Japan: Fiscal Discipline of Local Governments
2015.6.11
Nobuyuki Uda
Director-General Research and Co-ordination Department
Policy Research Institute Ministry of Finance, Japan
1
Fiscal Policy for Long-Term Growth and Sustainability in Aging Societies
Five issues to be addressed
1. What are the challenges that LGs (local governments) are facing?
2. How is the fiscal situation of LGs?
3. How the CG (central government) copes with disparity among LGs in tax revenues?
4. What are the impacts of fiscal transfers (from the CG to LGs) on fiscal discipline of LGs?
5. How the CG strengthens fiscal discipline of LGs?
2
Contents
Ⅰ. Local Governments and their Expenditure <4-9>
Ⅱ. Fiscal Situations of Central and Local Governments <10-11>
Ⅲ. Revenue of Local Governments <12-26>
Ⅳ. Financial Soundness of Local Governments <27-29>
Ⅴ. Summary <30-31>
3
1. Structure of local governments
Chief executives (governors and mayors) / members of assemblies
Elected through direct elections
4
Prefectures (47)
Government designated
cities (20)
Core cities (42)
Special cities (40)
Other cities (688)
Towns (745)
Villages (183)
Metropolitan Special Wards
(23) (790 cities*)
(1,718 Municipalities)
Ⅰ. Local Governments and their Expenditure
*Requirements for cities includes population >500,000 (designated cities); >300,000 (core cities); >200,000 (special cities); >50,000 (cities)
**
2. Expenditure of central and local governments
58.3
100 87 78 74 72 74 70 67
82
38 41 45
0 0
81
41.7
0 13 22 26 28 26 30 33
18
62 59 55
100 100
19
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Local Central 5
(FY2013 settlement) <White paper 2015>
3. Expenditure of Local Governments
Classification by function
General administratio
n 10%
Public welfare
24%
Sanitasion 6%
Agriculture, forestry and
fishery 4%
Commerce and
industry 6%
Civil engineering
work 12%
Fire service 2%
Police 3%
Education 17%
Public debt payments
14%
Others 2%
Total ¥97,412 billion
Classification by type
Personnel expenses
23%
Public assistance expenses
12%
Debts service
13%
Ordinary construction
work expenses
15%
Goods expenses
9%
Subsidizing expenses
10%
Others 18%
Total ¥97,412 billion
6
(Net total of prefectures and municipalities) (FY2013 settlement) <White paper 2015>
Aging and declining of population are expected to continue.
(1) Aging of population and public welfare expenses
3602 3249 2601 2204 1849 1297
5608 7622 7888 7183 6559 4643
618
1489 2204 3308 3657
3768
1965 1990 2000 2014 2025 2050
Trends in Population (million) under 20 20~64 65 and over
Source: For data up to 2000, Census data by Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication. For data from 2014, Population Projections for Japan by National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
7
4. Challenges of local governments
① Trends of population structure
② Trends of public welfare expenses With aging, welfare expenses are expected to grow rapidly.
5304 5550 7139 7423 7254 7183
4811 5707 5482 5707 5725 5662
4763 5251 5064 5283 5567 5645 2937 3250 3597 3765 3905 3964
7 10
35 1005 701 1008
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(billion yen) Child welfare Elderly welfare Social welfarePublic assistance Disaster relief
8
<White paper 2015 >
FY: settlement
(2) Aging of infrastructure and maintenance expenses
• Infrastructures, including roads, rivers, sewages, and sea ports, which were developed in high growth era (1955-1973), are rapidly aging.
• Maintenance and repair expenses are increasing.
989 982
1052 1063
1110 1110 1127
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(billion yen)
9
Maintenance and repair expenses of local governments (settlement) <White paper2015>
10
Ⅱ. Fiscal Situations of Central and Local Governments
• FY2015 budget / local public finance program (expenditure・revenue: general account , long-term debt outstanding: estimate / end of FY2015)
CG LGs
Total expenditure ・ revenue ¥96 trillion ¥85 trillion Tax revenue ¥55 trillion ¥37 trillion Gov. bond issues/revenue 38.3 % 11.1% Debt service/expenditure 24.3% 15.2% Long-term debt outstanding ¥837 trillion ¥199 trillion
1. Comparison of fiscal indicators
Fiscal situation of LGs is far better than the CG.
2. Trends of long-term debt outstanding
573 621
662 694 731 770
809 837
197 199 200 200 201 201 201 199
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Central gov. Local gov.(estimates) (estimates)
11
CG: increasing LGs: stable
End of FY
¥ trillion
Source: MOF
(FY2013 settlement) <White paper 2015> Corporate
enterprise tax 8% Corporate
residents tax 8%
Individual residents tax
34%
local consumption tax
8%
Fixed asset tax 24%
Others 18%
Total ¥35,374 billion
12
Ⅲ. Revenue of Local Governments 1. Local taxes Tax revenue (net total of prefectures and municipalities)
2. Grants from the Central Government
• %, FY2013 settlement <White paper 2015>
¥101,100 billion ¥51,573 billion ¥57,029 billion
13
(1) Composition of revenue of local governments
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Net total Prefectures Municipalities
Other revenue resources
Local bonds
Local tax
Other CG transfer
Local allocation tax
National Subsidy
Gra
nts f
rom
the
CG
PPPublic
(Trillion yen)
Social Security 18.2
(71%)
Education & science
2.2 (9%)
Public work 2.7
(10%)
Others 1.1 (4%)
FY2015 Budget ¥ 24.1 trillion*
Social Security 10.5
(52%)
Education & science
3.4 (17%)
Public work 2.7
(11%)
Others 1.0 (4%)
FY2002 Budget ¥ 20.4 trillion
14
National Subsidies: Funds disbursed from the CG to LGs for specified uses
*Total of General Account. (Total including Special Account for Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake is ¥ 25.7 trillion)
Special Account for Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake 1.6 (6%)
(2) National subsidies
1) Financial equalization function (Equalizing revenue sources)
To adjust imbalances in tax revenue among LGs (To aim at equalization) → eliminate difference in fiscal strength among LGs
2) Funding guarantee function (Guaranteeing revenue sources)
・Macro: to guarantee revenue sources as a whole by stipulating in law that the total amount of the LAT grants is certain ratios of five national taxes ・Micro:to guarantee revenue sources so that LGs in whatever region can provide a certain level of administrative services.
15
(3) Local Allocation Tax grants (LAT grants) ① Functions
Considering huge deficit of the CG, there are arguments on whether it is appropriate for the CG to provide funding guarantee for LGs.
(net total of prefectures and municipalities) (excluding taxes in excess of standard tax rate) Index; Average=100 FY2013 settlement
0 50 100 150 200Hokkaido
AomoriIwate
MiyagiAkita
Yamagatafukushima
IbarabiTochigiGunma
SaitamaChibaTokyo
KanagawaNiigata
ToyamaIshikawa
FukuiYamanashi
NaganoGifu
ShizuokaAichiMie
<White paper 2015>
0 50 100 150 200ShigaKyotoOsakaHyogo
NaraWakayama
TottoriShimane
OkayamaHiroshima
YamaguchiTokushima
KagawaEhimeKochi
FukuokaSaga
NagasakiKumamoto
OitaMiyazaki
KagosimaOkinawaAverage
16
167.7
64.9
② Local taxes per capita Wide disparities exist in local tax revenues per capita among LGs.
17
③ Classification of Local Allocation Tax grants
1) Regular Local Allocation Tax grants
・ To be allocated to LGs where financial resources are insufficient (94% of the total amount of the LAT grants)
2) Special Local Allocation Tax grants
・ To be allocated in response to special financial requirements which are not covered by regular LAT grants (6% of the total amount of the LAT grants)
18
④ Determination of total amount of LAT grants
ⅰ) Statutory Local Allocation Tax grants
・ 33.1% of income tax and corporate tax
・ 50% of liquor tax ・ 22.3% of consumption tax ⅱ)Special addition, etc. Local public finance
measures taken each year, including transfer from general account and debt repayment
Income tax
Corporate tax
Liquor tax Consumption tax
Tobacco tax
1954 (initial budget) 19.66 19.66 20.0
24.0 29.0
25.0 25.0
1954 (supplementary budget)
19.874 19.874 20.0
1955 1956 1957 1958 1959~1961 1962~1964 1965 1966~1988 1989~1996 1997~1998
22.0 25.0 26.0 27.5 28.5 28.9 29.5 32.0 32.0 32.0
1999 2000~2006 2007~2013 2014 2015 2016
32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 33.1
32.5 35.8 34.0 34.0 34.0 33.1
32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 50.0
29.5 29.5 29.5 22.3 22.3 22.3
25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
--
Ratios of sources for Statutory LAT grants %
Local bond issues 10.6
National subsidies 12.5
④-2 Local Allocation Tax grants to cover gaps
Salaries 20.3
General Administration
35.1
Investment 11.0
Local debt servicing 13.0
Others 5.9
Expenditures 85.3
Revenues 85.3
Local Public Finance Program (FY2015)
Gap 21.4
Local taxes 40.3
19
Others 5.5
The central government guarantees financial resources to cover the
local revenue shortfall
Local Allocation Tax grants, etc.
21.4
See Annex [17] for details
(Figures in trillion yen)
National subsidies 13.1
Local Local bond* 5.0
*Local bond excluding Special bonds for financing revenue shortage
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC)
20
⑤ Allocation of Local Allocation Tax grants
( Standard financial requirements ― Standard financial revenues ) = Financing gap (criteria for amount of LAT grants) Standard financial requirements =Unit expense × Measurement unit × Adjustment coefficient
Unit expense: Expense per one measurement unit of each administrative scope Measurement unit: Index which reflects quantity of financial requirements of each administrative scope reasonably and objectively Adjustment coefficient: To reflect difference of administrative expenses due to natural and social condition of each local government Standard financial revenues = Standard local tax revenue×75%+local transfer tax, etc.
21
1) Example of expenses, measurement unit (prefectures, FY2014) Expenses Measurement unit
Roads and bridges Area size of roads, Length of roads
Rivers Length of rivers
Elementary school Number of teachers & staffs (based on standards set by the CG)
Public assistance Population in towns and villages
Social welfare Population
Elderly welfare Population aged 65 or more, Population aged 75 or more
Public debt payments Public debt repayments for specified debts (50%~100%) (ex. Bonds for disaster recovery (95%), Extra fiscal measure bonds (100%))
⑤-2 Example of expenses, measurement unit and adjustment
2) Example of adjustment Adjustment Purpose of adjustment Example
Coldness adjustment
To calculate extra expenses due to a degree of coldness or snow
expenses for elementary and junior high school ・difference in allowances in cold area ・expenses for heating and snow clearing
Investment situation adjustment
To reflect actual financial requirements in investment expenses for each LG a) LG portion or b) interests and repayments of local bonds
roads and bridges expenses ・interest and repayments for public work bonds
22
⑤-3 Factors to be used in calculating standard financial revenues
• Standard financial revenues =standard local tax revenue×75% +Local transfer tax, etc.
a) Standard local tax revenue:calculated with standard tax rate b) Local transfer tax:collected as a national tax and transferred
to LGs (ex. local road tax)
c) 75% ⅰ) To allow LGs to execute their own policies which are not included in the
standard financial requirements ⅱ) To secure incentives for LGs to increase tax sources
⑥ Local taxes and LAT grants per capita
FY2013 settlement
0 100000 200000 300000 400000Hokkaido
AomoriIwate
MiyagiAkita
Yamagatafukushima
IbarabiTochigiGunma
SaitamaChibaTokyo
KanagawaNiigata
ToyamaIshikawa
FukuiYamanashi
NaganoGifu
ShizuokaAichiMie
108,813
<White paper 2015>
0 100000 200000 300000 400000ShigaKyotoOsakaHyogo
NaraWakayama
TottoriShimane
OkayamaHiroshima
YamaguchiTokushima
KagawaEhimeKochi
FukuokaSaga
NagasakiKumamoto
OitaMiyazaki
KagosimaOkinawa
23
¥ ¥
337,266
171,138*
*Local tax revenue of Tokyo excludes amount of revenues equivalent to municipality taxes (Tokyo is not a recipient of LAT grant, because Standard financial revenues are higher than Standard financial requirements.)
Local taxes per capita LAT grants per capita (Population as of 2014.3.31)
(prefectures) (Local taxes excludes tax revenue transfer to municipalities)
LAT grants seem to widen disparities among LGs rather than promoting revenue equalization. ← LGs with high “debt” and/or high “investment expenses” get more LAT grants. (Annex[23])
⑥-3 Essence of calculation of standard financial requirements
• Most of the calculations are based on objective data such as population.
• Exceptions: – debt service expenses – Investment expenses
24
Increase of local government bonds (and/or investment expenses)
Increase of standard financial requirements
Increase of allocation of LAT grants Moral hazard?
Reforms to reduce the scope of application of investment situation adjustments (ex.) Reform in FY2010: local government bonds with investment situation adjustments
about 50% → about 30% (after transitional period) of total local government bonds
⑦ Implication of LAT grants on fiscal discipline of LGs
・ LAT grants have financial equalization function and funding guarantee function and contribute to the sound fiscal situation of local governments.
However, ・ local governments with high debt and/or high investment
expenses get more LAT grants (Annex [23]) ・ Moral hazard of LGs The CG compensates for shortage of revenues → Revenue without any burden on LGs → LGs tend to lose incentive to cut expenditures ⇒ With growing fiscal demand in the aging society, fiscal burden of
central government tends to increase
• Considering the fiscal situation of the CG, is it appropriate to maintain funding guarantee function of LAT grants?
25
26
MIC (for prefecture or government designated cities) Governor (for Municipalities)
LG (or Public
enterprise) Consult
LG with deficit or debt payment over the level set for by Cabinet Order (LGs with real debt payment ratio of 18% or more / public enterprises with deficit over 10 % of business revenues)
Approval
With consent of MIC (or Governor)
Without consent of MIC (or Governor)
Bonds/Loans with consent*
Report to the assembly
Bonds/Loans without consent
Bonds/Loans with approval*
*For only the bonds/loans which obtained the consent or approval of MIC, LG may borrow from the government funds or Japan Finance Organization for Municipalities. Debt payments for the bonds/loans with consent or approval will be included in LAT grants formula.
* Permission by the MIC (Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications) was required before FY 2005. Consultation process was introduced in FY 2006 to enhance local autonomy.
3. Local government bonds
¥12,285 billion issued in FY 2013
[Consultation process]
Ⅳ. Financial Soundness of Local Governments
– Disclosure of comprehensive fiscal condition including
contingent liabilities – Early Warning System – Reconstruction System
27
1. The Law Relating to the Financial Soundness of Local Governments
Fiscal indicator Definition
1 Real deficit ratio The ratio of deficit to the standard fiscal scale
2 Consolidated real deficit ratio
The ratio of consolidated deficit in the all accounts to standard fiscal scale
3 Real debt payment ratio
The ratio of debt payment by general revenue to standard fiscal scale
4 Future burden ratio The ratio of outstanding debt including future burdens of public enterprises and government affiliates, to standard fiscal scale
5 Funding shortfall ratio at public enterprises
The ratio obtained by dividing the previous fiscal year’s shortfall in funds for each public enterprise by the previous year’s business scale
2. Early warning
• If one of fiscal indicators exceeds the early warning limit ⇒ fiscal soundness through LG’s own efforts
– Formulation of financial plan (approval by assembly), external auditing required
– Report of progress of implementation to assembly and public announcement every fiscal year
Early warning limit Prefecture Municipalities Real deficit ratio 3.75% 11.25~15% (depending on fiscal size)
Consolidated real deficit ratio 8.75% 16.25~20% (depending on fiscal size)
Real debt payment ratio 25% 25% Future burden ratio 400% 350% (government-designated cities: 400%)
28
* Management improvement limit: funding shortfall ratio at public enterprises 20%
3. Rebuilding
• If one of fiscal indicators exceeds the rebuilding limit ⇒ rebuilding through involvement of the CG
– Formulation of financial rebuilding plan (approval by assembly), external auditing required
– The fiscal reconstruction can seek consultation and agreement from MIC.
• (No agreement) Restriction on the issue of local government bond, except for disaster recovery projects, etc.
• (Agreement) Allowed to issue special deficit-financing bond
– If fiscal management is deemed not to conform with the plan, etc., necessary measures including budget changes are recommended by MIC
– The LG can issue special deficit-covering local government bond whose repayment and interest are covered by special LAT grant
Rebuilding limit Prefecture Municipalities Real deficit ratio 5% 20% Consolidated real deficit ratio 15% 30% Real debt payment ratio 25% 35%
29
Ⅴ. Summary • LGs are facing challenges such as aging of the population and
infrastructure. <7-9>
• Fiscal situation of LGs (as a whole) is better than that of the CG. <10-11>
• LGs are dependent on fiscal transfer from the CG. <13-25> – Fiscal transfer may weaken fiscal discipline of LGs. – Potential deficits of LGs are transferred to from LGs to the CG. – LAT grants have functions of financial equalization and funding guarantee. – Funding guarantee function of LAT grants is under argument.
• For the allocation of LAT grants, standard financial requirements should be calculated only by objective data rather than by reflecting actual amount of spending. <24> – Criteria reflecting actual spending may invite moral hazard problems. – Reform has been made to reduce the scope of application of investment
situation adjustments. 30
• The CG controls issuance of local bonds. <26> – Some issues are under market discipline.
• The CG uses fiscal indicators to monitor and control local public finance. <27-29>
• Under the rebuilding scheme, LG is required to formulate financial rebuilding plan with agreement of the CG. <29> – The LG is provided with financial assistance from the CG through
issuance of special local bonds, whose debt services are covered by special LAT grants.
31
Ⅴ. Summary (continued)
Annex
Supplementary information on
Local Public Finance
32
33
[1] Relationship between the central and local governments
• LG are independent from the CG • Organization and operations of LGs are regulated by
law (legislation of central government) “in accordance with the principle of local autonomy” (Article 94, Constitution)
• Local assembly can enact, amend or abolish bylaws (=ordinances):
enact their own regulations within law
34
[2] Role of the central and local governments (1) Role of the central government 1) Matters relating to its position as a nation in the international
community 2) Matters concerning basic rules on national activities or local autonomy
that should be standardized nationally 3) Matters concerning policies and programs to be implemented on a
national level or from a national viewpoint
(2) Role of local governments To promote the welfare of its residents (Administrative matters close to the people shall as far as possible be referred to local public bodies)
Most of administrative services that are closely related to the life of citizens are implemented by LGs. ← Involvement of the CG, including obligation through legislation (Example) standards of the number of teachers and staffs
[3] Composition of expenditure of prefectures and municipalities
Prefectures
Public welfare
15%
Commerce and
industry 8%
Civil engineerin
g work 11%
Education 21%
Public debt payments
15%
Others 30%
Total: 50,053 billion
Municipalities
General administrat
ion 13%
Public welfare
35%
Civil engineerin
g work 12%
Education 10%
Public debt payments
11%
Others 19%
Total: 54,860 billion
35
(FY2013 settlement) <White paper 2015>
By function
[4] Change in major expenses (Net prefectures and municipalities)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FY2013 settlement
Public welfareCivil engineering workEducation
36
<White paper 2015>
[5] Share of elderly is growing rapidly
7.1 7.9 9.1 10.3 12.1
14.5 17.4
20.2 22.8
26.8 29.1 30.3 31.6
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
% of population aged 65 and over % of population aged 65 and over
Source: For data up to 2010, Census data by Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication. For data from 2015, Population Projections for Japan by National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (Medium-fertility (mortality)projection) 37
[6] Share of elderly (65 and over) in major developed countries
1990 2000 2010 2015 2020Japan 11.9 17.2 23 26.4 28.6U.S. 12.5 12.4 13.1 14.7 16.6U.K. 15.7 15.8 16.6 18.1 18.9Germany 15 16.3 20.8 21.4 23.1France 14.1 16 16.8 18.7 20.3
05
101520253035
% of Population
Source: (Japan)For data up to 2010, Census data by Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication. For data from 2011, Population Projections for Japan by National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (Other countries) World Population Prospects: The 2012 revision (medium projection) United Nation 38
[7] Aging of infrastructure
• Infrastructures, including roads, rivers, sewages, and sea ports, which were developed in high growth era (1955-1973), are rapidly aging.
March 2012 March 2022 March 2032
Roads and bridges (length > 2m) 16 40 65
Tunnels 18 31 47
River management facility 24 40 62
Sewages 2 7 23
Port quay (water depth > 4.5m) 7 29 56
39
Percentage of social capital that elapsed more than 50 years after construction <Budget Bureau of MOF, October 2013 Fiscal System Council >
* % approximately
[8] Trends of expenditure and tax revenue
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
12000019
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
1220
13
LG tax revenueLG expenditureCG tax revenueCG ecpenditure
40
¥ billion
FY settlement
CG: the revenue gap is increasing LGs: the revenue gap is relatively stable
[9] Trends of Expenditure of the Local governments
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
By function
Public welfare
Civil engineering work
Education
41
<White paper 2015> (FY2013 settlement)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
By type
Personnel expenses
Ordinary construction work expenses
Public assistance expenses
(Net total of prefectures and municipalities)
[10] Trends of the # of local government officials
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
thou
sand
As of April 1
Number of Local government officials
Police and fire serviceEducationGeneral administration
42
<White paper 2015>
# of local government officials are decreasing.
[11] List of local taxes
Normal taxes Object taxes
Prefecture Prefectural residents tax, Enterprise tax, Local consumption tax Real property acquisition tax, Prefectural tobacco tax, Golf course utilization tax, Automobile acquisition tax, Light oil delivery tax, Automobile tax Mine-lot tax, Fixed property tax
Hunting tax, Water utility and land profit tax
Municipality Municipal residents tax, Fixed property tax, Light Vehicle tax, Municipal tobacco tax, Mineral product tax, Special land acquisition and holding tax,
Bathing tax, Business facility tax, City planning tax, Water utility and land profit tax, Common facilities tax, Residential land formation tax, National health insurance tax
43
[12] Tax revenue of prefectures and municipalities
Prefectures
Corporate enterprise
tax 18%
Corporate residents
tax 6%
Individual residents
tax 34%
local consumpti
on tax 18%
Automobile tax 10%
Others 14%
Total: ¥14,774 billion
Municipalities
Corporate residents
tax 10%
Individual residents
tax 34% Fixed asset
tax 42%
City planning
tax 6%
Others 8%
Total: ¥20,600 billion
44
(FY2013 settlement) <White paper 2015>
45
[13] Local government taxation autonomy
LGs are not bound by the standard tax rates if there are needs in their fiscal condition, etc.
(Exception: local consumption tax has a uniform tax rate.) ← Tendency to be levied on corporations that have no voting rights
(Table 13-1) Tax in excess of standard tax rate (FY2013 settlements)
(Municipalities includes municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.)
Amount Share in total tax rev. Prefectures ¥ 243 billion 1.4 % Municipalities ¥ 283 billion 1.5 %
[13-1] Tax rates exceeding the standard tax rates
⇒ Tax in excess of standard tax rate has very small share in total tax revenue.
46
[13-2] Non-statutory tax ・ LGs can introduce new taxes which are not stipulated in Local Tax Law, if they
have special needs.
(Minister for Internal Affairs and Com. gives consent unless; ) ⅰ) Tax whose tax base is shared with another tax (national tax) and imposes
extremely heavy burden on inhabitants ⅱ) Tax which significantly impedes distribution of goods across the boundaries
of municipalities (or prefectures) ⅲ) In addition to the above, tax which is not appropriate in the light of the
national economic policy ← Problem of taxation on specific corporations / taxation on residents of other
communities
Amount Share in total tax rev. Prefectures 32 billion 0.19 % Municipalities 3 billion 0.02%
(Example) Nuclear fuel tax, Industrial waste tax, Hotel and accommodation tax, Fishing tax
(Table 13-2) Non-statutory tax (FY 2013 settlement)
⇒ Non-statutory taxes have very small share in total tax revenue.
[14] Classification of subsidies in the Local Finance Law
Classification Article (share) Explanation Example
Ordinary subsidies Article 10 (all or part of expenses *shall be borne by the central gov.)
The interests of both the CG and LGs → The CG is expected to positively bear in order to assure the smooth performance
Expenses for public assistance (poor relief) ・ subsidies for public assistance (3/4)
Subsidies for construction work expenses
Article 10-2 (all or part of expenses*)
Construction works which carried out by LGs in accordance with integrated plans established in conformity with national economy
Expenses for establishment and improvement of important civil engineering facilities such as roads (5/10~)
Subsidies for related to disasters
Article 10-3 (part of expenses*)
LGs which take such measures can hardly find financial resources commensurate with financial needs under the Local Tax Law or the Local Allocation Tax Law
Expenses for recovery works for disaster damaged civil engineering facilities such as roads (8/10~)
Subsidies for consignment
Article 10-4 (all of expenses *)
All of the expenses affecting solely the interest of the CG shall be borne by the CG
expenses for election of members of the Diet (10/10)
Encouraging subsidy
Article 16 The CG may grant subsidies to LGs, when subsidies are found especially necessary for the execution of its policies or for the finance of LGs
47
PPPublic
(Trillion yen)
CG LG Salary of teachers and staffs of elementary and junior high school 1/3 2/3
Road construction (ordinary case) 1/2 1/2
Public Assistance 3/4 1/4
Long-term care 2.5
National health
insurance 2.5
Social Security 18.2
(71%)
Education & science
2.2 (9%)
Public work 2.7
(10%)
Medical care for the elderly
5.5
Public assistance
2.9
Child-care and child allowance 2.2
Disability support program 1.3
Others 1.1 (4%)
Compulsory education 1.5
FY2015 Budget ¥ 24.1 trillion*
48
Special Account for Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake 1.6 (6%)
[15] Details of National subsidies
2) Burden sharing of subsidized expenses (example)
1) Detailed composition of national subsidies
[16] Implication of subsidies on fiscal discipline of LGs
・ Subsidies are effective tool for the CG to provide certain level of public service nation wide
・ National minimum; minimum standard to be satisfied by all regions ・ Balanced development among all regions
However, ・ As national minimum being achieved, local autonomy tends to
be emphasized. 1) Involvement of the CG through subsidies 2) LGs have to meet conditions set by the CG 3) Priorities are given to project with national subsidy 4) Promote dependency on the CG
→ LGs may lose autonomy and fiscally dependent on the CG
49
The case of FY 2015 local public finance program/budget
50
Revenue shortage
2.9
Special addition to LAT grants
1.45 Extra fiscal measure
bonds 1.45
Extra fiscal measure bonds for
debt service 3.1
Others 1.8
Statutory local allocation tax
13.6
Special bonds for financing revenue shortage whose debt service cost are fully counted in standard financial requirements
Local allocation tax 16.8
(Figures in trillion yen)
Special allocation, surplus in special accounts, etc.
7.8
[17] How to fill the gap (Total amount of LAT grants)
51
(note) Numbers of police officers / teachers & staffs are based on standards set by the CG. The same applies for municipalities (teachers & staffs).
Expenses Measurement unit
Police Number of police officers
Roads and bridges Area size of roads Length of roads
Rivers Length of rivers
Ports and Harbors Length of Mooring facilities (ports / fishing ports) Length of harbor facilities (ports / fishing ports)
Other civil engineering works
Population
Elementary school Number of teachers & staffs
Junior high school Number of teachers & staffs
Senior high school Number of teachers & staffs Number of students
Specially supported school
Number of teachers & staffs Number of classes
Other educational Population Number of students in university & college (public / private)
Public assistance Population in towns and villages
Social welfare Population
Health & sanitation Population
Elderly welfare Population aged 65 or more Population aged 75 or more
Labor Population
Agriculture Number of farmhouses
Forestry Area size of forestry (publicly owned / others)
Fishery Number of fisherman, etc. Commerce & industry Population
Tax collection Number of household
Pension for retired public employee*
Number of eligible recipient * System changed in 1959
Regional development Population
Regional economy & employment
Population
Regional revitalization Population
[18-1] Item of expenses and measurement unit (prefectures, FY2014)
52
[18-2] Item of expenses and measurement unit (municipalities, FY2014)
Expenses Measurement unit Fire service Population
Roads and bridges Area size of roads Length of roads
Ports and Harbors Length of Mooring facilities (ports / fishing ports) Length of ports facilities (ports / fishing ports)
Urban planning Population in urban planning area
Parks Population Area size of city parks
Drains Population
Other civil engineering works
Population
Elementary school Number of students Number of classes Number of schools
Junior high school
Number of students Number of classes Number of schools
Senior high school Number of teachers & staffs Number of students
Other educational Population Number of children in kindergartens
Public assistance Population in cities
Social welfare Population
Health & sanitation Population
Elderly welfare Population aged 65 or more Population aged 75 or more
Cleaning & garbage disposal
Population
Agriculture Number of farmhouses
Forestry & fishery Number of those engaged in forestry and fishery industry
Commerce & industry Population
Tax collection Number of families Family register & basic resident register
Number of registered family Number of families
Regional development Population Area size
Regional economy & employment
Population
Regional vitalization Population
[18-3] Other expenses included in standard financial requirements
Expenses Measurement unit Expenses to be calculated comprehensively
ax + by x: population that reflects differences in cost due to population size Y: area size that reflects differences in cost due to types of land use (introduced from FY2007 to reduce the number of expenses through merger with simple calculation method based on population and area size)
Public debt payments Public debt repayments for specified debts (50%~100%) such as; Bonds for disaster recovery (95%), and Extra fiscal measure bonds (100%)
53
(Prefectures and municipalities)
[19-1] Adjustment coefficient
Adjustment coefficient
Purpose of adjustment Example
Classification adjustment
To calculate difference in unit cost of each classification for measurement unit which has classification
ports and harbor expenses (classification of specially designated major ports, major ports, local ports)
Stage adjustment
To calculate increase or decrease of unit cost of measurement unit which has economies of scale
difference in expenses per capita such as expenses for chief of municipalities (mayors) due to population size
Density adjustment
1) To calculate increase or decrease of unit cost due to the degree of population density 2) To calculate difference in ratio of unit cost from the ratio for standard LG
1) fire service expenses (difference in cost due to population density and area size) 2) social welfare expenses (difference of operational expenses for nurseries)
Ordinary situation adjustment
1) To calculate difference in expenses due to difference in quality and quantity of public services such as urbanization 2) To calculate difference in administrative authority among cities, towns and villages
1) fire service expenses (difference in capacity for fire service) 2) expenses for public health center (difference between cities with public health center and other cities)
Current situation adjustment
To calculate differences in current expenses based on situation which is not related to classification
Other industry expenses (difference in required current expenses among types of industries)
54
Adjustment coefficient reflects differences in financial requirements due to differences including natural and social conditions of each LG.
Adjustment coefficient
Purpose of adjustment Example
Investment situation adjustment
1) To calculate necessity of investment expenses using objective figures that reflect degree of necessity in the best way in accordance with types of investment expenses 2) To reflect actual financial requirements in investment expenses for each LG a) include LG portion of the fiscal year, or b) include interests and repayments of local bonds
1) Roads and bridges (difference in necessity of repair such as ratio of non-repaired portion and number of traffic accidents) 2) roads and bridges expenses (interest and repayments for special public work bonds to construct or repair local roads)
Coldness adjustment
To calculate extra expenses due to a degree of coldness or snow a) difference in salaries (including allowances), b) degree of coldness, or c) degree of snows
expenses for elementary and junior high school (difference in allowances in cold area and expenses for heating and snow clearing)
Rapid increase/ decrease adjustment
To calculate extra expenses for LGs where populations, etc. have been increased or decreased rapidly
Merger adjustment
To include expenses necessary immediately after merger to integrate administrative function, etc.
Fiscal strength adjustment
When including a certain ratio of interests and repayments of local bonds, the ratio is higher for LG where the proportion of interests and payments to tax revenue is higher
expenses for disaster relief work
55
[19-2] Adjustment coefficient (continued)
[20] Data of Standard financial requirements
Prefectures Municipalities
Expenses to be calculated by items (a)
17,425 (93.7%)
17,567 (75.4%)
Expenses to be calculated comprehensively (b)
1,441 (7.8%)
2,784 (11.9%)
Public debt payments (c)
3,137 (16.9%)
2,941 (12.6%)
Total of the above (d) = (a) + (b) + (c)
22,003 23,291
Amount equivalent to transferred Extra fiscal measure bonds (e)
3,410 2,185
Total (standard financial requirements) (d) – (e)
18,593 21,106
56
FY2014 (¥ billion) (source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
( ): percentage share of (d)
Public debt payments has large shares in standard financial requirements
(note) non-recipients of LAT grants such as Tokyo are excluded from the above data.
57
(Expenses for roads and bridges) a) standard financial requirements =Unit cost per 1km×length of roads×(investment adjustment+ public works adjustment+coldness adjustment) (unit cost) (measurement unit) (adjustment coefficient) b) Calculation for each prefecture (Niigata prefecture, FY2013) ¥ 17.8 billion= ¥ 1,982,000× 5,941km×(0.893+0.504+0.113)
(Note) ・ Measurement unit ・length of roads=length of roads in the road register stipulated in article 28 of Road Law, which are
under administration of a local government ・Adjustment coefficient ・investment adjustment=reflecting necessity for road repair (ratio of non-repaired portion as compared with nation-wide average, etc.) ・public works adjustment= to include a portion of interest and repayments for special public work
bonds to construct or repair local roads (in response to actual amount of public works) ・ coldness adjustment=reflecting excess cost to prevent freezing, etc. (degree of coldness) reflecting excess cost in snow region such as wider width (degree of snows) ・Unit cost:unit cost per 1 km (¥ 1,982,000/km) ¥7,730 million (general financial resources for standard local government)/3,900km (length of roads
for standard local government)
[21] Example of calculation of standard financial requirements
<source: 平成26年度 地方交付税のあらまし>
58
[22] Allocation of regular LAT grants
A) Non-recipient LGs (Standard financial requirements) < (Standard financial revenues ) ⇒ Non-recipient of regular LAT grants (*Tokyo←)
B) Adjustment between total amount and amounts to be allocated a) The standard rules of Local Allocation Tax Law ⅰ) (total amount of regular LAT grants) > (total amount to be allocated): ⇒ excess amount is added to the special allocation tax ⅱ) (total amount of regular LAT grants) < (total amount to be allocated): ⇒ allocated amount is decreased proportionally (→ When substantial difference continues, to revise the system or to change ratios of sources for
statutory allocation tax to five major taxes)
b) Actual operation After deciding on the total amount, calculation measures of standard financial requirements (i.e.
unit cost and adjustment coefficient) are revised every year;
(total amount of LAT grants) = approximately (amounts to be allocated)
2012 2013 2014
Prefecture 1* 1* 1*
Municipalities 47 48 54
[23] LAT grants and ordinary construction per capita and real debt payment ratio
FY2013 settlement
050000
100000150000200000250000
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
<White paper 2015> 59
¥ %
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
050000100000150000200000250000300000¥ %
Real debt payment ratio LAT grant per capita
(prefectures)
¥ Ordinary construction per capita
LGs with high “debt” and/or high “investment expenses” tend to get more LAT grants.
(prefectures) FY2013 settlement
050000
100000150000200000250000
020,00040,00060,00080,000
100,000
<White paper 2015>
60
¥ ㎢
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
050000100000150000200000250000300000
¥ ㎢
Area size LAT grant per capita
[24] LAT grant per capita and area size
[25] Local tax and General revenue per capita
(Population as of 2014.3.31)
(¥; FY2013 settlement) 0 100000 200000 300000 400000
HokkaidoAomori
IwateMiyagi
AkitaYamagatafukushima
IbarabiTochigiGunma
SaitamaChibaTokyo
KanagawaNiigata
ToyamaIshikawa
FukuiYamanashi
NaganoGifu
ShizuokaAichiMie
Average
<White paper 2015> 0 100000 200000 300000 400000
ShigaKyotoOsakaHyogo
NaraWakayama
TottoriShimane
OkayamaHiroshima
YamaguchiTokushima
KagawaEhimeKochi
FukuokaSaga
NagasakiKumamoto
OitaMiyazaki
KagosimaOkinawaAverage
63.3 / 221.6
61
Local tax per capita General revenue per capita
(Comparison of Prefectural government)
Local tax revenue of Tokyo excludes amount of revenues equivalent to municipality taxes. (However, average includes tax revenue of Tokyo equivalent to municipality taxes.)
[26] General revenue per capita and area size FY2013 settlement
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
020,00040,00060,00080,000
100,000
<White paper 2015>
62
¥ ㎢
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000¥ ㎢
Area size General revenue per capita
(prefectures)
[27] General revenue per capita and real debt payment ratio FY2013 settlement
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
0.005.00
10.0015.0020.0025.00
<White paper 2015>
63
¥ %
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0
100000
200000
300000
400000¥ %
Real debt payment ratio General revenue per capita
(prefectures)
[28] General revenue ordinary construction per capita FY2013 settlement
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
0
10
20
30
<White paper 2015>
64
¥ ¥
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
100000
200000
300000
400000¥ ¥
Ordinary construction per capita General revenue per capita
(prefectures)
65
[29] International comparison of equalization scheme
Japan U.K. France Germany
Ver t i
ca l
Eqa l i za t i on
Total
Fixed proportions of five natiolal tax Amount of special addition is determined to fill the gap based on Local Public Finance Program
To be set in the Spending Review that the CG launches, considering requirements in the fiscal policy of the CG
Total amount is determined during the budget formulation process every year, considering fiscal situation of the CG
Sum of amounts to be allocated
Allocation methods
[revenue・requirements adjustment]
To calculate standard financial requirements and revenues for each LG and to allocate according to their difference
[revenue・requirements adjustments]
To calculate relative needs amount and relative resource amount, for each LG and to allocate according to their difference, etc.
[revenue adjustments]
To allocate based on criteria such as ①population, ②revenue per capita, ③fiscal efforts
[revenue adjustments]
After horizontal equalization, to allocate grant in the amount of 77.5% of portion below 99.5% to states where revenues per capita are less than 99.5% of the national average
Horizontal equalization - -
[revenue adjustments]
Equalization funds among Commune (2012~) :
Communes where standard tax revenue per capita is more than 90% of national average contribute to the fund. The fund provides grants to communes whose index reflecting tax revenue per capita, etc. is relatively low. [revenue・requirements adjustment] Equalization funds from value added tax on corporates (2013~) :
LG where standard tax revenue per capita is more than national average, etc., contribute to the fund out of VAT revenue. The fund provides grants to local governments according to the level of revenue per capita, population, length of roads, area size, etc. In addition to the above, there exists funds for horizontal equalization.
[revenue adjustments]
① To allocate up to 25% of states portion of VAT revenue, while giving priority to states where tax revenues per capita are less than the national average ② After ①, Funds contributed by states where revenues per capita are more than the national average are granted to states where revenues per capita is less than the national average
・The U.S. Federal Government does not have equalization scheme. The U.S. introduced General Revenue Sharing (GRS) in 1972, where the Federal Government provided grants to local governments according to a certain formula. The grants can be used for public security, environment, transportation, health, recreation, library, welfare, and fiscal administration. However, GRS was abolished in 1986 (Grants for state governments was abolished in 1981.). <Source: 主要国の地方税財政制度 2001.6 財務総合政策研究所>
[30] Classification of Local government bonds
(Local government bonds issued in FY 2013)
55%
45%
Issuer
Prefectures
Municipalities
<White paper 2015>
16%
49%
35%
classification by purpose
Bonds forpublic works
Bonds forextraordinaryfinancialmeasures
Other bonds
66
Total: ¥ 12,285 billion
Local Government bonds: Obligations undertaken by local public entities to raise financing. Repayment periods are longer than one fiscal year.
Classification by issuer and purpose
[31] Fund sources for Local government Bonds
36%
64%
fund sources
PublicfundsPrivatefunds
(Local government bonds issued in FY 2013)
Fiscal Loan funds 25%
JFM* funds 11%
Loans from Gov. and its
affiliated agencies
1%
Underwritten by banks 35%
Public market issue 27%
Others 1% Details of fund sources
67 *JFM: Japan Finance Organization for Municipalities
Total: ¥ 12,285 billion
FY2013 <White paper 2015>
[32] Trends in outstanding local government borrowing
130.3 129.0 127.7 124.4 121.2 118.5 115.8 114.4 110.7 107.1 104.1 101.0
3.8 9.1 12.9 15.7 17.9 19.7 21.6 25.4 31.4 36.1 40.6 45.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Outstanding at the end of FY Other local bonds Bonds for extraordinary financial measures
134.1 ¥ trillion
68
145.9
Share of bonds for extraordinary financial measures is increasing
[33] Consultation Process for issuance of LGB
69
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications prepares the Local Government Bond Plan every year in line with the Fiscal Investment and Loan Program Plan of the Ministry of Finance. (Local government Bond Plan includes estimates of bond issuances by type and purpose.)
Before debt issue, LGs must consult with a) the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) ←in the case of prefectures and government designated cities b) the prefectural governor ←in the case of municipalities ⇒ Only for local government bonds with consent by MIC or the prefectural governor, LGs may borrow public funds (Government funds, JFM funds).
Consent Debt payment for bonds with consent included in LAT grants formula
Without consent
In order to issue the local government bonds (underwritten by private sector) without the consent*, the head of the LG must report it to the assembly. * LGs that satisfies certain criteria such as below;
・ real-debt-payment-ratio# lower than 16% ・ amount of real deficit is 0, etc. #The ratio of debt payment by general revenue to standard fiscal scale
Standard for consent by the CG MIC releases the standard for consent every fiscal year. Issuers in high deficit, issuers with high real-debt-payment-ratio, and public enterprises in high deficit, etc. must obtain the approval of issuance from MIC
[34] Local governments that can issue bonds without consultation
Number of local governments that can issue bonds without consultation and reported bond issue (FY 2013) <平成16年度 地方債のあらまし>
Prefecture / government-designated cities Municipalities Real deficit 0 Consolidated real deficit ratio 0 Real debt payment ratio Less than 16% Future burden ratio 300% or less 200% or less Total amount of consulted bonds / sum of standard fiscal size and business scale of public enterprise (average of three previous fiscal years)
25% or less
70
Prefecture g. designated cities municipalities total
# of LGs 33 (70%) 19 (95%) 1,564 (91%) 1,616 (90%)
# of LGs reported bond issue 22 (47%) 14 (70%) 275 (16%) 311 (17.4%)
Amount of bonds reported ¥ 2,746 billion ¥ 542 billion ¥ 282 billion 3,570 billion
[35] International comparison of Borrowing controls
<Alexander Plekhanov and Raju Singh, How should subnational government borrowing be regulated?, IMF Staff Papers Vol. 53, No.3, 2007>
Regime Example
Market discipline
Subnational governments decide by themselves to adopt a fiscal rule (Canada, Switzerland, United States).
Administrative constraints
Setting of annual limits on the overall debt (Lithuania), special treatment or prohibition of external borrowing (Mexico).
Rule based controls
Restrictions on overall budget deficits (Austria, Spain), operating budget deficits (Norway), level of accumulated subnational debt (Hungary), level of spending (Belgium, Germany). Limit borrowing to investment purposes (Germany).
Cooperative arrangements
Negotiation process between the federal and the lower levels of government designs subnational borrowing controls (Several European countries, Australia).
71
[36] Coverage of fiscal indicator
72
LGs
General Account
Special Accounts Of which Local Public Enterprise Accounts
Ordinary Account
Local
Project Accounts
Joint entities by LGs for particular projects
Local public corporation, third-sector enterprise, etc.
Real deficit ratio
Con- solidated
real deficit ratio
Real debt
payment ratio
Future burden
ratio
Funding shortfall Ratio*
*Calculated for each public enterprise account
[37] Number of local governments whose ratio exceeds early warning limit and rebuilding limit
(note 1) FY2013 settlement (note 2) () : number of local governments whose ratio exceeds reconstruction limit *: Yubari City in Hokkaido Izumisano City (in Osaka prefecture) exceeded early warning limit (future burden ratio) in FY 2012 settlement , but not in FY 2013 settlement
Prefecture
(47)
Designated cities (20)
Cities
(792)
Towns Villages
(930)
Net total
(1,789)
Real deficit ratio 0 0 0 0 0 Consolidated real deficit ratio 0 0 0 0 0 Real debt payment ratio 0 0 1(1) 0 1 (1) Future burden ratio 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 1(1) 0 1 (1)*
73
[38] The case of Yubari city
• Yubari City (Hokkaido) • Population: 10,922 (2010 Population Census of Japan)
・ Area size: 763.2 km2
(70 km east of Sapporo)
74
• Population had dropped sharply in the 1980s following the closures of coal mining industries.
(116,908 in 1960→12,307 in 2007) • Efforts by the city to revive the local
economy (amusement parks, ski resorts, etc.) ended up in failure, which led to fiscal crisis.
• Placed under reconstruction scheme in 2007.3
Yubari
[38-1] About the city
[38-2] FY2008 Financial Restoration Plan
• Period: (base year: FY2006) ~FY2024 – The plan has been revised every FY
• Main measures – Reduction of expenditure
• cutting numbers of officials – 269 in 2006.4 → 134 in FY2009 → 103 in FY2010 (excluding special account staffs)
• 17%~29% salary cut from standard salary (average 30% cut from FY2006) for general staff, etc.
• Reduction (about 40% of goods expenses • Reduction (about 40%) of subsidies, etc.
– Increase of revenue • Raising taxes - Municipal income tax: per capita ¥3,000→¥3,500 for individual income 6%→6.5% - Fixed income tax: 1.4% → 1.45%, etc. • Charging for garbage collection, etc.
75
(2007.3.6)
(2010.3.2 approved by the assembly, 2010.3.9 agreed by MIC) ← based on new legislation enacted in 2008.4
• Period: FY2009 ~FY2029 – The plan has been revised every FY*
• Main measures – Reduction of expenditure
• cutting numbers of officials – 309 in FY2006 → 160 in FY2009 → 124 in FY2026 (total, including special account staffs)
• Average 20% salary cut from standard salary for general staff, etc. • Reduction of subsidies, etc.
– Increase of revenue • Raising taxes • Charging for garbage collection, etc.
76
[38-3] FY2009 Financial Rebuilding Plan
⇒ Yubari city issued special deficit-covering local government bond (¥ 32.2billion)
(Financial Rebuilding Plan revised in 2015.3)
0
20
40
60
80
100
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Real Debt Payment Ratio
RDPR
77
8.6%: average of municipalities (FY2013 settlement)
2008 2009~
Real deficit ratio 703.6% 0
Consolidated real deficit ratio 705.67% 0
%
[38-4] Trends of fiscal indicators of Yubari City
[38-5] Trends of Future Burden Ratio of Yubari city
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Real Debt Payment Ratio
Future burden ratio
350%: early warning
50%: average of municipalities (FY2013 settlement)
%
78
<Reference> ・地方財政の状況 平成27年3月(総務省) (White paper 2015) ・地方財政要覧-平成25年12月-(一般財団法人 地方財務協会) ・平成26年度 地方交付税のあらまし(地方交付税制度研究会編) ・平成26年度 地方債のあらまし(地方債制度研究会編) (Internet sources) ・ Ministry of Finance http://www.mof.go.jp/english/index.htm ・ Cabinet Office http://www.cao.go.jp/index-e.html ・ White paper on local public finance, 2014-Illustrated-http://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/zaisei/26data/chihouzaisei_2014_en.pdf ・ Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications http://www.soumu.go.jp/english/index.html ・ Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/index.html ・ Japan Local Government Bond Association http://www.chihousai.or.jp/english/ ・ Japan Finance Organization for Municipalities http://www.jfm.go.jp/ ・ National Institute of Population and Social Security Research http://www.ipss.go.jp/index.asp
79
The content of this presentation material reflects the presenter’s personal view and does not represent the official view of the Ministry of Finance or the Policy Research Institute.