1 / 39

Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -

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.

garima
Download Presentation

Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience -A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brief Introduction of Japanese DP Experience-A Case of Kanagawa Deliberative Poll - Dec.3 2011 Dr. Tatusro Sakano Associate Prof, Tokyo Institute of Technology

  2. Trust on elected politicians and Democracy Dalton, R. J., Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices:The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 2004

  3. DP in Japan 2009“Do-Shusei (道州制）”　　 152/3000 KanagawaPrefecture + Titech 2010　“City Strategic PlanI” 258/3000 2010　“City Strategic PlanII” 162/3000 Fujisawa City + Keio Univ. 2011　“Pension Reform” 126/3000 Keio Univ.+ Asahi News paper 2011　“BSE” 151/3000 Hokkaido Univ + Sapporo City +Hokkaido Times

  4. Outline Kanagawa DP Project

  5. Outline Kanagawa DP Project

  6. Background of Doshusei ①　Increasing Old Age Population, Budgetary Deficit →　Small State without decreasing service level ②　Budgetary Dependencyof 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

  7. Outline Kanagawa DP Project ①　Theme : Doshusei ②　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

  8. Representativeness (Sex)

  9. Representativeness (Age)

  10. Representativeness : Voter Participation

  11. Representativeness: Participation in Government Hosted Forum 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)

  12. 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

  13. Representativeness: Policy AttitudeDesirable Structure of Government?

  14. Representativeness • Demographic Characteristics Young and Female are less than the population. But not significant. • Political Self-Efficacy • 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？

  15. KnowledgeGain T2=3.10→　T3=4.68 P=0.000

  16. Initial Level of KnowledgeX Knowledge Gain T2=3.10→　T3=4.68 P=0.000

  17. Knowledge GainX Attitudinal Change P=0.005 for L P=0.3072 LL randomly changed attitude For LM and LH, effective knowledge increase

  18. 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

  19. PA1:Keep current system just as it is v.s. PA2: Replace prefectures by Wider regional government(P2=0.0788)*

  20. PB1: Local Autonomy with risk of disparityvsPB2: Less Autonomy with National Equal Standard (P=0.4184) PC1: Only Regional gvt responsiility vs PC2: State govt in charge of all domestic administration (P=0.0245**)

  21. Correlation of Judgements T2 T3 T PA: necessity of wider regional administrative area + PB: Autonomy with risk of disparityvsLess with Equality ーPC: Only Regional gvt responsiility vs State govt also in charge of all domestic administration ー

  22. 図表20Desirable Division of Power

  23. Domination by top two participants

  24. Quantity of Speech Spoken par Person Female Male Volume of Speech spoken par person Times of Speech spoken par person ・一人あたり平均発言量、回数ともに男性の方が多い

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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

More Related