FY2016 Settlement White Paper on Local Public Finance, 2018 · The Role of Local Public Finance...

White Paper onLocal Public Finance, 2018

– Illustrated –

FY2016 Set t lement

Contents

The Role of Local Public Finance …………………………………………………… 01

FY2016 Settlement Overview ………………………………………………………… 05

Revenues …………………………………………………………………………………… 071. Revenue Breakdown …………………………………………………………………… 07

2. Revenues in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion …………………… 08

3. Revenue Trends ………………………………………………………………………… 09

4. Ratio of National Taxes and Local Taxes ………………………………………………… 10

5. Local Taxes (Composition, Trends, Index of Per Capita Tax Revenue) …………………………………………… 10

6. Local Allocation Tax …………………………………………………………………… 13

Expenditures ……………………………………………………………………………… 141. Expenses Classified by Purpose ………………………………………………………… 14

2. Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Purpose) … 15

3. Breakdown of Expenses Classified by Purpose (Public Welfare Expenses, Educational Expenses, Civil Engineering Work Expenses) … 16

4. Expenses Classified by Type …………………………………………………………… 18

5. Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Type) … 19

6. Breakdown of Expenses Classified by Type(Social Assistance Expenses, Personnel Expenses, Ordinary Construction Work Expenses, Subsidizing Expenses, Transfers to Other Accounts) …… 20

Flexibility of the Financial Structure ……………………………………………… 241. Ordinary Balance Ratio (Trends and Breakdown) ………………………………………………… 24

2. Real Debt Service Ratio and Debt Service Payment Ratio (Trends) …………………………… 25

Future Financial Burden ………………………………………………………………… 261. Trends in Outstanding Local Government Bonds and Debt Burden ……………………… 26

2. Trends in Outstanding Borrowing Borne by the Ordinary Accounts ……………………… 26

3. Trends in Balance of Funds …………………………………………………………… 27

Local Public Enterprises ………………………………………………………………… 281. Presence of Local Public Enterprises …………………………………………………… 28

2. Number of Businesses Operated by Local Public Enterprises …………………………… 28

3. Scale of Financial Settlement …………………………………………………………… 28

4. Financial Status ………………………………………………………………………… 29

Impact of Great East Japan Earthquake ………………………………………… 301. Settlement of Disaster-Struck Organizations (revenues, expenditures classified by purpose, expenditures classified by type) … 30

2. Financial Status of Businesses of Local Public Enterprises of Disaster-Struck Organizations … 32

Promotion of the Soundness of Local Public Finance ………………………… 331. Overview of the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Governments ……… 33

2. Status of the Ratios for Measuring Financial Soundness and Financial Shortfall Ratio …… 34

1 “Net totals of the revenues and expenditures” are the ordinary net account totals of 3,061 organizations (47 prefectures, 1,718 municipalities, 23 special wards, 1,207 partial administrative associations and 113 wide- area local public bodies).

2 Figures for each item that are less than the given unit are rounded off. Therefore, they do not necessarily add up exactly to the total.

3 In FY2011, the revenues and expenditures of ordinary accounts were divided into the regular portion (Overall settlement figures less the Great East Japan Earthquake portion) and the Great East Japan Earthquake portion (Covering the revenues and expenditures related to recovery and reconstruction work and nationwide disaster prevention work).

The Role of Local Public Finance

Etc.

School education Welfare

Roads Fire service

General administrative sector accounts

Ordinary accounts

Other accounts (Public business

accounts)

Public enterprise accounts

● Water supply ● Transportation ● Electrical power ● Gas● Hospitals ● Sewerage systems ● Residential land development Etc.

National health insurance accounts

Latter-stage elderly medical care

accounts

Nursing care insurance accounts

Etc.

Local Government Accounts

Prefectures and municipalities (cities, towns, and villages) are the central actors in various areas of public services, including school education, public welfare and health, police and fire services, and public works such as roads and sewage systems, thereby fulfilling a major role in the lives of the citizens of the nation. This brochure describes the status of local public finance (which comprises collectively the finances of individual local governments), the state of settlements for FY2016, and the initiatives of local governments towards sound public finances (mainly the status of the ratios for measuring their financial soundness), with particular attention given to ordinary accounts (Public enterprises, such as water supply, transportation, and hospitals are described in the section on Local Public Enterprises).

Classification of the Accounts of Local Governments Applied in the Settlement Account StatisticsThe accounts of local governments are divided into the general accounts and the special accounts, but classification of these accounts varies between local governments. Therefore, the accounts are classified in a standardized manner into ordinary accounts, which cover the general administrative sector, and other accounts (public business accounts). This makes it possible to clarify the financial condition of local governments as a whole and to make a statistical comparison between local governments.

White Paper on Local Public Finance, 201801

¥22,039.3 billion

(4.1%)

¥58,531.5 billion

(10.9%)

¥45,333.9 billion

(8.4%)

¥7,258.4 billion

(1.3%)

¥133,163.2 billion

(24.7%)

¥312,221.4 billion

(57.9%)

¥88,567.2 billion

(16.4%)¥5,302.6 billion

(1.0%)

△50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

(trillion yen)

¥400,788.6 billion(74.3%)

Private sector Net export of goods and servicesPublic sector

Gross Domestic Product (expenditure, nominal)

¥539,254.3 billion (100%)

Central government Local governments

Public corporationsSocial security funds Household sectorNet export

450

Corporate sector

Gross Domestic Product (Expenditure, nominal) and Local Public Finance (FY2016)

How large is local public finance?The ratio of expenditure by local governments in gross domestic product (nominal) is 10.9%, about 2.7 times that of the central government.

Local Public Finance, 2018 –Illustrated– 02

The Role of Local Public Finance

●Public gross capital formation¥6,325.6 billion (4.8%)

Central government¥22,039.3 billion (16.6%)●Government

�nal consumption expenditure¥15,713.7 billion (11.8%)

●Government 　�nal consumption expenditure

¥45,199.2 billion (33.9%)


●Public gross capital formation¥41.2 billion (0.0%)

●Government 　�nal consumption expenditure

¥45,292.7 billion (34.0%)

Social security funds¥45,333.9 billion(34.0%)

Local governments¥58,531.5 billion (44.0%)


Public corporations¥7,258.4 billion (5.5%)

Publicexpenditures¥133,163.2 billion

(100.0%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Government �nalconsumption expenditure¥106,205.6 billion

Public gross capitalformation

¥26,957.5 billion

Central government Social security funds Local governments Public corporations

(%)

14.8% 42.6% 42.6%

23.5% 0.2% 49.5% 26.9%

55,432.7 (11.3)

23,168.8 (4.7)

37,489.0 (7.6)

¥123,166.6billion (25.0) (45.0)

58,389.6 (11.3)

22,488.4 (4.3)

43,588.0 (8.4)

¥131,483.5billion (25.4) (44.4)

58,586.7 (11.0)

21,791.8 (4.1)

45,129.6 (8.5)

¥132,823.9billion (24.9) (44.1)

57,404.0 (10.8)

22,808.2 (4.3)

34,000.0 (6.4)

¥120,901.3billion (22.9) (47.5)

56,670.7 (10.7)

22,688.3 (4.3)

35,257.8 (6.6)

¥121,670.9billion (22.9) (46.6)

56,739.5 (11.2)

22,798.0 (4.5)

42,467.3 (8.4)

¥128,782.3billion (25.4) (44.1)

55,931.6 (11.2)

21,368.5 (4.3)

38,914.2 (7.8)

¥122,755.8billion (24.6) (45.6)

56,053.6 (11.3)

21,232.4 (4.3)

40,355.5 (8.2)

¥123,962.7billion (25.1) (45.2)

55,776.0 (11.3)

20,883.7 (4.2)

41,436.6 (8.4)

¥124,775.6billion (25.2) (44.7)

54,777.4 (10.8)

22,667.9 (4.4)

36,009.9 (7.1)

7,076.0 (1.4)

7,017.5 (1.4)

7,315.8 (1.4) 6,689.1

(1.3) 7,054.1 (1.3)

6,777.4 (1.3) 6,541.5

(1.3) 6,321.2 (1.3)

6,679.3 (1.4) 6,972.0

(1.4)

¥120,427.1billion (23.6) (45.5)

●Social security funds

●Publiccorporations

●Central government

●Local governments

Public expenditures

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2014 FY2015¥133,163.2

billion (24.7%) (44.0%)

FY2016FY2013FY2012 Amount ofpublic expendituresPercentage of publicexpenditures in grossdomestic product(expenditure, nominal)Local share of publicexpenditures

58,531.5(10.9)

22,039.3(4.1)

45,333.9(8.4)

7,258.4(1.3)

Breakdown of public expenditures

Trends in public expenditures

How large is local government expenditure in total public expenditure?Looking at the breakdown of public expenditure classified by final expenditure entity, local government expenditure accounts for 42.6% of Government final consumption expenditure, and 49.5% of Public gross capital formation. As a final expenditure entity, local governments above the central government and play a major role for the national economy.


%99% %1%

%87% %13%

%78% %22%

%78% %22%

%36% %64%

%46% %54%

%78% %22%

%44% %56%

3%3% %97%%100%

%100%

%76% %24%

%100%

%74% %26%

%71% %29%

%63% %37%

%62% %38%

Sanitation expenses 3.7%

School education expenses 8.9%

Land development expenses 8.2%

Commercial andindustrial expenses 5.0%

Disaster recovery expenses,etc. 0.6%

Debt services 20.6%

Pension expenses(of public welfare expenses) 6.7%

Defense expenses 3.0%

Other 1.5%

Judicial, police, and�re service expenses 4.0%

Social educationexpenses, etc.

2.9%

Public welfare expenses(excluding pension expenses) 22.4%

Land conservation expenses 1.6%

Agriculture, forestry and�shery expenses 1.7%

Housing expenses, etc. 1.6%

Onkyu pension expenses 0.2%

General administrativeexpenses, etc. 7.4%

Public health centers, garbage disposal, etc.Public health centers, garbage disposal, etc.

Elementary and junior high schools, kindergartens, etc.Elementary and junior high schools, kindergartens, etc.

Community centers, libraries, museums, etc.Community centers, libraries, museums, etc.

Rivers and coastsRivers and coasts

Family register, basic resident register, etc.Family register, basic resident register, etc.

Urban planning, roads and bridges, public housing, etc.Urban planning, roads and bridges, public housing, etc.

Child welfare, elderly care and welfare, public assistance, etc.Child welfare, elderly care and welfare, public assistance, etc.

Local　57.8%Local　57.8% Central　42.2%Central　42.2%

Share of Expenditures by Purpose of Central and Local Governments (final expenditure based)

In which areas is the share of local expenditures high?The below graph shows central and local governments’ expenditures by purpose as a share of net total expenditure, classified by final expenditure entity.The share of local governments’ expenditures is higher in areas that are deeply related to daily life, such as public welfare, sanitation, and school education.


FY2016 Settlement Overview

1 Revenues¥101,459.8 billion (down ¥457.6 billion, 0.4% year on year)

Regular portion: ¥97,642.2 billion (up ¥131.1 billion, 0.1% year on year)Great East Japan Earthquake portion: ¥3,817.7 billion (down ¥588.8 billion, 13.4% year on year)

The increase of revenues in the regular portion resulted from an increase in National treasury disbursements, etc.The decrease in revenues in the Great East Japan Earthquake portion resulted from a decrease in transfers from other accounts, etc.

2 Expenditures¥98,141.5 billion (down ¥263.8 billion, 0.3% year on year)

Regular portion: ¥94,766.6 billion (up ¥195.8 billion, 0.2% year on year)Great East Japan Earthquake portion: ¥3,374.9 billion (down ¥459.5 billion, 12.0% year on year)

The increases of expenditure in the regular portion resulted from an increase in social assistance expenses, etc. The decrease in expenditures in the Great East Japan Earthquake portion resulted from a decrease in Ordinary construction work expenses, etc.

3 Revenue and Expenditure SettlementThe real balance showed a surplus of ¥1,960.5 billion.

CategoryAccount Settlement No. of local governments with a deficit

FY2016 FY2015 FY2016 FY2015

Real balance ¥1,960.5 billion ¥1,962.4 billion －－

Single year balance ¥2.8 billion ¥125.2 billion 1,702 1,133

Real single year balance ▲¥100.1 billion ¥501.8 billion 1,595 1,055

Notes : Real balance refers to the amount calculated by subtracting the revenue resources that should be carried over to the next fiscal year from the income expenditure balance. Single year balance refers to the amount calculated by subtracting the real balance of the previous fiscal year from the real balance of the relevant fiscal year. Real single year balance refers to the amount calculated by adding reserves and advanced redemption of local loans for the public finance adjustment fund to the single year balance and subtracting public finance adjustment fund reversals.


85

0

90

95

100

105

99.8

96.4

93.8

91.1

5.3

6.0

101.1

97.4

96.2 97.5 97.5

4.9

93.2 94.5 94.6

4.2

102.1

98.54.6

4.0

(trillion yen)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016FY2012FY2006

4.44.4

3.83.898.4

101.93.83.8

3.43.4

¥98.1 trillion

¥101.5 trillion

Expenditures (Earthquake portion)Expenditures (Regular portion)

Revenues (Earthquake portion)Revenues (Regular portion)

91.589.2

97.6

94.8

4 Trend in Scale of Account SettlementBoth revenues and expenditures of the regular portion have increased for four consecutive years.

5 Major Financial IndicesOrdinary balance ratio rose 1.7 percentage points year on year, to 93.4%.Real debt service ratio declined 0.6 percentage points, to 9.3%.

Category FY2016 FY2015 Change

Ordinary balance ratio 93.4% 91.7% 1.7

Real debt service ratio 9.3% 9.9% ▲0.6

6 Outstanding Borrowing Borne by Ordinary AccountsOutstanding borrowing, which includes outstanding local government borrowing as well as borrowing from the special accounts for Local allocation tax and Outstanding public enterprise bonds (borne by ordinary accounts), amounted to ¥197,318.9 billion (down ¥1,778.1 billion, 0.9% year on year).

Category FY2016 FY2015 Change amount Change rate

Outstanding local government bonds ¥144,908.7 billion ¥145,526.4 billion ▲¥617.8 billion ▲0.4%

Outstanding local government bonds(excluding Bonds for the extraordinary

financial measures)¥93,013.7 billion ¥94,864.7 billion ▲¥1,851.0 billion ▲2.0%

Outstanding borrowing from the specialaccounts for Local allocation tax ¥32,417.3 billion ¥32,817.3 billion ▲¥400.0 billion ▲1.2%

Outstanding public enterprise bonds(borne by ordinary accounts) ¥19,992.9 billion ¥20,753.3 billion ▲¥760.4 billion ▲3.7%

Total ¥197,318.9 billion ¥199,097.0 billion ▲¥1,778.1 billion ▲0.9%

Note : Outstanding public enterprise bonds (borne by ordinary accounts) are estimates based on the settlement account statistics.


Revenues

General revenue resources¥59,094.9 billion (58.2%)

Prefecturestotal

¥51,623.1 billion


●Local taxes¥20,251.6 billion (39.2%)

●Local transfer tax¥1,924.8 billion (3.7%)

●Special local grants¥49.3 billion (0.1%)

●Local allocation tax¥9,050.0 billion (17.5%)

●Other general revenue resources¥1.0 billion (0.0%)


◆Other revenue resources¥9,868.9 billion (16.8%)

◆Prefectural disbursements¥3,954.0 billion (6.8%)

◆Local bonds¥4,889.2 billion (8.4%)●Bonds for the

extraordinary �nancial measures¥1,569.3 billion (2.7%)

◆National treasury disbursements¥9,201.0 billion (15.8%)


●Local transfer tax¥415.4 billion (0.7%)



●Other general revenue resources¥2,668.5 billion (4.6%)

Net total¥101,459.8 billion


◆Local bonds¥10,387.3 billion (10.2%)



●Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures¥3,739.4 billion (3.7%)

●Local transfer tax¥2,340.2 billion (2.3%)



Municipalities total

¥58,400.7 billion




●Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures¥2,170.1 billion(4.2%)

Composition of Revenues (FY2016 settlement)

What are the revenue sources for local governments’ activities?

1 Revenue BreakdownThe revenue of local governments consists mainly of Local taxes, Local allocation tax, National treasury disbursements, and Local bonds, in order of share size. Among them, revenue resources which can be spent for any purpose, such as Local taxes and Local allocation tax, are called General revenue resources. It is important for local governments to ensure sufficient General revenue resources in order to handle various administrative needs properly. In FY2016, General revenue resources accounted for 58.2%.

Local transfer tax : Collected as a national tax and transferred to local governments. Includes Local gasoline transfer tax, etc.Special local grants : Special local grants in FY2016 include special grants for covering decreases in local tax revenues issued to cover decreases in revenues of local governments

in association with the implementation of special tax deductions for housing loans in the individual inhabitant tax.Local allocation tax : An intrinsic revenue source of local governments in order to adjust imbalances in tax revenue among local governments and to guarantee revenue sources so

that all the local governments across the country can provide a consistent level of public services. (See page.13, “6. Local Allocation Tax.”)National treasury disbursements

: A collective term for the national obligatory share, commissioning expenses, incentives for specific policies, or financial assistance, disbursed from the central government to local governments.

Local bonds : The debts of local governments to be repaid over a period of time in excess of one fiscal year for which redemption continues for more than one fiscal year.Bonds for the extraordinary financial measures

: Local bonds issued as an exception to Article 5 of the Local Finance Law to address shortages of General revenue resources of local governments. Proceeds from these bonds can be used for expenses other than investment expenses.

Note : “National treasury disbursements” includes “special grants to measures for traffic safety” and “grants to cities, towns and villages where national institutions are located.”


Regular portion¥97,642.2 billion



Great East Japan Earthquake portion

¥3,817.7 billion


◆General revenue resources¥602.2 billion (15.8%)●Of this amount, earthquake disaster reconstruction

allocation tax was ¥487.7 billion (12.8%)

◆Local bonds¥150.7 billion (3.9%)

◆National treasury disbursements¥14,332.6 billion (14.7%)●Of this amount, ordinary

construction expenses were¥1,464.9 billion (1.5%)

●Of this amount, recovery and reconstruction expenses were¥153.5 billion (0.2%)

◆General revenue resources¥58,492.7 billion (59.9%)

◆National treasury disbursements¥1,296.5 billion (34.0%)●Of this amount, ordinary construction

expenses were¥99.7 billion (2.6%)


●Of this amount, grants to measures for earthquake disaster reconstruction were¥163.6 billion (4.3%)






¥2,484.9 billion




◆National treasury disbursements¥985.1 billion (39.6%)●Of this amount, ordinary construction






construction expenses were¥977.0 billion (2.0%)






◆Prefectural disbursements¥3,618.8 billion (6.4%)

◆Other revenue resources¥699.2 billion (41.0%)




◆Prefectural disbursements¥335.2 billion (19.7%)


construction expenses were¥488.0 billion (0.9%)


◆National treasury disbursements¥311.4 billion (18.3%)●Of this amount, ordinary construction





¥1,703.1 billion

Municipalities

Net Total

Prefectures

2 Revenues in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion


Revenues

[ ] shows general revenue resources + bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures.

FY2015

FY2016

FY2012

FY2006

0 100 trillion yen

FY2013

¥16.7 trillion(16.3%)¥10.7 trillion

(10.5%)

¥15.3 trillion(15.0%)

¥59.3 trillion (58.2%)

¥39.1 trillion(38.4%)

¥17.4 trillion(17.1%)

¥2.7 trillion (2.6%) ¥0.1 trillion (0.1%)

[¥63.7 trillion (62.5%)]

¥4.4 trillion (4.4%)

¥101.1 trillion

¥101.9 trillion

¥16.6 trillion (16.5%)¥12.3 trillion

(12.2%)

¥16.5 trillion(16.3%)

¥55.7 trillion (55.0%)

¥35.4 trillion(35.0%)

¥17.6 trillion(17.4%)


[¥61.7 trillion (61.0%)]


¥99.8 trillion¥16.9 trillion(16.8%)¥12.3 trillion

(12.4%)

¥15.5 trillion(15.6%)

¥55.1 trillion (55.2%)

¥34.5 trillion(34.5%)

¥18.3 trillion(18.3%)


[¥61.1 trillion (61.2%)]


Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measuresLocal bondNational treasury disbursements Other revenue resources

Special local grantsLocal transfer taxLocal taxesGeneral revenue resources Local allocation tax

FY2014¥17.8 trillion

(17.4%)¥11.5 trillion(11.3%)

¥15.5 trillion(15.2%)

¥57.3 trillion (56.1%)

¥36.8 trillion(36.0%)

¥17.4 trillion(17.1%)


[¥62.7 trillion (61.5%)]


¥102.1 trillion


(10.5%)

¥10.5 trillion(11.5%)

¥57.0 trillion (62.3%)

¥36.5 trillion(39.9%)

¥16.0 trillion(17.5%)


[¥59.6 trillion (65.1%)]



(10.2%)

¥15.7 trillion(15.5%)

¥59.1 trillion (58.2%)


¥39.4 trillion(38.8%)

¥17.2 trillion(17.0%)


[¥62.8 trillion (61.9%)]


Net Total

3 Revenue TrendsThe ratio of general revenue resources turned downward in FY2011, but have been rising since FY2014.

Note : “National treasury disbursements” includes “special grants to measures for traffic safety” and “grants to cities, towns and villages where national institutions are located.”


Total¥18,114.0 billion

◆Prefectural inhabitant tax¥5,891.4 billion (32.5%)

◆Enterprise tax¥4,261.3 billion (23.5%)

◆Other taxes ¥98.8 billion (0.5%)◆Automobile acquisition tax ¥146.1 billion (0.8%)

◆Prefectural tobacco tax¥148.9 billion (0.8%)

◆Real estate acquisition tax¥396.7 billion (2.2%)

◆Light oil delivery tax¥933.1 billion (5.2%)

◆Automobile tax¥1,534.9 billion (8.5%)

◆Local consumption tax¥4,702.8 billion (26.0%)

● Individual¥5,093.5 billion (28.1%)

●On interest paid¥44.5 billion (0.2%)

●Corporate¥753.5 billion (4.2%)

●Corporate ¥4,063.3 billion (22.4%)

● Individual ¥198.0 billion (1.1%)

Total¥21,278.4 billion

◆Fixed asset tax¥8,893.5 billion (41.8%)

◆City planning tax¥1,261.6 billion (5.9%)

◆Municipal tobacco tax¥910.9 billion (4.3%)

◆Other taxes ¥638.8 billion (3.0%)

●Corporate¥2,208.5 billion (10.4%)

◆Municipal inhabitant tax¥9,573.6 billion (45.0%)

● Individual¥7,365.1 billion (34.6%)

Total amount of taxes

¥98,348.7 billion

◆National taxes¥58,956.3 billion(59.9%)

●Municipal taxes¥21,278.4 billion (21.6%)

●Prefectural taxes¥18,114.0 billion(18.4%)

◆Local taxes¥39,392.4 billion(40.1%)

Composition of Revenue from Municipal Taxes (FY2016 settlement)

Composition of Revenue from Prefectural Taxes (FY2016 settlement)

4 Ratio of National Taxes and Local Taxes

The total of taxes collected as national and local taxes amounted to ¥98,348.7 billion. Of this amount, national and local taxes accounted for 59.9% and 40.1% respectively.

Note : Municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government are included in municipal tax revenue figures, but not included in prefectural tax revenue figures.

5 Local TaxesLocal taxes consist of prefectural taxes and municipal taxes.


Trends in Prefectural Tax Revenues

Revenues

4.7 5.1

0.8 1.0

0.1

2.43.0

2.6

3.11.6

1.60.9

0.9

5.6

2.5

6.2

3.2

0.1

0.0

14.1

15.7

0.2

0.20.1

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

5.0

0.80.1

2.7

2.6

1.6

0.9

5.9

2.9

14.8 0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.40.4

0.1

5.2

0.8

3.5

5.0

1.5

0.9

6.1

3.7

0.10.1

0.2

0.20.4

0.1

FY2015 FY2016FY2012FY2006 FY2013 FY20140

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20(trillion yen)

18.0 ¥18.1 trillion

Local consumption tax Other taxesLight oil delivery taxAutomobile acquisition taxAutomobile taxReal estate acquisition tax Prefectural tobacco tax

Prefectural inhabitant tax IndividualCorporateEnterprise taxCorporateOn interest paidIndividual

2.7

1.1

5.4

2.6

1.7

1.1

5.6

4.0

0.2

16.30.1

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.5

5.1

0.8

4.1

4.7

1.5

0.9

5.9

4.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.10.4

0.0

Trends in Municipal Tax Revenues

9.1 9.5

6.97.2

2.1 2.3

8.68.8

0.90.91.21.20.50.720.3

9.27.0

2.2

8.7

1.01.20.5

20.6 21.1

9.6

7.1

2.4

8.8

1.01.20.5

21.1

FY2015 FY2016FY2012FY2006 FY2013 FY2014

(trillion yen)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Fixed asset tax Other taxesMunicipal tobacco tax City planning taxCorporateIndividualMunicipal inhabitant tax

9.1

6.2

2.8

8.6

0.91.20.5

20.2

9.67.4

2.2

8.9

0.91.30.6

¥21.3 trillion

Prefectural tax revenues have increased for five consecutive years since FY2012.

Municipal tax revenues remained at almost the same level for the past five years.

Note : Municipal tax revenue figures include municipal taxes collected by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.


Index of Per Capita Revenue in Local Tax Revenue (with national average as 100)

84.271.677.6

93.470.176.3

88.691.396.696.0

88.492.9

167.0104.4

86.794.096.097.6

90.787.488.9

102.2118.8

94.991.492.4

104.493.4

74.178.1

72.975.4

89.594.8

86.281.387.8

79.872.1

88.076.7

69.772.979.8

72.272.568.5

100.0

80.065.470.7

87.663.171.779.4

90.990.886.5

105.6109.4

162.3127.2

76.989.889.787.085.383.387.7

97.2114.4

91.892.294.194.799.3

90.273.669.772.5

83.192.9

80.876.183.6

73.071.2

84.770.869.568.671.2

65.265.462.6

100.0

70.9

66.155.568.5

96.954.258.8

90.379.886.5

106.160.668.1

249.679.677.783.996.4100.0

88.276.274.1

95.0142.1

83.685.2

76.3118.4

70.941.0

55.657.766.677.1

91.481.2

93.872.2

56.181.5

63.451.553.965.6

54.955.757.1

100.0

104.695.695.198.5101.1

95.896.1

88.599.998.1

81.387.0

132.590.397.4100.5105.1101.9101.0102.4

94.6102.7104.0

93.686.9

104.2105.8

90.282.089.7

99.495.597.1100.6

94.995.2103.3

95.598.999.496.796.298.098.799.096.9

81.8100.0

76.774.475.884.5

70.075.484.4

94.7101.197.1

88.391.8

156.8104.1

95.5100.2

93.9109.6

95.390.292.7

108.8117.1

102.297.995.4

105.098.9

71.281.8

73.778.9

93.894.489.988.384.691.2

72.587.0

79.067.872.6

85.674.977.581.5

100.0

Hokkaido

Aomori

Iwate

Miyagi

Akita

Yamagata

Fukushima

Ibaraki

Tochigi

Gunma

Saitama

Chiba

Tokyo

Kanagawa

Niigata

Toyama

Ishikawa

Fukui

Yamanashi

Nagano

Gifu

Shizuoka

Aichi

Mie

Shiga

Kyoto

Osaka

Hyogo

Nara

Wakayama

Tottori

Shimane

Okayama

Hiroshima

Yamaguchi

Tokushima

Kagawa

Ehime

Kochi

Fukuoka

Saga

Nagasaki

Kumamoto

Oita

Miyazaki

Kagoshima

Okinawa

National average

FY2016settlement

amount

Individual inhabitant tax Two corporate taxes Local consumption tax (post settlement)Local taxes total Fixed asset tax

¥12.2 trillionMax/Min 2.6





300250200150100500200150100500 200150100500 200150100500 200150100500

In order for local governments to provide public services in response to local needs on their own responsibility and at their own discretion, it is necessary to build a less imbalanced and stable local tax system. Comparing local tax revenue amounts, with the national average set at 100, Tokyo, the highest, was approximately 2.4 times the amount for Okinawa Prefecture, which was the lowest.

Notes : 1. “Max/Min” indicates the value obtained by dividing the maximum value of per-capita tax revenue for each prefecture by the minimum value.2. Local tax revenue amounts exclude overassessment and discretionary taxes, etc.3. Individual inhabitant tax revenue is the total of the prefectural individual inhabitant tax (on a per-capita basis and on an income basis) and the municipal individual inhabitant tax (on

a per-capita basis and on an income basis), and excludes overassessment.4. Revenue from the two corporate taxes is the total of the corporate prefectural inhabitant tax, the corporate municipal inhabitant tax, and the corporate business tax (excluding local

corporation special transfer tax) and excludes overassessment, etc.5. Fixed asset tax revenues include prefectural amounts, and exclude overassessment.6. Calculations were made in accordance with the basic resident register population as of January 1, 2017.


6 Local Allocation TaxFrom the perspective of local autonomy, it would be the ideal for each local government to ensure the revenue sources necessary for their activities through Local tax revenue collected from their residents. However, there are regional imbalances in tax sources, and many local governments are unable to acquire the necessary tax revenue. Accordingly, the central government collects revenue resources that would essentially be attributable to Local tax revenue and reallocates them as Local allocation tax to local governments that have weaker financial capabilities.

1.Determining the total amount of Local allocation tax

The total amount of the Local allocation tax is determined in accordance with estimates of standard revenue and expenditures in local public finance as a whole, based on a fixed percentage for national taxes (in FY2016 33.1% for Income tax and Corporate tax, 50% for Liquor tax, 22.3% for Consumption tax, and the total amount of Local corporate tax).The total amount of the Local allocation tax in FY2016 was ¥17,239.0 billion, down 0.9% year on year.

2.How regular Local allocation taxes are calculated for each local government

The Regular local allocation tax for each local government is calculated through the following mechanism.

Standard �nancial requirements Standard �nancial revenues Regular allocation tax amount

Unit cost× Measurement unit（national census population, etc.）

× Correction coef�cient（gradated correction, etc.）

Standard �nancial requirements－ Standard �nancial revenues

Standard local tax revenue× Calculation rate（75％）＋ Local transfer tax, etc.

Notes : 1. Standard financial requirements are figured out based on the rational and appropriate service standards for each local government. For this reason, the local share of the services, such as compulsory education, benefits for livelihood protection, and public works which are subject to national obligatory share, is mandatorily included. Beginning in FY2001, part of the Standard financial requirements is being transferred to special local bonds (bond for temporary substitution for local allocation tax) as an exception to Article 5 of the Local Finance Law.

2. Normal local tax revenue does not include Non-act-based tax or over-taxation that sets tax rates above the standard tax rate stipulated in the Local Tax Act.

3.Function of the Local allocation tax

The function of the Local allocation tax is to adjust imbalances in revenue resources between local governments and to ensure their financial capacity to provide standard public services and basic infrastructure to residents across the country. The adjustment of revenue resources through Local allocation tax makes the ratios of General revenue resources to the total revenues between local governments practically flat regardless of the size of population.

Revenues

0

20

40

60 53.9

38.4

2.9

12.6

55.4

26.1

4.6

24.7

55.0

24.1

4.7

26.2

54.8

11.7

5.5

37.5

(%)

0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0

Small citiesMidsize cities Towns and villages(population of 10,000 or more)

Towns and villages(population of Less than 10,000)

Local taxes Local transfer tax, etc. Special local grants Local allocation tax

Note : A “Midsize city” refers to a city with a population of 100,000 or more excluding Government-ordinance-designated cities, Core cities, and Special cities at the time of the effective date, and a “Small city” refers to a city with a population of less than 100,000.

Ratio of Total Revenue for Municipalities Composed of General Revenue Resources



◆Public welfare expenses¥26,340.8 billion (26.8%)

◆Educational expenses¥16,745.8 billion (17.1%)

◆Debt service¥12,571.9 billion (12.8%)

◆Other expenses¥7,985.5 billion (15.9%)

◆Agriculture, forestry and �shery expenses¥2,266.0 billion (4.5%)

◆Commerce and industry expenses¥3,472.9 billion(6.9%)

◆Sanitation expenses¥1,709.5 billion(3.4%)

◆General administrative expenses¥2,643.5 billion (5.3%)

◆Civil engineering work expenses¥5,557.3 billion (11.1%)

◆Debt service¥6,915.9 billion(13.8%)

◆Educational expenses¥11,104.9 billion(22.1%)

◆Public welfare expenses¥8,554.8 billion(17.0%)

Prefectures total

¥50,210.3 billion

Prefectures total

¥50,210.3 billion


¥56,495.1 billion


¥56,495.1 billion




◆Public welfare expenses¥21,012.8 billion(37.2%)



◆Sanitation expenses¥6,258.4 billion (6.4%)



◆Commerce and industry expenses¥5,195.1 billion (5.3%)


◆Commerce and industry expenses¥1,763.6 billion(3.1%)




Expenditures

Composition of Expenditure Classified by Purpose (FY2016 settlement)

What are expenses spent on?

1 Expenses Classified by PurposeClassifying the expenses by purpose demonstrates that much of public money is appropriated for Public welfare expenses, Education expenses, and Debt service. In prefectures, Education expenses, Public welfare expenses, and Debt service have the highest shares in that order. In municipalities, Public welfare expenses, General administrative expenses, and Civil engineering work expenses account for the largest amounts in that order.

General administrative expenses : Expenses for general administration, financial management, accounting administration, etc.Public welfare expenses : Expenses for the construction and operation of welfare facilities for children, the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled, etc., and for the

implementation of public assistance, etc.Educational expenses : Expenses for school education, social education, etc.Civil engineering work expenses : Expenses for the construction and maintenance of public facilities, such as roads, rivers, housing, and parks.Debt service : Expenses for the payment of principal, interest, etc., on debts.


Expenditures

◆Public welfare expenses¥25,598.2 billion (27.0%)●Of this amount,

disaster relief expenses were¥99.3 billion (0.1%)


◆Debt service¥12,537.7 billion (13.2%)



¥3,374.9 billion

◆Public welfare expenses¥742.6 billion (22.0%)●Of this amount,


◆Educational expenses¥119.3 billion(3.5%)

◆Debt service¥34.2 billion(1.0%)

◆Civil engineering work expenses¥939.4 billion (27.8%)




◆Agriculture, forestry and �shery expenses¥2,959.8 billion(3.1%)

◆Disaster recovery expenses¥339.5 billion (0.4%)

◆Other expenses ¥6,055.6 billion (6.5%)

◆General administrative expenses¥370.0 billion (11.0%)

◆Commerce and industry expenses¥321.3 billion (9.5%)

◆Sanitation expenses¥93.5 billion(2.8%)

◆Agriculture, forestry and �shery expenses¥211.4 billion(6.3%)


◆Other expenses ¥64.3 billion (1.9%)



¥2,216.7 billion




































¥1,528.4 billion













Municipalities

Net total

Prefectures

2 Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Purpose)


0

100

80

60

40

20

5.2

12.0

16.7

12.6

6.9

3.2

8.9

26.3

6.3

5.5

98.498.4

11.7

16.8

12.9

7.1

3.2

9.6

25.3

6.3

98.598.5

5.5

12.1

16.7

13.4

7.1

3.3

9.9

24.5

6.1

97.497.4

5.9

12.1

16.1

13.1

7.2

3.5

10.0

23.5

6.0

96.496.4

6.2

11.2

16.1

13.0

7.5

3.2

10.0

23.2

6.0

97.097.0

6.5

11.3

16.2

13.0

7.6

3.2

9.3

23.2

6.7

94.894.8

6.4

12.0

16.4

13.0

6.6

3.2

10.0

21.3

5.8

96.196.1

6.6

13.3

16.4

12.9

6.9

3.6

10.7

19.8

6.0

89.789.7

5.3

12.9

16.1

13.2

6.8

3.3

8.9

17.8

5.4

89.189.1

4.9

13.4

16.4

13.0

6.6

3.5

8.9

17.0

5.4

89.289.2

4.8

13.9

16.5

13.3

6.7

3.8

8.6

16.3

5.5

FY2015 FY2016FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

(trillion yen)¥ trillion¥98.1 trillion

OtherDebt serviceEducation expensesCivil engineering work expensesCommerce and industry expenses

Agriculture, forestry and �shery expensesSanitation expensesPublic welfare expensesGeneral administrative expense

0.8

4.0

7.2

6.2

8.2


30

23.21.0

3.8

5.3

5.7

7.4

23.20.7

3.9

5.6

5.7

7.3

23.51.0

4.0

5.6

5.7

7.2

19.8

3.3

5.3

5.7

5.6

21.3

3.6

5.1

5.5

7.1

17.8

2.9

4.8

4.8

5.3

17.0

2.9

4.8

4.3

5.1

16.3

2.9

4.4

4.1

4.9

0.00.0

0.0

0.00.0

24.50.6

4.0

6.2

5.9

7.7

0.6

4.0

6.6

6.1

7.9

0

5

10

15

20

2525.3

¥ trillion¥26.3 trillion

(trillion yen)

Disaster reliefPublic assistanceSocial welfare Elderly welfare Child welfare

Trends in Breakdown of Public Welfare Expenses by Purpose

Trends in Expenditures Classified by Purpose

3 Breakdown of Expenses Classified by PurposePublic welfare expenses for FY2016 rose significantly when compared to those for FY2006.


Expenditures

Net total Prefectures Municipalities

¥26,340.8 billion ¥8,554.8 billion ¥21,012.8 billion

¥5,653.3 billion (26.9%)

¥3,732.8 billion (17.8%)

¥7,533.7 billion (35.9%)

¥3,784.7 billion (18.0%)

¥308.4 billion (1.5%)

¥2,669.4 billion (31.2%)

¥3,134.5 billion (36.6%)

¥1,669.8 billion (19.5%)

¥248.9 billion (2.9%)¥832.1 billion (9.7%)

¥7,153.6 billion (27.2%)

¥6,219.3 billion (23.6%)

¥8,152.6 billion (31.0%)

¥3,993.9 billion (15.2%)

¥821.4 billion (3.1%)

Disaster relief

Public assistance

Social welfare

Elderly welfare

Child welfare

¥1,288.8 billion (22.4%)

¥731.0 billion (12.7%)

¥153.0 billion (2.7%)

¥1,053.8 billion (18.3%)

¥1,298.0 billion (22.6%)

¥876.6 billion (15.2%)

¥349.1 billion (6.1%)

¥3,374.9 billion (30.4%)

¥2,024.8 billion (18.2%)

¥2,132.7 billion (19.2%)

¥192.1 billion (1.7%)¥188.9 billion (1.7%)

¥2,147.1 billion (19.3%)

¥1,044.4 billion (9.5%)

¥4,658.9 billion (27.8%)

¥2,752.0 billion (16.4%)

¥2,271.3 billion (13.6%)

¥1,232.2 billion (7.4%)¥1,474.2 billion (8.8%)

¥2,970.3 billion (17.7%)

¥1,386.9 billion (8.3%)

Net total

¥16,745.8 billion

Prefectures

¥11,104.9 billion

Municipalities

¥5,750.3 billion

Other

Social education

Health andphysical education

Senior high school

Educational generalaffairs

Junior high school

Elementary school

¥1,838.9 billion (27.6%)

¥173.0 billion (2.6%)

¥165.3 billion (2.5%)

¥3,349.6 billion(50.3%)

¥780.4 billion (11.7%)

¥345.9 billion (5.3%)

¥2,397.8 billion (43.1%)

¥1,146.1 billion (20.6%)

¥279.0 billion (5.0%)

¥947.2 billion (17.0%)

¥503.0 billion (9.1%)¥284.2 billion (5.2%)

¥4,197.6 billion (34.9%)

¥1,305.1 billion (10.9%)¥421.9 billion (3.5%)

¥4,233.8 billion (35.2%)

¥1,248.2 billion (10.4%)¥611.6 billion (5.1%)

Net total

¥12,018.2 billion

Prefectures

¥5,557.3 billion

Municipalities

¥6,653.1 billion

Other

Harbors

Housing

Rivers and coasts

Road and bridges

Urban planning

Breakdown of Public Welfare Expenses by Purpose

Breakdown of Educational Expenses by Purpose

Breakdown of Civil Engineering Work Expenses by Purpose


●Ordinary construction work expenses¥14,306.9 billion (14.6%)

●Latter-stage elderly healthcare accounts¥1,542.1 billion (1.6%)

◆Subsidizing expenses¥9,842.2 billion (10.0%)

◆Reserves¥3,317.5 billion (3.4%)

◆Transfers to other accounts¥5,447.7 billion (5.6%)

◆Goods expenses¥9,496.8 billion (9.7%)

●National health insurance accounts¥1,355.8 billion (1.4%)

●Elderly nursing care insurance accounts¥1,496.0 billion (1.5%)

Investment expenses¥15,125.2 billion (15.4%)


◆Other¥5,888.2 billion (5.9%)

●Debt service¥12,545.5 billion (12.8%)

●Social assistance expenses¥14,009.8 billion (14.3%)

●Personnel expenses¥22,468.6 billion (22.9%)

Mandatory expenses¥49,023.9 billion (50.0%)

Mandatory expenses¥21,697.4 billion(43.2%)

●Personnel expenses¥13,719.8 billion(27.3%)

●Social assistance expenses¥1,082.3 billion(2.2%)

●Debt service¥6,895.3 billion(13.7%)

Prefectures total

¥50,210.3 billion

◆Transfers to other accounts ¥141.4 billion (0.3%)

◆Goods expenses¥1,687.7 billion(3.4%)

◆Other ¥2,169.4 billion (3.9%)

Mandatory expenses¥27,362.7 billion(48.4%)


Municipalitiestotal

¥56,495.1 billion



◆Transfers to other accounts ¥5,306.3 billion (9.4%)

◆Reserves¥1,742.5 billion(3.1%)

◆Subsidizing expenses¥4,011.0 billion(7.1%)

◆Goods expenses¥7,809.1 billion(13.8%)


◆Other ¥3,748.2 billion (7.5%)




●Subsidized public works expenses¥7,124.1 billion (7.3%)●Non-subsidized public works expenses

¥6,400.6 billion (6.5%)

●Non-subsidized public works expenses¥2,526.6 billion (5.0%)

●Subsidized public works expenses¥3,909.5 billion (7.8%)



●Subsidized public works expenses¥3,485.4 billion (6.2%)

●Non-subsidized public works expenses¥4,108.1 billion (7.3%)

Composition of Expenditures Classified by Type (FY2016 settlement)

What are expenses used for?

4 Expenses Classified by TypeExpenses are also classified, according to their economic nature, into “Mandatory expenses” (consisting of Personnel expenses, Social assistance expenses, and Debt service), the payment of which is mandatory and the amount of which is difficult to reduce at the discretion of individual local governments, “Investment expenses” including Ordinary construction work expenses, and “Other expenses,” (such as Goods expenses, Subsidizing expenses, Reserves, Transfers to other accounts).


Expenditures


◆Mandatory expenses¥48,951.9 billion (51.7%)




●Ordinary construction work expenses ¥12,977.9 billion (13.7%)●Disaster recovery project expenses ¥339.5 billion (0.4%)

◆ Investment expenses¥13,317.5 billion (14.1%)


¥3,374.9 billion

◆Other¥279.6 billion (8.3%)

◆Reserves¥738.2 billion(21.9%)

◆Subsidizing expenses¥136.0 billion(4.0%)

◆Goods expenses¥341.4 billion (10.1%)

◆Mandatory expenses¥72.0 billion (2.1%)

◆Other¥11,056.2 billion (11.6%)





●Disaster recovery project expenses¥478.8 billion (14.2%)

●Personnel expenses¥33.3billion (1.0%)

●Social assistance expenses¥4.5 billion (0.1%)●Debt service

¥34.2 billion (1.0%)




¥2,216.7 billion
















●Personnel expenses¥18.7 billion (0.8%)


¥8.2 billion (0.4%)

●Ordinary construction work expenses¥621.8 billion (28.1%)


◆ Investment expenses¥955.8 billion (43.1%)

















¥1,528.4 billion


●Personnel expenses¥14.6 billion (1.0%)


¥26.5 billion (1.7%)

●Ordinary construction work expenses¥727.7 billion (47.6%)


◆ Investment expenses¥876.9 billion (57.4%)

Net total

Municipalities

Prefectures

5 Expenditures in Regular Portion and Great East Japan Earthquake Portion (Expenses Classified by Type)

19 White Paper on Local Public Finance, 2018

0

20

40

60

80

100

25.1 25.3 24.6 24.0 23.5 23.4 23.0 22.2 22.5 22.6 22.5

7.8 8.2 8.5 9.1 11.2 12.0 12.0 12.2 12.9 13.3 14.0

13.3 13.0 13.1 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.1 13.3 12.9 12.5

14.8 13.9 13.2 14.5 13.5 13.3 13.4 15.1 15.5 14.9 15.1

7.5 7.6 7.5 7.9 8.0 8.8 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.57.4 7.5 8.1

10.7 9.4 8.9 9.2 9.5 9.3 9.9 9.84.6 4.6 4.84.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.48.8 9.1 9.912.2 11.1 12.6 11.9 11.3 10.5 9.9 9.289.2 89.1 89.796.1 94.8 97.0 96.4 97.4 98.5 98.4

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

(trillion yen)¥98.1 trillion

Personnel expenses Social assistance expenses Debt service Investment expenses

Transfers to other accountsGoods expenses Subsidizing expenses Other

1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.50.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.23.0 3.2 3.3 3.3

5.0 5.2 5.0

2.72.7 2.7

3.1

3.43.5 3.6

0.50.5 0.5

0.5

0.50.7 0.6

7.88.2 8.5

9.1

11.212.0 12.0

2.7

0.2

5.0

3.7

0.612.2

3.1

0.2

5.3

3.7

0.612.9

3.6

0.2

5.8

3.7

0.7

3.1

0.2

5.6

3.7

0.713.3


¥ trillion¥14.0 trillion

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14(trillion yen)

Social welfare Elderly welfare Child welfare OtherPublic assistance

Trends in Expenditures Classified by Type

Trends in Breakdown of Social Assistance Expenses by Purpose

6 Breakdown of Expenses Classified by TypeSocial assistance expenses, Subsidizing expenses, Transfers to other accounts, and Goods expenses have been rising.

20Local Public Finance, 2018 –Illustrated–

Expenditures

22.5

25.1 25.324.6

24.023.5 23.4

23.0

13.6

15.0 15.114.7

14.3 14.1 14.1 13.9

8.9

22.6 22.5

13.7 13.7

8.9 8.7

10.1 10.29.9 9.7

9.4 9.4 9.1

22.2

13.4

8.8

27

26

25

24

23

16

15

11

10

9

14

0FY2014 FY2015 FY2016FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Net total Prefectures Municipalities

(trillion yen)

(%)100

0

20

40

60

80

0.0%¥10.5 billion0.0%

Net total

¥22,468.6 billion

Prefectures

¥13,719.8 billion

Municipalities

¥8,748.8 billion

0.0%¥1.2 billion0.0%

0.1%¥9.3 billion0.1%

¥10,472.9 billion46.6%

¥5,402.8 billion24.1%

¥15,886.2 billion70.7%

¥1,299.9 billion 5.8% ¥413.8 billion3.0%

¥2,000.5 billion 8.9%

¥3,282.1 billion 14.6%¥2,058.0 billion 15.0%

¥1,200.6 billion 8.8%

¥886.1 billion 10.2%

¥1,224.1 billion 14.0%

¥799.8 billion 9.1%

¥6,648.6 billion48.5%

¥3,824.3 billion43.7%

¥10,047.4 billion73.2% ¥5,838.8 billion

66.7%

¥3,397.6 billion24.7% ¥2,005.2 billion

22.9%

Employee salariesRetirement allowances Local public servant, mutual-aid associations, etc. Other

Base salaries Other allowances Temporary employee salaries

Trends in Personnel Expenses

Breakdown of Personnel Expenses by Item

Personnel expenses for FY2016 decreased year on year due mainly to a decrease in Retirement allowances associated with the retirement of personnel.


5.8 5.5 5.4 5.9 5.6 6.1 6.17.8 7.7

7.26.8 6.4

7.26.9 5.7 5.4

5.6 6.3

1.31.3

1.2

1.30.8

0.8 0.9

0.80.7

14.313.5

13.0

14.413.3

12.5 12.4

14.214.8

7.2 7.1

6.3 6.4

0.7 0.814.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18(trillion yen)


¥14.3 trillion

Subsidized public works Non-subsidized public works Obligatory share of public works directly carried out by the national government

¥953.8 billion (6.7%)

¥669.5 billion (4.7%)¥802.7 billion (5.6%)

¥1,547.6 billion (10.8%)

¥7,441.6 billion (52.0%)

¥2,001.6 billion (14.0%)

¥890.1 billion (6.2%)

¥398.2 billion (5.6%)¥213.0 billion (3.0%)¥210.9 billion (2.9%)

¥1,307.6 billion (18.3%)

¥4,208.7 billion (58.9%)

¥410.3 billion (5.7%)

¥401.7 billion (5.6%)

¥650.6 billion (8.4%)

¥532.7 billion (6.8%)

¥642.6 billion (8.2%)

¥483.3 billion (6.2%)

¥3,365.2 billion (43.2%)

¥1,611.0 billion (20.7%)

¥505.2 billion (6.5%)100

0

20

40

60

80

Net total

¥14,306.9 billion

Prefectures

¥7,150.4 billion

Municipalities

¥7,790.6 billion(%)

General administrative expenses Public welfare expenses Sanitation expenses Agriculture, forestry and �shery expensesCivil engineering work expenses Education expenses Other expenses

Trends in Breakdown of Ordinary Construction Work Expenses Classified by Type

Breakdown of Ordinary Construction Work Expenses by Purpose

Ordinary construction work expenses increased year on year due mainly to an increase in Non-subsidized public works. In addition, Civil Engineering Work Expenses account for the largest ratio in the breakdown of Ordinary construction work expenses by purpose.


Trends in Breakdown of Transfers to Other Accounts

Trends in Breakdown of Subsidizing Expenses by Purpose

Expenditures

General administrative expensesCommerce and industry expenses

Public welfare expensesCivil engineering work expenses

Sanitation expensesEducation expenses

Agriculture, forestry and �shery expensesOther

10.7

1

0

3

5

7

9

11

0.9 0.8 1.0

2.8

1.40.7 0.8

2.5 2.73.0

3.3

3.3

3.5 3.6

1.0 0.9

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.11.1

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.30.4

0.4 0.4

0.5

0.8

0.5

0.60.6

0.8 0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

1.01.0

1.1 1.2

1.2

1.2

1.41.4

1.4

0.3 0.3

0.3

0.3

0.30.3

0.3

7.4 7.5

8.1

9.48.9

9.2

1.0

3.6

1.1

0.5

0.6

1.0

1.4

0.39.5

0.7

3.7

1.1

0.40.5

0.9

1.5

0.39.3

0.8

3.9

1.1

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.6

0.39.9

0.3

1.6

1.0

0.6

0.5

1.1

3.9

0.8

(trillion yen)

9.8 trillion¥9.8 trillion


Local public enterprise accounts (Enterprise to which the Local Public Enterprise Law is not applied) National health insurance accountsElderly health care accounts (to FY2010) Latter-stage elderly healthcare accounts Elderly nursing care insurance accounts Fund

1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2

1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2

0.8 0.9

0.1 0.0 0.0

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4

1.0 1.01.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.30.1 0.10.1

0.0 0.0 0.00.1

4.6 4.64.8 4.9 5.0 5.1

5.2

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.3

0.15.1

1.2

1.3

1.5

1.4

0.0

5.4

1.2

1.4

1.5

1.5

0.15.6

1.0

1.4

1.5

1.5

0.0

(trillion yen)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

¥5.4 trillion



It is necessary that local governments have financial resources for not only the Mandatory expenses but also for the expenses for projects to properly address challenges caused by changes in the social economy and administrative needs so that they can adequately meet the needs of their residents. The extent to which the resources for such purposes are secured is called the “flexibility of the financial structure.”

1 Ordinary Balance RatioThe FY2016 Ordinary balance ratio rose 1.7 percentage points year on year to 93.4%, staying above 90% for 13 consecutive years.

Flexibility of the Financial Structure

33.4 31.1

6.4 6.6

21.1 21.1

31.7 32.8

36.0

5.0

21.4

29.0

91.4

36.2

5.2

21.5

30.5

93.4

35.1

5.3

21.5

30.9

92.8

34.8

5.7

21.5

31.8

93.8

32.9

6.2

20.7

30.7

90.5 92.6 91.6

32.6

6.6

20.9

32.6

92.7

31.3

6.8

20.8

33.2

92.1

31.3

7.1

20.0

35.0

93.4

30.9

6.9

20.1

33.8

91.7

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY2015 FY2016FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2014FY2013

Personnel expenses Social assistance expenses Debt service Other

90.3 90.7 90.290.392.0 91.8 91.8

89.2

92.6

94.7 93.9

95.9

91.9

94.9 94.693.0

91.493.4 92.8 93.8

90.592.6

92.791.6

91.392.5

93.094.3

92.193.4

90.0

93.4

91.7

(%)

90

80

100

FY2015 FY2016FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2014FY2013FY2012

PrefecturesTotal Municipalities

Trends in the Ordinary Balance Ratio

Breakdown of Ordinary Balance Ratio (Total)

How financially capable are local governments to respond to local demands?

Ordinary balance ratio =

General revenue resources allotted to personnel expenses, Social assistance expenses, Debt service, etc.

×100Ordinary general revenue resources, etc. (Local tax + Regular local allocation tax, etc.)

+ Special exception portion of loans for covering decreases in Local tax revenues + Bonds for temporary substitution of local allocation tax

The Ordinary balance ratio is the proportion of General revenue resources allotted to Ordinary expenses such as Personnel expenses, Social assistance expenses, Debt service and other annually disbursed expenses with regularity to a total amount of Ordinary general revenue resources primarily consisting of Local tax and Regular local allocation tax, Special exception portion of loans for covering decreases in Local tax revenues and Bonds for temporary substitution of Local allocation tax.

＊ Special wards and partial administrative associations, etc., are not included in total and municipalities.


Flexibility of the Financial Structure

11.9

12.713.113.513.713.9

13.513.012.8

13.5

6.97.4

8.08.6

9.29.9

10.511.2

11.812.3

9.39.9

10.410.9

11.311.812.012.112.3

12.8

(%)

Prefectures MunicipalitiesNet total

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2013 FY2015 FY2016FY2014FY2012

7

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

14

18.418.7

19.519.919.7

19.418.918.8

19.3

18.6

19.4

14.714.715.3

15.716.216.416.5

17.0

17.617.717.5 17.517.7

18.218.518.618.618.418.6

19.2

19.119.3

(%)20

19

18

17

16

14

15

FY2006 FY2015 FY2016FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2014FY2013

Prefectures MunicipalitiesNet total

Trends in the Real Debt Service Ratio

Trends in the Debt Service Payment Ratio

2 Real Debt Service Ratio and Debt Service Payment RatioClose attention should be paid to the trend of the Debt service, which is the expense required to repay the principal and interest of the debts of local governments and has an especially negative impact on financial flexibility. The Real debt service ratio and the Debt service payment ratio are indices that measure the extent of the burden of the Debt service.

＊Real debt service ratio : The real debt service ratio is an index of the size of the redemption amount of debts (local bonds) and similar expenditure, and represents the cash-flow level.

＊Debt service payment ratio : The Debt service payment ratio indicates the ratio of general revenue resources allocated for debt service (amount of repayment of the principal and interest on local bonds) in the total amount of General revenue resources. This index is used to measure the flexibility of the financial structure by assessing the degree to which Debt service restricts the freedom of use of General revenue resources.


Future Financial Burden

13.6 13.9 15.3 17.2

17.9 19.7 21.6 25.4

121.1 118.4 115.8 114.4

12.3 11.8 12.5 12.2

137.8 136.0 134.6 134.8

17.9

31.4

110.7

12.3

136.5

19.6

36.1

107.2

13.0

136.7

21.0

40.6

104.1

13.4

137.1

22.4

45.0

101.0

14.5

138.1

22.6

48.5

97.5

15.1

138.5

23.3

50.7

94.9

15.4

137.6

23.6

51.9

93.0

15.6

136.9

30

30

0

60

90

120

180

150

(trillion yen)(trillion yen)

FY2015 FY2016FY2014FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2013FY2012

Reserves on hand

Debt burden Outstanding local government bonds + Debt burden - Reserves on hand

Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures Outstanding local government bonds (excluding Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures)

27.5

200.2200.2

33.6

26.8

198.6198.6

33.6

26.1

197.1197.1

33.6

25.3

198.7198.7

33.6

24.1

199.8199.8

33.6

23.6

200.4200.4

33.5

22.9

201.0201.0

33.4

22.1

201.4201.4

33.3

20.8

199.1199.1

32.8

21.4

200.5200.5

33.1

17.9

121.1

19.7

118.4

21.6

115.8

25.4

114.4

31.4

110.7

36.1

107.2

40.6

104.1

45.0

101.0

48.5

97.5

50.7

94.9

20.0

32.4

51.9

93.0

250

200

150

100

50

0

(trillion yen)


Outstanding local government bonds (excluding Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures)Bonds for the extraordinary �nancial measures

Outstanding borrowing from special account for local allocation tax and transfer tax grants Outstanding public enterprise bonds (in ordinary accounts)

¥197.3 trillion

What is the status of debt in local public finance?

1 Trends in Outstanding Local Government Bonds and Debt BurdenReal future financial burden resulting from Outstanding local government bonds and Debt burden amounted to ¥136,903.8 billion at the end of FY2016, down 0.5% year on year.

Notes : 1. Outstanding local government bonds excludes special fund public investment bonds.2. Debt burden is the amount scheduled to be expended in the following fiscal years.

2 Trends in Outstanding Borrowing Borne by the Ordinary AccountsOutstanding local public finance borrowing, which includes borrowing in the special account for Local allocation tax and Transfer tax for addressing revenue resource shortages, as well as the redemption of Public enterprise bonds borne by the Ordinary accounts, remains at a high level, amounting to ¥197 trillion at the end of FY2016.

Notes : 1. Outstanding local government bonds excludes special fund public investment bonds.2. Outstanding public enterprise bonds (in ordinary accounts) are estimates based on the settlement account statistics


Future Financial Burden

3 Trends in Balance of FundsReserves on hand (excluding the Great East Japan Earthquake portion) at the end of FY2016 was ¥21.5 trillion, an increase of ¥7.9 trillion from the end of FY2006.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

13.6 13.915.3

17.217.9

22.623.3 23.6

19.621.0

22.4

Public �nance adjustment fund Sinking fund Special purpose fund Great East Japan Earthquake portion (Special purpose fund, etc., including the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake portion)


¥21.5 trillion

(trillion yen)

Notes : 1. The Great East Japan Earthquake portion includes the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake portion (FY2016: ¥51.8 billion).2. Reserves on hand do not include the amount of reserves for Sinking fund to be appropriated for principal and interest for local government bonds to be redeemed in full on maturity.

The balance of funds increased over the 10 years mainly due to systemic factors such as the central government’s policies and municipal mergers, measures for the aging of public facilities as well as preparations for disaster and various other future events. The funds increased as many organizations set aside reserves while striving to carry out administrative reform and reduce expenses.

(Unit: trillion yen)

Factors in increase Increase amount

Receiving organization

Non-receiving organization

(1) Systemic factors 2.3 2.1 0.1

1. Increase in Special purpose fund based on the central government’s policies＊1 0.6 0.5 0.1

2. Increase in funds to prepare for completion of special measures associated with mergers, etc.＊2 1.7 1.7 0.0

(2) Other preparations for future decrease in revenues and future increase in expenditures ＊3 5.7 3.1 2.5

Revenues1. Fluctuations in corporate taxes, etc. resulting from economic trends 0.8 0.5 0.3

2. Decrease in tax revenues due to population decrease 0.3 0.3 0.0

Expenditures

3. Measures for the aging of public and other facilities, etc. 2.0 1.0 1.1

4. Preparations for Disaster 0.9 0.6 0.3

5. Increase in social security-related expenses 0.7 0.3 0.4

6. Other 0.8 0.4 0.4

Total 7.9 5.3 2.7

Note : In some cases, figures in the table do not add up exactly to the total as values less than the given unit are rounded off.＊1. Funds established based on the central government’s policies such as the Fund for comprehensively securing regional health and long-term care and the Fund for stabilizing

medical care finance for the latter-stage elderly. ＊2. Estimated based on survey results and the difference in balance of funds between merged organizations and non-merged organizations.＊3. Public finance adjustment fund has been estimated based on the order of reasons for setting aside reserves indicated by survey results, while the Special purpose fund has

been estimated based on the classification of uses indicated by survey results.

Why has the balance of funds increased?


Local Public Enterprises

◆Hospitals¥4,557.7 billion (26.9%)

◆Transportation¥1,110.5 billion (6.6%)


◆Residential development¥684.6 billion (4.0%) Scale of �nancial

settlement¥16,933.9 billion

◆Sewerage business¥5,465.8 billion (32.3%)

◆Water supply business(including small-scale water supply)¥3,985.0 billion (23.5%) (End of FY2016)

10

0

20

90

100(%)

Water-supply business(including small-scalewater supply business)

Sewerage business Transportationbusiness(railways)

Transportationbusiness

(buses)

Hospitals

124.40 million(99.6%)

Out of 124.96 million

Current water-supplypopulation

104.07 million(90.2%)

Out of 115.31 million

Sewage disposalpopulation

3,376 million(13.7%)

Out of 24,600 million

No. of passengersper year

928 million(20.2%)

Out of 4,600 million

No. of passengersper year

179,000(11.5%)

Out of 1,561,000

No. of hospital beds

◆Hospitals634 (7.4%)

◆Residential development427 (5.0%)

◆Other1,236 (14.6%)

◆Care services557 (6.5%)

◆Water supply business2,041 (23.9%)

●Water supply business 1,334 (15.6%)●Small-scale water supply business

707 (8.3%)

No. ofbusinesses

8,534

(End of FY2016)

◆Sewerage business3,639 (42.6%)

What is the status of local public enterprises?

1 Presence of Local Public EnterprisesLocal public enterprises play a major role in improving the standard of living of residents.

Notes : 1. The graph shows the ratio of local public enterprises when the total number of business entities nationwide is set at 100.2. Figures for the total number of enterprises nationwide have been compiled from statistical materials of related organizations.

3 Scale of Financial SettlementThe scale of total financial settlement is ¥16,933.9 billion. By type of business, sewerage accounts for the largest ratio, followed, in order, by hospitals, total water supply, transportation, and residential development.

2 Number of Businesses Operated by Local Public Enterprises

8,534 businesses are operated by local public enterprises. By type of business, sewerage accounts for the largest ratio, followed, in order, by water supply, hospitals, care services, and residential development.


Local Public Enterprises

523.1

193.3

508.1

△525.2

Total de�cit△235.1

Total surplus428.4Other 72.4

89.3Sewage business 89.3Electricity 12.2Electricity 12.2

4.2Transportation 4.2Water supply 250.3

(Including small-scalewater supply)

Hospital 198.5Hospital △198.5

Other 17.5Other △17.5

Gas 1.3Gas △1.3

731.6

Industrial-use water 27.3

Total de�cit△¥98.8 billion

Total surplus¥822.3 billion

Other 36.4

Sewage business 245.6

Electricity 25.0

Transportation 79.7

Water supply 404.3(Including small-scale

water supply)

Hospitals △97.5

Other △1.3

Gas 4.0

Industrial-use water △17.8

FY2015 FY2016FY2012FY2006

FY2016FY2006

FY2014FY2013

FY2015FY2012 FY2014FY2013

Total balance


Total surplus526.8

Other 72.1Sewage business 126.4

Transportation 50.6Industrial-use water 22.3


water supply)

Other △3.7Other △3.7Other △3.7Other △3.7Other △3.7

Electricity 8.8Electricity 8.8Electricity 8.8Electricity 8.8Electricity 8.8Hospital 4.2Hospital 4.2Hospital 4.2Hospital 4.2Hospital 4.2Gas 5.2Gas 5.2Gas 5.2Gas 5.2Gas 5.2

Hospitals △42.9


Total surplus554.4


Electricity 15.8Transportation 77.0

Industrial-use water 27.4Water supply 251.8(Including small-scale

water supply)

Other △3.4

Gas 2.0

Total surplus421.3


Gas 6.6Electricity 17.0

Industrial-use water △25.4

Transportation △112.6

Hospitals △485.2

Other △323.3


water supply)

Total de�cit △946.5

Sewage business 229.0

Electricity 26.9Gas 5.6

Industrial-use water 28.2


water supply)

Transportation 111.7

Hospitals △70.3

Other △1.7

Total de�cit △72.0

Total surplus803.6

Other 38.8

600

800

700

500

400

300

200

100

△400

△500

△600

0

(billion yen)

¥723.5 billion

600

800

1,000

400

200

0

△200

△400

△600

△800

△1,000

(billion yen)

Surplus

De�cit

Trends in the Financial Status of Local Public Enterprises

4 Financial StatusLocal public enterprises had a surplus of ¥723.5 billion. By type of business, water supply, electricity, gas and sewages showed a surplus.


Impact of Great East Japan Earthquake

¥10,848.3 billionFY2015

FY2016

¥2,952.2 billion (27.2%)

¥2,010.0 billion(18.5%)

¥1,817.3 billion(16.8%)

¥4,068.8 billion(37.5%)

¥307.3 billion (2.8%)

¥10,689.3 billion¥2,935.8 billion (27.5%)

¥2,027.5 billion(19.0%)

¥1,962.7 billion(18.4%)

¥3,763.2 billion(35.1%)

¥288.5 billion (2.7%)

Local taxes Local allocation tax Earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax National treasury disbursements Other

¥10,348.0 billion

¥10,227.8 billion

FY2015

FY2016

¥1,833.1 billion(17.7%)

¥359.6 billion (3.5%)

¥384.8 billion (3.8%)

¥7,062.3 billion(68.2%)

¥669.0 billion (6.5%)

¥606.5 billion (5.9%)

¥741.2 billion (7.2%)

¥424.0 billion(4.1%)

¥1,996.3 billion(19.5%)

¥541.2 billion(5.3%)

¥6,914.3 billion(67.6%)

¥391.3 billion(3.8%)

General administrative expenses Public welfare expenses Disaster relief expenses Sanitation expenses Disaster recovery expenses Other

FY2015

FY2016

¥10,348.0 billion¥4,567.3 billion(44.1%)

¥3,923.2 billion(37.9%)

¥1,857.5 billion (18.0%)

¥1,497.9 billion (14.5%) ¥359.6 billion (3.5%) ¥671.6 billion (6.5%)

¥10,227.8 billion¥4,362.9 billion(42.7%)

¥3,899.5 billion(38.1%)

¥1,965.4 billion (19.2%)

¥1,580.6 billion (15.5%) ¥384.8 billion (3.8%) ¥684.8 billion (6.7%)

Mandatory expenses Investment expenses Ordinary construction work expenses Disaster recovery project expenses Other Reserves

Expenditures Classified by Type

Expenditures Classified by Purpose

Revenues

1 Settlement of Disaster-Struck Organizations1.Specified Disaster-Struck Prefectures

In FY2016, the total revenues of the nine specified disaster-struck prefectures amounted to ¥10,689.3 billion, decreasing by ¥159.1 billion year on year, or 1.5% (0.8% national decrease). Total expenditures of the entities amounted to ¥10,227.8 billion, decreasing by ¥120.2 billion year on year, or 1.2% (1.0% national decrease).＊ Specified disaster-struck prefectures : Prefectures stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Public Finance Support and Assistance to Deal with the Great East Japan

Earthquake (Act No. 40 of 2011). These prefectures are Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba, Niigata, and Nagano prefectures.


Impact of Great East Japan Earthquake

¥8,296.1 billion¥2,245.8 billion(27.1%)

¥1,285.3 billion(15.5%)

¥1,241.0 billion(15.0%)

¥3,524.0 billion(42.4%)

¥272.5 billion (3.3%)

¥7,956.6 billion¥2,268.4 billion(28.5%)

¥1,178.1 billion(14.8%)

¥1,166.7 billion(14.7%)

¥3,343.4 billion(42.0%)

¥197.2 billion (2.5%)

FY2015

Local tax Local allocation tax Earthquake disaster reconstruction allocation tax National treasury disbursements Other

FY2016

FY2015

FY2016

¥7,744.5 billion¥1,177.0 billion(15.2%)

¥2,325.4 billion(30.0%)

¥319.6 billion (4.1%)

¥555.0 billion (7.2%) ¥160.5 billion (2.1%)

¥3,526.6 billion(45.5%)

¥7,521.2 billion¥1,077.7 billion(14.3%)

¥2,368.1 billion(31.5%)

¥269.2 billion (3.6%) ¥169.4 billion (2.3%)

¥564.9 billion (7.5%)

¥3,341.1 billion(44.4%)

General administrative expenses Public welfare expenses Disaster relief expenses Sanitation expenses Disaster recovery expenses Other

FY2015

FY2016

¥7,744.5 billion¥3,297.1 billion(42.6%)

¥2,796.1 billion(36.1%)

¥1,651.3 billion (21.3%)

¥160.3 billion (2.1%)¥1,491.1 billion (19.3%) ¥530.4 billion (6.8%)

¥7,521.2 billion¥3,090.8 billion(41.1%)

¥2,863.1 billion(38.1%)

¥1,567.3 billion (20.8%)

¥169.2 billion (2.2%)¥1,398.1 billion (18.6%) ¥408.2 billion (5.4%)

Mandatory expenses Investment expenses Ordinary construction work expenses Disaster recovery project expenses Other Reserves

Revenues

Expenditures Classified by Purpose

Expenditures Classified by Type

2.Specified Disaster-Struck Municipalities

In FY2016, the total revenues of the 227 municipalities designated as specified disaster-struck municipalities amounted to ¥7,956.6 billion, decreasing by ¥33.9 billion year on year, or 4.1% (0.6% national decrease). Total expenditures of the entities amounted to ¥7,521.2 billion, decreasing by ¥223.3 billion year on year, or 2.9% (0.1% national decrease).＊ Specified disaster-struck municipalities : Municipalities designated in Appended Table 1 and those designated in Appended Tables 2 and 3 that are other than specified disaster-struck

local public bodies of the Japanese government ordinance (No. 127, 2011) concerning Article 2, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Act on Special Public Finance Support and Assistance to Deal with the Great East Japan Earthquake. (A total of 227 organizations in 11 prefectures, including, 33 organizations within Iwate Prefecture, 35 organizations within Miyagi prefecture, and 59 organizations within Fukushima prefecture.)


Surplus De�cit No. of businesses with de�citsNo. of businesses with surpluses

FY2015

847

82

△¥28.1 billion

¥131.2 billion

Net amount ¥103.1 billion

FY2016

823

94

△¥46.5 billion

¥129.6 billion

Net amount ¥83.1billion

△50

△75

△100

△125

△150

△25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150(billion yen)

¥7.8 billion¥7.8 billion¥3.7 billion¥3.7 billion¥6.4 billion¥6.4 billion¥1.5 billion¥1.5 billion¥7.5 billion¥7.5 billion

¥26.2 billion

¥50.1 billion

De�cit△¥0.1 billion

Surplus¥103.2 billion

Net amount ¥103.1 billionNet amount ¥103.1 billion

¥25.0 billion

¥56.1 billion

De�cit△¥17.7 billion

Surplus¥100.8 billion

Net amount ¥83.1 billionNet amount ¥83.1 billion

△¥0.1 billion

¥3.6 billion¥3.6 billion

¥2.1 billion¥2.1 billion¥7.2 billion¥7.2 billion¥6.8 billion¥6.8 billion

△¥3.8 billion△¥8.0 billion△¥5.9 billion

FY2015 FY2016

Total water supply (including small-scale water supply)Electricity

Industrial-use waterGas

TransportationOtherHospitals Sewage business

△150

△100

△50

0

50

100

150(billion yen)

Financial Status of Businesses of Local Enterprises of Disaster-Struck Organizations

Settlements by Businesses of Local Enterprises of Disaster-Struck Organizations

2 Financial Status of Businesses of Local Public Enterprises of Disaster-Struck OrganizationsTotal revenues and expenditures of local enterprises of disaster-struck organizations amounted to a surplus of ¥83.1 billion, a decrease of ¥20 billion year on year, or 19.4%. There were 823 businesses with surpluses, or 89.7% of all businesses, while 94 businesses had deficits, or 10.3%.＊ Local enterprises of disaster-struck organizations : Nine prefectures stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Public Finance Support and Assistance to Deal with the Great East Japan Earthquake,

and 178 municipalities stipulated in Appended Table 1 of the Japanese government ordinance concerning Article 2, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Act on Special Public Finance Support and Assistance to Deal with the Great East Japan Earthquake (including some labor unions joined by the above bodies).


Promotion of the Soundness of Local Public Finance

Sound stage

◆Establishment of indexes and thorough disclosure

● Flow indexes: Real de�cit ratio, Consolidated real de�cit ratio, Real debt service ratio

● Stock indexes: Future burden ratio =indexes by real liabilities, including public enterprises, third-sector enterprises, etc.

➡Subject to auditor inspection, reported to the council and publicly announced

Early �nancial soundness restoring stage

◆Restoring �nancial soundness through their own efforts

● Formulation of �nancial soundness plan (approval by the council), mandatory requests for external auditing

● Report on progress of implementation to the council and public announcement every �scal year

● If the early achievement of �nancial soundness is deemed to be signi�cantly dif�cult, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications or the prefectural governor makes necessary recommendations

Financial rebuilding stage

◆Solid rebuilding through involvement of the central government, etc.

● Formulation of �nancial rebuilding plan (approval by the council), mandatory requests for external auditing

● Agreement on the �nancial rebuilding plan can be sought through consultation with the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications

● If �nancial management is deemed not to conform with the plan, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications makes necessary recommendations, such as budget changesFinancial soundness of public enterprise

Real de�cit ratioPrefectures ： 3.75%Municipalities ： 11.25%～ 15%

Prefectures ： 5%Municipalities ： 20%

Consolidated realde�cit ratio

Prefectures ： 8.75%Municipalities ： 16.25%～ 20%

Prefectures ： 15%Municipalities ： 30%

Real debt service ratio 25% 35%

Future burden ratio

Finance shortfall ratio（for each public enterprise）

Prefectures, Government-ordinance-designated city： 400%Municipalities ： 350%

Public announcement of indexes began with FY2007 settlement of accounts. Obligatory formulation of �nancial soundness plan was applied as of FY2008 settlement of accounts.

＊ The real de�cit ratio and consolidated real de�cit ratio standards for Tokyo were set separately from the general municipalities ratios.

Early �nancial soundness restoring standard Financial rebuilding standard

Sound�nance

Financialdeterioration

20%

Management soundness standard

Outline of the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Governments

1 Overview of the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local GovernmentsA number of drawbacks were pointed out with the conventional system of financial reconstruction of local governments, including the lack of a legal obligation to disclose comprehensible financial information and of rules for early warning. In response, the Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Governments was enacted and has been in force since April 2009. The act establishes new indexes and requires local governments to disclose them thoroughly, aiming to quickly achieve financial soundness or rebuild.


Generalaccount

Generalaccount, etc.

Specialaccounts

Local governments

Real de�cit ratio

Real de�cit ratio

Consolidated real de�cit ratio

Real debt service ratio

Future burden ratio

Badliabilities

（Previous Reconstruction Law）

Partial administrative associations, wide-area local public bodies, etc.

Publicenterpriseaccounts

Of this,public

enterpriseaccounts

Local public corporations, third-sector enterprises, etc.

Financeshortfall ratio

＊ Calculated for eachpublic enterprise account

＊ Calculated for eachpublic enterpriseaccount

（Act on Assurance of Sound Financial Status of Local Governments）

0

5

10

15

20

25

24

2

2

1

1

19

13

8

2 0 2 0 0 0

FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016FY2013FY2012

(No. of local governments)

Local governments with real de�cit Of this number, those equaling or exceeding the early �nancial soundness standardOf this number, those equaling or exceeding the �nancial rebuilding standard

Targets of the Ratio for Measuring Financial Soundness

Real Deficit Ratio

2 Status of the Ratios for Measuring Financial Soundness and Financial Shortfall Ratio

The following graph shows the trend in the number of local governments with a real deficit. Based on FY2016 account settlements, there were no local governments with a real deficit (i.e., a Real deficit ratio that exceeds 0%), and none had a Real deficit ratio that equals or exceeds the Early financial soundness restoring standards.

Real deficit ratio =Real deficit amount of real account, etc.

Standard financial scale

The Real deficit ratio is an index of the deficit level of the general account, etc. of local governments offering welfare, education, community-building, and other services, and represents the extent to which financial administration has worsened.


Promotion of the Soundness of Local Public Finance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

71

11

2

2

1

39

31

17

9 7 6 1 0 0


FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2015 FY2016FY2014FY2013FY2012

Local governments with a consolidated real de�cit Of this number, those equaling or exceeding the early �nancial soundness standardOf this number, those equaling or exceeding the �nancial rebuilding standard

43633

2

201

399

12306

4 1175

1114

163 1

411

291

20 115

1

0

100

200

300

400

500



Local governments with real debt service ratio equal to or exceeding 18% Of this number, those equaling or exceeding the early �nancial soundness standardOf this number, those equaling or exceeding the �nancial rebuilding standard

Consolidated Real Deficit Ratio

Real Debt Service Ratio

The following graph shows the trend in the number of local governments with a consolidated real deficit.Based on FY2016 account settlements, there were no local municipal governments with a consolidated real deficit (i.e., with a consolidated Real deficit ratio that exceeds 0%), and no local municipal governments had a Consolidated real deficit ratio that equals or exceeds the Early financial soundness restoring standard.

Consolidated real deficit ratio =Consolidated real deficit

Standard financial scale

The consolidated real deficit ratio is an index of the deficit level for a local governments as a whole by taking the sum of the deficits and surpluses of all accounts, and represents the extent to which financial administration has worsened for a local government as a whole.

The following graph shows the trend in the number of local governments with a Real debt service ratio equal to or exceeding 18%.Based on FY2016 account settlements, there was one local municipal government with a Real debt service ratio equal to or exceeding the financial rebuilding standard.

Real debt service ratio (3-year average) =

(Redemption of principal and interest of local bonds + quasi-redemption of principal and interest) – (special revenue resources + amount included in standard financial requirements pertaining to redemption and quasi-redemption of principal and interest)

Standard financial scale – (amount included in standard financial requirements pertaining to redemption and quasi-redemption of principal and payments)

The real debt service ratio is an index of the size of the redemption amount of debts (local bonds) and similar expenditure, and represents the cash-flow level.＊ Local governments with a Real debt service ratio equal to or exceeding 18% require the approval of the Minister

of Internal Affairs and Communications, etc., to issue local government bonds.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

3 3

2 2 2

1 1 11



Local governments with future burden ratio equaling or exceeding the early �nancial soundness restoring standard

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

156

256

61

202

49

162 38

119 36

8820

6918

60

13

5810

47

9

55


(Number of enterprises)

Local public enterprises with �nancial shortfall ratio Of this number, those equaling or exceeding the management soundness standard

Future Burden Ratio

Financial Shortfall Ratio

The following graph shows the trend in the number of local governments with a Future burden ratio equal to or exceeding the Early financial soundness restoring standard.Based on FY2016 account settlements, there was one local municipal government with a Future burden ratio equal to or exceeding the Early financial soundness restoring standard.

Future burden ratio =

Future burden amount – (amount of appropriable funds + estimated amount of special revenue source + amount expected to be included in standard financial requirements pertaining to outstanding local government bonds, etc.)

Standard financial scale – (amount included in standard financial requirements pertaining to redemption of principal and interest and quasi-redemption of principal and interest)

The Future burden ratio is an index of the current outstanding balance of burden, including that of debts (local bonds) of the general account, etc. as well as other likely future payments, and represents the extent to which finances may be squeezed in the future. No Financial rebuilding standard is established for the Future burden ratio.

The following graph shows the trend in the number of local public enterprises with a financial shortfall.Based on FY2016 account settlements, there were 55 local public enterprises with a financial shortfall (i.e., with a Financial shortfall ratio that exceeds 0%). Of these, 9 local public enterprises had a Financial shortfall ratio that equals or exceeds the Management soundness standard.

Financial shortfall ratio =Deficit of funds

Size of business

The Financial shortfall ratio is an index of the deficit of funds of public enterprises compared to the size of their income, which shows the size of business of local public enterprises, and represents the extent to which financial health has worsened.


http://www.soumu.go.jp/

Financial Management Division,Local Public Finance Bureau,Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications

Address: 2-1-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku,Tokyo 100-8926, JapanTel.: +81-(0)3-5253-5111 (ext. 5649)Fax: +81-(0)3-5253-5650http://www.soumu.go.jpAll Rights Reserved

FY2016 Settlement

White Paper onLocal Public Finance, 2018

– Illustrated –

Date post:	19-Apr-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	haminh
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

FY2016 Settlement White Paper on Local Public Finance, 2018 · The Role of Local Public Finance...

Documents