JAPANESE REGIONAL POLICY

JAPANESE REGIONAL POLICY:
IT’S OUTLINE AND CHARACTERISTICS

According to R.J.Samuels, traditionally, Japan has not developed a strong regional consciousness and therefore, in the country, there is rather less substance to the idea of region. At the time, when he conducted studies on Japanese regional politics in late 1970s, various localities in Japan made use of the notion “region” when they demanded something from the central government and the same notion was used by the central government, when it divided up administrative tasks among the localities. According to R.J.Samuels, no other regional identities were in use in Japan at least until 1980s. He and some others seem to refer to groupings of localities, when they write about regional policy matters particularly related to Japan.
Contrary to this, a Japanese source says that a regional development policy of a “compulsory” nature was indeed pursued in the Edo period, two and a half centuries prior to Meiji era (1868). Another Japanese analyst has identified three periods in the country’s history that has to deal with the regional policy, all of which happen to fall to a much later time. They are:
1. The postwar period. This is the period of Japanese economic recovery and resource development, and covers the years 1945 to mid 1950s.　
2. The period of industrialization, urbanization and inter-regional income disparities. The years include mid 1950s to late 1970s. This period is marked with excessive concentration of population and industries in few metropolises including Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Fukuoka and Kitakyushu; rapid depopulation and social disintegration in rural communities; widening of regional income disparities; and drastic environmental problems that required special policies to battle.
3. The period of stable economic growth. This refers to the post industrialization society, when the Japanese population has started aging and the globalization has started. This refers mostly to the years starting from late 1970s. The landmarks of this period include: the advent of information age and urban development; continued polarization with Tokyo continued expanding into a metropolitan region; globalization and industrial transformation from a large-heavy industry to a knowledge-based industry; and rapidly aging society.
Most, if not all, of these major developmental issues was the direct product of Japanese phenomenal economic growth that had swept over the country starting from the 1960s. It can be said that these developmental problems have indeed necessitated the introduction of regional development strategies in Japan and the local governments, namely the prefectural　governments, were the forefront of these regional development policy. According to western analysts including R.J.Samuels, Japanese public administration system is generally of a vertical structure; however, the Japanese localities also form a horizontal structure, when they wish to demand something from the center. Therefore, from the public administrative point of view, the Japanese system is both vertical and horizontal.
So, in Japan, the regional policies are infact enforced by prefectural governments, who are referred to in this report as local governments. Japan's fundamental principles of local self-government are set forth in the Local Autonomy Law, which gives specific legal validity to the principle of local autonomy as insured by the Constitution of Japan. The law makes the division of responsibility between the central and local governments clear by making the local government responsible for a wide range of roles implemented independently and comprehensively in regional administration, while making central government responsible for functions concerning Japan’s existence as a nation in international society, functions concerning the various activities of the general public best implemented uniformly across the country, and functions relating to the basic legal framework for local government.　It was clear that in Japan the local government’s range of functions is extremely broad, and it would be no exaggeration to say that local government’s responsibilities cover all aspects of the country’s domestic life other than diplomacy, national security, trial and prosecution. This division of responsibilities between central and local governments were further made clearer in the Law on Decentralization of Power of 1999.
In fact, Japan really has had a long history of local governance and management experiences, and local governments have both the authority and capability to establish and enforce any kind of laws within their regional areas. This was specially true of the environmental crisis of 1960-1970s. The World Bank publication entitled, “Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance: Japanese Case Studies and Lessons for East Asian Developing Countries” deliberately narrates how Japanese local governments have successfully handled the massive pollution problems that terrorized Japan and the Japanese people. Citizen involvement and citizen reaction is essential in resolving any regional problem. Equally important is the political will of the ruling bureacrats and profit-seeking businesses. Active citizen involvement, extended political support, effective policy enforcement, good interagency coordination, transparent decision-making, integration of concerned regulations, cooperation among public and private bodies, and finally effective regulatory enforcement and compliance are extremely important for success of any regional development plan. This was how the case in Japan. At the time, when Japan was struggling to resolve the environmental hazards, the local governments were amazingly authoritative and powerful. I was amazed to read that local governments were actually involved in approving soft loan proposals submitted by industries by evaluating if the investment was really needed. This is something, which is not expected in my country and I don’t expect it in the near 50 years.
In conclusion, the involvement of local governments in implementation of regional revitalization development policies must indeed be highly commended. For one thing, the national government is often too far away, or is often too unknowledgeable about the local problems or it has become too difficult for the national government to address every issue. Therefore, the local areas can be developed and revitalized through positive involvement of local authorities as well as local residents from the regional perspectives. I have also read that since decentralization has started on a full-fledged scale in Japan, the concerned authorities in Japan are designing new plans, responding to changes of the times and supporting local governments so that they will be able to take positive measures to deal with important tasks, such as hometown development programs, community development programs, promotion of the independence of depopulated areas, revitalization of central urban districts, town planning for coexistence, measures for protecting regional environments and national lands, measures against declining birthrate, aging population, and regional diffusion of information technology. Some of them, for example, the solution of environmental problems, have been very successful so far and I have no doubt the others will be equally successful.

REFERENCE:

1. The Politics of Regional Policy in Japan: Localities Incorporated?- Richard J.Samuels, 1983 Princeton University Press
2. Nation Building and Regional Development: The Japanese Experience- Edited by H.Nagamine, 1981 UN Center for Regional Development
3. Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance: Japanese Case Studies and Lessons for Developing Countries- World Bank publication, 2005
4. http://www.soumu.go.jp/english/index.html
5. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/observatory/index.html