Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -
39
Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll - Dec.3 2011 Dr. Tatusro Sakano Associate Prof, Tokyo Institute of Technology
description
Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -. Dec.3 2011 Dr. Tatusro Sakano Associate Prof, Tokyo Institute of Technology. Trust on elected politicians and Democracy. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -
Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Brief Introduction of Japanese DP ExperienceExperience
-A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -
Dec.3 2011Dr. Tatusro SakanoAssociate Prof, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Trust on elected politicians and Trust on elected politicians and DemocracyDemocracy
Dalton, R. J., Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices:The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 2004
DP in JapanDP in Japan
2009 “Do-Shusei ( 道州制）” 152/3000 Kanagawa Prefecture + Titech 2010 “ City Strategic Plan I” 258/30002010 “ City Strategic Plan II” 162/3000 Fujisawa City + Keio Univ.2011 “ Pension Reform” 126/3000 Keio Univ.+ Asahi News paper2011 “ BSE” 151/3000 Hokkaido Univ + Sapporo City + Hokkaido Times
Outline Kanagawa DP Project
Outline Kanagawa DP Project
国の仕事は、国で担うこと
が求められる仕事に重点化
国の仕事はできる限り道州
に移譲
広域的な仕事に軸足を移す
住民に身近な仕事は大幅に
市町村に移譲
＜道州制移行後＞
国 市
町村
道
州
＜現在＞
国
市町
村
都道
府県
Background of Doshusei
① Increasing Old Age Population, Budgetary Deficit
→ Small State without decreasing service level
② Budgetary Dependency of local government to the state
→ Change Tax allocation
revenue State 60% vs Local 40%
spending State 40% vs local 60%
③ Weak legislative power of local government
④ Too much concentration to Tokyo Metropolitan Region
Domestic Matters → Local Government
Diplomacy, Defense → State Government
⑤ Municipal Government Consolidation 3600 → 1700 in 2009
⑥ National Committee on Doshusei 2007 under LDP Government
⑦ Progressive Governors propose Doshusei
Outline Kanagawa DP Project
① Theme : Doshusei② 2008 Pilot Experiment (Kanagawa Prefecture +
Titech)③ 2009 Full Scale DP 3000 randomly selected from voters’ list Mail + Telephone : September 2009 T1 Survey :October 2009 Mailing respondent 534 Participants Recruitment : November 2009 Deliberation Event: December 5, 2009 participants
152
5000 JPYen for honorarium
時 間 内 容 備 考
9:00 ～ 9:30 reception 9:30 ～10:00 orientation ・「道州制」をテーマとする当日アンケートを実施
10:00 ～10:05 break
10:05 ～11:05
Group discussion
・ 小グループに分かれ、事前に提供された討議用資料などを基に、ファシリテーターの進行で意見交換を実施
11:05 ～11:25 break
11:25 ～12:50
Plenary1: Eduacation
【パネリスト】 荒田 英知氏（ＰＨＰ総合研究所主席研究員）
沼尾 波子氏（日本大学経済学部教授）
12:50 ～13:40 Lunch
13:40 ～14:40
Group discussion 2
14:40 ～15:00 break
15:00 ～16:30
Plenary: Employment
【パネリスト】 荒田 英知氏（ＰＨＰ総合研究所主席研究員）
沼尾 波子氏（日本大学経済学部教授） 渡邊 博顕氏（労働政策研究・研修機構
副統括研究員）
16:30 ～17:00
T3Governors Address
・ グループ討議での意見交換、全体会議での専門家からの回答などを踏まえ、午前に行ったものと同じ内容のアンケートを再度実施
Representativeness (Sex)
Representativeness (Age)
Representativeness : Voter Participation
Representativeness: Participation in Government Hosted Forum
N Ave. # Std
Non Participant 365 0.09 0.328
DP Participant 147 0.12 0.430
分散分析 F 検定 p-value = 0.242 ( クラスカル・ウォリス検定 p-value = 0.399)
Familiarity on The Policy Issue:How well do you know DoShu-sei?
Fisher's Exact 検定（参加者・非参加者の比較、両側検定、無回答は除く） p-value = 0.1510
Representativeness: Policy AttitudeDesirable Structure of Government?
Representativeness
► Demographic Characteristics Young and Female are less than the population. But not
significant.► Political Self-Efficacy1. 地域活動、政治参加行動は、ほとんど差がない。
→ これまで発言機会を持たなかった県民に、発言機会を提供する場と なったといえる。
► 政治的効力感の強いものほど、参加する傾向► Policy Attitude 道州制に関心があって、賛成意見のものほど参加する傾向
→ 集団分極化が起きる可能性？
Knowledge Gain
T2=3.10 → T3=4.68 P=0.000
Initial Level of Knowledge X Knowledge Gain
T2=3.10 → T3=4.68 P=0.000
Gain 0
Gain 1 to 2
Gain3
Initial KnowledgeLow <3
11(12.6)
35(40.2)
4(47.1)
Initial KnowledgeHigh >4
24(40.0)
35(58.3)
1( 1.7)
Knowledge Gain X Attitudinal Change
LL randomly changed attitudeFor LM and LH, effective knowledge increase
P=0.005 for L P=0.3072
Attitudinal Change
グループ討議
全体会議
*1 P1 無効を除き χ 二乗検定により T3 と比較 p=0.4174 P2 道州制支持の比率の差を χ 二乗検定により T3 と比較 p=0.3006
More Power to the State
More Power To the
Prefecture
Create DoShu
OtherDon’t Know
Inv. Total
T2 6(4.0) 71(47.0) 37(24.5)10(6.6
)25(16.6
)2(1.3
)151(100.0
)
T3 10(6.6) 62(41.1) 45(29.8)13(8.6
)18(11.9
)3(2.0
)151(100.0
)
PA1:Keep current system just as it is v.s. PA2: Replace prefectures by Wider regional
government (P2=0.0788)*(P2=0.0788)*
PA1 中間 PA2Don’t Know
Inv. Total
T2 37.1 25.2 31.2 6.0 0.7 100.0
T3 33.1 21.2 41.7 3.3 0.7 100.0
PB1: Local Autonomy with risk of disparity vs PB2: Less Autonomy with National Equal Standard
(P=0.4184)(P=0.4184)
PB1 中間 PB2Don’t Know
Inv. Total
T2 43.1 21.2 33.8 2.0 0.0 100.0
T3 41.7 15.9 39.1 3.3 0.0 100.0
PC1 中間 PC2Don’t Know
Inv. Total
T2 64.2 17.2 13.9 4.0 0.7 100.0
T3 58.2 12.6 26.5 1.3 1.3 100.0
PC1: Only Regional gvt responsiility vs PC2: State govt in charge of all domestic administration
(P=0.0245**)
Correlation of Judgements
PA PB PC
PA 1 -.286** -.441**
PB -.286** 1 .373**
PC -.441** .373** 1
PA PB PC
PA 1 -.175* -.005
PB -.175* 1 -.122
PC -.005 -.122 1
T
T2 T3
PA: necessity of wider regional administrative area +PB: Autonomy with risk of disparity vs Less with Equality ー PC: Only Regional gvt responsiility vs Only Regional gvt responsiility vs
State govt also in charge of all domestic State govt also in charge of all domestic administration administration ーー
図表 20 Desirable Division of Power
Domination by top two participantsDomination by top two participants
35
グループ 人数 独占度指標 1発言量 位 1,2発言量 位A 13 58.0% 21.5% 39.9%B 14 42.4% 15.9% 28.5%C 13 62.0% 32.3% 46.4%E 15 58.7% 15.8% 31.5%F 13 48.0% 17.7% 34.1%G 14 74.5% 28.2% 56.1%H 10 43.6% 18.1% 35.0%J 13 76.9% 51.9% 65.0%K 10 53.4% 24.0% 44.8%
57.5% 25.0% 42.4%各グループの発言量順位の累積％
全体平均
Quantity of Speech Spoken par PersonQuantity of Speech Spoken par Person
36
・一人あたり平均発言量、回数ともに男性の方が多い
男性 女性一人あたり平均発言量 1068.5 510.6一人あたり平均発言回数 4.0 3.2
Male Female
Times of Speech spoken par person
Volume of Speech spoken par person
Summary
① Japanese are shy to speak openly public policies? NO. Despite a complex issue, DP format worked.
②Some demographic bias but not too significant. No significant difference in policy attitude.
③Significant learning → considered opinion
④5% participant rate is very low → media cooperation matters more → honorarium matters less
⑤ 4DPs have been carried out after the first one. Still the recognition by general public and the influence
are not high.
⑥ DP on Japans Energy Future Before 3.11 60 to 70% supported Nuclear Power plant After deny it. Some propose to decide by referendum Limit of calculative method.
プロセスについての評価
a グループ討議の進行役は、全員が討議に参加できるような機会を作っていた ７２．９％
b グループ討議で話し合うべき内容は討議できた ６２．２％
c 他の参加者の意見が参考になった ８１．５％
d 進行役が進行役自身の意見を示唆する傾向があった ９．９％
e 自分と別の意見にも、よい見解があるとわかった ７２．９％
自分の考えをまとめるにあたって討議イベントが役立った ７８％ た
