Plan to Establish Second Capital: System’s Purpose is Difficult for Public to Understand

Editorial

15:43 JST, November 19, 2025

Is the aim of this system to prepare for situations in which the functions of the central government’s ministries and agencies and other entities are lost due to large-scale disasters? Or is the priority to strengthen cities other than Tokyo and correct the excessive concentration in the capital?

The plan to realize a “second capital,” which has been advocated by the Japan Innovation Party, intermingles various objectives, making it difficult to understand. The JIP should sort out the concept’s aims and procedures, to make it easier to gain broad understanding among the public.

The Liberal Democratic Party and the JIP have begun discussions to draft legislation for the second capital plan. They aim to pass a lawmaker-initiated bill during next year’s ordinary Diet session.

A draft proposal compiled solely by the JIP positions the second capital as a city that “drives Japan’s economic growth.” It also sees it as a base for temporarily relocating ministries and agencies if Tokyo is damaged by a disaster.

The current excessive concentration of population and the economy in Tokyo heightens the risks in the case of disasters. It also contributes to regional decline, making the correction of this overconcentration an urgent task.

However, questions remain about the structure of the JIP’s draft proposal, which appears designed to favor Osaka Prefecture, the party’s home turf.

For instance, the draft proposal seeks to limit local governments eligible for designation as the second capital to prefectures that have established special wards such as Tokyo’s 23 wards.

The law on the establishment of special wards in large cities permits the division of government ordinance-designated cities with a population of 2 million or more, or government ordinance-designated cities that reach this scale when including adjacent municipalities, and their reorganization into special wards. Only certain prefectures, such as Osaka, Kanagawa and Aichi, meet these requirements.

Moreover, Osaka is the only prefecture that has set a goal of establishing such special wards.

The JIP previously advocated the “Osaka metropolis plan” to create special wards, holding two referendums on the appropriateness of the plan, both of which were rejected. Without approval in a referendum, special wards will not be able to be established.

This time, the JIP is believed to be aiming for a third referendum by appealing to residents that “if the special wards are established, the area will also be designated as a second capital.”

The JIP’s adherence to infrastructure development also has brought a sense of discomfort.

The draft proposal states that the central government will support the development of facilities such as an international conference hall and transportation networks if a prefecture is designated as a second capital. If the JIP intends to strengthen Osaka’s urban infrastructure using national budgets, isn’t that an excessive diversion of benefits to their home area?

Fundamentally, if the purpose is disaster preparedness, is it appropriate to designate Osaka, which has concerns about being hit by a Nankai Trough earthquake, as an alternative to Tokyo, which may be struck by an earthquake with its focus directly under the capital?

To disperse the risks from disasters, it does not seem necessary to limit relocation sites for ministries and agencies to a major city. This is likely an issue to be considered separately from the matter of the second capital.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 19, 2025)