Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-5
From a Majority to a Minority: How Municipal Mergers in Japan Changed the Distribution of Political Powers and the Allocation of Public Services Within a Merged Municipality
This article examines whether or not municipal mergers change the perceived level of public services within a merged municipality. I argue that residents of small municipalities that merge with larger neighbors lose political powers after the mergers; they become a minority within a merged municipality, and their electoral importance declines accordingly. As a result, the level of public services to the merged localities is expected to decrease. I test this argument by focusing on the nationwide concurrence of municipal mergers in Japan that rapidly took place in the 2000s. I conducted a survey of voters in rural municipalities that merged and those that remained intact during this wave of mergers. Using the responses to the survey, I demonstrate that the level of public services, as perceived by the respondents, declined more significantly in municipalities with mergers than in municipalities without.
AlesinaAlbertoSpolaoreEnrico. 1997. “On the Number and Size of Nations.”Quarterly Journal of Economics112 (4): 1027–56. doi:10.1162/003355300555411.
2.
AlesinaAlbertoSpolaoreEnrico. 2003. The Size of Nations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenGerberAlanSnyderJim. 2002. “Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States.”American Political Science Review96 (04): 767–77. doi:10.1017/S0003055402000448.
4.
BeckerSacha O.IchinoAndrea. 2002. “Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores.”Stata Journal2 (4): 358–77.
5.
Blom-HansenJensHoulbergKurtSerritzlewSøren. 2014. “Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System.”American Journal of Political Science58 (4): 790–803. doi:10.1111/ajps.12096.
6.
CoxGary W.ThiesMichael F.2000. “How Much Does Money Matter? ‘Buying’ Votes in Japan, 1967–1990.”Comparative Political Studies33 (1): 37–57. doi:10.1177/0010414000033001002.
7.
CurtisGerald L.1971. Election Campaigning Japanese Style. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
8.
DahlRobert A.TufteEdward R.1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.
DolleryBrianCraseLin. 2004. “Is Bigger Local Government Better? An Evaluation of the Case for Australian Municipal Amalgamation Programs.”Urban Policy and Research22 (3): 265–75. doi:10.1080/0811114042000269290.
11.
DurRobertStaalKlaas. 2008. “Local Public Good Provision, Municipal Consolidation, and National Transfers.”Regional Science & Urban Economics38 (2): 160–73. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.01.005.
12.
Estévez-AbeMargarita. 2008. Welfare and Capitalism in Postwar Japan: Party, Bureaucracy, and Business. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
13.
FitraniFitriaHofmanBertKaiserKai. 2005. “Unity in Diversity? The Creation of New Local Governments in a Decentralising Indonesia.”Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies41 (1): 57–79. doi:10.1080/00074910500072690.
14.
GerringJohn. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
15.
HainmuellerJens. 2012. “Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies.”Political Analysis20 (1): 25–46. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr025.
16.
HansenSune W.HoulbergKurtPedersenLene H.2014. “Do Municipal Mergers Improve Fiscal Outcomes?”Scandinavian Political Studies37 (2): 196–214. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12020.
17.
HoriuchiYusaku. 2005. Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan: Cross-Level and Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
18.
HoriuchiYusakuSaitoJun. 2003. “Reapportionment and Redistribution: Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan.”American Journal of Political Science47 (4): 669–82. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00047.
19.
HoriuchiYusakuSaitoJunYamadaKyohei. 2009. “Politics of Municipal Mergers in Japan: The Electoral Resource Allocation of the Dominant Party.”Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, September 3–6.
20.
HoriuchiYusakuSaitoJunYamadaKyohei. 2015. “Removing Boundaries, Losing Connections: Electoral Consequences of Local Government Reform in Japan.”Journal of East Asian Studies15:99–125.
21.
JakobsenMortenKjaerUlrik. 2016. “Political Representation and Geographical Bias in Amalgamated Local Governments.”Local Government Studies42 (2): 208–27. doi:10.1080/03003930.2015.1127225.
22.
KingGaryNielsenRichard. 2016. “Why Propensity Score Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Working Paper. http://j.mp/1sexgVw.
23.
LassenDavid D.SerritzlewSøren. 2011. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-Scale Municipal Reform.”American Political Science Review105 (02): 238–58. doi:10.1017/S000305541100013X.
24.
LyonsWilliam E.LoweryDavidDeHoogRuth H.1992. The Politics of Dissatisfaction: Citizens, Services, and Urban Institutions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
25.
McElwainKenneth M.2012. “The Nationalization of Japanese Elections.”Journal of East Asian Studies12:323–50.
26.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2014a. Chihō Zaisei Hakusho [White Paper on Local Government Finance]. Tokyo: Sōmushō [Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications].
27.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2014b. Shichōson Gappei Shiryō Shū [Information on Municipal Mergers]. http://www.soumu.go.jp/gapei/gapei.html.
MoisioAnttiUusitaloRoope. 2013. “The Impact of Mergers on Local Public Expenditures in Finland.”Public Finance and Management13 (3): 148–66.
30.
NewtonKenneth. 1982. “Is Small Really So Beautiful? Is Big Really So Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government.”Political Studies30 (2): 190–206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00532.x.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.”American Political Science Review55 (04): 831–42. doi:10.1126/science.151.3712.868.
33.
RaeDouglas W.2003. City: Urbanism and Its End. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
34.
ReedSteven R.ScheinerEthanThiesMichael F.2012. “The End of LDP Dominance and the Rise of Party-Oriented Politics in Japan.”The Journal of Japanese Studies38 (2): 353–76. doi:10.1353/jjs.2012.0037.
35.
ReeseLaura A.2004. “Same Governance, Different Day: Does Metropolitan Reorganization Make a Difference?”Review of Policy Research21 (4): 595–611. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00096.x.
36.
ReingewertzYaniv. 2012. “Do Municipal Amalgamations Work? Evidence from Municipalities in Israel.”Journal of Urban Economics72 (2–3): 240–51. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2012.06.001.
37.
RosenbluthFrancesSaitoJunYamadaKyohei. 2011. “Electoral Adaptation in Japan: Party Strategy After Electoral Rule Change.”The Journal of Social Science/Shakai Kagaku Kenkyu62 (1): 5–23.
38.
RosenbluthFrancesThiesMichael F.2001. “The Electoral Foundations of Japan’s Banking Regulation.”Policy Studies Journal29 (1): 23–37.
39.
RuskDavid. 2013. Cities Without Suburbs: A Census 2010 Perspective. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
40.
SaitoJun. 2010. Jimintō Chōkiseiken no Seijikeizaigaku [The Political Economy of the LDP Regime]. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
41.
SaitoJunYamadaKyohei. 2011. “Local Government in Japan.” In Handbook of Japanese Politics, edited by GaunderAlisa, 103–14. London: Routledge.
42.
SanctonAndrew. 2000. Merger Mania: The Assault on Local Government. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
43.
SeawrightJasonGerringJohn. 2008. “Case-Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.”Political Research Quarterly61 (2): 294–308.
44.
ShigemoriAkiraSekinoMitsuoKawaseNoriko. 2002. Chiho Kofuzei no Kaikaku Kadai [Challenges in the Reform of the Local Allocation Tax.] Tokyo: Jichitai Kenkyu Sha.
45.
ShimizuKay. 2012. “Electoral Consequences of Municipal Mergers.”Journal of East Asian Studies12:381–408.
46.
TieboutCharles M.1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.”Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416–24. doi:10.1086/257839.
47.
TindalRucagrd C.TindalSusan N.2000. Local Government in Canada. 5th ed.Scarborough, ON: Nelson.
48.
YamadaKyohei. 2013. “Causes and Consequences of Municipal Mergers in Japan.” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Yale, New Haven, Connecticut.
49.
YamadaKyohei. 2016. “Crucial Decisions by Small Towns and Villages: Why Did Some Municipalities Choose to Merge but Others Did Not during the Nationwide Wave of Municipal Mergers in Japan?”International Journal of Public Administration39 (6): 480–491. doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1028632.
50.
YokomichiKiyotaka. 2007. “The Development of Municipal Mergers in Japan.” Up-to-date Documents on Local Autonomy in Japan No. 1. Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Institute for Comparative Studies in Local Governance, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.clair.or.jp/j/forum/honyaku/hikaku/pdf/up-to-date_en1.pdf.
