抄録
In Japan, Integrated Rural Improvement Projects (IRIPs) have been implemented since 1970s in order to improve infrastructure for rural living condition as well as that for agricultural production. However, little has been done to evaluate the effects of these projects except for a few studies. In order to evaluate them objectively, a method for determining ‘Noscin Seibi Shisu’ or Rural Living Condition Index (RLCI) is proposed by authors through modifying the method of PLI (People's Life Index). Data from “Survey on Rural Development Conditions” by National Land Agency of 1975, 1982 and 1988 are used to calculate RLCIs. There are several types of Integrated Rural Improvement Project. (IRIP), of which Integrated Rural Improvement Model Project (IRIMP) is selected as the object of the study. The evaluation is executed at the level of shi-cho-scm (municipality). More than 2000 shi-cho-sons are classified into three groups: shi-cho-sons that planned IRIMP before 1977 (what are called phase I shi-cho-sons) are categorized as Group 1, those that planned IRIMP in and after 1977 are categorized as Group 2, and those without IRIMP are categorized as Group 3. Comparison is performed among each group with respect to increase in RLCIs, and is also broken down by the types of area where shi-cho-sons are located, namely toshi-teki (sub-urban), heichi (flat), chukan (semi-hilly), and sankan (hilly) area.
The comparison shows that average increase in RLCIs of Group 1 is bigger than that of Group 3. It also shows that such difference is clearer in chusankan (hilly and semi-hilly) areas than in flat areas. Another finding is that the difference is clear for the period of 1975 to 1982, but not for the period of 1982 to 1988.
From these results, it is concluded that IRIMP has completed its role of exhibiting the model case of improving rural living conditions, which might not have been improved without it. It is also concluded that IRIP type of improvement is effective especially in chusankan areas, where structural improvement policies should be pursued to alleviate the possible side-effects of the Uruguay Round agreement in agricultural sector.
