Development and Decentralization

In the last five decades, Hokkaido, one of Japan’s forty seven prefectures (second tier of government), has received a huge amount of funding for development from the central government. Development includes public works such as road improvement, ports, airports, railways, afforestation, housing, municipal services, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In 2005, Hokkaido received USD 6.3 billion (10% of Japan’s public works budget), while it accounts for 4.4% of Japan’s population and 4% of national GDP. Over the years, Hokkaido has been perceived as extremely important in terms of national security (military, food) and consolidation, which has justified the high level of spending on its development from the national budget. The outcome of Japan’s development policy in Hokkaido today is a high level of well-maintained infrastructure. To me, everything looks brand new. In comparison, infrastructure in New York City and Paris looks rather worn out. Moreover, the Hokkaido prefecture has asked the central government to reduce the amount of public investment in Hokkaido because it can no longer afford its share (15-20%) in financing these projects.

These being the facts, the next question concerns how this huge amount of money is spent. Until recently (mid 90s), in Japan, the decision-making in the public sector had been highly centralized. The central government had once decided that Hokkaido was of high national interest, and since then it had managed and financed the entire endeavor. Basically, the top-down approach had been consistently used. The central government developed national and regional development plans, created implementation bodies, deconcentrated a part of spending authority to the regional level, and provided the bulk of resources. All capital investment projects were designed and decided upon by the central government with almost no input from the local governments or private sector. The negative outcome of such a policy – decreasing self-reliance of local communities, and lack of sustainability – has been duly acknowledged in Japan.

The current plan, the 6th-term Hokkaido Regional Development Plan (1998-2007), includes a bottom-up approach, and is said to reflect the shift from the public sector to the private sector, and from the central government to the local government. The local governments and public sector are encouraged to take greater responsibility for the sustainable development of their regions. In short, decentralization is on the agenda of the Japanese government now. Although decentralization is a new approach for the Japanese, my bet is that they will successfully manage this process.

Moldova’s decentralization process started in the 90s, too. After 15 years of independence, the level of decentralization in Moldova is considered very low, despite continuous efforts, discussions and promises. Keeping in mind that decentralization is a means to a more efficient and sustainable development, rather than a goal in itself, I am wondering whether the failure of decentralization in Moldova is a consequence of erroneous understanding and planning of national development. In fact, which are the development objectives and priorities of Moldova? Or, a more difficult question: what are the national interests of Moldova?