Japan’s legislature has approved a bill to establish a secondary capital as an alternate center for government operations, aiming to ensure continuity in the event of natural disasters or emergencies. The proposal has sparked intense competition among local governments eager to host the new government hub, alongside hopes of attracting investment, tourism, and urban revitalization.
For more than 150 years, Tokyo has been Japan’s sole capital, serving as the political, economic, and cultural heart of the nation. However, the country’s vulnerability to earthquakes, typhoons, and other natural hazards has prompted policymakers to reconsider this longstanding arrangement. The 2011 earthquake and tsunami, which claimed over 19,000 lives and caused a nuclear crisis, highlighted Tokyo’s susceptibility despite its relative distance from the disaster’s epicenter.
Thirteen municipalities have formally expressed interest in becoming the secondary capital, including major cities like Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo, as well as regions such as Fukuoka, Hokkaido, and Gunma Prefecture. Local officials have actively campaigned, holding press conferences and developing promotional campaigns to underscore their suitability. Osaka, for example, unveiled a mascot named Nyaniwa Fukumaru to symbolize its bid.
Supporters argue that decentralizing government functions would enhance national resilience by mitigating risks tied to Tokyo’s geographic concentration. They also note potential benefits in redistributing economic growth and population, which in recent decades have increasingly concentrated in the Tokyo metropolitan area, now home to around 37 million residents.
Nevertheless, the initiative has faced criticism from various quarters. Some opponents view it as politically motivated, benefiting allies of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, whose coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, is rooted in Osaka. Critics also question the feasibility and cost of developing a fully functional secondary capital, especially given concerns about natural disaster risks in candidate cities themselves. Osaka, a key contender, has been singled out for its own earthquake vulnerabilities.
Experts have raised additional doubts about the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. Nobuo Sasaki, professor emeritus at Chuo University, noted the legislation lacks specific definitions and criteria concerning what constitutes a secondary capital and how to develop it. Others warn that shifting focus away from strengthening Tokyo’s infrastructure might undermine broader disaster preparedness efforts.
Some opposition lawmakers have criticized the proposal as "half-baked" and influenced by vested interests, calling for a more comprehensive strategy. Questions remain over the timeline and procedural steps, as the Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Takaichi, is expected to formulate requirements in the coming months.
Despite the debate, local governments continue to lobby vigorously. Nagoya’s mayor, Ichiro Hirosawa, for example, prioritized promoting his city over local events to highlight Nagoya’s manufacturing strengths. Hokkaido’s officials emphasize their relative safety owing to distance from seismic hotspots like the Nankai Trough.
As the selection process unfolds, analysts caution that the secondary capital project must be accompanied by broader reforms to stimulate regional economies and manage demographic shifts. The initiative reflects a long historical precedent: during the Edo period (1603–1868), Japan simultaneously maintained dual capitals, with Edo (now Tokyo) as the political center and Kyoto as the cultural heart.
How the plan will ultimately reshape Japan’s governance and urban landscape remains uncertain as political, economic, and disaster-preparedness considerations converge in the country’s effort to secure greater resilience.