Japanese local councils are facing two challenges: 1) the decline in voter turnout and 2) the increase in uncontested elections. Both challenges have traditionally been attributed to a lack of interest in local politics on the part of the citizenry.

However, Japan’s population decline will also create various resource constraints (e.g., by limiting the availability of human resources). The supply of local politicians is one possible indication of such resource constraints. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining local democracy, it is urgently necessary to consider effective measures to promote citizen participation.

Consequently, this report will focus on accessibility to councils. The following two forms of accessibility can be distinguished:

A. Participatory councils for members. For individual local council members, the current style of council operation is becoming incompatible with their modern lifestyles, as they seek to balance council activities with other occupations. This calls for bold action to achieve a participatory council for members.

B. Participatory member-activities for residents. While councilors are considered elected representatives, councilors and residents have few opportunities to exchange opinions on policy making.

The council has become a distant presence for members, and the members’ activities have become distant for citizens—both trends raise concerns about the state of democracy today.

To solve these problems, effective measures may include (1) digitalization (e.g., online committees), (2) innovative flexibility and acceleration of council operations (e.g., very short-term sessions), and (3) creation of opportunities for cooperation between council members and citizens (e.g., residents’ meetings). In particular, digitalization should be employed to establish not only crisis management but also flexibility to allow diverse occupational groups such as salaried workers and family caregivers to also engage in council activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to multilevel governance globally, resulting in confusion among many countries over the allocation of responsibilities among different levels of government. Recent research has focused on how various nations coordinated vertically and horizontally in response to the crisis, with emphasis on China, the U.S., and EU countries (Bergstrom et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, there's limited research on Japan's situation from this perspective.

This study aims to analyze Japanese inter-governmental relations in the public health response to COVID-19 comparatively. Due to strict constitutional and democratic constraints, Japan's states of emergency in April 2020 differed from those in other countries. Unlike some nations, Japan's law doesn't empower the government to impose curfews or lockdowns. Instead, prefectural governors, not central authorities, can urge the public to stay home and request temporary closures of businesses. However, these are requests rather than mandates. Despite an aging society and its "soft" approach, Japan experienced lower infection and death rates in 2020.

In early 2020, the relationship between Japan's central government and local authorities in public health response was marked by confusion, akin to other nations in states of emergency. Prefectural governors could issue requests without clear guidance from the central government. For example, in Tokyo, the governor attempted a business shutdown request, but consultation with the central government was insisted. Criticisms focused on information sharing gaps. This led to establishing the Digital Agency in 2021, aiming to standardize local government information systems by 2026. However, this centralization implies coercion. The central government seeks to amend the Local Autonomy Law to enhance its authority over local governments during crises.

This study offers nuanced case studies, illuminating Japan's evolving approach to COVID-19 and enhancing our understanding of intergovernmental relations in times of crisis from democratic governance and multi-level governance perspectives.　

According to the OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021), Japan has the highest number of Deliberative Mini-Publics implemented by municipalities among OECD countries. Regarding the East Asian mode of governance, literature has suggested that bureaucracy is the leading actor in Japanese governmental policy management. So, why do municipal bureaucracies strive to implement mini-publics?

We explored the policy dynamism of mini-publics in Tokyo-area municipalities, where official mini-publics by municipal governments started in Japan. More than sixty percent of cities in Tokyo Metropolis experienced sortition-based deliberative practices for their comprehensive planning. The city governments we investigated via participatory observation and interview surveys were early adopters of such initiatives. They have repeatedly implemented them in various policy domains for planning or project reviews.

Our research revealed that the foundation of mini-public participation lies in the bureaucracy's desire to expand participation and articulate the diverse needs of citizens. The collaborative structures, including the co-commissioning and co-designing process of such initiatives, help suppress the emergence of consultative or deliberative authoritarianism by complementing the vitality of civil sector organizations that would partner with local governments.

At the same time, we uncovered evidence that municipal bureaucracies strive to enhance their autonomy in implementing policy, leading to the extensive use of random selection–based and expression-oriented participation methods not designed for showing collective judgments. We also found that performance review activities through mini-public initiatives are utilized by directly elected mayors and policy management departments to exert control over service departments and as political tactics to legitimize their administration and its policies and projects.

The responsible accountability norms of the municipal bureaucracy have helped mini-public endeavors to become widespread in Tokyo. However, recognizing and mitigating such authoritarianism risks will be essential in future mini-public practices, even in a polyarchy society.

In recent years, both Japan and France have encountered challenges in attracting talented individuals to serve as local civil servants. Local governments are facing these competitions not only with national government but also with private companies. In both countries, local governments are actively working to increase the number of applicants for recruitment exams and to implement measures that retain excellent individuals in public service. These measures include improving examination methods and promoting the appeal of local government jobs, among other strategies. When human resource strategies in local government lead to significant changes in the remuneration and employment conditions of public servants, these measures can potentially face criticism.

This paper examines human resource strategies in local governments in Japan and France, with a particular emphasis on strategies that attract and retain talented employees. It describes the context in which these challenges have arisen and provides an overview of the measures taken to address them. We highlight some common aspects, but also points out differences in the characteristics of the local public service personnel system s in both countries. We examine the structure and features of local autonomy within the context of public service.

From these aspects, we aim to discuss the model of the local public service personnel system represented in both countries. We strive to describe the characteristics of the relationship between central and local authorities in both countries. We examine the autonomy of local governments from the central government in the management of human resources. Our focus is on the aspects of Local public service personnel system that are controlled by the central government, either through legal systems or established practices.