Study group for a regional decentralization system and the Atataka Decentralization Project (hereinafter referred to as the Decentralization Project)

Transcription

1 SUB MODULE 3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREFECTURES AND MUNICIPALITIES Case Study 3 Decentralization Reform in Mie Prefectures In this case study, we will look at a local effort at building a decentralized society through cooperation between prefectures and municipalities, as equal partners. This trial was started in response to the municipalities anxiety in regard to the changes brought about by bigger-sized municipalities created by mergers. Outline of local decentralization reform in Mie prefectures Study group for a regional decentralization system and the Atataka Decentralization Project (hereinafter referred to as the Decentralization Project) Statement by Governor Noro: Organize new meetings to gather municipal opinions In order to promote local decentralization, the Mie prefecture has decided to introduce a study group for the regional decentralization system and the Decentralization Project. The study group will be made up of officers in charge of mergers (between the prefecture and each municipality). The Decentralization Project study group is tasked with the purpose of listening to the opinions of municipal officers. This decision was announced by Governor Noro at a meeting between the governor and municipal chiefs. The study group and the Decentralization Project will begin in June, at the earliest. The study group is being formed in response to anxiety expressed by municipalities about recent mergers. Their concerns are based on the size of merged municipalities, resulting in the loss of regional characteristics and the expression of opinions from the regions. Members of the study group will include the section chiefs from the prefecture and municipalities, and well-known individuals from the private sector. The group is expected to develop an organizational structure that will appropriately reflect the requests by residents to the local administration, and a structure through which residents can solve their own regional problems. Through the Decentralization Project, the prefecture will learn of municipal opinions and concerns about the merger, such as issues relating to the sharing of duties and the allocation of subsidies. Governor Noro said, We would like to listen carefully to the municipal opinions, in order to build a decentralized society through cooperation between prefecture and municipalities. The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 23 rd, Chubu area edition 1

2 The Mie prefecture tried to build a system that would help the transfer of authority and reduce the amount of prefectural intervention. It may enable the prefecture and municipalities to conduct their own affairs and projects through cooperation, based on appropriate and clear role sharing. It should also enable the merged municipalities to handle the activities close to the residents as independently and as broadly as possible. To facilitate the ability of the prefecture and municipalities to discuss local administration matters as partners, the Mie prefecture adopted a two-step approach. First, it sent out questionnaires to municipalities. Subsequently, meetings were held to exchange opinions with local decentralization units in each municipality. Based on these steps, the discussion points were summarized under four categories and disclosed to the public. Category 1 Activities and projects under a municipal responsibility within the current system, but prefectural intervention exists Category 2 Activities and projects under a prefectural responsibility within the current system, but municipality involvement exists Category 3 Activities and projects for which role sharing is not clear Category 4 Other issues relating to the processing of activities and the legal system Two meetings were coordinated to investigate the issues around these discussion points. One was held among municipal officers in charge of decentralization issues in each municipality. The other was held between the governor and municipal chiefs. 2

3 Flow of Decentralization Project 1. Explanatory meeting Objectives, Contents and Project Schedule. Time: End of June Beginning of July Target: All municipalities 2. Questionnaires Time: End of June Beginning of July (send out questionnaires) Beginning of July - Mid July (receive completed questionnaires) Target: All municipalities 3. Exchange opinions Meetings between prefecture and municipalities to list the problems and exchange opinions based on questionnaire responses. Time: End of July End of September Target: All municipalities (section in charge of decentralization) (more than one meeting will be held, if necessary) 4. Meetings for Decentralization Promotion Time / Target: Mid to end October (among municipal officers in charge of decentralization issues), Subjects of focus for the Decentralization Project November 26 (among the governor and municipal chiefs) Topics: Disclose municipal opinions and discuss future directions. The Decentralization Project was carried out in accordance with the following subjects set by the prefecture: Structure of connection and cooperation between the prefecture and the municipalities Methodology for transferring authority to the municipalities Prefectural subsidy to individual municipalities and a prefectural share of municipal expenses Prefectural and central governmental intervention in municipal business Putting the Mie prefecture decentralization policy into effect (Basic strategy 2, Raising municipal spontaneity, see below) Proposal for the promotion of a decentralized society Prior to the Decentralization Project, the Mie prefecture had put together a proposal for the promotion of a decentralized society. In that proposal, raising municipal spontaneity was among the basic strategies in terms of the relationship between prefecture and municipalities. The fifth subject of the Decentralization Project, raising municipal spontaneity, came from the proposal. Understanding the relationships between the prefecture and municipalities in Mie prefecture 3

4 The following quote from the proposal for the promotion of a decentralized society in Mie prefecture (2002) reflects the relationship between the Mie prefecture and the municipalities: Until the Comprehensive Decentralization Law was implemented, prefectures acted as local branch offices of central ministries and intervened in municipalities at random. It was a top-bottom relationship between the prefecture and the municipalities. In various sectors, such as health, welfare, and urban planning, the role sharing between prefecture and municipalities was neither clear in practice nor clearly regulated by law. Along with issues related to subsidies and administrative guidance, this resulted in a repetition of administrative services as well as the loss of municipal independence. These situations often hindered municipal functions and resulted in the creation of a new local government system that was difficult for the residents to understand. Proposal to improve government relationships Basic strategy 2, Raising municipal spontaneity This proposal was made to clarify the role sharing between prefecture and municipalities, and to distribute their roles more appropriately. It involved reducing the intervention by the prefecture into the affairs of the municipalities as much as possible, so that the municipalities were able to build a unique and independent administration. This meant that a prefecture would need to review its loans and subsidies to the municipalities in order to reduce its levels of intervention. Secondly, the municipalities would develop a comprehensive system of conducting administrative matters close to the residents, based on the size and characteristics of the regions. At the same time, in order to encourage municipal independence, the prefecture would transfer its comprehensive authority, including the authority over financial and manpower issues. Findings of the Project Relationship between municipalities and the prefecture / central government Questionnaires were sent out to all 69 municipalities in the Mie prefecture. Based on the responses from these questionnaires, the Decentralization Project generated as many as 815 expressions of opinion. A summary of the categorized opinions is 4

5 shown below. Category 1 Activities and under a municipal responsibility within the current system, but prefectural intervention exists (283 opinions, total) Requests to relax those standards for receiving prefectural subsidies that are intended to guide the development of leading municipalities (201 opinions) Requests to provide officers with specialized skills in health and welfare sectors (58 opinions) Category 2 Activities and projects under a prefectural responsibility within the current system, but municipality involvement exists (294 opinions, total) Requests for information relating to the transfer of authority in cases where municipalities are conducting activities on behalf of prefectures (117 opinions) Requests for municipal consultations over their share of expenses on prefectural projects (54 opinions) Requests to improve prefectural response to issues raised by residents [referring to prefectural issues dealt with by municipalities, such as road and river management] (51 opinions) Category 3 Activities and projects with which role sharing is not clear (84 opinions, total) The need to integrate or strengthen the cooperation between prefecture and municipalities in their joint provision of services, such as town events, consumer administration, and waste disposal (84 opinions) Category 4 Issues relating to processing of actions and the legal system (154 opinions, total) The need to simplify all research reports and submission materials (154 opinions) Raising municipal spontaneity The questionnaire also gathered opinions and suggestions on how to raise municipal spontaneity, referring to Basic strategy 2 of the Mie prefecture decentralization policy. The opinions can be classified into three categories. 1. Conducting of integrated projects 5

6 40 out of 69 municipalities agreed to conduct integrated projects; 13 municipalities came up with a list of 17 suggestions for integrated projects. *Integrated projects (extracted from the proposal for a decentralized society in Mie) An integrated project is a system that entrusts municipalities with the execution of a prefectural project. It is considered beneficial to the residents if conducted closely with municipal projects. This system would offer subsidies to the project budgets and provide prefectural officers to assist the projects. 2. Comprehensive transfer of authority Of 69 municipalities, 39 wished for a comprehensive transfer of authority in such areas as welfare, town planning, etc. *Comprehensive transfer of authority (from the proposal for a decentralized Mie society) To do this, first we review all prefectural businesses to segregate those activities whose authorities are transferable to municipalities. Then, we divide them according to specific administrative sectors (such as town planning ) and allocate each sector to the municipalities, depending on the size and capability of each municipality. 3. Integration of subsidies 45 of 69 municipalities wished for the integration of subsidies, mostly in the areas of industrial promotion and social welfare. *Integration of subsidies (from the proposal for a decentralized society in Mie) This is accomplished by abolishing prefectural subsidies, except those under prefectural obligation, and installing an integrated subsidy fund for subsidies with unspecified uses. This is expected to expand the options for a municipality s independent judgments. Capital for the fund would come from the canceled subsidies and redemptions from municipal promotional loans. Summary and Case Study Discussion The purpose of the Decentralization Project was to reconsider the relationship between the prefecture and the municipalities, in response to their concerns brought about by the large municipalities created by mergers. Opinions of the municipalities were gathered not only from questionnaires, but also from several meetings between prefectural officers and municipal officers in charge 6

7 of local decentralization issues. This methodology helped prefectures affirm their commitment to the transfer of authority and a reduction of their intervention in all municipalities. At the same time, it helped prefectures understand the issues relating to authority transfer and the needs of municipalities after the merger. 7