開発投資の拡充に向けた目標額を掲げ、政府一体となって科学技術への取組を強化してきた。これにより、第2期及び第3期基本計画については目標額には達しなかったものの、国のGDPが伸び悩み、財政事情も厳しい中、他の政策経費に比べて、科学技術関係経費の増額が図られてきたことは高く評価できる。

しかし、近年、先進国に加えて、中国をはじめとする新興国が科学技術投資を大幅に拡充し、国を挙げて科学技術の発展を図っており、この分野においても、我が国の相対的地位が将来的に低下していくことが強く懸念される。また、東日本大震災は、東北及び関東地方を中心として、広範囲にわたり、人的、物的に甚大な被害をもたらすとともに、我が国の経済社会システムにも極めて深刻な影響を及ぼした。この震災により、研究施設及び設備の損壊や研究開発活動の停滞に加え、海外からの研究者の離日等、我が国の科学技術システムも大きな影響を受けている。さらに、東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の事故の結果、科学技術、特に原子力技術について、国民の間でそのリスクとコストについて不安と不信が広がっている。この国難を乗り越え、我が国が経済的、社会的に再び力強く成長、発展していくためには、我が国の科学技術力を積極的に活用し、イノベーションを一層強力に推進するとともに、世界トップレベルの科学技術力を強化していく必要がある。我が国としては、第4期基本計画で掲げる政策を着実に実行し、科学技術先進国としての地位を保持するとともに、各国との協調、協力の下、地球規模の問題解決など科学技術イノベーションで世界に貢献していくため、これらを支える研究開発投資の目標を明確に設定した上で、投資を拡充していくことが不可欠である。

政府においては、2020年度までの官民合わせた研究開発投資の拡充目標 $ ^{1} $ を設定したところであるが、一方で我が国の政府負担研究費割合が諸外国に比して低水準であること、民間企業の研究開発投資が厳しい状況にある中、政府の研究開発投資が呼び水となり、民間投資が促進される相乗効果が期待されること、更に諸外国が研究開発投資目標を掲げて拡充を図っていること等を総合的に勘案し、第4期基本計画においては政府研究開発投資に関する具体的な目標を設定して、投資を拡充していくことが求められる。

このため、官民合わせた研究開発投資を対GDP比の4％以上にするとの目標に加え、政府研究開発投資を対GDP比の1％にすることを目指すこととする。

その場合、第4期基本計画期間中の政府研究開発投資の総額の規模を約25兆円とすることが必要である（同期間中に政府研究開発投資の対GDP比率1%、GDPの名目成長率平均2.8%を前提に試算）。

これらを踏まえ、我が国の財政状況が一層悪化し危機的な状況となる中、平成22年6月に閣議決定された財政健全化目標及び中期財政フレームを含む財政運営戦略との整合性の下、基本計画に掲げる施策の推進に必要な経費の確保を図ることとする。

また、これと同時に、民間の研究開発投資を誘発するため、国として、規制や制度の合理的な見直しや、民間研究開発投資への税制優遇措置等について検討を行うことが必要である。
# FY2011 Settlement White Paper on Local Public Finance, 2013

– Illustrated –
## Contents

The Role of Local Public Finance 1
FY2011 Settlement Overview 4
Revenues 6
1. Revenue Breakdown 6
2. Revenues in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion 7
3. Revenue Trends 8
4. Local Taxes 9
5. Local Allocation Tax 12
Expenditures 13
1. Expenses Classified by Function 13
2. Expenses Classified by Type 17
Flexibility of the Financial Structure 21
1. Ordinary Balance Ratio 21
2. Real Debt Service Ratio and Debt Service Payment Ratio 22
Outstanding Local Government Borrowing 23
1. Trends in Outstanding Local Government Borrowing 23
2. Outstanding Local Finance Borrowing 23
Local Public Enterprises 24
1. Ratio of Local Public Enterprises 24
2. Number of Businesses Operated by Local Public Enterprises 25
3. Scale of Financial Settlement 25
4. Financial Status 26
Impact of Great East Japan Earthquake 27
1. Settlement of Disaster-Struck Organizations 27
2. Financial Status of Businesses of Local Public Enterprises of Disaster-Struck Organizations 29
Promotion of the Soundness of Local Public Finance 30
1. Overview of the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Governments 30
2. Status of the Ratios for Determining Financial Soundness 31

Figures for each item that are less than the given unit are rounded off. Therefore, they do not necessarily add up exactly to the total.
## General administrative sector accounts

## The Role of Local Public Finance

Prefectures and municipalities (cities, towns, and villages) are the central actors in various areas of public services, including school education, public welfare and health, police and fire services, and public works such as roads and sewage systems, thereby fulfilling a major role in the lives of the citizens of the nation. This brochure describes the status of local public finance (which comprises collectively the finances of individual local governments), the state of settlements for FY2011, and the status of the ratios for determining the financial soundness of local governments, with particular attention given to ordinary accounts (Public enterprises, such as water supply, transportation, and hospitals are described in the section on Local Public Enterprises).

## Classification of the Accounts of Local Governments Applied in the Settlement Account Statistics

The accounts of local governments are divided into the general accounts and the special accounts, which vary in scope between local governments. Therefore, to secure standardization in the tabulation of local finance, the accounts are classified as ordinary accounts, which cover the general administrative sector, and other accounts (public business accounts). This makes it possible to clarify the financial condition of local governments as a whole and to make a statistical comparison between local governments.

## Local Government Accounts

Ordinary accounts

## Public enterprise accounts

Water supply, transportation, electrical power, gas, hospitals, sewer systems, residential land development, etc.

## Other accounts (Public business accounts)

National health insurance accounts

Latter-stage elderly medical care accounts

Nursing care insurance accounts

Etc.
Gross Domestic Product (Expenditure) and Local Public Finance (FY2011)

## How large is local public finance compared with central government finance?

The ratio of gross domestic product (expenditure) consisting of local public finance is 11.6%, about 2.5 times that of the central government.
## I n which areas is the share of local expenditures high?

The share of local governments' expenditures is higher in areas that are deeply related to daily life, such as public health and sanitation, school education, police and fire services, and social education.
Revenues and expenditures increased from the previous fiscal year. $ ^{*} $

## Revenues

¥100,069.6 billion (up ¥2,558.1 billion, 2.6% year on year)

Regular portion: ¥95,035.1 billion (down ¥2,476.4 billion, 2.5% year on year)

Great East Japan Earthquake portion: ¥5,034.5 billion

While the revenues in the regular portion from local tax, municipal bonds, and national treasury disbursements decreased, the revenues in the Great East Japan Earthquake portion, from special allocation tax, Great East Japan Earthquake special allocation tax, and national treasury disbursements increased, resulting in total revenue increase by ¥2,558.1 billion from the previous fiscal year.

## Expenditures

¥97,002.6 billion (up ¥2,227.6 billion, 2.4% year on year)

Regular portion: ¥92,511.7 billion (down ¥2,263.3 billion, 2.4% year on year)

Great East Japan Earthquake portion: ¥4,491.0 billion

Breaking down expenditures, in the regular portion, the expenses for construction of public facilities declined, while the expenses for public assistance increased. Moreover, construction expenses, disaster restoration expenses, reserves and other expenses were disbursed in the Great East Japan Earthquake portion, resulting in total expenditures increasing by ¥2,227.6 billion from the previous fiscal year.

## 3 Revenue and Expenditure Settlement

The real single year balance showed a surplus for the fourth consecutive year, while the single year balance showed a surplus for the third consecutive year.

Category	Settlement Period	No. of local governments with a deficit
FY2011	FY2010	FY2011	FY2010
Real balance	¥1,795.3 billion	¥1,670.2 billion	2(3)	8(8)
Single year balance	¥125.5 billion	¥225.8 billion	841(1,542)	567(1,278)
Real single year balance	¥437.2 billion	¥1,039.5 billion	459(1,129)	237(917)

Notes: 1. Real balance refers to the amount calculated by subtracting the revenue resources that should be carried over to the next fiscal year from the income expenditure balance. Single year balance refers to the amount calculated by subtracting the real balance of the previous fiscal year from the real balance of the relevant fiscal year. Real single year balance refers to the amount calculated by adding reserves and advanced redemption of local loans for the public finance adjustment fund to the single year balance and subtracting public finance adjustment fund reversals.

2. The number of local governments with a deficit does not include that of special districts or inter-municipal/prefectural joint authorities. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of local governments including special districts and inter-municipal/prefectural joint authorities.

* In FY2011, the revenues and expenditures of the ordinary accounts are divided into the regular potion (Overall settlement figures less Great East Japan Earthquake portion) and the Great East Japan Earthquake portion (Covering the revenues and expenditures related to recovery and reconstruction work and emergency relief and disaster mitigation work).
## 4 Trend in Scale of Account Settlement

Considering revenues and expenditures of the regular portion, both of them have decreased for the last two consecutive years.

## 5 Major Financial Indices

Ordinary balance ratio rose 2.1 percentage points year on year, to 92.6%. Real debt service ratio declined 0.2 percentage point, to 11.8%.

Category	FY2011	FY2010	Change
Ordinary balance ratio	92.6%	90.5%	2.1
Real debt service ratio	11.8%	12.0%	$ \Delta $ 0.2
## What are the revenue sources for local governments' activities?

## Revenue Breakdown

The revenue of local governments consists mainly of local taxes, local allocation tax, national treasury disbursements, and local bonds, in order of share size. Among them, revenue resources which can be spent for any purpose, such as local taxes and local allocation tax, are called general revenue resources. It is important for local governments to ensure sufficient general revenue resources in order to handle various administrative needs properly. In FY2011, general revenue resources accounted for 55.4%.

Composition of Revenues (FY2011 settlement)

Special local grants: Includes the special grants for the child support allowance and child allowance in response to the increased local burden as a result of the expansion of the child support allowance system in FY2006 and FY2007 and the establishment of the child allowance in FY2010.

Local allocation tax: An intrinsic revenue source of local governments in order to adjust imbalances in tax revenue among local governments and to guarantee revenue sources so that all the local governments across the country can provide a consistent level of public services. (See pg.12, "5. Local Allocation Tax.")

National treasury disbursements: A collective term for the national obligatory share, commissioning expenses, incentives for specific policies, or financial assistance, disbursed from the central government to local governments.

Local bonds: The debts of local governments to be repaid over a period of time in excess of one fiscal year for which redemption continues for more than one fiscal year.

Note: “National treasury disbursements” includes “special grants to measures for traffic safety” and “grants to cities, towns and villages where national institutions are located.”
## 2 Revenues in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion

Net Total

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥1,298.4 billion (1.4%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥121.8 billion (0.1%)

Of this amount, earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax was ¥813.4 billion (16.2%)

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥336.4 billion (6.7%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥250.0 billion (5.0%)

## Prefectures

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥769.4 billion (1.6%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥88.8 billion (0.2%)

General revenue resources ¥905.8 billion (22.9%)

Of this amount, earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax was ¥486.7 billion (12.3%)

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥311.7 billion (7.9%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥152.4 billion (3.8%)

## Municipalities

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥528.9 billion (1.0%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥33.0 billion (0.1%)

Of this amount, earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax was ¥326.7 billion (21.9%)

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥24.7 billion (1.7%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥97.6 billion (6.5%)
## 4 Local Taxes

Local taxes consist of prefectural taxes and municipal taxes.

## Composition of Revenue from Prefectural Taxes (FY2011 settlement)

Composition of Revenue from Municipal Taxes (FY2011 settlement)

Note: In the case of the special wards of Tokyo, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government collects a portion of the municipal taxes. Municipal tax revenue figures include municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
Prefectural tax revenues have dropped lately due to a decrease in prefectural inhabitant taxes revenues and a decline in enterprise tax revenues (corporate) which is caused by the introduction of a special tax on local corporations, etc.

Trends in Prefectural Tax Revenues

Municipal tax revenues fell sharply in FY2009 mainly because of a decline in municipal inhabitant tax and have remained almost at the same level since then.

Trends in Municipal Tax Revenues

Note: Municipal tax revenue figures include municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
In order for local governments to provide public services in response to local needs on their own responsibility and at their own discretion, it is necessary to build a less imbalanced and stable local tax system. Comparing local tax revenue amounts, with the national average set at 100, Tokyo, the highest, was approximately 2.5 times the amount for Okinawa Prefecture, which was the lowest.

## I ndex of Per Capita Revenue in Local Tax Revenue (with national average as 100)

Notes:1. "Max/min" indicates the value obtained by dividing the maximum value of per-capita tax revenue for each prefecture by the minimum value.

2. Local tax revenue amounts include local corporation special transfer tax, but do not include overassessment or discretionary tax.

3. Individual inhabitant tax revenue is the total of the prefectural individual inhabitant tax (on a per-capita basis and on an income basis) and the municipal individual inhabitant tax (on a per-capita basis and on an income basis), and excludes overassessment.

4. Revenue from the two corporate taxes is the total of the corporate prefectural inhabitant tax, the corporate municipal inhabitant tax, and the corporate business tax, and excludes overassessment.

5. Fixed asset tax revenues include prefectural amounts, and exclude overassessment.

6. Calculations were made in accordance with the basic resident register population as of March 31, 2012.
## 5 Local Allocation Tax

From the perspective of local autonomy, it would be the ideal for each local government to ensure the revenue sources necessary for their activities through local tax revenue collected from their residents. However, there are regional imbalances in tax sources, and many local governments are unable to acquire the necessary tax revenue. Accordingly, the central government collects revenue resources that would essentially be attributable to local tax revenue and reallocates them as local allocation tax to local governments that have weaker financial capabilities.

### 1. Determining the total amount of local allocation tax

The total amount of the local allocation tax is determined in accordance with estimates of standard revenue and expenditures in local public finance as a whole, based on a fixed percentage for national taxes (32% for income tax and liquor tax, 34% for corporate tax, 29.5% for consumption tax, and 25% for tobacco tax). The total amount of the local allocation tax in FY2011 was ¥18,752.3 billion, up 9.1% year on year.

### 2. How regular local allocation taxes are calculated for each local government

The regular local allocation tax for each local government is calculated through the following mechanism.

Notes: 1. Standard financial requirements are figured out based on the rational and appropriate service standards for each local government. For this reason, the local share of the services, such as compulsory education, benefits for livelihood protection, and public works which are subject to national obligatory share, is mandatorily included. Beginning in FY2001, part of the standard financial requirements is being transferred to special local bonds (bond for temporary substitution for local allocation tax) as an exception to Article 5 of the Local Finance Law.

2. Normal local tax revenue does not include Non-Act-based Tax or "over-taxation" that sets tax rates above the standard tax rate stipulated in the Local Tax Act.

### 3. Function of the local allocation tax

The function of the local allocation tax is to adjust imbalances in revenue resources between local governments and to ensure their financial capacity to provide standard public services and basic infrastructure to residents across the country. The adjustment of revenue resources through local allocation tax makes the ratios of general revenue resources to the total revenues between local governments practically flat regardless of the size of population.

Ratio of Total Revenue for Municipalities Composed of General Revenue Resources

Note: A “midsize city” refers to a city with a population of 100,000 or more excluding government ordinance-designed cities, core cities, and special cities, and a “small city” refers to a city with a population of less than 100,000.
## What are taxes spent on?

## 1 Expenses Classified by Function

Classifying the expenses by function demonstrates that much of public money is appropriated for public welfare expenses, education expenses, and debt service. In prefectures, education expenses, public welfare expenses, and debt service have the highest shares in that order. In municipalities, public welfare expenses, general administration expenses, and debt service account for the largest amounts in that order.

## Composition of Expenditure Classified by Function (FY2011 settlement)

Public welfare expenses:

Expenses for the construction and operation of welfare facilities for children, the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled, etc., and for the implementation of public assistance, etc.
## Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Function)

Net Total

Prefectures

## Municipalities
Trends in Expenditures Classified by Function (Ordinary account net totals)

* Indices use FY2002 as base year of 100

Trends in Breakdown of Public Welfare Expenses by Purpose
## Breakdown of Public Welfare Expenses by Purpose

### Net total ¥23,182.5 billion

Child welfare

Elderly welfare

¥7,422.5 billion (32.0%)

Social welfare

¥5,707.2 billion (24.6%)

Public assistance

## Prefectures

¥5,282.6 billion (22.8%)

Disaster relief

¥7,492.0 billion

¥3,765.2 billion (16.2%)

¥1,005.1 billion (4.3%)

¥1,432.6 billion (19.1%)

¥2,914.1 billion (38.9%)

¥2,145.6 billion (28.6%)

¥272.1 billion (3.6%)

¥727.6 billion (9.7%)

## Municipalities

¥18,114.2 billion

¥6,680.5 billion (36.9%)

¥3,337.8 billion (18.4%)

¥4,083.8 billion (22.5%)

¥3,545.6 billion (19.6%)

¥466.5 billion (2.6%)

## Breakdown of Educational Expenses by Purpose

Elementary school

### Net total ¥16,176.8 billion

Junior high school

Educational general affairs

Senior high school

Health and physical education

Social education

Other

¥4,790.2 billion (29.6%)

¥2,828.8 billion (17.5%)

¥2,784.7 billion (17.2%)

¥2,222.6 billion (13.7%)

¥1,190.1 billion (7.4%)

¥1,123.3 billion (6.9%)

¥1,237.1 billion (7.7%)

## Prefectures

### ¥10,982.4 billion

¥3,522.4 billion (32.1%)

¥2,055.0 billion (18.7%)

¥2,113.7 billion (19.2%)

¥2,062.8 billion (18.8%)

¥119.3 billion (1.1%)

¥166.5 billion (1.5%)

¥942.7 billion (8.6%)

## Municipalities

### ¥5,263.8 billion

¥1,273.4 billion (24.2%)

¥777.8 billion (14.8%)

¥702.2 billion (13.3%)

¥160.7 billion (3.1%)

¥1,082.2 billion (20.6%)

¥968.4 billion (18.4%)

¥299.1 billion (5.6%)

## Breakdown of Civil Engineering Work Expenses by Purpose

### Net total ¥11,284.9 billion

Urban planning

¥4,174.6 billion (37.0%)

Roads and bridges

¥3,762.2 billion (33.3%)

Rivers and coasts

Housing

¥1,153.9 billion (10.2%)

Harbors

¥1,074.5 billion (9.5%)

## Prefectures

### ¥5,413.5 billion

¥377.8 billion (3.3%)

¥1,045.7 billion (19.3%)

¥2,182.6 billion (40.3%)

¥1,014.5 billion (18.7%)

Other

¥548.2 billion (10.1%)

¥1,617.2 billion (26.7%)

¥741.9 billion (6.7%)

¥272.0 billion (5.0%)

## Municipalities

¥3,189.0 billion (52.7%)

### ¥6,046.5 billion

¥350.5 billion (6.6%)

¥155.7 billion (2.6%)

¥548.7 billion (9.1%)

¥131.1 billion (2.2%)

¥404.8 billion (6.7%)
## What are expenses used for?

## 2 Expenses Classified by Type

Expenses are also classified, according to their economic nature, into "mandatory expenses" (consisting of personnel expenses, public assistance expenses, and debt service), the payment of which is mandatory and the amount of which is difficult to reduce at the discretion of individual local governments, "investment expenses" including ordinary construction work expenses, and "other expenses," such as goods expenses, subsidizing expenses, and reserves).

## Composition of Expenditures Classified by Type (FY2011 settlement)
Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses by Type)

Net Total

Prefectures

Municipalities
Trends in Expenditures Classified by Type (Ordinary account net totals)

* Indices use FY2002 as base year of 100

Trends in Breakdown of Public Assistance Expenses by Purpose