Intergovernmental Relation (IGR) In Korea and Japan: Phases, Patterns, and Progress Toward Decentralization (Local Autonomy) in A Trans-Pacific Context

Yoo-Sung Choi and Deil S. Wright

International Review of Public Administration, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, 1-22

Abstract: Institutional issues and organizational integrity have returned to the center of attention in several fields in the social sciences. Nowhere is this more evident than in the analysis of governmental structures and formal (legal) arrangements. One component of institutional analysis is the manner in which power, authority, tasks, functions, and services are divided (or shared) on an area basis. What are the assigned responsibilities of the central (national) governing entity and what are those of the regional (state/province/local) governmental jjurisdiction? In other words, how is authority divided on an area vs. functional basis? descriptions or definitions of this division of authority on an area basis have employed a variety of terms to guide analysis, interpretations, and advocacy. Examples of such terms or concepts are: Federalism (Elazar, 1987), Intergovernmental Relations (Anderson, 1960; Wright, 1988), Central-Local Relations (Horie and Nagata, 1999) Local Autonomy (Horie and Nishio, 1997) and Multi-Level Governance (Hooge and Marks, 2003).For purposes of this paper we have opted for the concept of Intergovernmental Relations (IGR). Among other issues addressed in the paper, the choice of this concept is elaborated and clarified. The central component of the paper, however, is a historical analysis of the phases of IGR in Korea and Japan. This approach to the study of IGR as phases (periods or eras) has established precedents (Elazar, 1990; Wright, 1988, 1997; Koike and Wright, 1998). This serial or sequential approach has also utility in a comparative sense (Koike and Wright, 1998; orie and Nishio, 1997). This paper extends prior analyses to development of IGR in Korea and Japan. Both nations have recently instituted various reforms involving IGR. It is appropriate and pertinent to examine these developments and to place them in a comparative context.

Date: 2004
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12294659.2004.10805035 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:9:y:2004:i:1:p:1-22

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RRPA20

DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2004.10805035

Access Statistics for this article

International Review of Public Administration is currently edited by Ralph Brower

More articles in International Review of Public Administration from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().