Japanese land has been developed more disproportionately since the late 1980s than it was in the 1960s. Population, information and the head-quarters of big companies have been concentrating in Tokyo. At the same time, we notice the concentration of the social, economic and political power not only in Tokyo, but also in the local core cities. We call the concentration in the local core cities “mini-concentration”.
The concentration in the local districts has resulted from the change in their industrial structure. The key industry has been changing from the secondary industry to the tertiary industry, that is, the service industry. The manufacturing industries in the local industrial cities are on the decline, but the service industry is developing and concentrating in the core city of the local district. Almost all the other small cities in those districts are on the decline because they depend on the manufacturing industry. The service industry in those cities develops slowly because of the weakness of their primary and secondary industries.
We have researched the local cities in Ehime prefecture under the change in the industrial structure. We found that the industrial structure has been changing in Ehime prefecture and the local cities have been disproportionately developed. The population of Matsuyama city, which is the local core city of Ehime prefecture, is increasing, but those of the other small local cities are decreasing. That is the reason why the industrial structure is changing. The primary and secondary industries are on the decline, but the tertiary industry is growing. Niihama and Imabari cities have been the representative industrial cities, but their populations are decreasing now because the manufacturing industries are on the decline.
Therefore, it is a suitable policy to activate a local core city by urban oriented industry, but unsuitable for a small local city. It is important to activate a small local city by regenerating the key industry, especially the manufacturing industry.

抄録全体を表示

Industrial structures in advanced countries are currently undergoing historic changes.
After 1990, the market economy expanded on a global scale, ushering in “the era of global mega-competition.” The dissolution and trasformation of socialism and the ecoomic development of Asia and Latin America have made “global optimal procuremant” a reality. As a result, production by advanced nations has flowed steadily out of the countries, creating situations described as the “hollowing out” of industries, or “de-industrialization.” Meanwhile, existing industries are maturing, making the creation of new industries an urgent need. Unless new industries are created, unemployment rates soar. This is why developed countries have adopted policies that support the creation of new industries.
As J. A. Schumpeter has pointed out, “new men and new firms” give birth to “new industries.” In other words, new industries are the result of entrepreneurship. To stimulate the creation of new industries, we must strengthen the entrepreneuraial sector.
Afer 1980, at the initiave of entrepreneurs, numerous new comopanies emerged in the U. S., leading to the creation of new industries. The movement acclerated after 1990, when industrial clusters were created and expanded. An example of a cluster is Silicon Valley, where the information communications industries are the base of R & D.
Now, Japan is a forerunner in the international economic community, and product innovation has become crucially important for most Japanese companies. Meanwhile, a growing number of large companies are relocating their production to other countries, and, as a result, existing industrial clusters are disintegrating rapidly. Smaller companies are closing down in growing numbers, and fewer businesses are starting up, which means that the number of smaller businesses relying on production technology is decreasing.
Despite all this, we are seeing a gradual increase in the number of smaller companies that carry out product innovation. The ideal scenario is for these companies to tie up with existing small, process-innovative companies to recreate indutrial clusters in Japan.

抄録全体を表示

景気停滞と産業空洞化,産業構造転換が進む中で,日本の雇用状況は悪化し,失業率は増大している.それは,地域の経済構造や産業構造に強く影響されつつ,地域的差異・格差をもって生じている.本研究では,相対的に高い雇用水準を示す山梨県郡内地域を事例として,地域の経済・産業構造と地域の就業構造・労働市場との関連を明らかにし,地域経済のあり方を展望する.郡内地域の主力産業は,1970年代〜1980年代に,織物業から機械工業へ転換した.自治体の積極策もあって,京浜地域から機械工業の大手企業が進出し,織物業からの転業を含む中小零細企業の創業が相次ぎ,首都圏機械工業の縁辺部を形成するに至る.また,首都圏人口や豊かな観光資源を背景に,サービス業・小売業が発展を見せた.織物業を離れた労働力の多くは,機械工業の中小企業,土木建設業,サービス業・小売業に吸収され,比較的豊富な新規学卒者の多くは機械工業,サービス業・小売業の大手企業に雇用された.バブル経済崩壊後,地域産業構造に大きな変化はないが,就業構造・雇用形態に変化が見られる.機械工業大手企業でリストラされた労働力の大半は,機械工業の中小企業や土木建設業,サービス業・小売業で低賃金パート労働力として吸収された.機械工業の中小企業では大幅な雇用削減は一般的ではなく,操業短縮・技術開発等の対応が目立つ.土木建設業は,公共事業縮小を臨時雇の活用で凌ぎ,サービス業・小売業は,常勤雇用を非常勤に代える動きを見せている.織物業は高度な技術・デザイン力を要する産業に展開し,新たな若年雇用を生み出している.新規学卒者の地元雇用は,少子化や進学率の上昇によって縮小傾向にある.多様な産業業種と企業規模の構成を維持すること,技術力を持った新企業を育成すること,企業間の技術や需要に関する情報ネットワークを構築すること,さらにはUターンや労働力再生産を可能にする居住条件や社会資本の整備等が,地域経済の維持・発展には不可欠となっている.

抄録全体を表示