<p>It is estimated that by 2040, Japan's population will have decreased to about the same level as it was in the final years of its period of high economic growth (around the year 1970). At the prefectural level, the total population of some prefectures will have decreased to levels that existed before the country's modernization (around the year 1890). In such prefectures, however; the demographic pattern will differ from that before the period of modernization: it will be characterized by extensive uninhabited or thinly populated rural areas and population concentration in the larger cities; there will also be areas with extremely high rates of population aging. A study by Masuda (2014) sounded the alarm bell for municipalities in such areas: it stated that those municipalities faced the possibility of disappearing completely, with the number of women aged 20-39 years being reduced by half by 2040 and administrative functions becoming increasingly problematic. It was because of such future population issues that Japan's basic regional policy, which had operated toward achieving balanced economic development of the country as a whole, was abolished. Instead, the idea arose that growing regional disparities were overlooked. Some scholars have maintained that it is especially important for Tokyo to enhance its competitive strength so that Japan can gain an economic edge over neighboring countries. In addition, those observers believe that residents in poorer areas should move to the cities, where they would be able live within a better-functioning infrastructure. If not, it would become difficult for underpopulated areas to maintain their own infrastructure, such as with firefighting, garbage disposal, and health-care services, owing to the low cost-benefit ratio. Naturally, many objections, including my own, have been voiced against such opinions. I believe that the following points are questionable: (1) basing the decision to renovate infrastructure purely on cost-benefit ratios; (2) ignoring the growth of regional disparities based on the principle (so-called voting with one's feet) that people are free to move elsewhere if they wish; and (3) allowing the spread of uninhabited rural areas through migration to the large cities. I also have doubts about promotion plans for non-metropolitan cities with over 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, which the central government recently attempted because of promoting the population decline of small cities and rural areas by their own population absorptions. To maintain the present conditions of population distribution in Japan, a society experiencing population decline, it is necessary to promote the central place system with a hierarchical structure, as seen with Germany's Raumordnungspolitik (regional planning policy). Unlike in Germany, however, Japan will need introduction of special schemes for remote corners of the country and secluded islands that cannot sufficiently receive urban services. To clarify existing conditions, I investigated activities related to maintaining settlements and public establishments (public associations among municipalities, public hospitals, and care establishments). As a result, I found that even in Hokkaido current public services, such as firefighting, in municipalities are operated but there are no new plans for such services; not only the central government but also prefectures and municipalities have thus far maintained traditional management practices so that they have not accepted that regional policies should involve taking the life out of underpopulated areas. Despite Japan's poor future financial condition, it is necessary for traditional management practices to continue supporting small cities and rural areas, including underpopulated areas. We need to adhere to the idea of gleichwertige Lebensverhaltnisse (offering the same level of living conditions to</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>