Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cities, Autonomy, and Decentralization in Japan, Carola Hein and Philippe Pelletier (eds), London and New York, Routledge, 2006, 224 pp., £65.00 (h/b) During the early years of this decade the Japanese government set out a comprehensive agenda of reforms, including cuts in public works expenditure and fiscal reforms designed to reduce the country's public sector debt of nearly US$6.4 trillion, equal to about 150 per cent of the country's gross domestic product, the worst ratio among industrial countries. The process of reform also encompassed urban and regional development as in 2003 the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006) created the so-called 'Trinity Reform Package'. In this context, 'trinity' means the decentralisation reform process that involves three factors: reform of local taxes, reform of the local allocation tax grant (the redistribution of funds to local governments) and reform of tied funds and national government disbursements to cities and local prefectures more generally. These fiscal decentralisation measures are still being worked through, but are likely to be significant as Japan has pursued one of the most active and consistent centrally directed regional policies in the OECD over the past 40 years. In light of these new policies a booklength study examining the background to central-local government relations, decentralisation, and city-community relations is most welcome. Hein and Pelletier's collection of essays dates from a 2000 conference and so does not cover in depth the more recent policy initiatives (see however OECD, 2005). Nevertheless, they incorporate an evaluation of earlier moves by the Japanese government set out in the Law for the Promotion of Decentralisation, 1995 (extended by further legislation in 2000). Four essays, including the introduction provided by the editors, deal with aspects of central government-local government relations. Planning historian Ishida Yorifusa examines why Japan differs from a more decentralised model of local government planning practised in the United States, Canada and most European countries. He charts urban and regional policy-making from Meiji Japan (1968-1911) to the current decade in terms of the relative shift of power relations between the central and local governments (and citizens), noting that until Japan's first City Planning Law in 1919, local governments were primarily responsible for urban improvement schemes and local zoning ordinances. The extremely centralised system that was established in 1919 survived the democratic reforms following World War II but led eventually to more administrative (if not financial) power for local government planning enshrined in the 1968 'new' City Planning Law. Since that time, the overall tenor of land use planning in Japan has emphasised (however slowly) both increased powers for local government and citizen involvement, mirroring wider moves in other industrialised countries. Another feature of decentralisation in Japan surrounds the power of the capital, Tokyo, relative to surrounding regions. In recent years politicians and bureaucrats have favoured complete removal of national government functions away from Tokyo to districts in Japan that are (slightly) less vulnerable to earthquakes. Urban planning scholar Nakabayashi Itsuki provides a historical overview of the various schemes to manage the growth of Japan's national capital. These include the ill-fated 'greenbelt' plan of 1939 and the five National Capital Region Development Plans of the national government, as well as the local plans of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The removal of national capital functions away from Tokyo has now been abandoned, mainly due to opposition from the Tokyo governor, Ishihara Shintaro, and a lack of finance. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».