Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
there is no effect on nondurables expenditure.

### 6. Summary and conclusion

Despite the large body of literature on consumers’ response to an anticipated change in income, the empirical evidence remains inconclusive. Exploiting an ideal natural experiment in Japan – the preannounced abolition of the March bonus for government officials from March 2004 (FY2003) – this study sought to obtain evidence on the absence or presence of consumption smoothing in response to a large and predictable change in income. Specifically, using household level panel data from the Family Income and Expenditure Survey, we compared the pattern of public employees’ monthly expenditure before and after the reform of bonus payments to test the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis (LC/PIH).

In contrasting with a few earlier studies on the effect of large and predictable (regular) income movements, such as Browning and Collado (2001) and Hsieh (2003), we find evidence that the monthly pattern of household expenditure was significantly affected by the anticipated large change in the timing of income flows. In other words, Japanese public employee households did not smooth their expenditure in the face of an anticipated large change in the pattern of income, suggesting some deviation from the LC/PIH prediction.

However, a closer look reveals that an excess sensitivity of expenditure is clearly observed only for expenditure subcategories of some durability, i.e., durables and semi-durables. Therefore, while the findings of this paper, i.e., the association between an anticipated change in the pattern of income and expenditure patterns, have important implications for policy-related issues, such as the magnitude of the fiscal
multiplier, they do not rule out the possibility that Japanese households are smoothing the flow of services from durable expenditures, or that the LC/PIH holds good for individual consumers in Japan.
## REFERENCES

Browning, Martin, and Dolores Collado. 2001. “The Response of Expenditures to Anticipated Income Changes: Panel Data Estimates,” American Economic Review, 91(3): 681–692.

Campbell, John Y., and N. Gregory Mankiw. 1989. “Consumption, Income, and Interest Rates: Reinterpreting the Time Series Evidence,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4: 185–216.

Coulibaly, Brahima, and Geng Li. 2006. “Do Homeowners Increase Consumption After the Last Mortgage Payment? An Alternative Test of the Permanent Income Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(1): 10–19.

Hori, Masahiro, and Satoshi Shimizutani. 2009. “The Response of Household Expenditure to Anticipated Income Changes: Bonus Payments and the Seasonality of Consumption in Japan,” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 9(1) (Contributions), Article 34.

Hsieh, Chang-Tai. 2003. “Do Consumers React to Anticipated Income Changes? Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund,” American Economic Review, 93(1):397–405.

Johnson, David S., Jonathan A. Parker, and Nicholas S. Souleles. 2006. “Household Expenditure and the Income Tax Rebates of 2001,” American Economic Review, 96(5): 1589–1610.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Annual Report on the Family Income and Expenditure Survey, various years.

Parker, Jonathan A. 1999. “The Reaction of Household Consumption to Predictable Changes in Social Security Taxes,” American Economic Review, 89(4): 959–973.
Paxson, Christina H. 1993. “Consumption and Income Seasonality in Thailand,” Journal of Political Economy, 101(1): 39–72.

Shapiro, Matthew D., and Joel Slemrod. 1995. “Consumer Response to the Timing of Income: Evidence from a Change in Tax Withholding,” American Economic Review, 85(1): 274–283.

Shapiro, Matthew D., and Joel Slemrod. 2003. “Consumer Response to Tax Rebates,” American Economic Review, 93(1): 381–396.

Shimizutani, Satoshi. 2006. “Consumer Response to the 1998 Tax Cut: Is a Temporary

Tax Cut Effective?" Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 20(2):269-287.

Souleles, Nicholas S. 1999. “The Response of Household Consumption to Income Tax Refunds,” American Economic Review, 89(4): 947-958.

Souleles, Nicholas S. 2002. “Consumer Response to the Reagan Tax Cuts,” Journal of Public Economics, 85(1): 99-120.

Stephens Jr., Melvin. 2008. “The Consumption Response to Predictable Changes in Discretionary Income: Evidence from the Repayment of Vehicle Loans,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2): 241–252.

Stephens Jr., Melvin, and Takashi Unayama. 2011. “The Consumption Response to Seasonal Income: Evidence from Japanese Public Pension Benefits,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(4): 86–118.
Table 1. Bonus payments to public employees in Japan

Summer	Winter	Spring	Total
Standard date of payment	30-Jun	10-Dec	15-Mar	-
FY1997	2.20	2.60	0.55	5.35
FY1998	2.20	2.50	0.55	5.25
FY1999	2.20	2.25	0.50	4.95
FY2000	2.05	2.15	0.55	4.75
FY2001	2.05	2.10	0.55	4.70
FY2002	2.05	2.40	0.20	4.65
FY2003	2.25	2.15	0.00	4.40
FY2004	2.10	2.30	0.00	4.40
FY2005	2.10	2.35	0.00	4.45
FY2006	2.125	2.325	0.00	4.45
FY2007	2.125	2.375	0.00	4.50
FY2008	2.15	2.35	0.00	4.50

Source: National Personnel Authority.

Notes: The Japanese fiscal year runs from April to March.

The figures in the table are the sum of the end-of-term allowance (kimatsu teate) and the diligence allowance (kinben teate) relative to monthly regular income.
Table 2. Ratio of bonus income (relative to monthly household head regular income) and share of bonus recipients: Public vs. private sector workers (a) All wage earning white-collar worker households (Broadly-defined sample)

Time period	Type of household head	March observations	June observations	July observations	December observations	Annual total
Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients
% share	Mean (SD.)	(ii)	% share	Mean (SD.)	(iii)	% share	Mean (SD.)	(iv)	(iv)	% Share	Mean (SD.)
Pre-reform (Jul 1997 to Jun 2002)	Public employees	3,846	0.28	63%	0.45	3,727	1.36	69%	1.98	3,892	0.31	15%	2.06	3,864	1.94	86%	2.25	3.89
Private sector employees	6,158	0.03	5%	0.59	6,188	0.82	36%	2.28	6,415	0.59	31%	1.90	6,253	1.62	74%	2.18	3.05
(0.17)	(0.45)	(4.35)	(7.04)	(1.02)	(0.93)	(1.37)	(1.14)
Post-reform (Jul 2003 to Jun 2008)	Public employees	3,498	0.01	3%	0.25	3,432	1.22	62%	1.96	3,534	0.29	15%	1.91	3,562	1.77	84%	2.12	3.29
Private sector employees	5,401	0.02	2%	0.88	5,262	0.67	33%	2.04	5,364	0.52	29%	1.77	5,396	1.28	67%	1.90	2.48
(0.20)	(1.03)	(1.09)	(0.91)	(0.95)	(0.95)	(1.13)	(0.85)

(b) Male sole white-collar wage earner head households with bonus receipts in the regular bonus months (Narrowly-defined sample)

Time period	Type of household head	March observations	June observations	July observations	December observations	Annual total
Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients % share	Mean (SD.)	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients % share	Mean (SD.)	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients % share	Mean (SD.)	Number of observations	Mean (SD.)	Bonus recipients % Share	Mean (SD.)
(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)	(i)+(ii)+(iii)+(iv)
Pre-reform (Jul 1997 to Jun 2002)	Public employees	1,131	0.45	100%	0.45	1,329	1.60	82%	1.95	1,473	0.32	17%	1.92	1,331	2.20	100%	2.20	4.57
Private sector employees	2,415	0.00	0%	(0.13)	2,338	(0.82)	49%	(0.36)	2,371	0.81	41%	1.95	2,344	2.21	100%	2.21	4.07
Private sector employees	(0.00)	(1.21)	(0.79)	(1.17)	(1.04)	(1.15)	(1.15)
Post-reform (Jul 2003 to Jun 2008)	Public employees	1,367	0.00	0%	1,329	1.33	69%	1.92	1,257	0.40	21%	1.93	1,381	2.07	100%	2.07	3.80
Private sector employees	2,068	0.00	0%	2,004	0.99	47%	2.09	1,804	0.71	39%	1.82	1,874	1.97	100%	1.97	3.67
Private sector employees	(0.00)	(1.21)	(0.88)	(1.03)	(0.85)	(0.88)	(0.88)
Figure 1. Month-on-month change in income for public employee households: Pre-reform (1997/07-2002/06) vs. Post-reform (2003/07-2008/06)

1.1-(a) Wage of household head (Broadly-defined sample)

1.1-(b) Wage of household head (Narrowly-defined sample)

1.2-(a) Disposable income (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 4 for the estimated regression coefficients.

1.2-(b) Disposable income (Narrowly-defined sample)
Figure 2. Month-on-month change in consumption expenditure of public employee households: Pre-reform (1997/07-2002/06) vs. Post-reform (2003/07-2008/06)

2-(a) Consumption expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 4 for the estimated regression coefficients.

2-(b) Consumption expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
3.1-(a) Services expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

3.2-(a) Non-durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

3.1-(b) Services expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

3.2-(b) Non-durables expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

3.3-(a) Semi-durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

3.3-(b) Semi-durables expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

3.4-(a) Durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 4 for the estimated regression coefficients.

3.4-(b) Durables expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
4.1-(a) Wage of household head (Broadly-defined sample)

4.1-(b) Wage of household head (Narrowly-defined sample)

4.2-(a) Disposable income (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 5 for the estimated regression coefficients.

4.2-(b) Disposable income (Narrowly-defined sample)
Figure 5. Month-on-month change in household expenditure: Households of office workers at large private sector firms vs. Public employee households Pre-reform (1997/07-2002/06) vs. Post-reform (2003/07-2008/06)

5-(a) Consumption expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 5 for the estimated regression coefficients.

5-(b) Consumption expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
Figure 6. Monthly-on-month change in expenditure by component: Households of office workers at large private sector firms vs. Public employee households Pre-reform (1997/07-2002/06) vs. Post-reform (2003/07-2008/06)

6.1-(a) Services expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

6.1-(b) Services expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

6.2-(a) Non-durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

6.2-(b) Non-durables expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

6.3-(a) Semi-durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

6.3-(b) Semi-durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

6.4-(a) Durables expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Note: See Table 5 for the estimated regression coefficients.

6.4-(b) Durables expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
##### Appendix 1. Month-on-month change in income/expenditure for public employee households during the phase-out period Pre-reform (1997/07-2002/06) vs. Phase-out (2002/07-2003/06) vs. Post-reform (2003/07-2008/06)

We omitted observations during the phase-out period (between July 2002 and June 2003) from our analyses in the main text, as including the phase-out period, when the abolition of the March bonus was announced as a news, would obscure the point of our study on the effect of an anticipated income change. For readers interested in what happened in the phase-out period this appendix compares the pattern during the phase-out period with those of pre-reform and post-reform periods.

Wage of household head (Broadly-defined sample)

Wage of household head (Narrowly-defined sample)

Disposable income (Broadly-defined sample)

Disposable income (Narrowly-defined sample)

Real consumption expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Real consumption expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
### Appendix 2. Classification of expenditure categories

The classification of expenditure categories in this study follows that used by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (various years) in the published tabulations of the FIES.

Durables: household durables, automobiles, communication equipment, and recreational durable goods.

Semi-durables: clothing, footwear, sporting goods, video games, computer hardware and software, and books.

Non-durables: food (except eating out), fuel, light, and water charges, medicines, film, plants and gardening goods, and tobacco.

Services: eating out, rent for housing, medical expenses, public transportation, communication (except communication equipment), education (except school textbooks and reference books), recreational services and personal care services.
All figures reported in the main text are based on the regression results, which imposes some artificial restrictions. To confirm that the findings of this paper result from those artificial restrictions, this appendix reports similar month-on-month change figures based on simple sample average.

## (a) Public worker households

Month-on-month change in wage of household head (Broadly-defined sample

Month-on-month change in wage of household head (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in disposable income (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in disposable income (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real consumption expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real consumption expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
(a) Public worker households (continued)

Month-on-month change in real service expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real service expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real non-durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real non-durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real semi-durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real semi-durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
(b) Private & large firm office worker households vs. Public worker households

Month-on-month change in wage of household head (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in wage of household head (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in disposable income (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in disposable income (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real consumption expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real consumption expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
(b) Private & large firm office worker households vs. Public worker households (continued)

Month-on-month change in real service expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real non-durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real service expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real non-durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real semi-durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real semi-durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real durable expenditure (Broadly-defined sample)

Month-on-month change in real durable expenditure (Narrowly-defined sample)
## Supplement $ ^{*} $

### Appendix A. Impact of discretionary income (loan payment)

Dependent variable: Monthly change in non-housing consumption (expenditure) in real term

Independent variables: Loan payment $ ^{*} $ , Year dummies, Month dummies, Squared age of head of household, Family size Sample: house owners in FIES in 2002-2008 with any mortgage payment in the first month

and no mortgage payment in the last month.

Only the coefficients on loan payment are reported.

Case 1: Mortgage debt < 1.0 million yen

Case 2: 1/2*Loan payment during 6 months < Mortgage debt < 2*Loan payment during 6 months.

Case 3: 1/3* $ ^{*} $ Loan payment during 6 months < Mortgage debt < 3* $ ^{*} $ Loan payment during 6 months.

(1) OLS estimation: Loan payment=Change in loan payment in amount

Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Total	-0.1045	-0.0019	-0.0018
(0.1865)	(0.0068)	(0.0068)
Durables	-0.0524	-0.0019	-0.0019
(0.0605)	(0.0013)	(0.0013)
Semidurables	0.0370	-0.0004	-0.0004
(0.0416)	(0.0011)	(0.0011)
Nondurables	-0.0375	-0.0001	-0.0001
(0.0387)	(0.0007)	(0.0007)
Services	-0.0320	0.0010	0.0010
(0.1240)	(0.0064)	(0.0064)
Number of observations	245	2959	2987

(2) OLS estimation: Loan payment=Dummy variable (0=no payment and 1=payment)

Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Total	4886.432	8019.678	8059.080
(13730.69)	(8800.555)	(8780.087)
Durables	-3143.214	372.952	406.789
(4698.877)	(4636.114)	(4637.246)
Semidurables	7058.575	827.207	925.027
(3847.482)	(2496.55)	(2483.345)
Nondurables	2236.104	1199.391	1151.030
(3807.181)	(1181.988)	(1177.459)
Services	10.883	5887.227	5840.311
(8492.613)	(5300.629)	(5259.605)
Number of observations	260	3154	3184

(3) IV estimation: Loan payment=(1) instrumented by (2)

Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Total	0.0848	0.0504	0.0509
(0.2295)	(0.0503)	(0.0505)
Durables	-0.0448	-0.0059	-0.0057
(0.0709)	(0.02600)	(0.0261)
Semidurables	0.1276	0.0034	0.0039
(0.0624)	(0.0142)	(0.0142)
Nondurables	0.0383	0.0112	0.0111
(0.0601)	(0.0070)	(0.0070)
Services	-0.0087	0.0447	0.0446
(0.1328)	(0.0310)	(0.0309)
Number of observations	260	2959	2987
平成 25 年度

法務省政策別コスト情報
## 法務省 総括表 様式1－1 政策別コスト情報総括表

1. 政策にかかるコスト

(单位: 百万円)

区 分	コスト計(A)=(a)+(b)+(c)	内 訳	(参 考)自己收入
I 人にかかるコスト(a)	II 物にかかるコスト(庁舎等を含む。)(b)	III 事業コスト(その他事業コストを含む。)(c)	III 事業コスト(その他事業コストを含む。)(c)
1 基本法制の維持及び整備	2,146	0.3%	1,816	0.8%	84.7%	234	0.4%	10.9%	95	0.0%	4.4%	-
2 司法制度改革の成果の定着に向けた取組	29,259	4.3%	633	0.3%	2.2%	81	0.1%	0.3%	28,543	14.1%	97.5%	-
3 法務に関する調査研究	422	0.1%	191	0.0%	45.4%	199	0.3%	47.2%	31	0.0%	7.4%	-
4 検察権の適正迅速な行使	96,089	14.2%	79,016	18.2%	82.2%	9,092	14.7%	9.5%	7,980	3.9%	8.3%	-
5 矯正処遇の適正な実施	263,150	39.1%	163,656	36.5%	62.2%	30,551	49.4%	11.6%	68,942	34.0%	26.2%	-
6 更生保護活動の適切な実施	23,867	3.5%	12,122	3.0%	50.8%	870	1.4%	3.6%	10,874	5.4%	45.6%	-
7 破壊的団体等の規制に関する調査等を通じた公共の安全の確保を図るための業務の実施	13,662	2.0%	11,015	2.4%	80.6%	560	0.9%	4.1%	2,086	1.0%	15.3%	-
8 団体の規制処分の適正な審査・決定	56	0.0%	36	0.0%	65.2%	-	0.0%	0.0%	19	0.0%	34.8%	-
9 国民の財産や身分関係の保護	112,841	16.7%	52,700	12.4%	46.7%	8,099	13.1%	7.2%	52,041	25.7%	46.1%	65,711
10 人権の擁護	6,350	0.9%	2,784	0.9%	43.9%	405	0.7%	6.4%	3,159	1.6%	49.7%	-
11 国の利害に関係のある争訟の統一的かつ適正な処理	7,943	1.2%	5,683	1.9%	71.5%	806	1.3%	10.2%	1,453	0.7%	18.3%	-
12 出入国の公正な管理	53,106	7.9%	29,674	8.0%	55.9%	3,522	5.7%	6.6%	19,909	9.8%	37.5%	-
13 法務行政における国際化対応・国際協力	594	0.1%	218	0.0%	36.8%	227	0.4%	38.3%	147	0.1%	24.9%	-
14 法務行政全般の円滑かつ効率的な運営	12,298	1.8%	4,730	2.1%	38.5%	610	1.0%	5.0%	6,956	3.4%	56.5%	-
官房経費等	53,143	7.9%	46,184	13.3%	86.9%	6,628	10.7%	12.5%	330	0.2%	0.6%	-
合 計	674,933	100.0%	410,467	100.0%	60.8%	61,892	100.0%	9.2%	202,573	100.0%	30.0%	65,711
2. 参考情報 (各政策に配分した官房経費等の額)

(单位:百万円)

区 分	コスト計(A)=(a)+(b)+(c)	I 人にかかるコスト(a)	II 物にかかるコスト(庁舎等を含む。)(b)	(b)/(A)	Ⅲ 事業コスト(その他事業コストを含む。)(c)	(c)/(A)
1 基本法制の維持及び整備	985	1.9%	873	1.9%	88.6%	112	1.7%	11.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
2 司法制度改革の成果の定着に向けた取組	338	0.6%	300	0.6%	88.6%	38	0.6%	11.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
3 法務に関する調査研究	348	0.7%	170	0.4%	49.0%	177	2.7%	51.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%
4 検察権の適正迅速な行使	18,216	34.3%	16,326	35.3%	89.6%	1,890	28.5%	10.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
5 矯正処遇の適正な実施	4,056	7.6%	3,288	7.1%	81.1%	768	11.6%	18.9%	-	0.0%	0.0%
6 更生保護活動の適切な実施	1,742	3.3%	1,596	3.5%	91.6%	145	2.2%	8.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
7 破壊的団体等の規制に関する調査等を通じた公共の安全の確保を図るための業務の実施	284	0.5%	270	0.6%	95.2%	13	0.2%	4.8%	-	0.0%	0.0%
8 団体の規制処分の適正な審査・決定	-	0.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%
9 国民の財産や身分関係の保護	15,476	29.1%	13,425	29.1%	86.8%	2,050	30.8%	13.2%	-	0.0%	0.0%
10 人権の擁護	1,062	2.0%	930	2.0%	87.6%	131	2.0%	12.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
11 国の利害に関係のある争訟の統一的かつ適正な処理	2,347	4.4%	2,063	4.5%	87.9%	284	4.3%	12.1%	-	0.0%	0.0%
12 出入国の公正な管理	4,672	8.8%	4,149	9.0%	88.8%	522	7.9%	11.2%	-	0.0%	0.0%
13 法務行政における国際化対応・国際協力	397	0.7%	194	0.4%	49.0%	202	3.1%	51.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%
14 法務行政全般の円滑かつ効率的な運営	2,541	4.8%	2,251	4.9%	88.6%	290	4.4%	11.4%	-	0.0%	0.0%
その他	674	1.3%	344	0.7%	51.0%	-	0.0%	0.0%	330	100.0%	49.0%
合 計	53,143	100.0%	46,184	100.0%	86.9%	6,628	100.0%	12.5%	330	100.0%	0.6%
## 法務省 総括表参考 様式1－2 部局別等のコスト内訳総括表

(一般会计)

【本省】

(单位:百万円)

区 分	大臣官房	民事局	刑事局	矯正局	保護局	人権擁護局	入国管理局	合 計
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	12,979	6,669	4,669	4,901	2,006	1,560	9,797	42,584
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	1,247	641	448	437	192	150	941	4,059
②庁舎等(滅価償却費)	428	220	154	150	66	51	323	1,394
Ⅲ 事業コスト	34,968	84	52	89	231	1,557	1,077	38,062
1 基本法制の維持及び整備	-	84	10	-	-	-	-	95
2 司法制度改革の成果の定着に向けた取組	28,335	-	-	-	-	-	-	28,335
4 検察権の適正迅速な行使	-	-	42	-	-	-	-	42
5 矯正処遇の適正な実施	-	-	-	89	-	-	-	89
6 更生保護活動の適切な実施	-	-	-	-	231	-	-	231
9 国民の財産や身分関係の保護	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	8
10 人権の擁護	-	-	-	-	-	1,557	-	1,557
11 国の利害に関係のある争訟の統一的かつ適正な処理	1,453	-	-	-	-	-	-	1,453
12 出入国の公正な管理	-	-	-	-	-	-	1,077	1,077
14 法務行政全般の円滑かつ効率的な運営	5,170	-	-	-	-	-	-	5,170
コスト計(Ⅰ＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	49,624	7,615	5,325	5,579	2,497	3,320	12,139	86,101

【地方局·外局等】

(单位:百万円)

区 分	法務総合研究所	公安審査委員会	法務局	検察庁	矯正官署	更生保護官署	地方入国管理官署	公安調査庁	合 計
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	776	36	66,491	90,980	162,387	11,622	24,027	11,286	367,608
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	806	-	5,643	5,055	4,771	731	1,011	570	18,590
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	-	-	4,724	5,364	25,960	22	1,768	3	37,843
Ⅲ 事業コスト	179	19	52,675	7,938	69,163	10,582	18,832	2,106	161,498
3 法務に関する調査研究	31	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	31
4 検察権の適正迅速な行使	-	-	-	7,938	-	-	-	-	7,938
5 矯正処遇の適正実施	-	-	-	-	68,853	-	-	-	68,853
6 更生保護活動の適切な実施	-	-	-	-	-	10,582	-	-	10,582
7 破壊的団体等の規制に関する調査等を通じた公共の安全の確保を図るための業務の実施	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2,086	2,086
8 団体の規制処分の適正な審査・決定	-	19	-	-	-	-	-	-	19
9 国民の財産や身分関係の保護	-	-	51,074	-	-	-	-	-	51,074
10 人権の擁護	-	-	1,601	-	-	-	-	-	1,601
11 国の利害に関係のある争訟の統一的かつ適正な処理	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
12 出入国の公正な管理	-	-	-	-	-	-	18,832	-	18,832
13 法務行政における国際化対応・国際協力	147	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	147
官房経費等	-	-	-	-	310	-	-	20	330
コスト計(I＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	1,762	56	129,536	109,338	262,282	22,959	45,639	13,967	585,541
(特別会計)

(单位:百万円)

区 分	東日本大震災復興特別会計	合 計
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	273	273
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	3	3
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	-	-
Ⅲ 事業コスト	3,012	3,012
2 司法制度改革の成果の定着に向けた取組	208	208
6 更生保護活動の適切な実施	60	60
9 国民の財産や身分関係の保護	958	958
14 法務行政全般の円滑かつ効率的な運営	1,785	1,785
コスト計(I+Ⅱ+Ⅲ)	3,290	3,290
法務省 政策別コスト情報に関する調書 様式2－1

## 政策:1 基本法制の維持及び整備にかかるコストの状況

（所管：法務省、一般会計、組織：法務本省、担当部局：民事局、刑事局）

1. 政策にかかるコスト …… 2,146 百万円

(单位:百万円)

区 分	人件費	賞与引当金繰入額	退職給付引当金繰入額	委託費等	庁費等	減価償却費	その他の経費	貸倒引当金繰入額
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	1,816	1,783	24	8	-	-	-	-	-
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	174	-	-	-	2	83	4	37	2
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	59	-	-	-	-	-	59	-	-
Ⅲ 事業コスト	95	(-)	(-)	(-)	-	87	-	7	-
(1)社会経済情勢に対応した基本法制の整備	95	(-)	(-)	(-)	-	87	-	7	-
コスト計(Ⅰ＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	2,146	1,783	24	8	2	171	64	45	2

(单位:百万円)

区 分	資産処分損益	(参 考) 決算額
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	-	-
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	43	-
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	-	-
Ⅲ 事業コスト	-	95
(1)社会経済情勢に対応した基本法制の整備	-	95
コスト計(Ⅰ＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	43	-

(参考) 自己收入	-	百万円

2. 政策にかかるストック情報(主な資産等)

区 分	ストック内訳	備 考
土地	建物	物品	無形固定資産
物にかかるコスト	13	-	-	12	1
庁舎等	10,003	9,355	648	-	-
合計	10,017	9,355	648	12	1

(单位: 百万円)
### 3. 参考情報

(1) 当該政策に関連するコストの状況

①当該政策に配分された官房経費等の額

(单位:百万円)

Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	873
Ⅱ 物にかかるコスト(庁舎等を含む。)	112
Ⅲ その他事業コスト	-
合計	985

②当該政策に配分された当年度の公債にかかる利払費（単位：百万円）

利払費	462

省庁別財務書類の公債関連情報として記載されている利払費が、一般会計における政策ごとの「政策にかかるコスト」と「当該政策に配分された官房経費等」を合算したコストを基準として当該政策に配分された場合の額である。

## (2) 政策の概要

事前規制社会から事後チェック・救済型社会への転換、社会経済構造の変革に対応した基本法制の維持及び整備を行う。

## (3) 共通経費配分の方法

人、物にかかるコスト、庁舎等については、定員数により配分。

(4) その他

なし。
## 法務省 附属書類 様式2－2 部局別等のコスト内訳

政策:1 基本法制の維持及び整備

区 分	一般会計	合 計
民事局	刑事局
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	1,608	207	1,816
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	154	19	174
②庁舎等(滅価償却費)	53	6	59
Ⅲ 事業コスト	84	10	95
(1)社会経済情勢に対応した基本法制の整備	84	10	95
コスト計(Ⅰ+Ⅱ+Ⅲ)	1,900	245	2,146

(单位: 百万円)
法務省 政策別コスト情報に関する調書 様式2－1

政策:2 司法制度改革の成果の定着に向けた取組にかかるコストの状況

（所管：法務省、一般会計、組織：法務本省、担当部局：大臣官房）

（東日本大震災復興特別会計）

1. 政策にかかるコスト …… 29,259 百万円

(单位: 百万円)

区 分	人件費	賞与引当金線入額	退職給付引当金線入額	委託費等	独立行政法人運営費交付金	庁費等	減価償却費	その他の経費
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	633	621	8	2	-	-	-	-	-
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	60	-	-	-	0	-	29	1	13
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	20	-	-	-	-	-	-	20	-
Ⅲ 事業コスト	28,543	(-)	(-)	(-)	15,199	12,836	345	18	144
(1)総合法律支援の充実強化	28,038	(-)	(-)	(-)	15,199	12,836	0	-	2
(2)法曹養成制度の充実	483	(-)	(-)	(-)	-	-	327	18	137
(3)裁判外紛争解決手段の拡充・活性化	8	(-)	(-)	(-)	-	-	6	-	2
(4)法教育の推進	12	(-)	(-)	(-)	-	-	11	-	1
コスト計(Ⅰ＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	29,259	621	8	2	15,200	12,836	374	40	157

(单位:百万円)

区 分	貸倒引当金繰入額	資産処分損益	(参 考) 決算額
Ⅰ 人にかかるコスト	-	-	-
Ⅱ ①物にかかるコスト	0	15	-
②庁舎等(減価償却費)	-	-	-
Ⅲ 事業コスト	-	-	28,525
(1)総合法律支援の充実強化	-	-	28,038
(2)法曹養成制度の充実	-	-	465
(3)裁判外紛争解決手段の拡充・活性化	-	-	8
(4)法教育の推進	-	-	12
コスト計(Ⅰ＋Ⅱ＋Ⅲ)	0	15	-

(参考) 自己收入	-	百万円