Published Dec 13, 2018
Yoichi Iida Ryo Koizumi


Currently, in Japan, women are required to participate and advance in the workplace because of the decline in the labor population. However, it is very difficult for them to do so because of the patriarchal system within Japanese history. In the 1990s, local governments began various projects to encourage women to participate in society. At the same time, local government administrations were introduced to project evaluation to boost the efficiency of their projects. However, project evaluation did not function well because project evaluation needs to be linked to outcomes of the program, and the outcome step was often performed independently. The purpose of this paper is to show how to perform project evaluation to promote women’s active participation in society in Japan.  Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, we show how to evaluate projects in a way that can connect to the outcomes of the program. This framework can also be used to calculate the degree of contribution of projects in the program from two perspectives. First, the decision makers in a local government evaluate the outcomes of the program and second, the people in charge of the projects that make up the program do the evaluation for their own projects. In this paper, we evaluated actual projects of a city in Japan and were able to show the direction they should take, such as reduction or expansion for each project in the next fiscal year, by using numerical values obtained in the process of calculation by this framework.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 749 | PDF Downloads 82



Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), local government, project evaluation, relative evaluation, contribution degree

Chino city. (2016/17). Project evaluation sheets of the program: gender equality (in Japanese). No. 06-05-01 to 03 and 08.

Dey, P. K. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-attribute decision-making technique. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(1), 90-103. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.11.018

Hatry, P.H. (2007). Performance measurement: Getting results, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360701755709

Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., & Chiang, Y. H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038-1052. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.05.003

Inazawa, K. (2012). Gyosei-hyoka no donyu to katsuyo: yosan/kesan, sogokeikaku (zoho ban) (in Japanese) [Introduction and practical use of administrative evaluation: budget, settlement of accounts, comprehensive plan (enlarged edition)]. Japan: Imagine Syuppan.

Ishihara, T. (Eds.). (2005). Jichitai-gyosei-hyoka case study (in Japanese) [Performance Measurement in Japanese local government]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.

Kinoshita, E., & Ohya, T. (Eds.). (2007). Kigyo & gyosei notameno AHP jireisyu (in Japanese) [The collection of AHP practical use examples]. Japan: JUSE Press.

Kinoshita, E., & Taji, K. (Eds.). (2005). Gyosei-keiei notameno ishiketteiho: AHP wo tsukatta nanmon-dakai no shinsyuho (in Japanese) [Decision making methods for administrative management: a new method by AHP to overcome difficult problems]. Japan: Gyosei.

Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar, M., & Zaeri, M. S. (2007). Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 30, 333-338.

Miyagawa, K. (1994). Seisaku-kagaku no kiso (in Japanese) [Foundations of policy sciences]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.

Naito, K. (2015). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-syakai-keisei seisaku (in Japanese) [Gender equality society formation policy]. In Naito, K., & Yamaya, K. (Eds.). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-seisaku: Gyosei-hyoka to shisetsu-hyoka (in Japanese) (1-12). Japan: Koyoshobo.

Naito, K., & Yamaya, K. (Eds.). (2015). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-seisaku: Gyosei-hyoka to shisetsu-hyoka (in Japanese) [Gender equality policy: Administrative evaluation and facility evaluation]. Japan: Koyoshobo.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocatiom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T.L. (1982). Decision making for leaders. New York: Lifetime Learning.

Saaty, T.L. (1983). Priority setting in complex problems. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management EM, 30, 140–155. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1983.6448606

Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

Saaty, T.L. (2001). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2nd Edition. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

Saaty, T.L., & Özdemir, M.S. (2005). The Encyclicon: A Dictionary of decisions with dependence and feedback based on the Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

Stipak, B. (1987). Using subjective measures in program evaluation. In Busson, T., & Coulter, P. (Eds.). Policy evaluation for local government (45-61). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Tanaka, K. (2014). Jichitai-hyoka no senryaku (in Japanese) [Strategy of local government evaluation]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.

Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1), 2–8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90056-H

Yamaya, K. (2016). Many faces of evaluation in Japanese local governments: 20 years of decentralization and financial crisis (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies, 16(1), 31-45.

Zayed, T., Amer, M., & Pan, J. (2008). Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 408-419. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012