|
|
|
9.6 Stractural Change of regional industries
In
this section, we consider changes in the industrial structure of each prefecture
as seen from the numbers of workers.
Here, we use the data for the 15 year period from 1980 to 1994 for
the number of workers in the manufacturing industries of each prefecture (from
among 23 industrial categories) as represented by the industry edition of the
industrial statistical tables, (compiled by the Ministry of International Trade
and Industry), and analyze them according to the factor below.
(Note: the source of the method of calculation, chart and graphs
below is the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy's Study on
Spatial Mobility of Manufacturing Industry and Structural Change of Regional
Industries in Japan, 1999 (NISTEP Report No. 60).)
Air:
Type r of industry condition variable
by prefecture i (number of workers)
Ai: All type of industry condition by
prefecture i (number of workers)
Anr: Type r of industry condition variable
in nationally. (number of workers)
An: All type of industry condition variable in nationally (number
of workers)
ICRIS (Index for Conversion of Regional Industrial Structure) indicates
the extent of the deviation between the distribution of the industry condition
variable (number of workers) nationally and in prefecture i, for manufacturing
industries. That is, ICRIS represents the characteristics of the industrial
structure of each prefecture relative to the industrial structure of the whole
of Japan.
The ICRIS values have been calculated for each prefecture according
to Equation 9-6-1. The smaller the value, the closer the component ratio of
a prefecture's industrial structure - that is, its industry condition variable
(number of workers) - is to the national average. The smallest value of 0 means
that the industrial structure of a particular prefecture is consistent with
the national average. The larger the ICRIS value, the greater the extent of
deviation between the national average and the industrial structure of a given
prefecture. Thus, if a prefecture has only one type of industry, this value
will be close to one.
The vertical axis in Figure 9-6-1 represents the industry condition
variable, while the horizontal axis represents the ICRIS value. These values
are plotted for each year showing a time-series of movements that indicate the
changes in the industrial structure of each prefecture.
Figure 9-6-1
Figure
9-6-1 (A) indicates that the industrial structure of a given prefecture tends
toward the average, with a rising industry condition variable, which suggests
development and growth within the prefecture due to new industries entering
or being lured in.
(B) indicates that the industrial structure of a given prefecture
tends toward a dominant industry and growth. This means that the existing industries,
with their high component ratios, are experiencing further growth, such that
their component ratios will rise even further.
(C) indicates a downward tendency in the industry condition variable
of a given prefecture, while the industrial structure is moving toward the average.
The decrease in the component ratios of existing industries means that the component
ratio for other industries is relatively high. As a result, the industrial structure
is changing and moving toward the average
of this country.
(D) is the opposite to this, and indicates that industries with
a low component ratio in a given prefecture will decline further, while the
component ratios of the industry condition variable for the existing industries
will tend to become relatively high, thus leading to a decline in the industry
condition variable.
(E) indicates a rising industry condition variable with a static
industrial structure for a given prefecture, which means that all industries
are growing evenly as the industry condition variable rises.
(F) is the converse to (E), and indicates the situation in which
the industrial structure is unchanged while the industry condition variable
falls.
(G) represents the case in which the existing industries decline
at the same time new industries enter or are lured in. Although the industry
condition variable for a particular prefecture does not fluctuate, the industry
component ratio moves towards the average of this country as the industrial
structure changes.
(H) represents the situation in which those industries with large
component ratios increase further, at the same time as those industries with
small component ratios fall. Thus, although the industry condition variable
for a particular prefecture does not fluctuate, its industrial structure tends
toward dominant industries.
Those prefectures with special characteristics with regard to the
industrial structures described above are shown below.
Tables and graphs showing the time series for the number of workers
and the ICRIS values for all 47 prefectures can be found in the appendix to
this chapter (see Table 9-6-1 and Figures 9-6-8-1 to 9-6-8-47).
(1) Regional Growth Due
To Entry or Attraction of New Industries
As an example
of this type of industrial structure, we will use Saga Prefecture. As shown
in Figure 9-6-2, the number of workers in this prefecture grew remarkably until
around 1991, while the ICRIS values consistently fell. This indicates that as
the composition of the types of industries diversified, the industrial scale,
represented by the number of workers, expanded as a whole.
For a prefecture which displays this kind of an increasing industry
condition variable and declining ICRIS values, we examine Shizuoka Prefecture
below and so on.
Figure 9-6-2 Variance of number of workers by Saga prefecture
In the case of Shizuoka, the growth of the metalworking, electrical equipment or precision equipment industries replaced the traditional pulp and paper industry; thus, it seems that the change in the industrial structure was due more to the rise and decline of existing industries than to the entry of new industry (Figure 9-6-3).
Figure 9-6-3 Variance of number of workers by Sizuoka prefecture
(2) Regions with Dominant
Industries or New Production Centers
Aichi Prefecture
is discussed as a region typical of this type of structure. The dominant industry
in Aichi Prefecture is the transportation equipment manufacturing industry,
which is at the center of the automobile industry. The number of workers in
this industry has been maintained at a component ratio of over 20% in the prefecture
over a 15 year period (Figure 9-6-4).
Figure 9-6-4 Variance of number of workers by Aichi prefecture
Also, in Okinawa Prefecture, as the number of workers in the dominant industries of food processing and ceramics increased, the component ratios increased (Figure 9-6-5).
Figure 9-6-5 Variance of number of workers by Okinawa prefecture
The growth in the number of workers in both prefectures indicates a situation in which the industrial base was strengthened due to a further strengthening of the traditional dominant industries.
(3) Regions with Dominant
Industries or Declining Production Centers
Kanagawa Prefecture
is discussed as an example of this type of region. At one time, the electrical
equipment and transportation equipment industries accounted for over 40% of
the total number of workers in the prefecture. However, due to an increase in
the number of workers in other industries in the 1980s, the ratio of workers
in these two industries fell (i.e. the ICRIS values fell). After 1991, the number
of workers in Kanagawa suddenly declined, largely due to a decline in the number
of workers in the electrical equipment and transportation equipment industries.
The decline in both the ICRIS values and the number of workers after 1991 in
the graph for Kanagawa is a graphical representation of the decline of both
industries in the prefecture.
Figure 9-6-6 Variance of number of workers by Kanagawa prefecture
(4) Declines
in Dominant Industries and New Production Centers in a Region
In this example, we look at the number of workers in Tokyo. From
around 1985, there was a significant decline in the number of workers in the
electrical equipment and general machinery manufacturing industries, which were
the main industries up to that time in Tokyo. However, the extent of the decline
in the main industry of publishing and printing was small, leading to a rise
in the industry's position (Figure 9-6-7).
Figure 9-6-7 Variance of number of workers by Tokyo
Although the number of workers have been assesses in this instance, by carrying out an assessment of other industry condition variables (number of business locations, volume of products shipped, amount of value added production) there are also prefectures for which differences in the characteristics of the industrial structure are becoming evident.
Bibliography
[1] Ministry of Education,
"Report on Basic Survey of Schools"
[2] Management and Coordination Agency, Statistics Bureau, "Social Life
Statistics Indicators"
[3] Management and Coordination Agency, Statistics Bureau, "Population
Estimates Yearbook"
[4] Lattice Ltd.,@"Nationwide List of Research Institute: 1999-2000",
1999
[5] Science and Technology Agency, "Science and Technology Directory",
FY1999 Edition
[6] Science and Technology Agency, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, "Study of Regional Science and Technology Promotion (2nd Survey)",
(NISTEP Report No. 39), 1995
[7] Science and Technology Agency, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, "Study of Regional Science and Technology Promotion (3rd Survey)",
(NISTEP Report No. 56), 1997
[8] Science and Technology Agency, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, "Study of Regional Science and Technology Promotion (4th Survey)",
(NISTEP Report No. 59), 1999
[9] Patent Office, "Annual Report on the Patent Office" (FY1996 Edition)
[10] Nihon Keizai Shimbun, "The Nikkei Venture Business Yearbook"
(FY1999 Edition)
[11] Web site of DAIWA Securities Co. Ltd., "Daiwa Venture Land (Current
publication as of April 1, 2000)"
[12] Economic Planning Agency, "Annual Report of Economic Calculations
of Prefectural Residents"
[13] Science and Technology Agency, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, "Study on Spatial Mobility of Manufacturing Industry and Structural
Change of Regional Industries in Japan", (NISTEP Report No. 60), 1999
Chapter 9 Yoichi Arafune
|
 |
|