Ibaraki Holmes Presentation

8/3/2019 Ibaraki Holmes Presentation

1/25

Central-local Relations in Japan and

the Philippines: The limits of

decentralizationRonald D. Holmes

Japan Foundation Intellectual Exchange Fellow 2010

Ibaraki UniversityAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, De La Salle University


2/25

Outline

Introduction the focus of the research

What has happened?

What has not happened?

Why things remain the same?

On recent developments


3/25

Focus of the research

Examine the outcomes of decentralization efforts,

specifically whether local governments have become

more autonomous from central government

How decentralization has changed the relationship

between national and local government leaders?


4/25

Shared and differing institutionalarrangements

SHARED

Unitary system

Laws that emphasize local

autonomy

Direct elections of local

executive and local

assembly

DIFFERING

Parliamentary system in

Japan versus Presidential

government in the

Philippines

Tiers of government- 3 in

Japan; 4 in the Philippines


5/25

Reforms

JAPAN

Deliberations from the

17th LSRC to

Gyokakushins

Formation of

Decentralization

Commission and passage

of a series of laws or

programs

PHILIPPINES

Renewed call for local

autonomy after 1986

Transition

Decentralization under

the 1990 New Local

Government Code


6/25

Objectives of reform

JAPAN

Streamline administration

for the purpose of financial

reconstruction

Respond more effectively

to varied demands of local

communities

PHILIPPINES

Improve service delivery

Secure greater citizen

participation

Promote local development


7/25

What has happened?


8/25

What has happened?

JAPAN

Abolition of agency

delegation functions

Amalgamation

PHILIPPINES

Devolution of functions

Larger IRA

Creation of participatorymechanisms


9/25

Japan Number of Municipalities: 2004-2008


10/25

Philippines: Internal Revenue Allotment

27.71

12.81

8.74

25.53

14.01

19.5

15.49

0

20.26

4.9

0

7.52

9.510.81

14.56

18.63

6.327.94

15.90

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total/Average


11/25

What has not happened?


12/25

Fiscal Autonomy---Japan

Local Allocation Tax

Local Taxes

National Treasury Disbursements

Local Bonds

Other revenue resources


13/25

Fiscal autonomy: Philippines


14/25

Clearer delineation of roles/functions

JAPAN

Shared or overlapping

functions remain despite

abolition of agency delegation

(SEF as masked ADF) Reliance on central

government personnel on

loan (revolving door)

PHILIPPINES

Many statutory mandated

functions

Issue on the control of law

enforcement agents


15/25

Fiscal discipline

JAPAN

Increasing deficits and

debts

Flypaper effect

PHILIPPINES

Under-spending

Flypaper effect


16/25

On Cases


17/25

Maverick localofficialsTakashi Kawamura

Tussle with local assembly

Called for cut in assemblymen salary and residents tax

Resigned and re-elected

Established Genzei Nippon (tax cut Japan)

Alliance with Ozawa

Fielded candidates for March 13 Nagoya elections and won 27 more seatsin Local Council, the only party that gained additional seats

Candidate for Aichi. No. 6 (Masashi Kawamura) constituency routed in April25 By-election.


18/25

Maverick local officialsTORU HASHIMOTO

First term governor

Pushing for Osaka to with a Declared localfocus

Established Osaka Ishin no Kai

Aiming for control of assemblies in OsakaKen, Osaka City, and Sakai city. In the April2011 elections, won a narrow majority of the

seats in the prefectural assembly (57 out of110). In Osaka City, the party has 33 of the86 seats, the largest number of seats held bya party

Resigned recently as governor to view forthe Osaka mayoralty race


19/25

Questions

Does the popularity of these maverick

politicians reflect a resurgence of the

anti-central local executives in the

1960s-1970s? Or are their status

merely a reflection of voters expressing

their dissatisfaction with centralgovernment through local elections?

Will the proposals of these local

politicians propel even more

decentralization or are these merely

contained populist stances thatwould dissipate as soon as there is

more stability in the central

government?


20/25

PHILIPPINES

Quite a number of innovations in the Philippines

But these innovations represent but a fraction of the total

number of local government units

GALING POOK AWARDESS, TOTAL, 1993-2010


21/25

NAGA CITY

Led by a progressive Mayor from 1988 to 2010 (except from 1998-2001),

now Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo

Instituted reforms in local government processes

Worked with civil society groups in ensuring sustained peoples participationthrough a local Citizens Charter

Went further in introducing election of sectoral representatives that did notsee fruition given statutory limits

Passed on mantle of local governance to new set of officials


22/25

Province of Bulacan

One of the Hall of Famers for innovations

Led by a non-traditional governor from 1998-2007

Reforms were personalised

Former governor lost when she run anew in 2010 against a member of an

old political clan


23/25

Why central-local

relations have essentially

remained the same?


24/25

Some explanations

Japan

Decentralist experts versus centralbureaucrats

Political manipulation for electoral

interests

Unstable governments

Uneven spatial development

Bubble burst consequences

Socio-demographic conditions

PHILIPPINES

Statutory constraints

Organizational capacities

Systemic limits

Uneven spatial development Elite capture


25/25

Thank you very much

Documents

Ibaraki Holmes Presentation