The purpose of this paper is to consider factors related to reducing the fixed amount of additional allocation in the budgeting process of the national treasury's sharing of compulsory education expenses.
The national treasury's sharing of compulsory education expenses is calculated by the unit value of wages, and the fixed number for calculating this is decided by the national treasury. It consists of a fixed amount for the basic allocation and the fixed number for an additional allocation. The former is the fixed number of school personnel calculated based on the number of classes, etc., while the latter is the fixed number of school personnel allocated according to the policy aim.
There is a debate between the Ministry of Finance (MOF) which has insisted on a reduction in the fixed number of school personnel and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) which has insisted on an increase in the fixed number of school personnel in the budgeting process in recent years. The reduction in the fixed amount for additional allocation is taken up as a policy termination in this paper. The budgeting process in fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 is analyzed using a policy window model.
The MEXT lowered the legal standard for the size of a first-grade class in elementary school to 35 pupils in the budgeting process in fiscal year 2011. The MEXT also reduced the fixed amount for additional allocation as the funds which increase according to the fixed number for basic allocation. The key factor was the existence of the Democratic Party of Japan, which included smaller class sizes in its political manifesto. The MEXT emphasized the reputation of the Democratic Party of Japan. However, there was opposition from prefectures for reduction of the fixed amount of additional allocation.
The MOF insisted on a reduction in the fixed number of school personnel in the budgeting process in fiscal year 2014 and in fiscal year 2015. However, the final result was only a slight reduction. The main factor was the strategy of the MOF. The MOF insisted on a large reduction in the fixed number of school personnel whereas the MEXT insisted on an increase in the fixed number of school personnel. There was greater focus on the proposals of the MOF, and the proposals of the MEXT did not rise on the cutting board of argument. Finally, the MOF retracted this insistence and made reductions on an incremental basis.
The implication of this paper is as follows. First, this paper suggests that it is important to take an initiative in argument through the budgeting process to plan for the realization of a policy. Second, this paper suggests that the target of the emphasis of the MEXT has changed. The MEXT emphasized reputation from The Democratic Party of Japan and reduced the fixed number for additional allocation by the budgeting process in fiscal year 2011. However, due to the opposition in various prefectures, the MEXT changed to reputation emphasis.
抄録全体を表示