The House of Representatives special committee on regional revitalization, children’s policy and digital society formation, where the secondary capital bill was passed by majority vote, is seen in the Diet in Tokyo, July 15, 2026. (Mainichi/Akihiro Hirata)
A bill that would create a system allowing prefectures outside the Tokyo metropolitan area to be designated as a “secondary capital” has passed the House of Representatives in Japan. It would target prefectures capable of taking over part of the capital’s functions in the event of a major disaster, while also serving as “the core of a multipolar, decentralized economic zone.”
Under the bill, a government ordinance would stipulate that the prefecture taking on the role have either special wards like Tokyo’s 23 wards, or a cooperative agreement between the prefecture and an ordinance-designated city within the prefecture in place. The national government would designate a prefecture upon application by the local government.
From the outset, this has been a proposal centered on Osaka, and an undercooked one at that. Its stated goal is to correct Tokyo’s overconcentration, but whether it will work is highly doubtful.
The concentration of population and functions in Tokyo is accelerating. Building up hubs in other regions to help disperse that concentration could be one approach.
But this bill has serious problems. First, it is clearly linked to the “Osaka metropolis plan” pursued by Nippon Ishin (the Japan Innovation Party, or JIP), and in effect presumes Osaka’s designation. That plan would dismantle the city of Osaka and reorganize it into special wards.
The original draft sought to expand the electorate for a third referendum on the metropolis plan from residents of the city of Osaka to all Osaka Prefecture voters. The idea that prefectural residents should decide whether a municipality is dismantled ran contrary to the principle of local self-government. It drew criticism even from the JIP’s coalition partner Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and was withdrawn. The metropolis plan and a secondary capital are separate issues, and they should be clearly separated.
More fundamentally, there is also doubt about whether the ruling coalition’s bill would do anything to correct the overconcentration problem in the first place. Osaka and Fukuoka prefectures, among others, have shown an interest in becoming Japan’s second capital, but wouldn’t it better serve the decentralization of the Japanese economy to prioritize places such as the Tohoku and Hokuriku regions, where population decline is advancing? Osaka also faces the risk of being hit by a Nankai Trough megaquake.
At the same time, the bill slips in a system allowing other areas to be designated as regions capable of replacing part of the capital’s functions. That raises concerns about pork-barrel spending under the name of infrastructure development. Is this not political maneuvering by the LDP, which seeks to advance “national resilience,” and the JIP, which aims to channel resources toward its political stronghold in Osaka?
Moreover, the crucial specific measures are left to the government. The costs and funding needed to realize the concept are also unclear.
It is astonishing that a bill with such defects was pushed through the lower house so forcefully. The ruling parties appear prepared to enact it even if it means extending the Diet session. Because this is an issue tied to the design of the nation itself, it must not be rushed. It should be reworked from the ground up.