International Workshops on Public Policy at the University of Pittsburgh from 26th to 28th June 2018 T02W15 - Towards an urban policy analysis: Linking urban politics and public policy Session 3 Constituency, Coalition, and Citizens’ voice, on June 27, 2018 DRAFT
A comparative history partnership by historical institutional theory view - 3 experiments beyond conventional city planning 1970-1991 in Kotake- Mukaihara district, Tokyo- Public, Place, Plurality Institute; PPPI Yamada(Iwama),Chie 1.Introduction 1.1. The theme in this paper ;Three stories regarding Partnership practices in public works construction and/or decision-making
Kotake-Mukaihara district became an example where two public works would be executed, and the next three projects were tested.
To Narimasu St.(TOBU) JR N Yamanote LINE
Road 36(35) Underground Railway Nerima (No.8, TRTA) St. (SEIBU) JR Ciecle Route Ikebukuro Station No.7 Kotake-Mukai Ciecle Route hara Station No.6 area Figure1.1 :Schematic diagram of the location
This district was a part of the example area where, (1) Former Governor of Tokyo, Ryokichi Minobe, who advocated for "democratic city planning", performed a trial of institutionalizing for the participation-oriented government of Tokyo in Toshima, Itabashim and Nerima Ward, Tokyo. This district became stages that (2) In the extension of the metro line, it was located at the turning point where 2 routes crossed (the Tokyo Metro (the Teito Rapid Transit Authority of the day) Yurakucho Line and the Seibu Yūrakuchō Line.), and it became the stage of the larger-scale new MRT station setting(Kotake- mukaihara Station) ,and (3) In the upper MRT line a prefectural road (is a part of the highway network) was built and dwellers around the road participated in self-management of the road. The central partnership relations between the local residents organizations and the local government were created across a struggle. The residents wanted to minimize the environmental degradation of their quiet residential areas, while the government wanted to execute public work projects. This struggle was a big local issue in Tokyo.
1.2. The structure of this paper So this report uses techniques of the observation that are the process tracing and the complete enumeration of negotiation interaction, and then a description about the cause (institution) and effect (public policy) as the comparative historical research of the micro(interaction-oriented) institution.
1.2.1. The theoretical background a.City (Urban setting) and policy In the context in the research of social movements and urban politics, "more interpenetration between various research traditions (sociology, political science, urban studies, geography,etc) and worlds of political
1 action (North, South, East, and West) is urgently needed"(Margit Mayer and Julie-Anne Boudreau 2012:287). It seems that "strategically-organized confrontation(for example,local action and transnational struggles) (2012:288) " is a big issue, so I can say that they are focusing on people and the actions (and the meaning of those actions) . On the other hand, in the context of urban governance, the scholars argue that "the constraints on institutional capacity and political leadership are considerable"(Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012:72). Hence, It is clear and obvious that the institutional factors bring huge impacts to the urban politics and the policy outcomes. These include,(1)Local governments are embedded in national, sometimes also transnational institutional and policy frameworks,(2)The political constraints are linked to nature of policies themselves, and the difficulties in addressing many public problems within the confines of individual urban areas,(3)Together, these economic, institutional, and political constraints on cities define a rather limited scope of local policy choice,etc. (Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012:73). Likewise, I think that "Unlike many previous studies that look at the formal powers of local political and administrative institutions, the urban governance perspective is focused on the role of those institutions in steering and coordinating the local community"(Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012：74) , are worth listening to. When I shared these understandings, It seems that analysts are expected to give big consideration regarding institution and coordination (It should be conducted based on the jurisdictional responsibility, accountability, or some normative benchmarks (Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012:84),etc.) in the studies of urban policies. b.Focus on "Time" and chronological description- Historical institutional view
Above these compromises, I think that focusing on the following points is necessary at first. Paul Pierson says that focusing on time and observing 'Institutional Development' in the institutional change process, revision, or binding mechanism in the long term, it is an essential matter in political institution studies. And he adds that the institution study can expand to policy analysis (P.Pierson 2004: 165). The following 5 items become crucial points in regards to Institutional Development. (1) Deep Equilibria (P.Pierson 2004: 157) : To identify potentially deep equilibria (P.Pierson 2004: 160). (2) Menus of Institutional Change (P.Pierson 2004: 159) (3) Institutional Coupling (P.Pierson 2004: 161) (4) Long-Term Process of institutional Change (P.Pierson 2004: 164) (5)From Institutional Development to policy Development (P.Pierson 2004:165)
The concept of Institutional Development is focusing on both the binding or restriction force and the exchanging force (reflecting the functional benefit) . The model is capable of explaining "strong tendencies toward only incremental adjustment" (P.Pierson 2004: 147), through the two forces mechanism description . As an explanation of the logic of 'Institutional Development', the following part will offer a useful thought . " Rather than reflecting the(functional)benefit of institutional exchange, institutional continuity (or strong tendencies toward only incremental adjustment) may reflect the rising costs of adapting previously available alternatives. These commitments,..they are likely to accumulate with the passage of time" (P.Pierson 2004: 147). I'm going to apply what he focused, 'accumulations' and '(institutional) tendencies'. And in addition, I'll accept the premise of the binding force of 'time' that "all other things being equal, an institution will be more resilient, and any revisions more incremental in nature, the longer the institution has been in plac (P.Pierson 2004: 147)". For example,"The basic issue here is that central and local governments sometimes disagree about what is
2 the best policy to address a particular societal problem."(Pierre, Jon and Peters, B.Guy 2012:73), so, in some countories (for example Japan and the UK), they have witnessed "(ideologically based) conflicts" between central and local government, also. I guess these conflicts can't be described only force of "change" but force of "being in place". 'Institutional Development' refer to both of them, and investigate the combination and the mechanism. Analysts who base their work on this(Institutional Development) premise, can find the following question, for example. ・How does institution transform the socio-political environment (or the peoples' future prospects) ? ・What are the highlighting structural factors that influence outcomes(institutional development) ? ・What are the factors of long, slow erosion? This report is not aiming at a description of the history, but to analyse Institutional Development.
1.2.2. The targets of the investigation I 'll narrow down and focus on specific targets of investigation in the following part. a. Focusing on the core relationship At first, I focused on "The Core Relationships" it includes reputation, trust, and reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007:200). This is because of the existence of the core relationship affect "To identify potentially deep equilibria(Deep Equilibria" (P.Pierson 2004:157) and these may cause"Long-Term Process of institutional Change" (P.Pierson 2004:164). The E.Ostrom's statement model includes "the potentially cumulative manner in which institutional statements can affect individual expectations" (E.Ostrom 2005:174) ) the micro and actor based institution situations are described as an analogy of 'game'. When I'm following the statement model, it includes one default situation (a simple two-prisoner's dilemma game) and the following three types of diverse games. I'm going to analyze negotiation situations using the three game situation. (1)A situation, "The shared strategies game add a set of shared strategies that equate to the grim trigger strategy"(Elinor Ostrom 2005:154). Stakeholders share the same "strategies" and have a motivation to "win" in the game . (2)A situation , "The norms game add a cooperation norm to the base situation" (Elinor Ostrom 2005:154). Stakeholders share a "norm".1 These may include the following criteria, (I'll point in case Ⅰ), necessities of environmental assessment, freedom of information (accessibility of information) citizens' participation, more general right(life light ,environmental light,etc) or as benchmark "responsibility, accountability"[Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012:84]. (3)A situation ,"The rules game add a cooperating rule, a monitoring norm, and a sanctioning norm to the base Prisoner’s Dilemma game" (E.Ostrom 2005:154). Stakeholders share the"rules game". These situation definitions are helpful to create a precise analysis regarding (negotiation) interaction situation. In all these three situations, the stakeholder's actions include the specific mean (unpurposefully) of "regularity" feelings(matters). So I refer to the action tendency as "regularity oriented action" in this paper .
1 It includes, in the game structure, "the predicted outcome that arises from...changed normative view of the appropriate actions to be taken or adoption of norms,"(E.Ostrom 2005:54) is norm game situation. E. Ostrom points out only shared strategy situation is not enough for continuing cooperation game. And hopefully, when the "rule game" (it include a cooperating rule, a monitoring norm, and a sanctioning norm to stop the base Prisoner’s Dilemma game) accomplished, the cooperation game will continue for a long time.
3 I 'll introduce another type of relationship' Coproduction'. Michael D. Maginnis says "Coproduction denotes situations when the active involvement of the consumer is a requisite input for the production of a high quality good or service”(Michael D. Maginnis 1999:7). Therefore this is not similar to the former settings. In the context of 'Coproduction', only people(consumers) can be involved, in other words, it's not the same as the former negotiation interaction settings where stakeholders can join. So I'll investigate whether or not the "regularity orientated action" and situations generated a three- experiment story. In addition, I will prove that the interaction based institution (it shared understandings (strategies, norms, rules: The latist one would make to be best condition of resources (E.Ostrom 2005)) improve the relationship in the long term. These procedures are effective to express the existence of "The Core Relationships" it includes reputation, trust, and reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007: 200). In the quality control policies, for example, similar to it's common pool resources situation(the conservation or degradation), Cities and/or Urban settings(as a place or institutional settings: urban commons) may be a product as the outcome, dependent on the micro-institutional settings. b. Institutional stability and/or mobility Secondly, I will focus on "cost calculation" and the institutional outcome. Just as P.Pierson pointed out ,"institutional continuity... may reflect the rising costs of adapting previously available alternatives" (P.Pierson,Y.Kasuya(translation) 2004=2010: 193) related to the description of institutional settings and how it is derived from the affected individual's 'expectations'. These compromises connotate that institutional continuity may depend on not only positive intentions(interests or desires) but also negative expectations(rising cost calculation). So when I apply the compromise between the institutional settings and the individual expectations, I can find a combination of settings regarding institutional change(or continuity) situations. Hence, the combination include the, following two choice's and two items: (1) The capability of being mobile(mobility: the situations are described,for example, when stakeholders have positive interests or strong desire) is high, or low'. (2) The capability of being stable(stability: the situations are described, for example, when stakeholders have the consciousness about the rising costs of adapting previously available alternatives) .
Mobility《1》 a. High b. Low The conbination a1 a2 Institutional of institutional 《1》 factor factors & settings 《2》 Stability《2》 1. Low 2. High b1 b2
By these distinctions I can make the expectation regarding institutional change or continuity in these cases.
4 In addition, I can compare between the theoretical expectations and the substantial results. c. Trends of policy outputs At the end, I focus on expansion of analysis matters for making better understandings of institutional changes and /or continuities. P.Pierson said " Following North's definition of institutions as "the rules of the game in a society or, more generally... the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction"(1990,p.3), it makes good sense to think of major public policies as important institutions. For the individual and social organizations that make up civil society, public policies are clearly very central rules governing their interactions"(P.Pierson 2004:165). This subject is not easy to fully analyze because of the lack of investigation. So I try to deal with picking up the diversity of the issues in this case study, but I may not be able to organize it well in this paper only. I intend to compare descriptions regarding the issues resulting from timing and the typology,etc. and institutional settings.
1.2.3. The methods and materials a. The process tracing and the complete enumeration of negotiation interactions Sticking to my purpose, I'll describe the history of the partnership in the long term by use of an analysis method of Process Tracing (Stephen Van Evera 1997=20092, Munck, Gerardo L 2004=2008). Based on a research design that is comprised by only one "positive" example may make a typically troublesome situation (P.Pierson 2004: 140). It sometimes makes excessive generalizations which are carried out. This is the crucial issue that should not be settled. As a similar problem, "How do you solve the problem that a little number of analyses tend to bring?" in a quantitative and/or a qualitative study is an important problemes (Henry E.Brady, David Collier(eds) 2004). To solve the first one, the research is designed to include both types of examples ( positive and negative examples). In other words, this research is based on "Method of difference"3. In addition, in proposing solutions to the 2nd problems, I applied theoretical distinction with the data-set observation and cause-process observation ( from the discussions of scholars on qualitative and quantitative methods). (1) data-set observation This is a method recommended in a normal social science study, and this is an observation assuming the statistical analysis. Statistics is the basic logic of the analysis. Because, it controls the quality of output depending on the number of examples so analysts are required to increase the numbers by a large amount. This method has a technical problem too, for example, (1)throwing away the data which is not suitable for statistical analysis, (2)the need to control the variable by increasing the number of examples4. (2) causal-process observation
2 The researcher investigates the matter's sequential pathway and/or decision-making process that is relating to transforming from causal settings to effective settings. I refered Stephen Van Evera (1997=2009: 66). 3 In this case, case Ⅰ (The former Governor, Mr. Minobe's advocated "participatory governance of Tokyo") relate to the decision-making of public works. Case Ⅱ (MRT underground railway construction) and case Ⅲ ( road construction) relate to generally, public works execution. I'll investigate regarding three type of negotiation process in Kotake Mukaihara district (In the present, it's around Kotake-Mukaihara station.). If I focus on only the policy outcome (public works' execution), I settle case Ⅰ is the negative case. And then, case Ⅱ and Ⅲ are both infrastructure project, therefore the facility is the difference. I'm going to analyze regarding the differences. 4 I refer to Henry E. Brady and David Collier(eds) (2004:252 ) regarding "adding case".
5 This method has the capability of observing without leaving out unsuitable data for statistical analysis (as seen on the above quantitative analysis). This method is made possible without the addition of the number of examples, and only with the reasonable addition of the number of observation5. It's inferior to the former one in terms of the effectiveness on generalizing for a making general theory. However, analysts can adopt all available(qualitative) data to use the process analysis. As a result, it product information relate to context and the mechanisms (Henry E.Brady, David Collier(eds) 2004=2008, 2004). Depending on the study design, it is thought that the theoretical generalization will be possible (Munck, Gerardo L 2004=2008). My research is based on the latter. I worked on the events cited in my study by focusing on "regarding negotiations interactions" policy process, as a kind of cause and effect process observation(Process Tracing). This process will be adopted all available data and analyzing detailed interaction negotiation (complete enumeration of negotiation interactions). In the next section, we will be talking about the methods suitable for the case study and the records that the practitioners have been working on. b. Using an abundance of records I' already mentioned a little the abstract of the reasons I use practitioner's material. I'm going to add regarding 'the meaning' from an academic viewpoint. H. Wagenaar and N. Cook point out regarding the origins of 'value' and meaning of practice analysis6. It seems that the lack of analysis of value origination will let analysts be to "the rational" manner, as the contradictory manner. Especially in a context of public-private partnership increasing in local governance in the whole of the world, the latter manner will be unfit to understand "local actors' intimate knowledge of the complexities of situations" ( H. Wagenaar and N. Cook 2003:171). They argue that "In the new modernity good policy analysis require greater inclusion of the voices and actions of a large variety of actors" ( H. Wagenaar and N. Cook 2003:171). For more suitable manner to analyze 'practices', it looks like that the analysts' 'manner (or outlook)' become a big issue. c. Summary
At first, I'll try to compare regarding partnership histories and the patterns of interactions (in other words, core relationship (E. Ostrom 2007)) between them, in Kotake-Mukaihara district. It includes focus on the difference of the policies relating to institutional constraints. Secondly, I'm going to focus on the long-term 'process'(P.Person 2004). At last, a manner of analysis to focus on 'practice' (Hendrik Wagenaar and S. D. Noam Cook 2003) is necessary. Basically, from these standing points, I'm going to show institution-oriented investigation used by the practitioners who released contents at that time. In experiences of micro-urban politics, activity at an unofficial level is often not recorded well enough. Hence, it follows that a variety of practices influence the interaction between people's action and micro institutions, and one can say that this experiment shows that not only it will such an interaction influence urban affairs but it will also help create "a substantial space" (Alberto Melucci 1989 =1997) as urban commons. This study will add different vocabulary by the practice-oriented policy analysis (Hendrik Wagenaar and S.D.Noam Cook 2003:170) using an abundance of records.
5 I refer to Henry E. Brady and David Collier(eds) (2004:252 ) regarding "adding 'piece of data' ". 6 I refer to their tought, for example"As policy originates and is sustained by practices, and practice, as we saw, involves people's values, emotions and sense of identity, the analytic stance is, compared with the command and control stance of the rational approach, a much more level playing field." ( H.Wagenaar and N.Cook 2003:171) "
6 2. A three-experiment story ;Beyond conventional city planning 1970- 1991 in Kotake-Mukaihara district, Tokyo
There is the introduction of this city planning in a document collections of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. According to the "Hosha 36Go Doro Mondai Kankei Shiryo Shu (The document collections related to the Issue of Road 36)" (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs(1982) ), we can understand the complicated history of the infrastructure projects.
・The road commonly known as "36 Doro (Road 36)" it can be extened 4,520m to reach Hayamiya, Nerima- word from Kanamecho, Toshima-ward. We can connect with emission route 35, supporting route 78 which will become the emission highway that links the Omiya bypass to the Ikebukuro Station west exit. Road 36 Issue "generated the issue with Road 35.36". ・This road has a 4 decades of history. In 1927, along the road that ran the same course as Road 36 (etc), there was a road construction plan of a 15-meter wide road. However, the plans were changed twice after 1927. In 1946 and 1966, two decades between the two the road planners continued to change the road width, routes, and other traffic conditions. By 1966, the road plan has evolved into a main road plan to be included in the metropolitan road network. In addition, under the Road 36 plan, there was a plan to excavate subway tunnels for MRTs linking Narimasu, Nerima, and Ginza. ・These plans created an uproar with the affected residents and community groups, which further complicated the administration and execution of the plans. ・Constructions for the MRT underground railway no. 8's Ikebukuro to Ginza 1 Chome track was authorized by the government in 1970. A path which is connected from Ginza 1chome to Ikebukuro then to Narimasu and Nerima were planed on the basement of Rord 36. ・Therefore the authorities (government and/or the planning division) intended to construct the road and the MRT underground railway simultaneously.They had the reasons as following, (1) to minimize the irritation of inhabitants with the construction, (2) to reduce of the cost of the construction. (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs(1982) : 1,4)
2.1. The resident's reactions against The Referendom Planning of Tokyo and The Participatory Governance 1970-1975; For the construcion of the Road 36 roadworks (and the MRT underground railway works)
2.1.1. Understanding the Opinions of the Residents by the Government of Tokyo a.The biginning of the issue According to the document "The 50-Year Governance History of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government" (the Tokyo Metropolitan Government 1995), it was decided at the same time that the MRT railway works from Ginza to Narimasu-Nerima (presently known as the Yurakucho Line) and Road 36 roadworks would be constructed. This was the beginning of Road 36 Issue. From June 1970 various petitions and applications were sent by citizens to the government. Some people were upset with the roadworks and strongly were against it. b.Former Governor Ryokichi Minobe's message to citizens to join Participatoly Governance The former Governor of Tokyo, Ryokichi Minobe, had always been a strong advocate of the idea of "participatory governance". In order to execute this new kind of "experimental" governance, he set up town meetings seven times from August to September, 1971. At the first town meeting, he released a very strong message on August 12, as follows,
"Currently... political practice was strongly questioned, and I insisted on (a thing I called) Tokyo government participation by metropolitan citizens in the previous election as one method that the government of Tokyo
7 could strongly commit to/devote itself to democracy...I hope to get result what I called "the Tokyo Government participation by metropolitan citizens " setting up somehow. "...This is the first opportunity for the government to talk about this topic to its citizens, "the metropolitan citizens participation in Tokyo Government...Thre is one almost absolute requirement that the administration Tokyo execute democracy-like governance with Metropolitan citizens to succeed...It is the support of the metropolitan citizens and cooperation with us to advance such a positive direction...I will revise the bill as many times as is needed, until everyone accepts the planning of the road construction". (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs(1982) :55-56 )
It seems that the government had the intention of setting up town meetings to achieve a breakthrough with the stakeholders' wishes.Therefore they couldn't to put compile all citizens' ideas together easily. c. A participatory government experience in Tokyo and Committee's research activity including public opinion polls in a local area This governor held town meetings but it wasn't enough. They couldn't get a concensus. So he thought of referendum. It was the first and it had to be researched. He established a committee for this. He thought this referendum serves as an experiment for an application of democracy (applying democratic process to a previous non-democractic (city planning) process) on new institutional designs. On November 10, 1972, the governor released a plan for a referendum concerning city planning. The section included from the Toshima-Itabashi border area to the Shakuji-River area, about a 2 km long section. He established his research committee for work on the plan simultaneously. The goverment tried to respond by setting conditions that will make the project more acceptable to the residents and the government. Research Committee relating to Referendum for Radiation Road 36 (The 36 Research Committee) was settled and the first meeting was held on December 26, 19727. At the time just before, the establishment of the Committee, at the Metropolitan Assembly 4th regular meeting's opening speech of former governor's, The former Governor talked to the audience "... Who would have thought that the citizens of Tokyo would have gotten involved in government affairs with such enthusiasm? " and continued the following message, on December 15, 1972.
“I think that such a strong interest of the Metropolitan citizens in the road work is extremely important to true democratic development. Up to today I have strongly believed and fought for getting citizens to participate in their government. Now it is the creed of my governance of Tokyo.... I think we need to weigh the pros and cons of new road construction. On one hand we have the obvious pros. On the other we have the cons such as inconvenience of local residents who will suffer damage and where new construction takes place. ...I'll be glad if the government will be investigated based on that comittee's information will put the question to the people in a referendum at the earliest possible moment. If the will of residents were reflected in such a form by road planning in Tokyo, I would consider this to be epoch-making for the democratic metropolitan government. ... The trial of these Road 36 of the Metropolitan citizens' participation in the government of Tokyo namely the democracy, as one experiment, I analyze all the details from the start and the end and examine it, it hopes to greatly inflect for the administration of the government of Tokyo by the future Metropolitan citizens' participation” (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs 1982:55-56).
In this way, the placement of Road 36 Issue, had been replaced as the democratic experiment of the 7 In the government's document "Hosha 36 Go Doro no Jumin Tohyo ni Kansuru Chosa Kai Secchi Yoko" (official guideline for the establishment of the committee relating to conducting a referendum for Road 36), the following statement was stipulated "(1) the purpose : To conduct investigations to contribute conducting the referendum, and purposely finding out public opinions, etc., (2)the organization: The Governor-Commissioned members include 8 people(people of experience or academic standing) and 4people(residents' representative in Itabashi and Nerima ward who the chief of ward recommended) , (3) Themes of the research:① The method of the referendum relating to Road 36 project.,② Any other necessary matter., (4) the meeting: The meetings of The 36 Research Committee shall be called and sponsored by the Governor of Tokyo. , (5) The office works: The office work relating to the 36 Research Committee are dealt with Tomin-Shitu(Citizens-room). (6) application: This guideline applies it from December 22, 1972". (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs 1982:95)
8 government of Tokyo.
After 11 times meetings were held, they released following, basic policy by their newsletter on the first issue on September 15, 1973. According to The 36 Research Committee's 'Interim Report'(1973), the basic principle of the road construction were broken down into the following 3 items:
(1) environmental assessment. (2) freedom of information (accessibility of information). (3) citizen participation. (The Tokyo Metropolitan Government's newsletter, MACHI TO DHRO no. 1 (City and Road no. 1) dated 1973/09/15: 7)
They released some details of the policy that included making a participation opportunity, attaching importance to do enivornmental assessment, putting into accessibility of information through release mini- communication paper, execution of public opinion polls regarding the decision making process of this road work. He made a bid to execute these policies. (For more details refer to Table 1.) The 36 Research Committy submitted a final report to the former Governor Ryokichi Minobe on March 10,1975. Teito Rapid Transit Authority(TRTA) made a requisition on August 16, 1975. The Goverment of Tokyo accepted the demand of TRTA on September 10,1975. Hence, after the submission of this report the Government of Tokyo only approved the construction of the MRT underground railway under Road 36, and not the construction of the new road.
2.1.2. The reaction and diversity of local residents a. The Beginning: "a complete surprise" regarding the MRT underground railway works and Road 36 roadworks constructed simultaneously This information was a thunderclap (or came out of nowhere) for stakehodlers they that lived in the Toshima, Itabashi, and Nerima wards.During 1970 to 1974, the stakeholder sent 26 petitions. Almost all of Toshima ward residents welcomed8 the construction of the new road because it improved the existing narrow shopping street, which would benefit from the increase in the number of pedestrians. In opposition, residents in the area of Komone,Kotake,Hanezawa,Sakuradai and Hayamiya in Itabashi and Nerima wards9, which has no road, voiced their concerns about the project (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs 1982: 4) . They claimed that the construction of a road would destroy their environment and threaten the local way of life. In addition, a third group of people advocated for an urgent construction of an MRT underground railway. All these, brought about a confrontation of projects that lasted for a long time. b.The former governor's inspiring message "the participatory governance" The following things were reported in The 35・36 Residents' Meetings' newsletter, made by residents who were stakeholders in the project: The Road 36 Project became "The Participatory Governance in Roadworks Project," a prototype of roadworks by the Goverment of Tokyo. The residents joined in the town meetings and they talked a lot positively. Despite the town meetings, their opinions were not adapted by the government of Tokyo. The 36.36 Residents' Meeting reported an excerpt from the former governor's speech on August 12,1971. They heard the following during the town meetings :
" In conventional City planning, the planners never ask for the opinion of local residents when executing
8 However, Kaname-Cho elementary school (Tosihma ward) PTA protested strongly (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs (1982:4). 9 These areas were mentioned in the Government's report.(Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs (1982:4).
9 plan's decisions and do briefing sessions just(right) before moving to the execution of the plan...This road plan is going to take some of the school's land property and this plan is not sympathetic and without consideration to the schools needs. Therefore government needs to take responsibility in nurturing children to bring them up in good health....If this road should build to take the school's land property, we should build an underground passageway/road. I ordered the department of road works to consider the welfare of the children at the school. If build a road along the school,They should think about the noise, and air pollution and their health. I never sacrifice the importance of schools. I would like to adhere to the bottom line of this public policy ". (OSHIRASE (Information) by "the extra" dated 1971/08/21, The 35・36 Residents' Meeting)
Like this, the residents group shrewdly reported on a point of agreement they had from the governor's speech in their newsletter. It seems that the town meetings weren't a chance for residents to express their ideas but just a public hearing (so the local government could pass on information). In January 1972 the petition of the 35・36 Residents' meeting, after a unanimous vote in the assembly of the Nerima ward, was submitted to Nerima local government. Since joining the town meetings, some residents, who were also members of the 35・36 Residents' Meeting, liaised with other residents to distribute the information more widely among the residents of the local area. This allowed local residents to share crucial information about the road project with each other. For example they could share basic items in their written argument which included the opposition to pollution caused by the road construction, to respect the resident's opinions, to conserve living and educational environment, to construct MRT underground railway, to use the shield method in the construction. c. In participatory governance experiment- in reaction to the 36 Research Committees activities. In Dec 1972 the 36 Research Committees first meeting was held. By the local areas residents who were stakeholders, it began in harsh conditions (A document for press release, dated 1980/11/15・The 35・36 Residents' Meeting's). The 35・36 Residents' Meeting broke into the two factions. The one declared against the roadworks. The other was willing to make concessions regarding the roadworks. The former group was not represented in the 36 committees. So that groups residents who had a stake in the roadworks started taking measures against the 36 Committees by (1) conducting a local residents opinion survey, (2) making a written inquiry, (3) widely distributing a written record of committee meetings in which they had no right to speak. In regards to the survey, it was conducted in Jan 1973. They gathered up residents who were stakeholders and conducted an exhaustive survey. In addition, information about the 36 committee's meetings were shared in a resident's newsletters10. As a result of The Resident's idea survey, it was verified that they had a strong opposition to the road works. In March of the same year, they sent the written inquiry and the raw questionnaire to the government of Tokyo via the head of the department of citizens of Tokyo. When the residents learned of the upcoming town meeting they planned a workshop to discuss the government's environmental assesment information relesed in the newsletter MACHI TO DHRO no. 3 (City and Road no. 3). The citizens were not satisified with the results of the environmental survey. In the next year they argued about two things. The first thing was, should the government conduct another survey that could be accepted by the citizens. The second one was that the conventional environment assesment had fatal defects in its premise. As a result goverment should have sufficient dialgue with citizens.As soon as government released a detailed environmental assessment to compliment the original document, the residence plan to execute an informal gathering to facilitate discussions among metropolitan, local government and residents. They had very strong interests in the environmental assessment and the related survey. In addition, the 36 Research Committee conducted an investigation in the form of a public opinion poll. The resident group performed the following activities:
10 I referred residents' newsletter 'OSHIRASE (Information): No.1(1970/07/28)-No.19(1976/07/02)' ( Tokyo: The 35・ 36 Residents' Meeting.) in this chapter.
10 ・They distributed their newsletter widely among residents, in which they shared an article titled 'The Public Opinion Poll Was Settled' with the details of the government's public opinion poll results in it.
・In this article, they especially captured the poll results that indicated that 70 percent of the citizens wanted the government to hold the local resident's opinion in high regard.
The 36 Research Committee managed public relations activities and reached the last stage, i.e. submitting their report dated March 12,1975 to the current Governor, Mr Minobe. That is (to say), Mr Minobe hoped to embed these rules into conventional city planning procedure.
2.1.3. The results of the experiment The government released their plan to prioritize railway works over roadworks. The resident group responded by establishing an organization that would track the government's progress with regards to rail- works I may remark in that regards, that the 36 Meeting group, made up of stake holders in the local area, were exceedingly affected by the activities of the 36 Research Committee and the Government.
2.2. The resident's reactions against TRTA in the execution of the MRT underground railway works, 1975-1985
In 1970, the Goverment of Tokyo was saying that two public-works that one is a roadworks other is MRT underground railway works will be excuted simalteniously. The No.8 Underground Railway of TRTA was adopted a long time ago as a "Decision of City planning decision" in the post-war years of recovery period. The Government gave it up and decided to prioritize of MRT underground works in1975. In the next year local residents of this area accepted this public release, they established within their organization that the 90% stakeholders would join through chance to get negotiation between Teito Rapid Transit Authority (A document for press release, dated 1980/11/15 by The 35・36 Residents Meetings,liaisons). The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8 and No13 construction (The 8.13 Residents' committee) was established in August 19,1976. According to the residents' newsletter, the total population was 225 (109 regular members and 116 supporting members) on September 11,1981. They promoted to organize pisitively in the Kotake-Mukaihara district and negotiated "distinctive" position. In short, they acted as the negotiation person to contract for negotiation and they acted to keep the dameges to a minimum in the underground-railway works. The residents movement members were substantial stakeholders therefore they didn't have decisive power and the decision was in Authority hands. The only thing they could do was organize local residents and take action in politics through citizen movement. On one hand, Road 36 roadworks was designated as a democratic governance experiment by the authorities. On the other hand, the MRT didn't have any public rules (or principles). Because this works stakehokders in the local area should create something new interaction procedure or micro-institution (for Example making rules) , from zero base. It mean they negotiate between public and/or semi-public Authority ”TRTA”.
2.2.1 The beginning and continuing of negotiations, between TRTA and a resident group; The post-establishment resident's committee In following description, I referred to the 8,13 Residents' committee's newsletters11.
11 I referred residents' newsletter 'KAIHO (The Measures' information) : No.1(1976/09/03) -N0.53(1985/01/08)" (Tokyo: The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8 and No13 construction (The
11 I show the issue number as{ number }. a.The local resident's gathering up
In September 1975, the descision to start the railway works was received, from TRTA. After that the railway works began to move forward. To solve the construction issure, a resident group in Kotake-Mukaihara district started to show their written proposal (by the 36 Meeting, the previously mentioned group) in 1975. After residents demanded explainations regarding the MRT underground railway works, the TRTA started information sessions for residents in July 1976. The residents' memorandum Regarding the railway works, as of September 16, 1976, the residents' movement could not approve to these railway plans soon (shortly) after because they fought with TRTA to join their negotiation table {2}. They argued that "the TRTA should contract with our organization about basic items and details regarding our first demands before starting to land investigation." b. The beginning and continuing of negotiations between TRTA and a residents group ; The 8.13 Resident committee's Post-establishment The residents pressured TRTA by organizing and sending a lot of documents with their statement, asking to be part in the execution process to modify the rail works' construction plan in order to ensure a livable environment for the stakeholders/residents. They submitted their written proposal to the CEO of TRTA at that time. They filed a first written demand 'MINYUCHI SOKURYO NI KANSURU KEN' dated 1976/09/16 (Regarding private land execution investigation) to TRTA's CEO Mr. Yoshinobu Suzuki. In the document dated 1976/09/16, the following statement was stipulated, " Our commitee's decision is to refuse all surveying of land and buildings, which our members own or lease, until you accept our demands and respond in a written document. I hope that you can understand our feelings and make allowances for them and take them into consideration." According to ‘RENMEI SYUISYO’ dated 1976/09/16 (The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8, No13 construction’s prospectus) to TRTA's CEO Mr. Yoshinobu Suzuki, they were argued as following, “・・・・・・We reached the conclusion that we needed to make a settelement regarding basic matters(items) and the basic demands between TRTA and us.We considered this to be a necessity before conducting the land survey.” The settelement needed to reflect the defferent needs of the stakeholders{2} .
・One group of stakeholders were required to make a sacrifice and move from their homes, demaned following things, for example. "TRTA never invoke the power of the law they just influenced based on their desire."
・The second group were required to put up with the construction works or move to another area, demanded following things, for example.
" Regarding the constrution method, the TRTA must give a detailed explanation before deciding a contractor for construction. TRTA should obtain the resident's approval of the method of construction proposed. This approval of the construction method is mandatory prior to accepting bids for the work." " We request TRTA makes an effort to minimize damage such as vibration, the noise, house damage under construction and purposfully to get approval about detailed construction plan (the method/procedure and the time zone) by the 8.13 Residents' committee's members ."
・In addition both groups shared similar problems that needed addressing. These were included folllowing items.
8.13 Residents' committee)) in this chapter.
12 (1) The negative effects to residence businesses and having fears going forward, the TRTA needs to acknowledge and confirm that it will compensate any business which is affected.
(2) Regarding maintenance and trouble during the construction period TRTA should establish a system of taking responsiblity directly and TRTA deals with all maintenance and issues.
(3) Even after the commencement of the MRT underground railway service, any damage caused to the residents will be compensated by TRTA.
(4) Regarding the remaining land, TRTA should negotiate with the stakeholders (NerimaWard and inhabitants) about how to use the land post construction.
In view of the characteristics (being the turning point of dual lines and a big subway station being established) of this underground railway construction, they demanded more consideration of the construction plan, compensation issues in this district.
According to RENMEI SYUISYO’ [The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8, No13 construction’s prospectus] dated 1976/09/16, they were argued the following :
(1) there was a technological problem, because TRTA decided not to use a tunneling shield in the execution of the construction, without negotiation with the stakeholders.
(2) TRTA was only concerned with earning a profit and their authoritarian attitude, was ignoring the sacrifice that was being made by the local residents.
(3) TRTA's thought has a disregarding attitude for local residents so they should reflect on themselves by changing their outlook.
(4) " If they promise to show an introspective attitude throught the negotiation process, we will approve only this railway plan and we will cooperate".
The local landowners, and other owners affected by the works, organized and made their first written demand to TRTA, in September 1976. c. Release Written demands to TRTA- Before establishment of cooperation agreement In the The Residents group’s written demand (primary) 'GUTAITEKI YOUKYU JIKOU' to TRTA (By the residents' memorandum regarding the railway works dated 1976/10/22) , the following statement was released. It was written as their 'primary' demand, and it focused on the " Basic outlook of the calculation of the value of the land{4}. Therefore it was harsh and the continuation of negotiations seemed impossible, as we shall see following comment, "a TRTA official said that the 8.13 Residents Comittee wasn't only resident"{6}, at that time.
After this meeting, TRTA and the residents held another meeting to explain regarding residents' demands in October 29,1976. After that TRTA made returnd three times on November 17,23,24,1976. This negotiation interaction was the beginning of formal negotiation between TRTA and the 8.13 Residents' committee {4}. In the next year, a Written demand (secondry) dated 1977/03/03 was released by the 8.13 Residents' committee repeatedly. After that, A memorandum dated 1977/03/18 was established by the 8.13 Residents' committee and the TRTA’s Planning Division and the construction office land Division. Followiig the 8.13 Residents committee liaison's comment, this Memorundum was not perfect for them{11} . But they had no chooice. Because negotiation in advance (for One group of stakeholders were required to make a sacrifice and move from their homes) required a quick (response),so they made a compromise at that time. By compromising, they felt that they lost their guarantee, so after that they permitted a land investigation for
13 TRTA{11}. It looks like the origine of residents' strong motivation that they fought to stick to comprehensive rules.
After the conclusion,TRTA started their land investigation and began bargaining to purchase a lot of land {6}.
2.2.2 . The continuation of negotiation between TRTA and The 8.13 Residents' committee ー cooperation relating to making contracts and policies
The TRTA and the organization signed the cooperation agreement dated on July 7, 1978. Untill the cooperation agreement was established, negotiation numbers ware107 times(by document for press release, dated 1980/11/15 ) or as formal meeting ware couted 55times (by Written request dated 1978/10/24). Through these negotiation interactions, the 8.13 Residents' committee obtained crucial rules. They included " insurance rules of stakeholders'(living, the environment,livelihood and properties), rules of starting construction, rules to establish consultation, rules of consensus making, rules (penalties) of suspending the construction procedure" (by the the cooperation agreement dated 1978/07/07). I can say that it was like a constitution making for MRT underground railway construction in neighbourhoods of high density areas. After that construction companies was chosen by TRTA {13}. In the following month, Augst 1978, a tripartite meeting was held. After that a certificate was signed by all stakeholders. a. Post establishment of cooperation agreement
In this term, the following items were negotiated,for example, ' the noise and the vibration investigation before starting construction', ' pre-construction land investigation ',' The station name revision ',' regarding the continuation of the negotiation consultation' (by newsletter, caseⅡ, {15,18,19} ). The stakeholders held the principle of having a written agreement and certificate [guidelines] for almost all construction work until the railway was completed. A certificate dated 1979/03/06 was signed by all stakeholders (TRTA official, the residents & 3 Construction companies){19} regarding when the work start{18} . After these contracts were established TRTA began construction. b. The continuation of negotiation to modify the original rail works plans to make the station fit to the local area
This station naming issue had been negotiated for a long time from the beginning of this railway works' execution to the end of the project. At that time , they had sometimes disregarded each staleholders' "Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007: 200)" and these became volnerably. Earlier, I ommitted some details concerning the negotiations in 1979, so I will tell you about those now. According to the Written proposal (Suggestions for the naming of the new station) dated 1979/01/31 by The residents, there were contents which are written as follows:
(1) We cannot accept the proposal of TRTA naming the station. Because most of the station is in Kotake-cho and the effects of the construction and its disruption is mainly felt by its residents. So, we are concerned that the order of the choice of name being "Mukaihara" being first is why. (2) In the first proposal Mukaihara was seen as an extension of the Marunouchi Line, but that project was very old and did not include Yurakucho Line project. This was an entirely new venture because it was a matter of course that the name of station should be revised to fit the real location. (3) In addition, the inaccurate naming of the station in regars its location, was not inconsiderateness not only to the residents but also MRT undergroud railway users.
14 (4) We show three crucial issues as the biggest concession of the present.
In the Written return dated 1979/02/15 by TRTA , TRTA said, " I have received a similar demands from the Nerima-ward assembly, this area's neighborhood group and Kotake Elementary School PTA……, so I understand enought the purpose of these demands. When I make a decision on the station name, it will accord with the actual situation in the local area, further I will inform the residents half a year before the opening of the station." The residents decided to accept the return at that time temporarily in1979{18} . c. The continuation of negotiation and making additional design items I know that an extensive item about enforcement of the construction was discussed among TRTA and the 8.13 Residents' Committee. I will introduce the discussion about the post construction in the resident's newsletter. These were noticeable important items by the resident's which are written as follows: Construction by the shield tunneling, Water level investigation (To make solution for the well running dry.), The prevention of the dump truck, Method of construction at the place that the ground was weak, Various investigations (subsidence, water level under the ground), Working hours of the concrete construction, Making mistakes regarding the soil type of the backfill(future vibration measures), Start of the orbit laying construction, Electricity, Building works, The house investigations and the after care (by newsletter, caseⅡ, {21,22,24,25,26,30,38,40,41,45} ) . Inter alia Making mistakes regarding the soil type of the backfill’ became a terribly big trouble because it seems that it was a necessary procedure of construction to prevent the future vibration measures {38}. As a result, TRTA should settle with the residents by doing over again the procedure of the back fill in the construction district {39}. Another big problem was to decide the MRT ground railway's new station naming. The Residents committee suspended (their cooperation) " Electricity and Building works"project and pressured TRTA until they addressed a return that the 'formal' and acceptable naming was decided{44} . On June 7, 1982 , the Residents committee accepted the return form TRTA that the new station name was formally decided to be "Kotake-Mukaihara"station {46} . After they received the result, the Resident committee canceled suspension of the construction. According to the residents' news letters, TRTA(Seibu Railway Co.) and the Residents' committee established a lot of Certifitations and detailed construction plans related to " Orbital layings, Electric equipments, Management of the transportation vehicles and Buildings"(by newsletter, caseⅡ, {32,33,36} ) . The station facilities were purposefully designed to fit the local areas environment (for example, the green space and bycile parking, the design of station facilities, a park settlement as remaining land use. by newsletter, caseⅡ {30,38,47,52}) . They became the negotiations main purpose. Regarding post-commencement of the MRT underground railway, the negotiation to establish rules (especially whether the negotiation consultation may continue or not) became the biggest issue (by newsletter, caseⅡ, {49,51,53} ) . Because the Residents' committee made a demand (A written demand (CHIKATETSUKAITUU NI ATATTENO MOUSHIIRE SHO) dated1983/06/10) post-commencement {49} . The first railway (Yurakucyo Line, Ikibukuro--Kotake-Mukaihara--Eidan-Narimasu) was opened on June 24,1983. The second railway ( Seibu Yurakucho Line Kotake-Mukaihara-Shinsakuradai) was opened on October 1,1983 . After repeated negotiations, the TRTA approved the demandand the rule (consultation management rule) was established between TRTA and the 8.13 Residents' committee (by newsletter, caseⅡ, {50,51} ) . After the commencement, TRTA responded by written document with the COO's signature (a written approvement dated 1983/10/05). Following the Residents committee's newsletter filing, the final 53th newsletter was published on January 8,1985. In the newsletter, the 8.13 Residents' committee informed for the members that the members could deal with trouble through the organization. The 8.13 Residents committee had already established the negotiation rules between the organization and TRTA (Seibu Railway Co.also). In addition, they proposed to keep the movement to negotiate (for example, environmental pollution control, Water level investigation and the care).
15 That is showed us they continued to make effort to hold the outonomous activities, post-the raiway works in the local area.
2.2.3. The beginning of a Social movement; The background of local resident's gathering together As starting point that the road issue rose up, government of Tokyo's experiment, by the railway works starting was decided at first. The government of Tokyo initiated their experiment when the road issue rose up. Six months later, the Tokyo government allowed the railway works to begin for TRTA. The liasions documented these events which resulted in the Residents' Commitee for Quality Control of Road 36 construction(The 36 Residents' Committee) was established. This paper (A document for press release, dated 1980/11/15) presents the organization's core members, their movement's motivation and their defining characteristics.
・The reasons why the organization members first joined were to protect their livelihood, to solve environmental issues, and to make good neighborly relations. ・A large number of members were women who were nurturing children because they are close to them and a lot of members have many imaginative ideas about the future. ・These documents show that they had their own principle or basic policy regarding urban problems, and they should solve them with a democratic solution. And then also regarding project procedures they should organize "to demand, to learn, and to act" and as requested the works construction should be done, above all, sincerely and openly, is the very things. They argued that It was made to solve an urban issue, especially hoping that the philosophy of citizen participation would take root in local areas.
2.2.4. The results of the negotiation I excluded any other relevant activity in this area because it was not relate to directly to interaction between TRTA and any other Authority. Therefore, according to the note of The Residents Measure's liaison, TRTA might have a promise regarding to manage land purchase, with Gov of Tokyo (Next roadworks operator in this local area.). (Some events may affect TRTA decision making related to future public works in this local area. ) I can't deny that, when I think, why TRTA could have patience. However, generally in this case,the residents pressured TRTA by organizing and sending a lot of documents with their statements and they were effective to involve stakeholders in negotiations. They were asking to be included in the execution process to modify the rail works' construction plan in order to ensure a livable environment for the stakeholders/residents.
2.3. The resident's reactions against Road 36 roadworks, 1979-1991 "The Committee for Quality Control of Rord 36 construction" (The 36 Residents' Committee) was established in 1980 by local area residents. The residents are pressuring the city to let them choose which proposal will be carried out. So, they responded by setting the following conditions. In following description, I referred to The 36 Residents' Committee's newsletters12. I show the issue number as{ number }.
2.3.1.The residents' organisation and statement in reaction to the governent finding out the residents' opinions
12 I referred residents' newsletter "36 RENMEI NEWS (The Committee's News) : No.1(1980/11/04)- No.20 (1987/06/15)" (Tokyo: The Committee for Quality Control of Rord 36 construction (The 36 Residents' Committee)) in this chapter.
16
The Government of Tokyo started to find out the residents' opinions if they could co-operate or not (would be against the roadworks). It started in 1979 at the end of the year. The group round up residents to join the new organization. The organization should consist of residents because they have the legal capacity to get involved (because they live there).The organization is concerned about the residents' livelihood. On the other hand road construction brings disruption to some people and the environment, making them lose benefits they previously enjoyed, such as clean air and quietness, as well as the lose of greenery. Some people may even lose their homes. The residents pressured the city by proposing collaboration with the construction in exchange for being part in the decision-making process to modify the original draft. As their first formal activity, they submitted a Requisition dated 1980/10/27 addressed as crucial stem items regarding the roadworks to the Former Governner Shunichi Suzuki (by newsletter, caseⅢ, {1,2}) . It includs the following items: (1)the roadwork section/area, structure of the road, to make bicycle parking, anti‐pollution measures around the opening part of the tunnel, (2) site compensation issues, (3) construction work issues, (4)environmental impact assessments, (5) House investigations and damage control, (6) Negotiation procedures/methods, (7) To make consensus regarding the condition of the road service openning. (by newsletter, caseⅢ, {1,2}). The governor of Tokyo responded to the requisition by sending an official written response dated 1980/11/15{3}.
2.3.2. The political context of the initial agreement and the mutual agreement had been establshed, and begining of partnership a.The partnership after the establishment of the rules The political context of the initial agreement and the mutual agreement had been established. When I first read these statements in the 2nd Requistion (dated 1981/06/23), as listed paragraph titles, work was recorded in the following details, "the overall situation, land and house investigation and possiblity of house damage, effects of construction, maintenance and management, compensation and consultation, and additional matter regarding road works. For example, they included in the following details "Road service includes, pre-road service, post-road service, and every kind of investigation". If both parts could manage to agree on the crucial aspects of the project statement, then the committee would agree to the commencement of the location survey before the roadworks could begin. Let me introduce an example that will help you to understand the residents' demands to get written statements. The government had needs that they brought forward the starting date of some roadworks in the grounds of a school to the summer break, after an agreement with the residents, regardless of the negotiation process having been completed {6}. So the Goverment proposed to simultaneously make a firm commitment with the residents' committee in advance{4}. As a result, this 'The Firm commitment dated 1981/07/03' was establishd before addressing the 2nd written return (regarding The Requisition dated 1981/06/23). The residents referred that they had no choice but to agree to the roadworks exercution measures for the following reasons: 1. The rehabilitation of the livelihood for the temporarily evicted people 2. The recovery of the lost green areas 3. The preoccupation (fear) that the new station could attract business activity and people that could degrade the neighbourhood{4}.
In the Firm commitment dated 1981/07/03, the following statement was stipulated, "We argue that the constructed road should be appropriate for the local area's environment and we are going to keep a great interest in the use of the road when completed". There were items in this firm commitments, which are written as follows:
17 (1) the negotiation consultation which must continue post road service, (2) the responsibility of the consensus making regarding basic road planning items and a detailed construction plan, (3) a rule when operation constructions becomes in doubt to pursue the project (construction process), and (4) the responsibility of the consensus making regarding the date of road service availability. These were noticeable important items by the residents'.
The 36 Residents’ Committee made a demand again, asking for, in the Firm commitment, that would be adhered to. Their demand included concerns for the following meanings.
（1）environmental issues would be addressed （2）all issues dealing sincerely, during the term of the roadworks. （3）enforcement - making sure people follow the rules
These statements were established for the substantial roadworks and for the enforcement of the contracts. They demanded a written firm promise (Memorandum dated 1981/07/17) that the government would restart the next round of negotiations and reach a conclusion about all the items in the consultation by the end of the land investigation before construction begins{5}. They also applied similar rules to not only the government but also to private construction companies and the Teito Rapid Transit Authority Subway, when they execute roadworks. As a written return(The Requisition" dated 1981/06/23) to 2nd agreement "The Mutual agreement" dated 1981/09/29 all items included was decided between the residents' Committee and the Goverment of Tokyo office officer as a proof of partnership rule making was completed{6}. A contract " The certification" dated 1981/09/29 was signed by the residents Committee,The Goverment of Tokyo and the contractors{6}. b.Partnership beyond conventional city planning and road construction
In this post- establishment of cooperation agreement period, the main issue had been transformed from the project execution to the 'better (or affordable quality) ' additional policymaking in the settled areas. At first, the establishment of Certificate (regarding detailed construction planning to execute the project) became a big issue (Some trouble happen so negotiation was suspended). After negotiations, the Certificate was established on November 2, 1983{9, 10}. After that, the main issues became problem-solving (for example, these include the measures regarding the environmental problem, detailed city planning, etc.). For example, post-rule making negotiation and policy out-put as partnership result, I'll introduce a kind of envorinmental-policy in roadworks this will become typical in future (as other example, there were following issues: structure of the road{6}, detailed construction plans, noise suppression panel, drying machines{7}, House investigations, retaining wall{10}, sidework(model) , anti‐pollution measures}{11},the green space,telephone booth.{12}, a monument settlemen, car stops{13}, bycile parking{13, 14}. (See Table 3., I showed the detailed chronological descriptions.) The Environmental Assessment instruction manual and The Operatin instructions were made between The residents' Committee and the Goverment of Tokyo (by newsletter, caseⅢ,{6, 7, 8, 9, 10}). At the end, as described by the residents' communication newsletter, they repeated discussions over 20 times for 17 monthes. I omitted the details of assesment. Therefore I'll summarise the basic thought continuity since their movement started. They showed their basic policy and purpus of the Environmental Assesment papers. The paper focused on the relationship between their livelihood in this area and public transportation. In paticuler to keep a confrontable environment in this area and concerning the environmental issues after the road was made available. To rearise the purpus, the Government of Tokyo has a responsibility to execute necessary investigation and environmental assesment. By comparing their publicity newsletters between one published in 1970 and other published during this phase, we may find crucial principle. I could say that, (1)the residents' committee had maintained the basic awareness of the issue that they (and Goverment also) have a responsibility to be concerned about environmental issue in " any" roadworks, (2)
18 these motivation made sure that they will continue to participate in the roadworks execution and to continue to make efforts to make the environmental assesment "statement" as standard, new, procedure to keep the conditions even if after post-road service is available in this local area. This road work has a sidewalk that has been completed first. It is named as Four Seasons Street. At that time, almost all stake holders gathered on that sidewalk, and this was reported on TV{15}. The ceremony marks the end of the sidewalk project, but it's also the beginning of another challenging task.
2.3.3. To continue the strong relationship to deal with post-road service and relative issues For the residence committee, they are remaining strong and vigorous. They are saying that all projects should continue after the contract/agreement was established. This is their crucial principle. They have critical problems that need to be discussed before the cars are allowed to travel/ pass the road. It includes the following items: (1) Maintenance management of the road (2) Road extension issues (3) Post road service issues. Issues such as problems caused by motor cycle gangs, or any problems relating to the police organization. (4) Investigation of the amount passing vehicles, and its control. (by newsletter, case Ⅲ,{17})
They should take measures and precautions before the road service starts. These measures will help deal with any probable cases. They should keep on writing precise documentations of any events.This way, the residence committee liaison can inform the members about these measures. In this context, the Residents' Committee and the Government of Tokyo decided to make a new agreement.
On the 36 Residents' Committee's newsletter{19} dated March 23,1987, the following description was written: (1) In any case the 36 consultation should continue to negotiate comprehensive problem continuously. (2) We decided some details about comprehensive problem which includes making a new Mutual agreement. (3)Some members expressed doubt about the consultation's guarantee by the Goverment of Tokyo. Especially, the 36 consultation must be continued because they need to keep negotiationing regarding the road extention problom.
So the Residents' Committee members made the argument " Let's fully enforce the consultations gurantee". Their maximum interest became the 36 consultation's continuation because they need to discuss undecided items. In this phase, rivision of " the detailed rules of the Road 36 Quality Control consultation (the 36 consultation)" was discussed together with " a mutual agreement" and an argument. On March 20, 1987, the residents' committee and the Goverment of Tokyo signed a new agreement and Mutual agreement(by newsletter, case Ⅲ,{19,20}).After these arrangements were completed it was decided that the road would be made available to the public on the 12th of April. The residents kept their intention not only to put the brakes on the breach of contracts by using legal agreements, but also to continue the legacy of the relationship between the residents and the government regarding this roadworks execution. The new Mutual agreement will be forwarded to the new construction officer in charge and all future stake holders. In the introduction they talked about the following interaction history.
・It started in 1966, with the adoption of the decisions to city plans, related to roadworks for Road 36 (the radiation route 36).
・Since 1970, the Goverment released that the MRT railway works and Road 36 roadworks would be constructed at the same time. the stakeholder began to send various petitions and applications related to these
19 public works.
・These roadworks became a big issue in Tokyo, because it was disucussed regarding the excecution and revisions capability by the Local Goverment.
・The governor of Tokyo tried to solve these problems by setting up an institution that would carry out a referendum into the city planning execution. So his research committee tried to organize a more democratic governance of Tokyo using the results of the investigation.
・Before reaching a decision on the roadworks, construction of MRT Underground Railway Works had begun in 1975. Then in 1980(Actually, it started since1979) the Government started to hold negotiations about the roadworks in public. (Omitted process descriptions, so please see the details of case3 (2.3.1-2) descriptions.）
2.3.4. The results of the negotiation
Thanks to these procedures they obtained the necessary results to complete the roadworks in 1987. Where they would decide contracts by Mutual consent dated 1987/03/20, resulting from participatory decision making and their efforts, and the value of constructed road were explained within these political contexts at the end of the roadworks. I may remark in this regards- They hoped to maintain, not only about the rules, but also a strong relationship and partnership-philosophy. The residents' group hoped to maintain the mutual institution as a legacy, so they put together an account of what had happened thus:
(1)The contracts were decided by mutual consent (2)Both sides vowed to make an effort and to keep a level of trust (3)Policy output would be resulting from participatory decision processes. (4)The benefits of the constructed road.
The details can be read in the latest mutual agreement's preface dated March 20, 1987.
3. A comparative partnership in chronological order by micro(interaction-oriented) institutional view
In advance, I consider the details of each negotiation interaction. Let me mention the constraints related to urban politics.
(1) Following Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters(2012) pointed institutional constraint in urban political settings, the local government have constraint by central government. Recently every local government is demanded responsibility, accountability or some normative benchmarks[Jon Pierre and B.Guy Peters 2012:84] in partnership conducting.
(2)As urban policy settings, I can point out that authorized city planning had strong resilience, in this paper's cases (Ⅱ,Ⅲ) also.
(3) When I focus on Japanese local governance settings, I can't look over the following factors. Tuji (1972: 146) said in long Japanese governance history, local gavernments' autonomy can not practice because the institution design has never addressed the issue(enough) in a long time. Shinohara (1972) compared the degrees that German and Japanese society Shinohara (1972: 112) were constrained.
20 Before WWII they both had similar authoritarian settings (and he added that German society was modified post-WWII), Shinohara (1972:121). These urban policy scholars pointed out there similar character in Japanese socio-political context at that time in the 1970's. At my conclusion I will connect these urban political constraints with the results of my case study.
3.1 The investigation of interactions in the public works I'm going to explain that these cases might show a typical core relationship (E.Ostrom 2007) building process across the world. This seems to follow similar cases across the world. (However it may be rare in Japanese partnership history). In order to the following question, I'm going to answer in words of one syllable. Q1. How negotiation pattern were generated? Especially, whether they(these) have any statement situation(According to the statement model of E.Ostrom, as follow Strategy game/ Norm game / Rule game (E.Ostrom 2005:154))?
Q2. Whether or not these Core Relationships were established regarding ”reputation, trust, and reciprocity” (E.Ostrom 2007: 200) ?
Q3 How about institutional development patterns were generated?
Q4 How about policy outcome patterns were generated?
Q5. Was making Partnership (core relationship) practice accomplished and not?
3.1.1. The resident's reactions against The Referendum Planning of Tokyo and The Participatory Governance 1970-1975; For the construction of Road 36 roadworks (and the MRT underground railway works) At first I answer next question 'Q1. How negotiation pattern were generated? Especially, whether they(these) have any statement situation(According to the statement model of E.Ostrom, as follow Strategy game/ Norm game / Rule game (E.Ostrom 2005:154)' (See chapter1,Section 1.2.2.a) .
In Case Ⅰ, stakeholders didn't have repeated negotiations. Therefore, the consultant body of governments(the 36 Research Committee) showed crucial criteria or guidelines.(See chapter2,Section 2.1.1.c) Stakeholders could share the guidelines. Therefore, it was not a ''Norm game". (Q1) (Regarding "Norm game", for more details referred to Chapter1, Section1.2.2.a.) In CaseⅠ, the Government was in "a1" residents were in b1 or b2. These setting didn't change during the 36 Research Committee's activity. This 'a1-Gov.' explains the Governments' (or The former Governor's) higher desire to change policy(At the beginning of participatory governance in Tokyo). Therefore, almost all type of residents(regarding the diversity,see chapter2 , Section 2.1.2.) hoped to keep their ordinary life that includes stability-oriented outlooks. In addition, negotiations were minimal, so, except for residents' groups who were chosen to be members of the 36 Research Committee (they got chances of co-production), a (core)relationship wasn't able to be made between the Government of Tokyo and the other residents and the groups. As a result, the institutional development situation was not affected by stakeholder's calculations. In another word, there was no core relationship established during case Ⅰ.(Q2) Because of that, I can say that it did not change.(Q3)
21 Mobility《1》 a. High b. Low The conbination a1 a2 Gov. Institutional of institutional 《1》 factor factors & settings 《2》 Res. Res. Stability《2》 1. Low 2. High b1 b2
3.1.2.The resident's reactions against TRTA in the execution of the MRT underground railway works, 1975-1985 At first I answer next question 'Q1.How negotiation pattern were generated? Especially, whether they(these) have any statement situation(According to the statement model of E.Ostrom, as follow Strategy game/ Norm game / Rule game (E.Ostrom 2005:154)'. In Case Ⅱ, stakeholders established 'Rule Games' in many ways. (Q1). This 'a1-Res.' explains the residents' higher desire (interest) to change policy(At the beginning of construction). This 'b1'-TRTA.' explains the authority's stable attitude (to keep conventional procedure), at that time (see chapter2, Section 2.2.1.c). In this case , it seems that the number of negotiation meeting was abnormally high.(see chapter2, Section 2.2.2.c) . And It seems that this comment indicates a lack of Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity.
Mobility《1》 a. High b. Low The conbination a1 a2 Res. Institutional of institutional 《1》 factor factors & settings 《2》 TRTA Stability《2》 1. Low 2. High b1 b2
After rules were established (especially, after crucial Agreement was settled) , it seems that the relationship between them improved moderately. This might have been built during the repeated negotiations.
22 Therefore in Post-established rules (especially after crucial Agreement settled) settings, the institutional strain were weak (see chapter2, Section 2.2.2.b). They had sometimes disregarded harmed each stakeholders' "Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007: 200)".（Q2） Therefore both stakeholder's choice was not stable. There is a chance that both stakeholders might change their original position (a opposite arrow of the dashed line). Because it was vulnerable or 'weak'. (Q4) Because of that, in Case Ⅱ, I can say that the institutional development was accomplished, but it was weaker than in Case Ⅲ.(see the latter part)
3.1.3. The resident's reactions against Road 36 roadworks, 1979-1991 At first I answer next question 'Q1.How negotiation pattern were generated? Especially, whether they(these) have any statement situation(According to the statement model of E.Ostrom, as follow Strategy game/ Norm game / Rule game (E.Ostrom 2005:154)' In Case Ⅲ, stakeholders established "Rule Games" in many ways. (Q1) This 'a1-Res.' explain the residents' higher desire (interest) to change policy (At the beginning of construction) were changed to 'b1' (regarding compromise, see chapter2, Section 2.3.2.a). This 'b1'-Gov.' explain the governments' stable attitude (To reflect the residents' opinion to the construction process, they could change 'conventional city planning process', because they had criteria already by the 36 Research Meeting's submissions).
Mobility《1》 a. High b. Low The conbination a1 Res. a2 Institutional of institutional 《1》 factor factors & settings 《2》 Stability《2》 1. Low 2. High b1 Gov. b2
Regarding post- established rules (especially, after the crucial Agreement settled),the institutional setting changed. This depended on making partnership rules (by the residents' compromise and the government's stable outlooks) and the continued consultations. These made a more stable interaction pattern for both stakeholders. In other words, it became a defense line to measure the possibility of mobility: The residents wanted to stop road construction. But, the negotiations were difficult. There is a chance that the residents might change their original positions(an opposite arrow of the dashed line). In addition, the 36 Residents' Committee and the Government of Tokyo had kept (or endeavored ) to maintain each stakeholders' "Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007: 200)" from the beginning to the end.（Q2） Because of that, I can say that the institutional development was accomplished in this case Ⅲ. (Q4) In the back, I show brief description as 'the repeated interactions stratum'.
23 (see Table 1.(case Ⅰ), Table 2. (case Ⅱ) and Table 3 (case Ⅲ))
3.2 Summary; Interactions beyond conventional city planning in Kotake-Mukaihara district, Tokyo Finally, I arranged and compared the viewpoints of "appearance of the policy issue" as results from the partnership in the Kotake-Mukaihara area. (Q4) I can summarize following policy issues when I put them into the chronological order as the previous stage had connected the latter stage. (See Figure 3.4). Particularly, it is MRT underground railway construction and the Road construction with a common point called the public works project, but the difference is big when they compare III with II. The residents' livelihood, improvement of the local environment, and the decrease of construction damage were big concerns in the former subway construction. The latter Road 36 construction added Facility Design, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Environmental Conservation as antipollution measures in addition to the aforementioned. In the latter case (road works), the pressure of insurance by the residents' was stronger than the former (railway works) regarding keeping reciprocity to maintain the local area, post-construction. In other words, the constraining forces were not the same. In the above view of constraints, I pointed out a difference between MRT underground railway works and roadworks. In addition, as a common point, I may be able to point out that administrative planning to construct social infrastructure facilities has, as a typical policy, a strong binding force (see reference: P.Pieson pointed (see chapter 1,Section1.2.1.b). In example case I, II, III (making of an institution to hear public opinion/ subway construction/ highway construction), I summarized a main issue below.
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ +Democratic City planning procedure [institutional design] Civil Engineering and Compensation +detailed construction planning management [Partnership] +Environmental policy (Environmental Assess./Landscape) +Livable City planning (facilities) ・ Post-railway construction [consultation continuation]ok -- Post-road construction [consultation continuation]ok ?
[ ] institutional solution ( ) additional policy Original solutions (not conventional )
Figure 3.4 A comparison of the policy issue --- Public works in Kotake-Mukaihara (1970-1991) (Yamada(Iwama)2016, 2018, revised)
4．Conclusion As showed in the beginning of ch2 (See chapter 2), the history of the infrastructure development, and prefectural city planning was old, and the plan, established through a bureaucracy, once passed more than 40 years and stayed while changing form. As Pierson points out, as long as an institution is established, the hypothesis that constraints become stronger over time is supported. The political suggestion (made by the chief of the local government, The former Governor of Tokyo) " to decide how to construct Road 36 by a development of city planning procedure, by combine referendum, to bring to the more democratic governance of Tokyo"(See chapter2,Section 2.1.1), was a trial to challenge this (the policy that has been installed for many years by former government before WWⅡ.). The will of "the
24 institutional development" of the local government became clear in form, shown through the setting up of a committee. This led to the formation of more concrete guidelines before the consultant body carried out investigations. It may be said that "the democratic governance" that The former Governor of Tokyo proposed, accomplished the institutional development as follows. "The democratic governance" became clear in form, shown through the setting up of the 'Rule Game' as a repeated negotiation, establishment of rules and "Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity". And the written rule structure was not only staying sharing 'norm', but also became 'rule'. So it included regulatory items. These factors give obvious evidence that there were 'Rule Games' at that time. These settings supported the core relationship continuously. In addition, generally the "Reputation, Trust, and Reciprocity as they affect cooperation (E.Ostrom 2007: 200)" improved between the Government of Tokyo and the 36 Residents' Committee in Case Ⅲ. Because of that, I conclude partnership (core relationship) practice was accomplished in Case Ⅲ.(Q5) Tsuji and Shinohara (1972) pointed out, generally, the social-political environment of Japan still held a conservative base in those days in the 1970s (not only before the war). Through the trial in this area, it seems that the practice was free from the bound by past institutional restriction. As a kind of suggestion, making the Norm Game, and/or the Rule Game setting may become the effective way in general. Many formula documents were exchanged, and there were a lot of records made. It may be said that the stepped procedure fulfilled crucial criteria, for example transparency and accountability. In this sense, the practice may give us one suggestion regarding typically organized partnership settings in micro city politics. In this report, the analysis about the policy output remains in the description. About the process of the transformation of the policy discourse, I'll show another paper of the content analysis.
25 Table 1. The repeated interactions stratum description (Case Ⅰ) ; The residents group reaction and Goverments' (activity) experiments with participatory governance regarding Road 36 Issue, 1970-1975
progress Policy Regu Dat status The events and larit e [Actio y- ns] orien ted actio n[〇： done ] The (Before ■Resident 1970/ Gove The 36 s starting to 08 rme Research send nt Comm.) various ◇The petitions [Chro Goverment’ and nologi s decision application cal and release s to the order] constructio Goverment ｜ n of two ｜ ◇ ｜ pblic works The ｜ at the same former ｜ time Governor [To hear 〇 ｜ of Tokyo citizenss' Gov. 1971/ ｜ diverse ｜ strongly 07-08 ｜ advocates opinions] ｜ for ｜ participator [Democ ｜ ratic ｜ y ｜ governance city ｜ plannin ｜ g] ｜ ◇To hold ｜ Town ｜ Meetings ｜ ｜ ｜ ●Resident ｜ s’participat ｜ ion in the ｜ ｜ meetings ｜ ｜ ◇The ① The 36 ✖Excludin [Establi 1972/ ｜ duration of Research g formal shment 〇 12/26 ｜ Gov. ｜ The 36 Committee committee of the ｜ Research establishme members( policy ｜ Comm. nt A after ｜ ｜ conducting. residents’ gatherin ｜ 〇 To Meeting) g ｜ choose the {10} citizens' ｜ member(by opinions ｜ 〇 ｜ Gov. Com.) ■Release ] informatio The 1973/ ｜ [To reside ｜ 01/29 n/a written execute nts ｜ inquiry ｜ Road ｜ [Report 3works ｜ investigati ] ｜ on results ｜ ｜ in their ｜ local area] ｜ {12} ｜ ｜ ■ ｜ Making ｜ a written ｜ record of
26 ｜ committee ｜ ｜ meetings ｜ ② 〇 ■ ｜ To Holding Getting ｜ make ‘GOIKEN information ｜ participatio WO and sharing ｜ n chances KIKU {13} ｜ ｜ for KAI’[the ●Participati ｜ residents Public on（Involve ｜ Hearing ment in ｜ meetings] public ｜ hering) ｜ □(④）In ｜ formation ｜ ｜ sharing ｜ ③ 〇Release ｜ 〇 ｜ Sharing basic [Basic 1973/ ｜ Policy guideline policy of Gov. 09/15 ｜ Criteria to bring up roadwork (No1) ｜ s: ｜ roadworks Necessiti ｜ 〇To start es of ｜ publication ・ ｜ ④ of a Environ ｜ ｜ Public newsletter mental ｜ Relation ’MACHI assess. ｜ promotion TO ・ ｜ activity DORO’[Cit Informati ｜ on ｜ y and opening ｜ Road] ｜ ・Citizen (1978 ｜ □Informati participat /10/1 ｜ on sharing ion 0.No. ｜ (Newsletter, 2) ｜ No.2:Env of ｜ school/in ｜ ｜ Kotake- ｜ Mukaihara ｜ will become ｜ undergroune ｜ road) ｜ ｜ 〇To start Environ ｜ Investigatio □Informat ■Self mental 〇 1973/ ｜ ns by the ion sharing learning policy Gov. 11/23 ｜ (No3) ｜ Gov.Comm (Newslette gethering ｜ . r,No.3:Env regarding ｜ ⑤ .Assess.) The ｜ To ｜ conduct A Env.Asse. 1973/ ｜ Env. 1973/12/01 12/01 ｜ Assessment ｜ ｜ □Town Citizen 〇 1978/ ｜ Gov. ｜ meeting Participat 11/28 ｜ ⑥ To make regarding ion and - ｜ a new Env.Assess. 12/05 ｜ Town 1978/11/28- Environ ｜ mental ｜ Meeting 12/05 (6times) policy (1978/ ｜ regarding 12/26 (Newsletter, ｜ Env. No.4) ｜ No.4:TM.) ｜ Assessment ●To join ■KONDA (1979/ ｜ the N KAI[A 02/28/ ｜ participation No5) ｜ face to face ｜ oriented Town and learning- ｜ oriented ｜ meeting 1979/0 meeting ｜ regarding 3/31( 〇To /Connection No.6) ｜ Env. Asse. ｜ conduct making ｜ Env. (■Making activity ｜ Assessment demands to regarding 〇 1979/ ｜ (supplement) conduct a the Env. The /05/1 ｜ supplement Asses. Supl. reside 0
27 ｜ al between nts ｜ Env.Assess. Tokyo Pre., ｜ Nerima ｜ □Informat ｜ ion sharing Ward, and ｜ ⑦ To (Newsletter, the residents’ ｜ No.5.Poll/ group] ｜ conduct the public No.6.Env.su ｜ pplement) ｜ opinion ｜ (after the poll in the □Informati Public ｜ Public area(Toshi on sharing relations 〇 1974/ ｜ Gov. 05/26 ｜ opinion poll ma,Itabashi (Newsletter (No7) ｜ resules ,Nerima ,No.7.Opini ｜ released ) ｜ Words) on Poll-(the ｜ result) ｜ regarding ｜ ｜ methods ｜ of the ｜ desision ｜ making) ｜ ｜ ○Call the ｜ meeting ｜ (Newsletter,No (1974/ ｜ .8.The drafting 09/29/ ｜ committee No.8) ｜ starting) ｜ ｜ 〇To (Newslette □Info Method 〇 1974/ ｜ address the r,No.9.The rmatio s of Gov. 12/28 ｜ (No9) ｜ committee’ submittion n decision ｜ s results report sharing -making ｜ (draft)) in road ｜ ⑧Release works ｜ basic 〇 ｜ Submitted ｜ policy ｜ “How to the ｜ find Committee ｜ 's report ｜ residents’ ｜ intentions to Mr. ｜ ” Minobe, 1975/ ｜ the current 03/12 ｜ Governor (No1 ｜ 0) ｜ (Newslette ｜ r,No.10.Th ｜ e ｜ ｜ submittion ｜ report) ｜ ｜ ｜ ◇Release Regarding ◇Info ｜ ｜ a plan to the MRT rmatio 1975 ｜ prioritize undergroun n /09/2 ｜ railway d railway sharing 0 ｜ works works' (Newsl ｜ ｜ execution etter,N ↓ o.11.)
Givin The diversity of local (for example) g to residents Stakeholders they that lived in the Toshima, Itabashi, and Nerima wards. During 1970 to 1974, the stakeholder sent 26 petitions to the government of Tokyo. Asse Giving to ■The mbly, local Nerima ■Informati Local Assembly local on sharing Gove (Prefectural governmen rmen and/or t submits t and Ward) The 35.36 Local Residents’ area Meeting Resid petition.
28 ents Giving to ■Connecti ■To Local on making submmit a Governmen activity(visi written t ting,etc.) inquiry (Metropolit and the an citizens’ ■ raw data Information Bureau) from a sharing The 35.36 survey via Residents’ the head of the Meeting department （Autono of Citizens mous of Tokyo Residents' activity ） ■An ■ ■Starting ■ Information sharing ■ Conductin Inform Giving to excerpt of Widely to [Including written g a local ation Local area the former distribute records] Residents（ Governor's residents a written sharing Advocacy） speech opinion record of shared survey committee between meetings ■Making residents ■ a written [Informati Informatio inquiry on n sharing sharing]
Giving to ■newsletters | [Gov. Committee's information] The 35.36 ◆a split in the Residents' Meeting. Residents’ {1}...... {19} Meeting × members
[Chronologicalorder]―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――→ Date 1971/08 [participating TM] 1972/01 1972/01 1972.12/1973.1～ 1975/08 Month.Year 1970/9 [------The diversity of local residents------]
Legend○The Goverments’committee’s activity(Released policy abstracts (①―⑧) ) by the Government's newsletter (No.) ●Residents’participation in the Govment’s meetings ◎Residents’informal participation □The committee’s Public relation Campain ◇Other Authorities’activity (to release something ;for example public newsletters or information sharing methods) ■Residents’reaction ✖ Big factor affecting activity of Autonomous Residents {} OSHIRASE Newsletter issue number Bold - the name or type of document, for example, written agreements, returns, contracts.
29 Table 2. The repeated interactions stratum description (Case Ⅱ) ; The exchange between the residents' demands and TRTA in the execution of the MRT underground railway works, 1975- 1985
progre Additional Policy Reg Dat explanation and ulari ss about the The events e status [Action s] ty- railway orie works nted actio n[〇： done ] Befere 〇 *An informal gathering prioritiza TRTA’s for discussion,residents' 1975 tion the proposal to opinion hearing /08/ railway promote regarding MRT 16 works the underground railway in undergroun d railway Kotake (Nerima ward). (197 works to (1975/08/29) 5/08 the *Addressed the return /29) Governmen dated 1975/09/16 t of Tokyo /Release a plan to 1975 dated prioritize the /09/ 1975/08/16 underground railway 16 work by Government of Tokyo *To make a written proposal(By A residents’ Meeting who are against the 36th roadworks in Kotake- Mukaihara district) TRT Post 〇 To hold an(first) [Starting 1976 A Preparation the Railway for information session for /07 [Chron procedure constru negotiation residents by TRTA ologic s ] al ction prioritiza order] Preparation ｜ tion ■ The local 1976 for the landowners, and [To start the 〇 /08/ ｜ railway- exercise of Resi [Before other landowners civil rights/To 19 ｜ works dent ｜ establish affected by the obtain the ment of negotiation s ｜ works, createtd a new right] ｜ the organisation.(The executin 8.13 Residents ｜ g rules] ｜ committee.)｛1｝ ｜ ■ Release [Denying 1976 ｜ Request to ‘RENMEI land /09/ ｜ 〇 join SYUISYO’ [The investigati 16 ｜ Resi negotiation 8.13 Residents ons in the ｜ s (To local area dents ｜ send a committee (by the ｜ written construction’s residents' ｜ demand prospectus] dated committee) and to 1976/09/16 ｜ show ] ｜ problematic ■ To make The ｜ items) ｜ Residents ｜ committee’s first ｜ written demand to ｜ TRTA ' MINYUCHI SOKURYO NI
30 ｜ KANSURU ｜ KEN'[Regarding ｜ private land ｜ investigation ｜ execution]. ｛2｝ ｜ ｜ *Beginning of 1976 ｜ negotiation between /09 ｜ Kotake Elementary ｜ School, The PTA and TRTA ｜ 〇 ｜ ☆Formal negotiation 1976/ Resi 10/22 ｜ started (1976/10/22) dents ｜ / ｜ 〇■ To make The TRT ｜ Residents group’s A ｜ written demand ｜ (primary) ｜ 'GUTAITEKI YOUKYU JIKOU' to ｜ TRTA * ｜ ｜ *By the residents' ｜ memorandum regarding ｜ the railway works dated ｜ 1977/03/18. {4} ｜ ｜ ■ Written demand 〇 ｜ (secondry) dated Resi 1977/03/03 by the dents ｜ Residents committee. ｜ {5} ｜ ｜ Between 〇■ A memorandum [To share 〇 1977 the by the residents’ democratic Resi /03/ ｜ prcedures ｜ No.8・13 organization,the TARA’s dents 18 Residents' Planning Division and regarding / ｜ the railway Comm., the construction office TRTA ｜ works] / ｜ TRTA land Division was [Sharing Gov.o signed. {6} target : to f ｜ make rules] Tokyo ｜ ｜ 〇 TRTA started land [To start 1977 investigation and land /04 ｜ investigatio ｜ bargaining to purchase a lot of land.{6} n in the ｜ area.] ｜ ｜ *A certificate dated 1978/ 1978/03/22 was signed 03/22 ｜ by Kotake Elementary ｜ school,the PTA and ｜ TRTA officials ｜ ｜ *Written proposal 1978/ ｜ dated 1978/06/08 by the 06/08 ｜ Nerima ward assemly ｜ to TRTA [To change new ｜ MRT station's name] ｜ 〇■ Monorundum 1978/ ｜ dated 1978/06/30 06/30 ｜ ｜ (untill following agreement 〇 1978 establishment, There wewe Resi /07/ ｜ 55 times meeting held in [rulrs dents 07 ｜ public. making ] / ｜ (or 170 times.This include TRTA ｜ informal meetings) 〇■ TRTA and the
31 ｜ 8.13 Residents' ｜ Committee signed the ｜ Post cooperation ｜ establish agreement dated ment of ｜ 1978/07/07. {11} ｜ cooperati ｜ on 〇☆After the agreement ｜ agreeme was ｜ nt signed,construction ｜ companies were ｜ chosen by TRTA. ｜ 〇■☆A tripartite 〇 1978 ｜ meeting was held. Resi /08 ｜ {13} dents ｜ / ｜ TRTA ｜ *The Residents' 1978/ ０８ ｜ petition was adopted ｜ in the Nerima ward ｜ assemly. {13} ｜ [Addressin ｜ ■ Written proposal dated 1978/11/17 by The g 〇 1978 ｜ demands] ｜ residents [4 items, Resi /11/1 ｜ including a claim about dents 7 ｜ an unsuitable new [Series of station name in the local negotiation ｜ area] {17} ｜ s regarding ｜ 〇 Written return dated naming the 1979 ｜ 1979/1/19 by TRTA new /01/ ｜ [Rejection] station] 19 ｜ ■ Written proposal {15} 〇 1979 ｜ dated 1979/01/31 by The The Resi /01/ ｜ residents [Suggestions Vibration dents 31 ｜ for the naming of the Investigatio ｜ new station] {17} n./ The ｜ 〇 Written return dated naming of 1979 ｜ 1979/2/15 by TRTA the new /02/ ｜ station {15- [ Response to demands 18} 15 ｜ to fit in to the local area ｜ in future / A fact TRTA ｜ received similar ｜ demands from other ｜ groups also]{18} ｜ 〇■☆ A certificate [To start ｜ [Certificat dated 1979/03/06 was the 1979 ｜ ion of the signed by all constructio 〇 /03/ ｜ railway stakeholders [TRTA n] Resi 06 ｜ constructi official, the residents & dents ｜ on] 3 Construction / 1979 ｜ ｛20｝ TRTA companies]{19} /Comp /03/ ｜ regarding when the work The shield anies 06 ｜ start {18} tunneling ｜ 〇■Written contract for compensation (house-rent ｛21｝ ｜ decreasing)dated 1979/03/06 Water level 〇 ｜ 〇■A written pledge investigation Resi ｜ dated 1979/03/06 was s dents / ｜ signed between TRTA TRTA ｜ official and the ｜ Residents ｜ From * ｛24｝ 1979 ｜ A Memorandum by the start the Residents The /04/ prevention
32 ｜ to committee and the of 03 ｜ complet SEIBU official was overloaded dump trucks ｜ ion of signed [conformity for formal rules] {20} ｛25｝ ｜ railway Method of ｜ constru *A supplemental construction at the place ｜ ction certificate by that the ｜ Residents Measure and ｜ ground was the SEIBU official was weak ｜ signed.{23} ｛26｝ ｜ Investigatio ｜ *A certificate and A ns 〇 1980 ｜ written pledge was Resi /07 ｜ signed by all ｛30｝ dents stakeholders The Green / ｜ space and Seibu ｜ [Regarding Seibu's Line construction bycicle ｜ parking district]. ｜ {33} ｜ ｛38-39 ｝ The backfill 〇 1981 ｜ *A certificate (All problem ｜ sections) was (future Resi /02/ ｜ established [Regaeding vibration- dents 18 Seibu's Line reducingmea / ｜ Seibu ｜ construction district]. sures) {36} ｜ ｛38｝ ｜ ■The Residents A park 1982 ｜ committee design of /06/ ｜ suspended(cooperation) remaining 07 ｜ construction.(A land. demand: formal and ｜ ｛40｝ ｜ acceptable naming Start of the ｜ decision).{44} orbit laying ｜ 〇 construction 1982 ｜ The Residents ｛41｝ committee accepted Electricity, /8 ｜ amout of Certifitations Building ｜ and the detailed works ｜ construction plans. 44 ｜ {45} ｛ ｝ ｜ The naming 〇 The new station of the new ｜ station ｜ mame ｜ decision"Kotake- ｛45｝ ｜ Mukaihara Station" The house ｜ {46} investigation s and post- ｜ 〇 The completion of construction 1983 ｜ construction of new care /5 ｜ station archtecture. ｛47｝ ｜ {48} The design ｜ of station ｜ ■A written demand facilities 〇 198 ｜ [CHIKATETSUKAIT Resi 3/06 UU NI ATATTENO dents /10 ｜ MOUSHIIRE ｜ SHO]dated1983/06/10 ｜ addresed by The ｜ Residents’ committee. ｜ ｛49｝ ｜ 〇 The underground ｜ railway No.8 1983 /06/ ｜ (kukannIkibukuro-- ｜ 24 ｜ Kotake-Mukaihara-- ｜ Eidan-Narimasu) ｜ was opened [TRTA's ｜ construvtion district].
33 {49} ｜ Post 〇 The underground 1983 {50,51} ｜ railway continuing railway No.8 (Kotake- /10/ the Post- Mukaihara- commenceme 05 ｜ constru negotiation Shinsakuradai) was nt [rule ｜ ction (maintainin opened [Seibu's making ｜ g the ] complet construction district]. ｜ ion partnership ｜ ) {51} ｜ ｜ 〇 a written approvement with the 1983 ｜ /10/ ｜ COO's signature dated 1983/10/05 reterned by 01 ｜ ｛ ｝ TRTA {51} 52 ｜ water revel ｜ and quality 1984 ｜ investiations - / post- ｜ railway 1985 ｜ construction ｜ care/ A park ｜ settlement(if ↓ ormation)
■The residents’ Givin Giving to Nerima organization’s ng to Ward petition[A petition the regarding the Gove construction of the rmen underground railway t, works] submmitted to Local Nerima ward Assembly gover {8} 1978/03/22 ment * The residents’ 1978 and Be given from organization negotiate /10/ with the vice-president 09 Local SEIBU area of SEIBU RAILWAY Resid Co.,Ltd. and obtained a ents, suggestion[To comply with conventional TRTA etc. rules]. {20} ■ A written request 1978 Giving to Governor [Regarding the No.8 /10/ of Tokyo underground railway 24 works] dated 1978/10/24 was submitted to Mr. Minobe, the current Governor of Tokyo ■Createtd a new Giving to The organisation Residents' committee ■Starting the members newsletter release {1}...... {54}
The 8.13 Residents' Committee [Chronologicalorder]―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――→ Date 1976/08/19 1978. 3/ 1978.10 1985 /01 Month.Year 1976/09/03
Legend ◇Other Authorities’activity ○TRTA’s activity ■Residents’reaction
34 ☆Private companies’activity ＊Any other relevant activity (supplement） {} KAIHOU Newsletter issue number Bold - the name or type of document, for example, written agreements, returns, contracts.
35 Table 3. The repeated interactions stratum description [Case Ⅲ ]; The goverment and residents' negotiation during Road 36 roadworks, 1979-1991
progres The events Policy and Regular Date s status [Action s] ity- oriente d action [〇：done ] The ① 〇 The Gove Proposal Governments’ to rmen officials finding commerc out if the t e the resident's intend [Chro roadwork to co-operate nologi s (Informal) cal order] ■Establishment ｜ of a new ｜ residents’ ｜ organization (The ｜ 36 Residents’ ｜ Committee){1} ｜ ｜ ■Requisition ｜ dated 1980/10/27 The ｜ addressed as negotiation in ｜ crucial stem items public 〇The regarding the [Press release : Residen 1980 ｜ Gov. of Tokyo /10/2 ｜ roadworks to the ts Former and The Comm. 7 ｜ residents Governner ｜ committee.] ｜ S.Suzuki {1,2} ｜ ◎An official ｜ written response ｜ dated 1980/11/15 ｜ by the 〇 1980 ｜ Governner The /11/1 ｜ [After that Gov. of 5 ｜ negotiations Tokyo ｜ started in public ｜ in 1980] {3} ｜ ｜ ② □Government’s ｜ Establish request for {3, 5, 6} 〇 ment of cooperation, the The road The ｜ structure ｜ Mutual summer break in a Gov. of Agreeme school [Relating Tokyo ｜ nt and ｜ to railway works consent in the local area] ｜ to start ｜ {4} ■ Residents ｜ demand a firm 〇The ｜ promise in writing Residen ｜ regarding restart Documentati ts ｜ of the next on and The Comm. ｜ negotiation round making of ｜ {5}(Beginning of contracts ｜ the part of between The ｜ construction.) Residents ｜ Comm. 〇The 1981 ｜ ■ Requisition and The resident /06/2 ｜ (secondary) dated Gov. of s comm. 3 1981/06/23 Tokyo
36 ｜ addressed by The ｜ residents’ ｜ committee. {5} ｜ [ Residents’ ｜ demand a firm ｜ commitment {5}] ｜ ☆Negotiations ｜ over the need for ｜ proof of the roadworks ｜ execution and ｜ 1981 partnership rules /07/0 ｜ 3 ｜ ◎ Firm 〇 ｜ commitment [Establishment The ｜ dated 1981/07/03 of agreement resident ｜ was signed and basic rules s ｜ between the Gov. (1st): To comm./ ｜ (Bureau of continue The ｜ Construction) and discussion on Gov. of The residents’ The 36th Tokyo ｜ meeting ｜ committee {4} ☆rules[consaltati among ｜ stakeholders] on rule,suspending 1981 ｜ rule,decision /07/0 ｜ making of the 3 ｜ survice starting ｜ day)] ｜ [1981/0703 ｜ Land,house {5} ｜ investigation was Technical 1981 ｜ approved. ] committee of /07/1 ｜ Bicycle 7 ｜ ■◎[☆]Memora parking 〇 ndum dated established The ｜ residents ｜ 1981/07/17 signed comm./ ｜ by stakeholders The Gov. ｜ [To make firm of Tokyo ｜ promise of the and 1981 ｜ response] {5} stakeolde /09/2 [Beginning of rs 9 ｜ construction(the ｜ part)] ｜ ■◎Mutual ｜ [Establishment 〇 agreement Resident ｜ of partnership 1981 s Comm./ ｜ dated1981/09/29 rules (all items /09/2 The Gov. signed between and detailed ｜ 〇 9 ｜ the Gov. and The matters.) ] Residents’ Resident ｜ s Comm./ Committee. {6} ｜ The Gov. and ｜ ■◎[☆]Certifica ｜ contracto tion dated rs ｜ 1981/09/29 signed ｜ among Residents, ｜ the Gov., and the ｜ contractors. {6} ｜ ｜ ③ ☆ Negotiations {6-10} ｜ Partners regarding the details Env. Assess. ｜ hip (the of the Env. Assess. statements road 〇 ｜ and livable town Residents works {7} detailed ｜ design construction Comm./ execution The ｜ plans, noise 1981/ ) ■Tours were done Gov.and ｜ suppression other 10/16 to find a suitable panel, drying stakeholde
37 ｜ design.[The machines, rs ｜ residents,Gov.,contr {10} House actor,TRTA, Seibu] investigations, ｜ retaining wall, ｜ (1982/ 06/09) ｜ ｛6｝ {11} ｜ * Tour to find a sidewalk ｜ suitable design.{8} (model) , anti‐ (1982/ ｜ *mid-term reporting pollution 07/10) ｜ of city planning measures. held.{8} 〇 ｜ ｜ ■◎ The Residents ｜ Environmental {12} Comm./ The Gov. ｜ Assessment the green space,telephon ｜ instruction manual e booth. ｜ and The Operating ｜ instructions were {13} ｜ agreed on between a monument ｜ The Residents’ settlemen, car ｜ Comm. and the stops, ｜ Gov. {6,7,8,9,10} ☆A detailed {12,13,14} ｜ construction plan{9} bycile parking ｜ ｜ [suspending ｜ negotiation] ｜ 1983/ ｜ ■◎Certification 11/02 was signed [The 36 ｜ Residents' ｜ Meeting,The Gov of ｜ Tokyo,contractor]1983 ｜ /11/02 {10} ｜ ☆Additional city ｜ planning ｜ [The beginning of the ｜ main part of ｜ construction AFTER ｜ Certification] [sidewalk construction ｜ started]{10} ｜ 1985/ 06/03 ｜ ● Press release ｜ regarding the end of ｜ the sidewalk ｜ ’SHIKI NO MICHI’ ｜ [Four Seasons ｜ Street] project and {16} ｜ The holding of the ☆Negotiation ceremony {15} regarding the ｜ [post-sidewalk post-road service settlement] ｜ rules ｜ {17,18,19,20} ｜
38 ｜ ④ ■The Residents [To discuss on ｜ To make make a weitten the 36th available demand dated meeting/To 1986/ ｜ 1986/12/1[regardin take 12/01 ｜ the road service g the road structure responsibilit] ｜ and traffic ｜ management] {18} [To make ｜ anew contracts ｜ ■◎ A new ,documentatio ｜ agreement and a n.] ｜ Mutual agreement, dated 1987/ ｜ 1987/03/20, were 03/20 ｜ signed between ｜ the Gov. and the ｜ 36 Residents’ ｜ Committee. ｜ {19,20} [To continue ｜ discussion on ｜ ● The road The consultaion ｜ service was made 1987/ available dated among ｜ stakeholders.] 04/12 ｜ 1987/04/12 ｜ {19,20} ｜ ⑤ ｜ ● Post the The road introduced on ｜ road 1987/ ｜ TV(1987/05/02) 05/02 service {20} ｜ available ｜ ■◎The ｜ exchanging of the ｜ consultation 1987/ ｜ management rules 05/22 ｜ dated 1987/05/22 between The ｜ Residents comm. ｜ and the Gov. ｜ ｜ ■The Resident 1989/ ｜ Comm.made a 01/31 demand ｜ dated1989/01/31 ｜ [Relate to Gov. ｜ Devision close] 1989/ ｜ ◎The Gov. 03/31 ｜ addresed a written return.dated1989/0 ｜ 3/31. ｜ 1991/ ｜ ■◎The signing of 12/20 ↓ a certification dated 1991/12/20 [Regarding the roadside use] Givinng ■To continue ■ ■Mayor of Nerima visit to the informal negotiation Bureau of Construction (manegemant of Air Givin Gov.'s (Liaison) (Monument epitaph) pollution measurement, ng to official visit Byc.Parking/ Zoning Rule) local Givinng ■To create new organization area to The ■Starting ■Tour to find a suitable design Resid Residents' newsletters release ■mid-term reporting of city planning ents, Comm.'s {1}...... {20} etc. menbers
The 36 Residents Committee [Chronological order]――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――→ Date 1979/12 1985 1985 1987/06/15
39 Month.Ye 1980/10/26 1982/06/09 01/16 03/28 ar 1980/11/04 1982/07/10
Legend 〇The Governments’ officials finding out if the resident's intend to co-operate (Informal) ■Residents’ reaction ●Release some information (For Example: to the Media) ◎The Governments’ response □The Governments’ officers’ proposal [☆]Private companies’ activity ☆Negotiations among stakeholders (the government and the residents, construction companies, etc.) ＊Any other relevant activity (supplement） {} 36RENMEI NEWS Newsletter issue number Bold - the name or type of document, for example, written agreements, returns, contracts.
40 References
Bready, Henry E. and Collier, David and Seawright, Jason 2004 "Source of Leverage in Causal Influence: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology." In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards. 1St ed. Bready, Henry E. and Collier, David (eds), 229-266. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Bready, Henry E. and Collier, David and Seawright, Jason 2004=2008 "Source of Leverage in Causal Influence: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology." (Japanese translation: Ingatekisuiron ni Okeru Settokuryoku no Gensen: DSI toha Kotonaru Houhouron no Kouchiku ni Mukete) In Rethinkng social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards (Japanese translation: Shakai Kagaku no Houhou Ronso: Tayo na Bunseki Dogu to Kyotuu no Kijun), Henry E. Bready and David Collier (eds) , Y.Izumikawa・A.Miyashita (translation), 259-299. Tokyo: Keisoshobo. Mayer, Margit and Boudreau, Julie-Anne 2012 “Social Movements in Urban Politics: Trends in research and Practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, Karen Mossberger,Susan E. Clarke and Peter Jhon(eds), 273-291. (Chapter 14 in this book.), NY: Oxford University Press
Melucci, Alberto・Yamanouchi,Ysasushi・Kidou,Yoshiyuki and Miyazaki,Kasumi (translation) 1989=1997 Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society (Japanese translation: Genzai ni Ikiru Yubokumin). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Munck, Gerardo L 2004 "Tools for qualitative research." In Rethinking social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards. 1St ed. Bready, Henry E. and Collier, David (eds), 105-21. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Munck, Gerardo L 2004=2008 "Tools for qualitative research" (Japanese translation: Teiseiteki Kenkyu no Bunseki Dogu) In Rethinkng social inquiry: diverse tools, shared standards (Japanese translation: Shakai Kagaku no Houhou Ronso: Tayo na Bunseki Dogu to Kyotuu no Kijun), Henry E. Bready and David Collier (eds),Y.Izumikawa・A.Miyashita (translation), 119-135. Tokyo: Keisoshobo.
Ostrom, Elinor 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press 2007 “Collective Action Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Boix, Carles and Stoles, Susan C (eds),186-208. UK: Oxford University Press.
Pierre, Jon and Peters, B.Guy 2012 “Urban Governance.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, Karen Mossberger,Susan E. Clarke and Peter Jhon(eds),71-86.(Chapter 5 in this book.), NY: Oxford University Press
Pierson, Paul 2004 Politics in Time: History, Institutions and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press Pierson, Paul・Kasuya,Yuko(translation) 2004=2010 Politics in Time: History, Institutions and social analysis (Japanese translation:
41 Politics in Time: Rekishi・Seido・Shakai Bunseki .Political Science Clasics 5), Tokyo: Keisoshobo.
Shinohara,Hajime 1972 "Gendai Seiji to Toshi." (Modern politics and City) , Gendai Toshi Seisaku Ⅰ: Tosih Seisaku no Kiso. Iwanami Koza (Modern Urban Policy Ⅰ:The basics of urban policy. Lectures of Iwanami): 101-123. (Chapter 2 in this book.), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Stephen Van Evera,K.Noguchi・S.watanabe (translation) 1997=2009 Guide to Methods For Students of Political Science (Japanese translation: Seijigaku no Research Method),Tokyo: Keisoshobo.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs 1982 Hosha 36Go Doro Mondai Kankei Shiryo Shu (The document collections related to Road 36 Issue) Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Citizens and Cultural Affairs (former)Tomin kōchō-bu Tokyo Metropolitan Government 1995 Tokyo Tosei Goju Nen Shi (The 50-Year Governance History of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government). Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
Tsuji, Kiyoaki 1972 ''Nihon ni Okeru Jichi." (Local autonomy in Japan) , Gendai Toshi Seisaku Ⅰ: Toshi Seisaku no Kiso. Iwanami Koza (Modern Urban Policy Ⅰ:The basics of urban policy. Lectures of Iwanami) : 124-150. (Chapter 2 in this book.), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Wagenaar,Hendrik and Cook, S.D.Noam 2003 “Understanding policy practices: action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis” In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar(eds),139-171.(Chapter 5 in this book.), UK,USA, Australia,Spain and South Africa: Cambridge University Press
Yamada(Iwama),Chie 2018 "A consideration regarding the basic condition of the content analysis for the Urban policies：As a premise for a case study regarding a comparative history partnership in city plannings in Kotake-Mukaihara district (1970-1991)." Paper will deliver at the annual meeting of the Public Policy Studies Association JAPAN, Tokyo, June 16- 17. 2016 ” Toukyoto ni okeru Minobe-Suzuki Tosei Jidai no 36(Saburoku) Doro Jigyo wo Jirei toshita Hikaku・Seisaku Bunseki: ’Tairitu’ to 'Chosei' ga motarasu Seisaku Kiketsu" (A Comparative policy analysis regarding Road 36 projects' executing process in the governors, Minobe-Suzuki era in Tokyo: the policy outcome beyond 'opposition' and 'coordination' in the policy-making process)." Poster session report delivered at the 9th academic meeting of the Kansai branch of Public Policy Studies Association JAPAN, Kyoto, September 24.
42 Materials relating to Road 36 Issue: Chronological order -Documents (Formulated Written Demands,Returns, and Agreements,etc.)
(a.MRT underground railway No.8,No.13,Seibu-YurakuchoLine) ● 'MINYUCHI SOKURYO NI KANSURU KEN' dated 1976/09/16 (Regarding private land execution investigation) to TRTA's CEO Mr. Yoshinobu Suzuki. (by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●‘RENMEI SYUISYO’ dated 1976/09/16 (The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8, No13 construction’s prospectus) .(by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ● 'GUTAITEKI YOUKYU JIKOU' to TRTA (By the residents' memorandum regarding the railway works dated 1976/10/22) (by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●A Written demand (secondry) dated 1977/03/03. (by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●A memorandum dated 1977/03/18.(by the 8.13 Residents' committee, the TARA’s Planning Division and the construction office land Division was signed.) ●The Written proposal (Suggestions for the naming of the new station) dated 1979/01/31. (by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ● The cooperation agreement dated 1978/07/07. (TRTA and the 8.13 Residents' committee signed) ●A written request (Regarding the No.8 underground railway works) dated 1978/10/24.(by The 8.13 Residents' committee, to the Governor of Tokyo, Ryokichi Minobe. ) ●Written proposal dated 1978/11/17. (by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●Written return dated 1979/1/19.(by TRTA.) ●Written proposal dated 1979/01/31.(by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●Written return dated 1979/2/15.(by TRTA.) ● A certificate dated 1979/03/06. (signed by all stakeholders (TRTA official, the residents & 3 Construction companies.) ●A written pledge dated 1979/03/06. (signed between TRTA official and the 8.13 Residents committee.) ●A written demand"CHIKATETSUKAITUU NI ATATTENO MOUSHIIRE SHO" (before opening the MRT ground railway) dated1983/06/10. ( by The 8.13 Residents' committee.) ●A written approvement dated 1983/10/05. (by TRTA with the COO's signature.)
(b. Road 36) ●A Requisition dated 1980/10/27. (by The 36 Residents Committee.) ●A document for press release, dated 1980/11/15. (The 35・36 Residents Meetings,liaisons) ●An official written response dated 1980/11/15.(by the Governor of Tokyo,Shunichi Suzuki.) ●The 2nd Requistion dated 1981/06/23. (by The 36 Residents Committee.) ●The Firm commitment dated 1981/07/03.(the Gov. (Bureau of Construction) and The residents’ committee signed) ●A Memorandum dated 1981/07/17.(The Gov. of Bureau of Construction, The residents’ committee and contractor signed ) ●The Mutual agreement dated 1981/09/29.(the Gov. and The residents’ committee.) ●The certification dated 1981/09/29 .(The 36 Residents comm., The Gov., and the contractors.) ●The certification dated 1983/11/02 .(The 36 Residents' Meeting,The Gov of Tokyo,contractor] ●A Written demand dated 1986/12/1(regaeding the road structure and traffic management).(The 36 Residents Cmmittee.) ●A agreement dated 1987/03/20.(The Government of Tokyo and the 36 Residents’ Committee.) ●Mutual agreement dated 1987/03/20.((The Government of Tokyo and the 36 Residents’ Committee.)
43 -Newsletters (The 36 Research Committee) 1972-1975 MACHO TO DORO (City and Road) No.1(1972/09/15)-No.11(1975/09/20). Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government Tomin-Shitu(Citizen's Room).
(newsletter, case Ⅰ) 1970-1983 OSHIRASE (Information), No.1(1970/07/28)-No.19 (1976/07/02) andNo.19(1983/04), Tokyo: The 35・36 Residents' Meeting.
(MRT underground railway No.8,No.13,Seibu-YurakuchoLine) (newsletter, case Ⅱ) 1976-1985 KAIHO (The Measures' information) , No.1(1976/09/03) -N0.53(1985/01/08). Tokyo: The committee for Quality Control of The MRT underground railway No.8 and No13 construction (The 8.13 Residents' committee).
(Road 36) (newsletter, case Ⅲ) 1980-1987 36 RENMEI NEWS (The Committee's News) No.1(1980/11/04)-No.20(1987/06/15). Tokyo: The Committee for Quality Control of Rord 36 construction (The 36 Residents' Committee).
44