Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## What are the revenue sources for local governments' activities?

## 1 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 FY2016, General revenue resources accounted for 58.2%.

## Composition of Revenues (FY2016 settlement)

: Collected as a national tax and transferred to local governments. Includes Local gasoline transfer tax, etc.

Special local grants : Special local grants in FY2016 include special grants for covering decreases in local tax revenues issued to cover decreases in revenues of local governments in association with the implementation of special tax deductions for housing loans in the individual inhabitant 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 page.13, "6. Local Allocation Tax.")

: 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.

: 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.

Bonds for the extraordinary : Local bonds issued as an exception to Article 5 of the Local Finance Law to address shortages of General revenue resources of local governments. Proceeds from these bonds can be used for expenses other than investment expenses.

Note: “National treasury disbursements” includes “special grants to measures for traffic safety” and “grants to cities, towns and villages where national institutions are located.”
## Other revenue resources

## 2 Revenues in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion

## Net Total

## Prefectures

## Municipalities

#### Other revenue resources ¥9,194.1 billion (16.3%)

## Local bonds

#### ¥4,778.6 billion (8.4%)

#### Prefectural disbursements ¥3,618.8 billion (6.4%)

#### National treasury disbursements ¥8,865.2 billion (15.6%)

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥488.0 billion (0.9%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥44.5 billion (0.1%)

☑ General revenue resources

¥355.6 billion (14.3%)

Of this amount, earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax was ¥290.2 billion (11.7%)

National treasury disbursements

#### ¥985.1 billion (39.6%)

Of this amount, grants to measures for earthquake disaster reconstruction were ¥32.1 billion (1.3%)

## ☑ General revenue resources

#### ¥246.7 billion (14.5%)

Of this amount, ordinary construction expenses were ¥48.4 billion (2.8%)

Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were ¥63.2 billion (3.7%)

Of this amount, grants to measures for earthquake disaster reconstruction were ¥131.5 billion (7.7%)

Prefectural disbursements

¥335.2 billion (19.7%) local bonds

¥110.6 billion (6.5%)
## 3 Revenue Trends

The ratio of general revenue resources turned downward in FY2011, but have been rising since FY2014.

## Net Total

[ ] shows general revenue resources + bonds for the extraordinary financial measures.

Note: “National treasury disbursements” includes “special grants to measures for traffic safety” and “grants to cities, towns and villages where national institutions are located.”
## 4 Ratio of National Taxes and Local Taxes

The total of taxes collected as national and local taxes amounted to ¥98,348.7 billion. Of this amount, national and local taxes accounted for 59.9% and 40.1% respectively.

## 5 Local Taxes

Note : Municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government are included in municipal tax revenue figures, but not included in prefectural tax revenue figures.

Local taxes consist of prefectural taxes and municipal taxes.

## Composition of Revenue from Prefectural Taxes (FY2016 settlement)

## Composition of Revenue from Municipal Taxes (FY2016 settlement)
Prefectural tax revenues have increased for five consecutive years since FY2012.

## Trends in Prefectural Tax Revenues

Municipal tax revenues remained at almost the same level for the past five years.

## 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 2.4 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)

Local taxes total

Individual inhabitant tax

Two corporate taxes

Local consumption tax (post settlement)

Fixed asset tax

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 exclude overassessment and discretionary taxes, etc.

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 (excluding local corporation special transfer tax) and excludes overassessment, etc.

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 January 1, 2017.
## 6 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 (in FY2016 33.1% for Income tax and Corporate tax, 50% for Liquor tax, 22.3% for Consumption tax, and the total amount of Local corporate tax).

The total amount of the Local allocation tax in FY2016 was ¥17,239.0 billion, down 0.9% 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-designated cities, Core cities, and Special cities at the time of the effective date, and a “Small city” refers to a city with a population of less than 100,000.
Educational expenses : Expenses for school education, social education, etc.

## What are expenses spent on?

## Expenses Classified by Purpose

Classifying the expenses by purpose 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 administrative expenses, and Civil engineering work expenses account for the largest amounts in that order.

## Composition of Expenditure Classified by Purpose (FY2016 settlement)

General administrative expenses : Expenses for general administration, financial management, accounting administration, etc.

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.

Civil engineering work expenses : Expenses for the construction and maintenance of public facilities, such as roads, rivers, housing, and parks.

Debt service : Expenses for the payment of principal, interest, etc., on debts.
## 2 Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Purpose)

## Net total

## Prefectures

## Municipalities
## 3 Breakdown of Expenses Classified by Purpose

Public welfare expenses for FY2016 rose significantly when compared to those for FY2006.

## Trends in Expenditures Classified by Purpose

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

Net total

¥26,340.8 billion

¥821.4 billion (3.1%)

¥3,993.9 billion (15.2%)

¥8,152.6 billion (31.0%)

¥6,219.3 billion (23.6%)

¥7,153.6 billion (27.2%)

## Prefectures

¥8,554.8 billion

¥832.1 billion (9.7%)

¥248.9 billion (2.9%)

¥1,669.8 billion (19.5%)

¥3,134.5 billion (36.6%)

¥2,669.4 billion (31.2%)

Municipalities

¥21,012.8 billion

¥308.4 billion (1.5%)

¥3,784.7 billion (18.0%)

¥7,533.7 billion (35.9%)

¥3,732.8 billion (17.8%)

¥5,653.3 billion (26.9%)

## Breakdown of Educational Expenses by Purpose

## Net total

¥16,745.8 billion

¥1,386.9 billion (8.3%)

¥2,970.3 billion (17.7%)

¥1,474.2 billion (8.8%)

¥1,232.2 billion (7.4%)

¥2,271.3 billion (13.6%)

¥2,752.0 billion (16.4%)

¥4,658.9 billion (27.8%)

## Prefectures

¥11,104.9 billion

¥1,044.4 billion (9.5%)

¥2,147.1 billion (19.3%)

¥188.9 billion (1.7%)

¥192.1 billion (1.7%)

¥2,132.7 billion (19.2%)

¥2,024.8 billion (18.2%)

¥3,374.9 billion (30.4%)

### Municipalities ¥5,750.3 billion

¥349.1 billion (6.1%)

¥876.6 billion (15.2%)

¥1,298.0 billion (22.6%)

¥1,053.8 billion (18.3%)

¥153.0 billion (2.7%)

¥731.0 billion (12.7%)

¥1,288.8 billion (22.4%)

## Breakdown of Civil Engineering Work Expenses by Purpose

### Net total ¥12,018.2 billion

¥611.6 billion (5.1%)

¥1,248.2 billion (10.4%)

¥4,233.8 billion (35.2%)

¥421.9 billion (3.5%)

¥1,305.1 billion (10.9%)

¥4,197.6 billion (34.9%)

## Prefectures

¥5,557.3 billion

¥284.2 billion (5.2%)

¥503.0 billion (9.1%)

¥947.2 billion (17.0%)

¥279.0 billion (5.0%)

¥1,146.1 billion (20.6%)

¥2,397.8 billion (43.1%)

### Municipalities ¥6,653.1 billion

¥345.9 billion (5.3%)

¥780.4 billion (11.7%)

¥3,349.6 billion(50.3%)

¥165.3 billion (2.5%)

¥173.0 billion (2.6%)

¥1,838.9 billion (27.6%)
## What are expenses used for?

## 4 Expenses Classified by Type

Expenses are also classified, according to their economic nature, into “Mandatory expenses” (consisting of Personnel expenses, Social 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, Reserves, Transfers to other accounts).

## Composition of Expenditures Classified by Type (FY2016 settlement)

## Reserves

Subsidizing expenses ¥9,842.2 billion (10.0%)

Goods expenses ___ ¥9,496.8 billion (9.7%)

## I nvestment expenses

¥15,125.2 billion (15.4%)

Ordinary construction work expenses ¥14,306.9 billion (14.6%)
## 5 Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Type)

Net total

Prefectures

Municipalities
## 6 Breakdown of Expenses Classified by Type

Social assistance expenses, Subsidizing expenses, Transfers to other accounts, and Goods expenses have been rising.

Trends in Expenditures Classified by Type

Trends in Breakdown of Social Assistance Expenses by Purpose
Personnel expenses for FY2016 decreased year on year due mainly to a decrease in Retirement allowances associated with the retirement of personnel.

## Trends in Personnel Expenses

Breakdown of Personnel Expenses by Item
Ordinary construction work expenses increased year on year due mainly to an increase in Non-subsidized public works. In addition, Civil Engineering Work Expenses account for the largest ratio in the breakdown of Ordinary construction work expenses by purpose.

## Trends in Breakdown of Ordinary Construction Work Expenses Classified by Type

## Breakdown of Ordinary Construction Work Expenses by Purpose
## Expenditures

## Trends in Breakdown of Subsidizing Expenses by Purpose

Trends in Breakdown of Transfers to Other Accounts
# Flexibility of the Financial Structure

## How financially capable are local governments to respond to local demands?

It is necessary that local governments have financial resources for not only the Mandatory expenses but also for the expenses for projects to properly address challenges caused by changes in the social economy and administrative needs so that they can adequately meet the needs of their residents. The extent to which the resources for such purposes are secured is called the “flexibility of the financial structure.”

## 1 Ordinary Balance Ratio

The FY2016 Ordinary balance ratio rose 1.7 percentage points year on year to 93.4%, staying above 90% for 13 consecutive years.

Ordinary balance ratio = $ \frac{\text{General revenue resources allotted to personnel expenses, Social assistance expenses, Debt service, etc.}}{\text{Ordinary general revenue resources, etc. (Local tax + Regular local allocation tax, etc.)} + \text{Special exception portion of loans for covering decreases in Local tax revenues} + \text{Bonds for temporary substitution of local allocation tax}} $ ×100

The Ordinary balance ratio is the proportion of General revenue resources allotted to Ordinary expenses such as Personnel expenses, Social assistance expenses, Debt service and other annually disbursed expenses with regularity to a total amount of Ordinary general revenue resources primarily consisting of Local tax and Regular local allocation tax, Special exception portion of loans for covering decreases in Local tax revenues and Bonds for temporary substitution of Local allocation tax.

## Trends in the Ordinary Balance Ratio

* Special wards and partial administrative associations, etc., are not included in total and municipalities.

## Breakdown of Ordinary Balance Ratio (Total)
# Flexibility of the Financial Structure

## 2 Real Debt Service Ratio and Debt Service Payment Ratio

Close attention should be paid to the trend of the Debt service, which is the expense required to repay the principal and interest of the debts of local governments and has an especially negative impact on financial flexibility. The Real debt service ratio and the Debt service payment ratio are indices that measure the extent of the burden of the Debt service.

## Trends in the Real Debt Service Ratio

* Real debt service ratio : The real debt service ratio is an index of the size of the redemption amount of debts (local bonds) and similar expenditure, and represents the cash-flow level.

## Trends in the Debt Service Payment Ratio

* Debt service payment ratio : The Debt service payment ratio indicates the ratio of general revenue resources allocated for debt service (amount of repayment of the principal and interest on local bonds) in the total amount of General revenue resources. This index is used to measure the flexibility of the financial structure by assessing the degree to which Debt service restricts the freedom of use of General revenue resources.
# Future Financial Burden

## What is the status of debt in local public finance?

## 1 Trends in Outstanding Local Government Bonds and Debt Burden

Real future financial burden resulting from Outstanding local government bonds and Debt burden amounted to ¥136,903.8 billion at the end of FY2016, down 0.5% year on year.

Notes: 1. Outstanding local government bonds excludes special fund public investment bonds.

2. Debt burden is the amount scheduled to be expended in the following fiscal years.

## 2 Trends in Outstanding Borrowing Borne by the Ordinary Accounts

Outstanding local public finance borrowing, which includes borrowing in the special account for Local allocation tax and Transfer tax for addressing revenue resource shortages, as well as the redemption of Public enterprise bonds borne by the Ordinary accounts, remains at a high level, amounting to ¥197 trillion at the end of FY2016.

Notes : 1. Outstanding local government bonds excludes special fund public investment bonds.

2. Outstanding public enterprise bonds (in ordinary accounts) are estimates based on the settlement account statistics
## 3 Trends in Balance of Funds

Reserves on hand (excluding the Great East Japan Earthquake portion) at the end of FY2016 was ¥21.5 trillion, an increase of ¥7.9 trillion from the end of FY2006.

☐ Public finance adjustment fund ☐ Sinking fund ☐ Special purpose fund ☐ Great East Japan Earthquake portion (Special purpose fund, etc., including the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake portion)

Notes : 1. The Great East Japan Earthquake portion includes the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake portion (FY2016: ¥51.8 billion).

2. Reserves on hand do not include the amount of reserves for Sinking fund to be appropriated for principal and interest for local government bonds to be redeemed in full on maturity.

## Why has the balance of funds increased?

The balance of funds increased over the 10 years mainly due to systemic factors such as the central government's policies and municipal mergers, measures for the aging of public facilities as well as preparations for disaster and various other future events. The funds increased as many organizations set aside reserves while striving to carry out administrative reform and reduce expenses.

Factors in increase	Increase amount	Receiving organization	Non-receiving organization
(1) Systemic factors	2.3	2.1	0.1
1. Increase in Special purpose fund based on the central government's policies $ *^{1} $	0.6	0.5	0.1
2. Increase in funds to prepare for completion of special measures associated with mergers, etc. $ *^{2} $	1.7	1.7	0.0
(2) Other preparations for future decrease in revenues and future increase in expenditures $ *^{3} $	5.7	3.1	2.5
Revenues	1. Fluctuations in corporate taxes, etc. resulting from economic trends	0.8	0.5
2. Decrease in tax revenues due to population decrease	0.3	0.3
Expenditures	3. Measures for the aging of public and other facilities, etc.	2.0	1.0
4. Preparations for Disaster	0.9	0.6
5. Increase in social security-related expenses	0.7	0.3
6. Other	0.8	0.4
Total	7.9	5.3	2.7

Note : In some cases, figures in the table do not add up exactly to the total as values less than the given unit are rounded off.

$ ^{*} $ 1. Funds established based on the central government’s policies such as the Fund for comprehensively securing regional health and long-term care and the Fund for stabilizing medical care finance for the latter-stage elderly.

$ ^{*} $ 2. Estimated based on survey results and the difference in balance of funds between merged organizations and non-merged organizations.

* 3. Public finance adjustment fund has been estimated based on the order of reasons for setting aside reserves indicated by survey results, while the Special purpose fund has been estimated based on the classification of uses indicated by survey results.
# Local Public Enterprises

## What is the status of local public enterprises?

## 1 Presence of Local Public Enterprises

Local public enterprises play a major role in improving the standard of living of residents.

Current water-supply population

Out of 124.96 million

124.40 million (99.6%)

Sewage disposal population

Out of 115.31 million

104.07 million

(90.2%)

No. of passengers per year

Out of 24,600 million

3,376 million (13.7%)

No. of passengers per year

Out of 4,600 million

928 million (20.2%)

No. of hospital beds

Out of 1,561,000

179,000

(11.5%)

Notes: 1. The graph shows the ratio of local public enterprises when the total number of business entities nationwide is set at 100.

2. Figures for the total number of enterprises nationwide have been compiled from statistical materials of related organizations.

## 2 Number of Businesses Operated by Local Public Enterprises

8,534 businesses are operated by local public enterprises. By type of business, sewerage accounts for the largest ratio, followed, in order, by water supply, hospitals, care services, and residential development.

## 3 Scale of Financial Settlement

The scale of total financial settlement is ¥16,933.9 billion. By type of business, sewerage accounts for the largest ratio, followed, in order, by hospitals, total water supply, transportation, and residential development.
## 4 Financial Status

Local public enterprises had a surplus of ¥723.5 billion. By type of business, water supply, electricity, gas and sewages showed a surplus.

## Trends in the Financial Status of Local Public Enterprises
## 1 Settlement of Disaster-Struck Organizations

### 1. Specified Disaster-Struck Prefectures

In FY2016, the total revenues of the nine specified disaster-struck prefectures amounted to ¥10,689.3 billion, decreasing by ¥159.1 billion year on year, or 1.5% (0.8% national decrease). Total expenditures of the entities amounted to ¥10,227.8 billion, decreasing by ¥120.2 billion year on year, or 1.2% (1.0% national decrease).

* Specified disaster-struck prefectures: Prefectures stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Public Finance Support and Assistance to Deal with the Great East Japan Earthquake (Act No. 40 of 2011). These prefectures are Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba, Niigata, and Nagano prefectures.

Revenues

## Expenditures Classified by Purpose

Expenditures Classified by Type