Module: Public Management and Organization Development Sub-Module1:Public Management Trends and Administrative Reform Case Case Study: Mie Prefecture Case Study: Mie Prefecture 1. Mie Prefecture: An Overview Mie Prefecture is located in roughly the middle of the Japanese archipelago, on the Pacific Ocean side. Bordering the three prefectures of Aichi, Wakayama, and Nara, it forms a long, narrow strip of land stretching 80 km from east to west and 170 km from north to south. The prefecture’s northern half lies next to Ise Bay to the east, with a row of mountains some 800 m in elevation to the west; its southern half lies adjacent to the Sea of Kumano on the east, with the Kii Mountains rising to an elevation of some 1,600 m on the west. Mie covers a total area of 5776.7 km2, of which about 65 percent consists of forested mountains and roughly 6 percent residential land. It has fifteen cities, twenty-six towns, and six villages (as of March 2005), with a total population of some 1.86 million. Turning now to basic data on Mie, the prefecture’s gross domestic product for FY 2002 was ¥7.3699 trillion in real terms, with prefectural income of ¥5.5070 trillion and total in-prefecture expenditures of ¥7.3699 trillion in real terms. As of October 2000 there were 929,866 people over fifteen in the workforce, of whom 26 percent were in manufacturing, 25 percent in services, 20 percent in the wholesale, retail, and restaurant sector, and 5 percent in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. In its general accounts for FY 2003, Mie Prefecture posted total revenues of ¥732.6 billion and total expenditures of ¥717.6 billion. 2. Mie Prefecture’s Policy Evaluation System 2.1. Evolution of the System In FY 1995, at the suggestion of then-governor Masayasu Kitagawa, Mie Prefecture launched its so-called Sawayaka (refreshing) campaign and examined the possibility of bringing in a system of evaluation. The next year it instituted the so-called Administrative Program Evaluation System. This system was designed primarily to overhaul individual programs — whether core programs or administrative programs — in line with overall plans drawn up by the prefectural government. Because administrative program objectives were stipulated in the form of performance targets, it also served to identify what actions were needed and where improvements were required; that information was then used in evaluating administrative programs and managing their progress. A period of trial and error followed: programs were at one point subdivided for evaluation - 1 - purposes into new programs and ongoing programs, for example, and modifications were made in the timing of evaluation. Then, in FY 2001, the Mie Policy Evaluation System was launched on a trial basis. Under this system, it should be noted, evaluation charts do not need to be drawn up for administrative programs and the like that are ill-suited to objective-based evaluation, though in such cases the reason for that decision must be made public. 2.2. The Mie Policy Evaluation System (i) Objective The Mie Policy Evaluation System is intended primarily to enhance the quality of policy and of public administration. The evaluation results serve as a management tool and are taken into consideration in making subsequent decisions; they also play a role in reforming the attitudes of government personnel and improving their policy-making skills. The system also helps ensure government accountability. (ii) Method of Evaluation While the Administrative Program Evaluation System covered only programs and policy measures, under the Mie Policy Evaluation System the scope of evaluation has expanded to cover policies as well as policy measures. Evaluation as a rule takes place after the fact. When it comes time to compile the budget, evaluation charts are drawn up in three categories — policy measures, core programs, and new administrative programs — and these serve as a basis for discussion of policies during the budget compilation process. The Mie Policy Evaluation System is a system of self-evaluation that, while broad in scope — it covers all activities of the organization — does not involve in-depth analysis of specific programs and projects using specialized techniques. The evaluation results are eventually published in the Prefectural Government Annual Report and, with input from the public and the prefectural assembly, taken into account in compiling the next year’s strategic plan, the Prefectural Government Management Policy. - 2 - Structure of the Mie Policy Evaluation System Evaluation Evaluation criteria Yardsticks used Evaluated by objective Evaluation of To ensure 1. Numerical targets General manager policy measures accountability Objective-based of policy measure of main vis-à-vis the evaluation Outcomes department in public 2. Extent to which (indicators of charge •Communication numerical targets benefits to tool with the achieved prefectural public 3. Cost of residents) implementing measure 4. Overview of constituent core programs Evaluation of core To help decide 1. Evaluation Numerical targets Main manager in programs allocation of based on of program charge resources in the objectives and Basic outcomes budget etc. their overall (indicators of • Management structure results of tool for managers 2. Extent to which resource inputs) numerical targets Management achieved benchmarks 3. Cost of • State of major executing activities program • Collaboration 4. Multifaceted from the public perspective on etc. contribution to • Comparison management with other 5. Overall organizations administrative • perspective Indirect/secondar 6. State of y benefits constituent administrative programs Evaluation of To reform 1. Evaluation Program targets Individual in administrative attitudes and based on Outputs or inputs charge programs improve how the objectives and (multiple organization runs their overall indicators) • Management structure tool for individual 2. staff Appropriateness of public intervention and investing tax money 3. Extent to which program targets achieved 4. Cost of implementing program 5. Comments from local agencies 6. Quality category of public administration Note: Numerical targets for measures and core programs are based on those in the implementation plan. - 3 - 2.3. The Mie Administrative Management Regime In March 2004 the Mie prefectural government released Prefectural Government Management under the Mie Administrative Management Regime: Results of a Study on Total Management Systems. At the heart of this administrative management regime lay the PDS cycle of Plan (formulating strategy), Do (implementing that strategy), and See (evaluating the results). The Mie Policy Evaluation System has been integrated into this cycle at the evaluation stage: it is used to determine whether government services offered to prefectural residents are producing tangible results and achieving their objectives. Bibliography • Mie prefectural government Web site (accessed August 2005) • Mie Prefecture, Prefectural Government Management under the Mie Administrative Management Regime (Synopsis). March 2004. - 4 - Module: Public Management and Organization Development Sub-Module 2: Decision Making and Policy Formulation Case Case Study: The Move-Us System (Musashino City, Tokyo Prefecture) Case Study: The Move-Us System (Musashino City, Tokyo Prefecture) 1. Musashino: An Overview The city of Musashino is located in roughly the middle of Tokyo Prefecture, some 12 km from the heart of Tokyo and adjacent to the city of Mitaka. Extending 6.4 km from east to west and 3.1 km from north to south, it covers a total area of 10.73 km2. There are three train stations within the city bounds, one of which, Kichijoji Station, forms the heart of a thriving commercial district. Today (as of January 2005) Musashino has a population of 132,000. Most of the city consists of residential land. 2. Overview of the Move-Us System 2.1. Birth of the Move-Us System The Move-Us system’s origins go back to the late 1980s, when a senior citizen living in Musashino wrote a letter to the mayor of the day, Masatada Tsuchiya, complaining of how difficult she found it to go shopping because she lived so far from the station and had no means of transport. In 1991 the municipal government set up a committee of experts, the Civic Transportation System Study Panel, to examine how to create a transit network that would be easily accessible to everyone, including seniors. To analyze seniors’ transportation needs, the panel conducted group interviews in which respondents were asked to identify current shortcomings with the system and describe what improvements they would like to see in it; it also observed seniors’ patterns of behavior. These investigations brought several facts to light: seniors did indeed want to get out and about; the average senior was happy to walk up to 100 m, so a reasonable distance between stops would be 200 m; seniors had trouble boarding the bus because the first step was so high — 40 cm — so an auxiliary step should be installed; people were willing to pay up to a ¥100 fare. The city then identified areas with no public transit, i.e., areas located at least 300 m from the nearest bus stop, and areas with poor public transit, i.e., areas served by fewer than one hundred bus runs a day, and in November 1995 launched the Move-Us community bus service1 in an endeavor to eliminate such gaps in service. 2.2. The Move-Us System in Operation 1 Community bus service is defined as “a community-based bus system that services residential areas where public transit is poor or non-existent, and that is carefully tailored to the diverse needs of local residents, including the need of senior citizens and the disabled for safe, accessible transit” (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Web site). - 1 - The most salient features of the Move-Us system lie in its simple fare structure — both children and adults are charged a single flat fare of ¥100 — and the care that has been lavished on ensuring convenience and safety.