Lessons from Japan: Should Britain have Japan’s level of devolution?

On first look, Japan and Britain have vastly different systems, with differing cultures, geographies and historical events. Yet a closer inspection reveals clear similarities; strong beliefs in democracy, powerful economies, and a traditionally reserved culture that is being completely redefined by the new generation. However, since the decade-long American occupation of Japan after World War II, their US-style constitution has included one critical difference with the words: ‘the principle of local autonomy’. Although short, these words mean something that British local governments can only dream of and has allowed the Japan to reach a level of devolution that is almost inconceivable in Britain.

Japan’s government has three tiers, with their national government dealing only with currency, diplomacy and defence. Then, there are the 47 prefectures which act as regional governments and the final tier: the 1700+ municipalities covering across Japan. These are bodies with genuine power that give their communities a proper chance to shape their own future, encouraging people to use their voice and get involved in politics. However, as in Britain, this principle doesn’t quite workout as intended, with municipal election turnout only in the mid-40% range and continuing to decrease.

Nevertheless, Japanese governors and mayors are directly elected by the people, giving them significant political capital. They’re supported by deputies appointed by the local assembly, meaning municipalities are often run by a political figure head with a career civil servant guiding them. This creates a positive balance within government, since any official can debate policy with the local assembly, creating local collaboration rather than top-down decision-making.

In fact, top-down decision-making is difficult in Japan, with the national government being legally unable to get involved in local matters. When the need arises, there is a dispute resolution committee that sits down to broker a solution between the actors involved. There are even annual forums where representatives from all tiers of government meet to share ideas, without having the power to enforce them at a different level of government.

Tax is another huge differentiator between the British and Japanese systems, with prefectures and municipalities raising 39% of all tax compared to merely 6% in the UK. This gives local government much more fiscal autonomy to create their ownNet Zero plans, choose their own energy sources, and invest in local strategies to increase birth rate. This freedom prioritises local cooperation, where for example a rich Tokyo municipality can buy renewable energy from a poorer countryside ward in exchange for healthcare funding.

However, if local governments in Britain think this is the ultimate solution, they’ll need to reconsider. Japanese local governments are still plagued by budget deficits, fiscal woes and a healthcare crisis, driven by a national aging problem no one has the authority to reverse. And despite the significant levels of constitutional autonomy, local governments still don’t feel they have enough power, and dialogue with the central government can be excruciating.

So, with the “devolution revolution” arguably the topic of conversation emerging from the King’s Speech, where does that leave us? Well, British local government clearly has its work cut out to make the case that for an immediate shift to this level autonomy. There are many positive lessons to be learned from Japan’s simple, transparent, and cooperative system, but can Britain - with our complex web of counties, boroughs, and parishes - really aspire to a similar system? And with the stubborn problems that persist in both countries, with worsening demographic issues, ever-tightening fiscal restraints and a resistance to radical change, should that level of reorganisation be a priority – or should our focus be on fixing the foundations of local government?