Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## 参考文献

Abe, Masahiro and Souichi Ohta [2001], “Fluctuations in Unemployment and Industry Attributes,” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 15, pp.437-464.

Akerlof, George A., Andrew K. Rose, and Janet L. Yellen [1988], “Job Switching, and Job Satisfaction in the U.S. Labor Market,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, pp.495-582.

Anderson, Patricia M., and Bruce D. Meyer [1994], “The Extent and Consequences of Job Turnover,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, pp.177-248.

Ariga, Kenn [2001], “Horizontal Transfer, Vertical Promotion and Evolution of Firm Organization,” Kyoto Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Discussion Paper No. 535.

Barlevy, Gadi [2002], “The Sullying Effect of Recessions,” Review of Economic Studies 69, pp.65-96.

Bertola, Giuseppe and Ricardo J. Caballero [1994], “Cross-Sectional Efficiency, and Labour Hoarding in a Matching Model of Unemployment,” Review of Economic Studies 61, pp.435-456.

Blanchard, Oliver Jean, and Peter Diamond [1989], "The Beveridge Curve," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, pp.1-60.

Blanchard, Oliver Jean, and Peter Diamond [1990], “The Cyclical Behavior of Gross Flows of Workers in thr U.S.,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, pp.85-155.

Burgess, Simon, Julia Lane, and David Stevens [2000], "Job Flows, Worker Flows, and Churning," Journal of Labor Economics, 18(3), pp.473-502.

Burgess, Simon, Julia Lane, and David Stevens [2001], “Churning Dynamics: An Analysis of Hires and Separations at the Employer Level,” Labour Economics 8, pp.1-14.

Caballero, Ricardo J., and Mohamad Hammour [1994], “The Cleansing Effect of Recessions” American Economic Review 84(5), pp.1350-1368.

Cole, Harold L., and Richard Rogerson [1999], “Can the Mortensen-Pissarides Matching Model Match the Business-Cycle Facts?” International Economic Review 40(4), pp.933-959.

Contini, Bruno and Riccardo Revelli [1997], “Gross Flows vs. Net Flows in the Labor Market: What is There to be Learned?” Labour Economics Vol.4, pp.245-263.

Davis, Steven J., and John C. Haltiwanger [1990], “Gross Job Creation and Destruction,” NBER Macroeconomic Annual 1990, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.123-168.
Davis, Steven J., and John C. Haltiwanger [1992], “Gross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction, and Employment Reallocation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, pp.819-863.

Davis, Steven J., John C. Haltiwanger, and Scott Schuh [1996], Job Creation and Job Destruction, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Davis, Steven J. and John C. Haltiwanger [1999], “Gross Job Flows,” in Orley C. Ashenfelter and David Card, eds., Handbook of Labor Economics, 3B, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp.2711-2805.

Genda, Yuji [1998] “Job Creation and Destruction in Japan, 1991-1995,” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 12, pp.1--23.

Genda, Yuji, Pazienza, Maria Grazia, and Signorelli, Marcello [2001] “Labour Market Performance and Job Creation,” in Andrea Boltho, Allesandro Vercelli, and Hiroshi Yoshikawa, eds., Comparing Economic Systems: Italy and Japan, Hampshire: Palgrave, pp.135-157.

Gomes, Joao, Jeremy Greenwood, and Sergio Rebelo [2001], “Equilibrium Umenployment,” Journal of Monetary Economics 48, pp.109-152.

Hamermesh, Daniel, Wolter H. Hassink and Jan C. van Ours [1996] “Job Turnover and Labor Turnover: A Taxonomy of Employment Dynamics,” Annales D’Economie et de Statistique, 41/42, pp.21-40.

Jovanovic, Boyan [1979], “Job Matching and the Theory of Turnover,” Journal of Political Economy 87, pp.972--990.

Mortensen, Dale T. [1994], “The Cyclical Behavior of Job and Worker Flows,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol.18, pp.1121-1142.

Mortensen, Dale T. and Christopher A. Pissarides [1994], “Job Creation and Destruction in the Theory of Unemployment,” Review of Economic Studies 61, pp.397-415.

Mortensen, Dale T. and Christopher A. Pissarides [1999a], “Job Reallocation, Employment Fluctuations and Unemployment,” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, 1B, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp.1171-1228.

Mortensen, Dale T. and Christopher A. Pissarides [1999b], “New Developments in Models of Search in the Labor Market,” in Orley C. Ashenfelter and David Card, eds., Handbook of Labor Economics, 3B, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp.2567-22627.

Petrongolo, Barbara, and Christopher A. Pissarides [2001], “Looking into the Black Box: A Survey
of the Matching Function," Journal of the Economic Literature 39, pp.390-431.

Pissarides, Christopher A. [1994], “Search Unemployment with On-the-job Search,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol.61, pp.457-475.

太田聡一 [1999]，「景気と転職行動 1965～94」，中村二郎・中村恵（編）『日本経済の構造調整と労働市場』、日本評論社，pp. 13-42.

大竹文雄・太田聡一 [2002]，「デフレ下の雇用対策」，『日本経済研究』44， pp. 22-45.

大竹文雄・藤川恵子 [2001]，「日本の整理解雇」，褚木武徳・大竹文雄（編）『雇用政策の経済分析』，東京大学出版会，pp. 3-28.

大橋勇雄・中村二朗 [2002]，「転職のメカニズムとその効果」，玄田有史・中田喜文（編）『リストラと転職のメカニズム』，東洋経済新報社，pp.145-173.

玄田有史 [1999]，「雇用創出と雇用喪失」，中村二郎・中村恵（編）『日本経済の構造調整と労働市場』，日本評論社，pp. 43-74.

中馬宏之 [1998], 「『解雇権濫用法理』の経済分析－雇用契約理論の視点から」，三輪芳朗・神田秀樹・柳川範之（編）『会社法の経済学』，東京大学出版会，pp. 425～451.

照山博司・玄田有史 [2002]，「雇用機会の創出と喪失の変動 — 1986 年から 1998 年の「雇用動向調査」に基づく分析」，『日本労働研究雑誌』499，pp, 86-100.

「雇用動向調査」に基づく分析」，『日本労働研究雑誌』499，pp, 86-100.

照山博司 [2002]，「雇用機会再配分と労働再配分 — 「雇用動向調査」による労働移動の実証分析」，内閣府社経済社会総合研究所ディスカッション・ペーパー.

樋口美雄・清家篤・早見均 [1987]，「労働市場：男女労働力の就業行動の変化」，浜田宏一・黒田昌裕・堀内昭義(編)，『日本経済のマクロ分析』,東京大学出版会，pp.263-285.

樋口美雄 [1998]，「日本の雇用創出と雇用安定」，小宮隆太郎・奥野正寛（編）『日本経済21世紀への課題』，東洋経済新報社，pp.239-280.

樋口美雄・新保一成 [1998]，「景気変動下におけるわが国の雇用創出と雇用安定」，『三田商学研究』41(4)， pp. 69-101.

水野朝夫 [1982]，「フローから見た日本の失業行動」，『季刊現代経済』winter，pp. 4—19.

水野朝夫 [1983]，「雇用・失業および労働市場の動態」，『経済学論纂』24， pp. 37?61.
水野朝夫 [1992]，『日本の失業行動』，中央大学出版部.
図2-1：雇用創出・雇用喪失の推移(第1の方法による推計結果)

JCR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用創出率＋事業所開設による雇用創出率

JDR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用喪失率＋事業所廃止による雇用喪失率

JCR 存続事業所による雇用創出率

JDR 存続事業所による雇用喪失率

NGR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用純増率＋事業所開廃による雇用純増率

NGR 存続事業所による雇用純増率

SNGR 年末雇用者ストック数一年初雇用者ストック数

図中の影で示した期間は、内閣府の景気基準日付による景気後退期にあたる年を示す（以下、同）
図2-2：雇用創出・雇用喪失の推移(第2の方法による推計結果)

JCR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用創出率＋事業所開設による雇用創出率

JDR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用喪失率＋事業所廃止による雇用喪失率

JCR 存続事業所による雇用創出率

JDR 存続事業所による雇用喪失率

NGR $ ^{*} $ 存続事業所による雇用純増率＋事業所開廃による雇用純増率

NGR 存続事業所による雇用純増率
図2-3：労働流入出の推移
図2-4：「転職率（＝労働流出率－雇用喪失率）」の推移

TOR 「転職率」 NGR 雇用純增率
図2-5「年ダミー」係数の比較

年ダミーの基準は1987年

たとえば、Y88は1988年ダミーを意味する

図中の点線は、95%信頼区間を示す
図2-6 「企業規模ダミー」係数の比較

FS1 1000人以上

FS2 300～999人

FS3 100～299人

FS4 30~99人

FS6 官公営企業 の「企業規模ダミー」を意味する

企業規模ダミーの基準は「5～29人」規模である

図中の点線は、95%信頼区間を示す
JCR * 存続事業所による雇用創出率＋事業所開設による雇用創出率

JDR * 存続事業所による雇用喪失率＋事業所廃止による雇用喪失率

JCR 存続事業所による雇用創出率

JDR 存続事業所による雇用喪失率

NGR * 存続事業所による雇用純增率＋事業所開廃による雇用純増率

NGR 存続事業所による雇用純増率

表2-1：雇用創出・雇用喪失の推移(第1の方法による推計結果)

JCR*	JDR*	JCR	JDR	NGR*	NGR	SNGR
1987	6.0%	5.9%	0.1%	0.6%
1988	6.6%	5.2%	1.4%	2.1%
1989	6.7%	5.9%	0.8%	1.8%
1990	6.7%	5.9%	0.9%	3.4%
1991	13.1%	9.9%	6.9%	5.6%	3.2%	1.4%	2.8%
1992	12.9%	7.7%	6.7%	5.6%	5.3%	1.1%	2.7%
1993	11.7%	8.7%	5.9%	6.0%	3.0%	0.0%	1.7%
1994	13.9%	8.7%	5.4%	6.2%	5.2%	-0.8%	0.7%
1995	10.8%	10.5%	5.4%	6.4%	0.3%	-1.0%	0.6%
1996	11.7%	9.3%	5.6%	5.6%	2.3%	0.0%	1.1%
1997	11.4%	8.8%	5.5%	6.3%	2.6%	-0.8%	0.5%
1998	11.0%	11.1%	5.3%	6.7%	-0.1%	-1.4%	-0.7%
1999	9.7%	9.3%	5.2%	6.2%	0.5%	-1.0%	-0.2%
2000	10.8%	9.5%	5.1%	6.6%	1.3%	-1.5%	-0.1%
平均	11.7%	9.3%	5.9%	6.0%	2.4%	-0.1%	1.2%
標準偏差	1.3%	1.0%	0.7%	0.4%	1.9%	1.0%	1.2%
相関係数	corr(JCR*,JDR*)	-0.41
corr(JCR,JDR)	-0.80
corr(JCR*,NGR*)	0.88
corr(JDR*,NGR*)	-0.80
corr(JCR,NGR)	0.97
corr(JDR,NGR)	-0.93

JCR * 存続事業所による雇用創出率＋事業所開設による雇用創出率

JDR * 存続事業所による雇用喪失率＋事業所廃止による雇用喪失率

JCR 存続事業所による雇用創出率

JDR 存続事業所による雇用喪失率

NGR * 存続事業所による雇用純増率＋事業所開廃による雇用純増率

NGR 存続事業所による雇用純増率

SNGR 年末雇用者ストック数一年初雇用者ストック数

表2-2：雇用創出・雇用喪失の推移(第2の方法による推計結果)

JCR*	JDR*	JCR	JDR	NGR*	NGR	SNGR
1987	6.0%	5.9%	0.1%
1988	6.6%	5.2%	1.4%
1989	6.7%	5.9%	0.8%
1990	6.7%	5.9%	0.9%
1991	27.0%	24.1%	6.9%	5.6%	2.8%	1.4%	2.8%
1992	23.5%	20.8%	6.7%	5.6%	2.7%	1.1%	2.7%
1993	25.6%	23.9%	5.9%	6.0%	1.7%	0.0%	1.7%
1994	26.7%	25.9%	5.4%	6.2%	0.7%	-0.8%	0.7%
1995	26.7%	26.1%	5.4%	6.4%	0.6%	-1.0%	0.6%
1996	26.3%	25.2%	5.6%	5.6%	1.1%	0.0%	1.1%
1997	25.3%	24.8%	5.5%	6.3%	0.5%	-0.8%	0.5%
1998	26.8%	27.5%	5.3%	6.7%	-0.7%	-1.4%	-0.7%
1999	27.4%	27.6%	5.2%	6.2%	-0.2%	-1.0%	-0.2%
2000	26.4%	26.5%	5.1%	6.6%	-0.1%	-1.5%	-0.1%
平均	26.2%	25.2%	5.9%	6.0%	0.9%	-0.1%	1.2%
標準偏差	1.1%	2.0%	0.7%	0.4%	1.2%	1.0%	1.2%
相関係数	corr(JCR*,JDR*)	0.86
corr(JCR,JDR)	-0.80
corr(JCR*,NGR*)	-0.52
corr(JDR*,NGR*)	-0.88
corr(JCR,NGR)	0.97
corr(JDR,NGR)	-0.93
表2-3：労働流入出の推移

IFR	OFR	HR	QR	TR_I	TR_O	LR_I	LR_O	NGR
1987	18.0%	17.9%	14.8%	14.4%	3.2%	3.6%	0.1%
1988	19.2%	17.8%	16.3%	14.7%	2.7%	2.9%	0.2%	0.2%	2.9%
1989	19.5%	18.7%	15.9%	15.3%	3.4%	3.3%	0.2%	0.2%	1.6%
1990	19.7%	18.8%	16.7%	15.2%	2.8%	3.4%	0.2%	0.2%	1.8%
1991	19.2%	17.8%	16.4%	15.0%	2.5%	2.7%	0.2%	0.2%	2.7%
1992	18.6%	17.6%	15.6%	14.5%	2.8%	2.9%	0.2%	0.2%	2.2%
1993	16.7%	16.7%	14.0%	13.8%	2.5%	2.7%	0.3%	0.2%	0.0%
1994	16.0%	16.8%	12.7%	13.6%	3.1%	3.0%	0.3%	0.2%	-1.6%
1995	16.1%	17.1%	13.2%	14.1%	2.6%	2.7%	0.3%	0.2%	-1.9%
1996	16.6%	16.6%	13.5%	13.5%	2.8%	2.8%	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%
1997	17.3%	18.1%	14.1%	14.9%	2.9%	2.9%	0.3%	0.3%	-1.5%
1998	16.9%	18.2%	13.6%	14.9%	3.0%	3.1%	0.2%	0.2%	-2.8%
1999	16.9%	17.9%	13.7%	14.8%	2.8%	2.9%	0.3%	0.2%	-2.1%
2000	17.3%	18.8%	14.4%	15.7%	2.6%	2.8%	0.3%	0.3%	-2.9%
平均	17.7%	17.8%	14.6%	14.6%	2.8%	3.0%	0.2%	0.2%	-0.1%
標準偏差	1.3%	0.7%	1.3%	0.6%	0.3%	0.3%	0.0%	0.1%	1.2%
相関係数	corr(IFR,OFR)	0.61
corr(IFR,NGR)	0.82
corr(OFR,NGR)	0.05
IFR	労働者流入率
OFR	労働者流出率
HR	採用率
QR	離職率
TR_I	転入率
TR_O	転出率
LR_I	出向による流入率
LR_O	出向による流出率
NGR	雇用純增率
表2-4：常用名義の労働者，採用・離職の男女別推移

HR(採用率)	QR(離職率)
男	女	男	女	男	男	男	女	男
1987	14.8%	5.9%	5.3%	5.3%	3.1%	14.4%	5.7%	5.5%	5.2%
1988	16.3%	7.0%	6.3%	6.3%	3.9%	14.7%	6.2%	6.0%	5.5%
1989	15.9%	6.4%	6.2%	5.7%	3.7%	15.3%	6.0%	6.1%	5.3%
1990	16.7%	6.8%	6.7%	6.1%	4.0%	15.2%	6.3%	6.3%	5.7%
1991	16.4%	6.8%	6.8%	6.0%	3.9%	15.0%	6.0%	6.4%	5.3%
1992	15.6%	6.5%	6.5%	5.7%	3.5%	14.5%	5.8%	6.2%	5.0%
1993	14.0%	6.1%	5.5%	5.4%	3.2%	13.8%	6.0%	5.6%	5.2%
1994	12.7%	5.8%	5.1%	5.2%	2.9%	13.6%	6.0%	5.7%	5.2%
1995	13.2%	6.1%	5.2%	5.4%	2.9%	14.1%	6.3%	5.7%	5.6%
1996	13.5%	6.3%	5.2%	5.5%	2.8%	13.5%	6.2%	5.5%	5.4%
1997	14.1%	6.3%	5.6%	5.4%	2.7%	14.9%	6.9%	5.9%	6.1%
1998	13.6%	5.9%	5.4%	4.9%	2.4%	14.9%	6.6%	6.2%	5.6%
1999	13.7%	5.8%	5.3%	4.5%	1.8%	14.8%	6.3%	6.1%	5.0%
2000	14.4%	5.9%	5.4%	4.5%	1.8%	15.7%	6.7%	6.2%	5.3%
平均	14.6%	6.3%	5.8%	5.4%	3.0%	14.6%	6.2%	5.9%	5.4%
標準偏差	1.3%	0.4%	0.6%	0.5%	0.7%	0.6%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%

表2-5：「転職率（＝労働流出率－雇用喪失率）」の推移

TOR	NGR
1987	12.0%	0.1%
1988	12.6%	1.4%
1989	12.9%	0.8%
1990	12.9%	0.9%
1991	12.3%	1.4%
1992	12.0%	1.1%
1993	10.8%	0.0%
1994	10.6%	-0.8%
1995	10.7%	-1.0%
1996	11.0%	0.0%
1997	11.8%	-0.8%
1998	11.6%	-1.4%
1999	11.7%	-1.0%
2000	12.2%	-1.5%
平均	11.8%	-0.1%
標準偏差	0.8%	1.0%

TORY 「転職率」

NOR 雇用純增率
## 国の債権に係る情報の公表

国土交通省 （社会资本整備事業特別会計業務勘定）

歳入金債権の発生額及び消滅額等の推移

(单位:百万円)

平成22年度	平成23年度	平成24年度
管理对象債權額	消滅額	管理对象債權額	消滅額	管理对象債權額	消滅額
前年度以前兌生未消滅債權分	本年度兌生分	前年度以前兌生分	本年度兌生分	前年度以前兌生未消滅債權分	本年度兌生分	前年度以前兌生分	本年度兌生分	前年度以前兌生未消滅債權分	本年度兌生分	前年度以前兌生分	本年度兌生分
不納欠損額	不納欠損額	不納欠損額	不納欠損額	不納欠損額	不納欠損額
合 計	196,762	184,436	12,326	20,946	16,719	-	4,226	-	188,080	175,812	12,268	21,626	17,855	0	3,771	-	172,918	166,500	6,418	40,431	36,304	3,4127
備 考	【前年度以前兌生分】都市開発資金貸付金債權 180,286都市計画事業資金收益回取特別贷付金債權 2,328【本年度兌生分】都市開発資金贷付金債權 8,034公務員宿舍使用料債權 2,030公務員宿舍使用料債權 1,532	【前年度以前兌生分】都市開発資金贷付金債權 15,433都市計画事業資金收益回取債嬗時贷付金債權 760【本年度兌生分】公務員宿舍使用料債權 2,030不動産兌私代債權 1,532	【前年度以前兌生分】都市開發資金贷付金債權 172,886都市計画事業資金收益回取特別贷付金債權 1,811【本年度兌生分】都市開發資金贷付金債權 5,442损害賠償金債權 2,526	【前年度以前兌生分】都市開發資金贷付金債權 17,198都市計画事業資金收益回取債嬗時贷付金債權 427【本年度兌生分】公務員宿舍使用料債權 2,030不動産兌私代債權 1,907	【前年度以前兌生分】都市開發資金贷付金債權 161,130损害賠償金債權 2,467【本年度兌生分】都市計画事業資金收益回取債嬗時贷付金債權 402【本年度兌生分】不動産兌私代債權 1,827公務員宿舍使用料債權 1,827

※消滅額の項中「うち不納欠損額」は、歳入徴収官事務規程（昭和二十七年大蔵省令第百四十一号）第二十七条第一項各号に該当する金額の合計額であり、消滅額の内数。

歳入金債権の年度末現在額の推移

(单位:百万円)

平成22年度末現在額	平成23年度末現在額	平成24年度末現在額
一般分(徴収停止分を除く。)	徴収停止分	一般分(徴収停止分を除く。)	徴収停止分	一般分(徴収停止分を除く。)	徴収停止分
本年度発生債權分	前年度以前発生債權分	合計	本年度發生債權分	前年度以前發生債權分	本年度發生債權分	合計	本年度發生債權分	前年度以前發生債權分	本年度發生債權分	合計	本年度發生債權分	前年度以前發生債權分
履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	本年度發生債權分	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	本年度發生債權分	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	履行期限未到來額	履行期限到來額	本年度發生債權分
債權の種類
歳入(款)運用収入(項)運用金回收(目)都市開発資金貸付金債權(款)償還金収入(項)償還金収入(目)都市計画事業資金收益回收特別貸付金債權(目)都市計画事業資金收益回收償還時貸付金債權(款)雑収入(項)雑収入(目)公務員宿舍使用料債權(目)物件使用料債權(目)費用弁償金債權(目)立替金返還金債權(目)返納金債權(目)延滯金債權(目)损害賠償金債權(目)利息債權	-	-	-	2,783	-	2,783	-	-	-	-	2,140	-	2,140	-	-	-	-	-	1,452	-	1,452	-
-	-	-	1,811	-	1,811	-	-	-	-	-	1,595	-	1,595	-	-	-	-	-	1,310	-	1,310	-
-	-	-	972	-	972	-	-	-	-	-	544	-	544	-	-	-	-	-	142	-	142	-

0	65	27	53	27	118	-	-	3,048	7	34	93	3,083	100	-	-	6	3	3,073	96	3,080	100	-
0	0	-	-	0	0	-	-	-	0	-	-	-	0	-	-	0	-	-	0	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0	-	-	-	0	-	-	-	-	0	-	0	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-	3	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0	-	-	0	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
0	65	25	51	25	116	-	-	7	6	33	92	41	98	-	-	0	3	32	94	32	98	-
-	-	-	0	-	0	-	-	578	-	-	0	578	0	-	-	0	0	577	0	578	0	-
0	-	1	1	1	1	-	-	2,462	0	1	1	2,463	1	-	-	1	-	2,463	1	2,465	1	-
-	-	0	-	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0	-	0	-	-
合計	0	8,099	27	167,689	27	175,789	-	-	3,048	5,449	34	157,922	3,083	163,371	-	-	6	2,284	3,073	127,122	3,080	129,406

※1. 計数はそれぞれ単位未満切り捨てによってので、端数において合計とは合致しないものがある。

※2. 「特別会計に関する法律」附則第六十七条第一項第三号の規定により設置された都市開発資金融通特別会計が廃止されたことに伴い、同法附則二百四十九条第三項の規定により都市開発資金融通特別会計の平成十九年度末における権利義務は、本会計の本勘定に帰属した。
# Outline of the 2008 NPA Remuneration Recommendation

O Points of the 2008 Remuneration Recommendation (No revision of monthly salary and bonus this year)

## ① (i) Monthly Basic Salary

No Revision of Monthly Remuneration because of the tiny remuneration differential between the public sector and the private sector (0.04%)

(ii) Others

Special Improvement in remuneration for medical doctors

② No revision of the End-of-Term and Diligence Allowance (bonus). (Almost in balance with payment level of the private sector)

③ The steady enforcement of the Reform of the Remuneration Structure. (Establishment of the Headquarters Activities Allowance)

### I. Basic Concept of the Remuneration Recommendation

The NPA Remuneration Recommendation functions to ensure appropriate remuneration for national public employees as a compensatory measure for restrictions of fundamental labor rights. It provides the basis for maintaining efficient administration.

##

Since it is difficult to determine national public employee remuneration levels by market mechanisms, the most reasonable method of determination is to follow the private sector's remuneration rates, which are determined by labor-management negotiations and reflect the current economic and employment situation.

### I I. Remuneration Revision based on Remuneration Differential between the Public and the Private Sectors

### 1. Remuneration Comparison between the Public and the Private Sectors

A field survey was conducted on approximately 440,000 individual remunerations of about 11,000 private enterprise establishments. (Survey completion rate: 89.0 %.)

## $ ^{※} $ Increasing the subject of the survey by about 900 private enterprise establishments and more carefully surveying for 100 or more employees on an establishment-wide basis across the country

##

The NPA surveyed actual remuneration paid for April 2008 in the national public sector and
the private sector, and compared the equivalent groups of data that hold the same major remuneration-determining factors such as post level, age, educational background, and area of service.

## ○ Remuneration Differential between the Public and the Private Sectors:

136 yen, 0.04% [Administrative Service (I) -- Employee average monthly remuneration: 387,506 yen, Average age: 41.1 years old]

☐ Special Improvement in Remuneration for Medical Doctors (To be enforced on April 1, 2009)

Although it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit medical doctors for national medical facilities, the remuneration levels of national medical doctors is seriously below in private hospitals and National Hospital Organizations. Therefore recruitment incentive allowance should be improved for attracting young and middle-aged medical doctors (average increase of 11% to the remuneration level in National Hospital Organizations on annual salary base).

##

The NPA surveyed actual bonus payments (payment rates) in the private sector, which were paid from August 2007 to July 2008, and compared the actual bonus payment rates of the private sector with the average annual payment rate of the End-of-term and Diligence Allowance in the national public sector, which is provided as a multiplier to a monthly remuneration.

## ☐ Private Sector's Payment Rate:

4.50 times as much as the monthly remuneration (End-of-term and Diligence Allowance in the national public sector: 4.50 times as much as monthly remuneration.)

### 2. Other Issues

## (1) Housing Allowance

The NPA will consider the Housing Allowance, aiming to express the abolishment of the allowance for employees who own a house at the next NPA Remuneration Recommendation, and will continue to consider the allowance for employees who live in a rented house, apartment or room, the basis of the actual state of employees who pay a high rent.

## (2) Family Unattended Transfer Allowance

The NPA will consider improvements, based on the actual state of economic expenses and the payment state of comparable allowances in the private sector.
## (3) Remuneration for Part-Time Employees

The NPA will formulate guidelines that contain several points for consideration on determining the remuneration for part-time employees. The issue of part-time employees needs further consideration, including issues concerning their status, by the whole government.

### I II. Reform of Remuneration Structure

• The NPA is proceeding with the reform of the whole remuneration system including salaries and allowances. So far the revisions of remuneration distribution structure among areas, the control of the seniority-based remuneration increase and so on have been carried out steadily.

• After completing the period of Reform of Remuneration Structures, the NPA will consider what the remuneration distribution structure among areas should be, and necessary revisions for further advancing the principle of ability and achievements on remuneration. Moreover, the NPA will consider the appropriate pay level and structure, accompanied by consideration concerning the employment problems facing employees who are in their early sixties. The NPA will prepare the overall consideration for addressing these problems.

### 1. Matters to be carried out in FY 2009

## (1) Establishment of the Headquarters Activities Allowance

Considering the distinctiveness and hardship of headquarters' duties, for example planning and framing national administrative measures, negotiating with foreign countries, coordinating relevant administrative organs and coping with the Diet, and the recently difficult situation for recruitment at headquarters in each ministry, the Headquarters Activities Allowance should be provided for headquarters' assistant directors, unit chiefs, and officers, in place of the existing managerial allowance for headquarters' assistant directors. (To be enforced on April 1, 2009)

- The amount of the Headquarters Activities Allowance for the participants of Salary Schedule for the Administrative Service (I)

Assistant Directors ••• The monthly amount of Managerial allowance, multiplied by 18% (17% in FY 2009)

Under Unit Chief ••• The monthly Salary at pay steps corresponding to the average of employee’s distribution at each grade, multiplied by 4% (2% in FY 2009) for Unit Chief, or 2% (1% in FY 2009).
## (2) Revision of Area Allowance Pay Rate

The Area Allowance pay rates shall be revised gradually by FY 2010. During the period from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, the provisional pay rates shall be increased by 1%−3%.

### 2. Advancing Performance-Based Remuneration

Accompanied by the introduction of a new performance appraisal system, the NPA will take the following measures:

- Utilizing the latest appraisal results for step increase, evaluation of work performance in Diligence Allowance and assessment in end-of-term allowance for designated services.

- Preparation for the reduction of pay and grade system for an employee who fails to produce a good performance record based on a new performance appraisal system.

The NPA will take measures for immediately utilizing each appraisal once each appraisal is fixed.
## Chapter 4: Setting the Stage for an Independent and Vibrant Life

## [Realization of a barrier-free society based on the concept of universal design]

Steady progress has been made toward barrier-free buildings, public facilities, and public transport facilities. MLIT has taken a step further to embrace the concept of universal design. Based on the concept, the ministry will continue to move forward with its barrier-free policies, including facility improvement and human assistance.

As part of these efforts, MLIT presented the “Bill Concerning the Promotion of Easier Movement for the Elderly and People with Disabilities” at the 164 $ ^{th} $ session of the Diet. The bill aims to promote the integrated and progressive switchover to a barrier-free society, comprehensively developing barrier-free policies.

Percentage of barrier-free facilities in public transport

As of March 31, 2005

Passenger facilities (with daily average total of users being 5,000 or more)
No. of facilities in total	No. of facilities that meet transport accessibility improvement standard (Note 1)	Percentage
Railway/tramway stations	2,758	1,343	48.7%
Bus terminals	43	33	76.7%
Passenger ship terminals	9	7	77.8%
Airport terminals	22	7	31.8% (100%) (Note 2)

Notes: 1. Transport accessibility improvement standard are defined in the Transport accessibility improvement Law article 4 (in relation to the width of passageways, slopes, escalators, elevators, etc.)

2. By the end of March 2001, all the airport terminals have installed elevators, escalators and slopes accessible to the disabled.

○ Vehicles, etc.

No. of vehicles, etc.	No. of vehicles that meet transport accessibility improvement standard	Percentage
Railway/tramway cars	51,593	14,383	27.9%
Buses	58,197
Low-deck buses	13,144	22.6%
Non-step buses	6,974	12.0%
Passenger ships	1,129	79	7.0%
Airplanes	474	193	40.7%

Number of accreditations under the Accessible and Usable Building Law

FY	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Annual total	11	120	229	320	382	366	332	232	280	367	386
Cumulative total	11	131	360	680	1,062	1,428	1,760	1,992	2,272	2,639	3,025

Source: MLIT

## [Responding to the declining of birth]

MLIT is working to handle the dwindling birthrate in the following ways: by promoting housing acquisition and other benefits that provide the leeway to support raising children; by improving road traffic safety to support raising children; by working on safety measures for play spaces in city parks; and by improving the environment in public transportation, buildings, and elsewhere.