Lessons of Osaka’s failed integration

After the government of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi took office in October last year, debate over balanced regional development in Japan has gained momentum. The Japan Innovation Party, a coalition partner, has pushed for designating Osaka as a “secondary capital,” a proposal endorsed by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, giving new impetus to the discussion.

If Osaka were designated a secondary capital, it would assume key national functions in the event of a major disaster in Tokyo. Such a move would likely require relocating some central government institutions and responsibilities. The key question is whether this step could ease the long-standing concentration of people and resources in Tokyo and foster more balanced regional growth. Similar discussions are underway in South Korea, where metropolitan governments are actively exploring administrative integration. Given the parallels in demographics and economic structures, Japan’s experience with administrative consolidation offers valuable lessons.

Calls to develop Osaka into a metropolis comparable to Tokyo have surfaced repeatedly over the past several decades. The plan envisioned dissolving Osaka City and reorganizing it into multiple special wards, modeled on Tokyo’s system, to deliver more localized administration. It also proposed transferring the city’s metropolitan-level functions to Osaka Prefecture and elevating the prefecture to “Osaka Metropolis” status. Two referendums, held in 2015 and 2020, were narrowly defeated, with opposition prevailing by 50.4 percent and 50.6 percent, respectively.

Why did Osaka residents resist what amounted to an administrative upgrade? After the proposal was rejected, Kyoto Sangyo University analyzed the outcome and its underlying causes. The study found that achieving administrative integration was far more complex than proponents had anticipated, shaped by a range of interacting political and social factors.

The “Osaka Metropolis” initiative was spearheaded by the regional Japan Innovation Party. The party aimed to strengthen Osaka’s metropolitan functions while elevating Osaka Prefecture—including less developed areas outside the city, by expanding its authority and fiscal capacity. As the proposal moved toward a referendum, however, debate shifted to the abolition of Osaka City itself. Rather than weighing the long-term benefits of integration, voters became divided over whether to preserve or relinquish the city’s history and identity.

Most notably, as public opinion grew increasingly polarized, the referendum effectively became a vote of confidence in the sitting Osaka mayor from the Japan Innovation Party, who had led the integration effort, according to an analysis by Chuo University’s Institute of Social Sciences. The focus thus shifted away from evaluating the merits of policy and projected outcomes and toward a political contest between opposing camps.

The Japan Innovation Party is now pursuing a third attempt at administrative integration in Osaka, this time framing it as the creation of a “secondary capital” rather than an “Osaka Metropolis.” The party plans to pass related legislation this year through a lawmaker-sponsored bill in cooperation with the Liberal Democratic Party. The move has prompted cities such as Fukuoka and Nagoya to express interest, questioning why Osaka should be the sole candidate if a secondary capital is designated. As a result, the proposal has grown more complex, requiring not only public approval but also careful consideration of regional balance.

In South Korea, Daejeon and South Chungcheong Province, Gwangju and South Jeolla Province, and Busan and South Gyeongsang Province have each set July as a target for administrative integration. Debate within those regions has intensified, with supporters and opponents sharply divided. As Japan’s experience suggests, any such initiative must be grounded in thorough public consultation and broad civic understanding.

Above all, the emphasis should be on building sufficient public understanding and consensus rather than on speed. Osaka, where integration efforts have remained stalled despite more than a decade of attempts, offers a clear and cautionary lesson.