Introduction
For decades, Japanese governments have attempted to create support to prevent people exiting the labour market (‘job leaving’) due to caring responsibilities. Yet, as is still often said, Japan is a familialist welfare society in which families are expected to take a key role in providing care (Kröger and Yeandle, 2013; Shinkawa, 2014). The main pillars of the support provided for working carers in Japan are its legislation the Child and Family Care Leave Act established in 1995 and the Long-term Care Insurance (LTCI) system which came into force in 2000.
The Child and Family Care Leave Act, which was amended in 2016, requires employers to provide long-term care leave, annual short-term care leave (time off for family care) and exemption from overtime work for their employees. It also introduced flexible working arrangements, including reducing scheduled working hours, flexitime and staggered working time to address varied situations at different stages of providing care. The Act indicated the government’s strong will to support family carers to combine work and care (Sodei, 1995; JILPT, 2006; Ikeda, 2013, 2021a, 2023). The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour (MHLW, 2023) has proposed that in the next amendment of the Child and Family Care Leave Act employers should inform their employees about the support system for combining work and family care such as care leave so as to make the system easy to use in the workplace.
Following the introduction of the LTCI in 2000, it appeared that Japan was intending to defamilialise care by expanding care services for older people (Ikeda, 2000, 2002). The Japanese Government has developed care services as an important measure in supporting people to combine work and care (Prime Minister’s Office of Japan, 2015; Cabinet Office, 2016; JILPT, 2020; Ikeda, 2021a, 2023). Indeed, since the government’s declaration that they would endeavour to eliminate labour market exit due to family care in 2015, it seems to have been an unwavering government policy to support the reconciliation of work and care through the defamilialisation of care for older people.
In sum, the Japanese Government’s policy on combining work and care is caught between defamilialisation in principle and refamilialisation in practice. Care leave policy has been viewed as an opportunity to address these issues and to provide working carers with workplace measures to support their continued employment. This chapter outlines care leave policy in Japan in the early 2020s and its background and considers future issues in the context of the defamilialisation and refamilialisation of care for older people in Japan.
National context
Social context
Japan is one of the most aged countries globally, primarily as a result of rapid population ageing after World War II. The Annual Report on the Ageing Society (Cabinet Office, 2022) showed that approximately 30 per cent of the population was aged over 65. People in this age group are insured under the LTCI through compulsory contributions from the age of 40. By 2036, it is expected that one third of the population will be aged 65 or older and that there will be many centenarians (Cabinet Office, 2022). The number of people using LTCI-supported services exceeded 6.5 million in 2019, and has increased consistently since implementation of the LTCI in 2000 (Cabinet Office, 2022). Japanese society also faces acute population change from 2025, when the ‘baby boomers’ born in the late 1940s reach the age of 75 or older (the age at which the Japanese medical insurance system defines them as the ‘old-old’).
The Japanese government views this trend as a problem; an increasing number of people are giving up work to care for elderly parents, reducing the size of the available workforce and threatening the nation’s economic growth (Cabinet Office, 2016; Ikeda, 2019, 2021a). Japan is often characterised as a
Women’s full-time employment after becoming mothers has often been supported in Japan by co-resident parents providing childcare. Studies have shown, however, that women often withdraw from the labour market when their co-resident parents or parents-in-law need long-term care (Maeda, 1998); some argue that Japan’s familialist welfare society places the main burden of care on women (Kasuga, 2001; Yamato, 2008). However, it has also been argued that families in Japan cannot undertake long-term care entirely without external support. Government policy turned to the ‘defamilialisation’ (Esping-Andersen, 1999) of care for older people through the LTCI scheme set up in 1997, which expanded provision of care services by private businesses. It has been shown that after the LTCI came into force in 2000, it became more common for older people to use formal care services (Ikeda, 2002).
After the LTCI was introduced, the supply of care services for older people, financed by insurance contributions, expanded rapidly. Yet although use of LTCI-financed care services has become widespread, many families still provide unpaid care. Residential care services, such as nursing home provision, have not expanded and admission criteria have become more stringent. Home care (or domiciliary care) is similarly rationed. Based on analysis of restrictions on home-visit nursing care services following an amendment of the LTCI Act in 2005, Fujisaki (2009) called this tightly controlled provision the ‘refamilialisation of elderly care’.
Even though the LTCI expanded social care services with the aim of defamilialising care for older people, demand for support continues to exceed supply. To compensate for insufficient care services, families’ care roles have expanded again. Population ageing will further increase the gap between demand for and supply of care services, while access to support funded by the LTCI has become more tightly restricted. In this sense, despite the aspiration for defamilialisation, refamilialisation of care for older people may still be increasing (Ikeda, 2021a, 2021b, 2023).
Economic inequalities also influence the degree to which family members undertake care for older people. Some working carers have the means to
Care for persons with disabilities has not received the same degree of political attention in Japan as support for the old, even though the Child and Family Care Leave Act does not explicitly exclude persons with disabilities. Japanese governments have focused attention on demographic trends and population ageing with economic and fiscal management policies, rather than adopting a more inclusive welfare approach.
However, the latest working group on statutory care leave and other measures brought up the issues on working parents of children with disabilities (MHLW, 2023). It might be the first step in expanding the support system for working carers of families with disability in the future.
Economic context
Japan’s labour market is characterised by long-term employment, a wage system based on seniority and labour unions organised at the company level (Abegglen, 1958; Dore, 1973; Inagami, 2005). Companies hire new graduate students and continue to employ them, typically, until mandatory retirement age. A seniority wage system means long-term job continuation in the same organisation is economically advantageous. Seniority wage system and long-term employment within a single organisation are also linked, with managers and executives generally selected from long-term employees. These employment and income security systems are protected by labour unions organised on a company basis. This means most employees aim to remain with the same company for as long as possible to develop their careers and increase their income. Employees who leave the labour market to provide care or look after their families find re-entering the workforce difficult. Many women who leave their jobs when they have a child, or to support child rearing, re-enter the labour market as non-regular workers with low incomes and in unstable employment with poor security, even if, prior to exit, they were expected to become managers or executives.
Japan’s employment model is male dominated and work centred (Osawa, 1993; Hazama, 1996; Inagami, 2005). Employment and income security through long-term employment and the seniority wage system was traditionally applied to male employees as ‘breadwinners’, while women were considered secondary earners, with less employment and income security. Prior to the expansion of women’s employment in the 20th century, it was common for women to leave their jobs on marriage or first childbirth to devote themselves to housework and childcare. Until recently, a result of women’s labour market exit on marriage or when children were born was
It is common for male Japanese workers to work overtime and to take few periods of annual paid leave. Female workers seeking to develop their careers find they also need to adopt this work-focused approach. Even if they can take childcare leave, the work-centred culture ultimately prevents women with family responsibilities from continuing in their jobs. It is thus argued that reforming workplace culture is crucial to support combining work and family care (Takeishi, 2006; Takeishi and Takasaki, 2020).
With regard specifically to care for older people, there are increasing numbers of male workers who provide care to their frail old parents or wives (Tsudome and Saito, 2007). The expanding prevalence of caring responsibilities among male employees may become a catalyst for change in the traditional work-centred culture, although even today most working carers are still non-regular female employees (that is, part-time workers and fixed-term contract workers with lower income and weak employment security). The second-largest number of employed family carers are regular male employees including managers, executive, and high skilled workers, while female regular employees are the third largest (Employment Status Survey, Statistics Bureau, 2017; Ikeda, 2021a, 2023). Growing diversity among carers thus makes combining work and care an increasingly common concern for employees. This represents a risk to the core Japanese labour force, if carers are an increasingly diverse group that includes men, and leave the labour market due to family care. Further, more female regular employees are remaining in their jobs and developing their careers by moving into management positions. In this context, Japanese employers are gradually recognising that care for older people is a business challenge and beginning to arrange support for combining work and care (Ikeda, 2021a).
Political context
Japan is almost a one-party state in which, since 1955, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in government for decades (sometimes in coalition
The LDP government established the National Health Insurance in 1958, the National Old Age Pension System in 1959 and the Act on Social Welfare for the Elderly (which regulates care services for older people) in 1963. These policies were introduced against a backdrop of high economic growth in the mid-20th century, although in the late 20th century (in response to low economic growth following the 1973 ‘oil crisis’) the government turned again to stress family care. Policy makers emphasised mutual support between adult children and their older parents in the context of both childcare and eldercare. It was expected that older people would receive care from their adult children in return for care of their infant grandchildren, and, despite an increase in nuclear families and single person households, a high level of co-residence of adult children and their parents.
With changes to older people’s households, governments began to recognise the importance of expanding social care services. The LTCI system established in 1997 was designed to reduce the amount of care families provide to older people by providing insurance-financed care services (Ikeda, 2000, 2002). Care for older people nevertheless still relies heavily on family support, due to insufficient provision of both services and funding (Shimoebisu, 2015).
In sum, LDP governments have supported both defamilialisation and refamilialisation of care for older people. Compared with some Anglo-Saxon countries, the Japanese government has established a comparatively generous system of long-term care and carer support (for example, the US and the UK have, respectively, no nationally legislated public care services and no long-term care leave with income security). Yet, compared with Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark (which have sufficient nursing facilities), the Japanese government has not expanded nursing or residential care facilities but has instead increased home care services under the LTCI. In this sense, the Japanese Government still depends on family care to supplement home care services. This is why, in the context of most international comparisons of welfare states, Japan is positioned as a familialist society.
Carer leave policies
Japanese care leave policy was legislated as a means of promoting gender equality, itself a core focus of the EEO Act 1985, which ratified the 1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of
Japan’s first care leave legislation, the Child Care Leave Act established in 1991, responding to the falling fertility rate, obliged employers to accept employees’ care leave applications. At the time it was common in Japan for women to leave their jobs after childbirth and the government was concerned that young working women would avoid having children so as not to give up their occupations and careers. The government’s ‘Angel Plan’ in 1995 expanded nurseries for infants and spread childcare leave to support mothers’ labour force participation. In practice, the childcare leave and nurseries had a demonstrably positive impact on mothers’ continued labour market participation (Imada and Ikeda, 2007). The Child Care Leave Act in 1991 was expanded in scope to include male employees. However, the number of fathers taking leave has been much lower than that of mothers. The government promoted fathers’ use of childcare leave based on the understanding that some men’s lack of engagement in child rearing was influencing the falling birth rate (MHLW, 2002).
Japan also faced issues regarding care of older people, influenced by rapid population ageing after World War II. To support women’s job continuation, it was thus also important to have policies to address long-term care. In 1995, the Child Care Leave Act was reformed as the Child and Family Care Leave Act. This established care leave for long-term care, in addition to leave to care for children (Sodei, 1995), and was also how the Japanese government ratified the International Labour Organization’s 1981 Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention (ILO, 1985).
In sum, the care leave policy embodied in the Child and Family Care Leave Act was originally aimed at promoting the welfare of female workers and gender equality. Since the mid-2000s, however, care leave policies have been regarded as economic measures, with the ultimate aim of improving labour force retention (Expert Research Committee on Work–Life Balance, 2008). Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stressed the labour force participation and career development of women (Cabinet Office, 2013), as also embodied in the Women’s Advancement Promotion Law established in 2015. He also focused on long-term care and declared prevention of job leaving for long-term care as an economic measure as well as a social security policy priority (Cabinet Office, 2016).
Short-term leave
Statutory short-term care leave allows workers to take time off work to care for eligible family members with an injury, physical or mental disability and associated issues (in provisions of the Child and Family Care Leave Act). Workers who take care of eligible family members in need of care can take up to five days off a year (ten days if there are two or more such family members). The worker can take this leave in one-hour increments or for one whole day. Workers whose work makes it difficult for them to take time off in one-hour increments can enter a labour-management agreement to take their leave in one-day increments. The worker is not paid or otherwise compensated for loss of earnings during this type of leave.
All employees (except day labourers) caring for a spouse, parents, children, parents-in-law, grandparents, siblings or grandchildren are eligible for this time off. The care provided must be because of an injury, illness or physical or mental disability that requires at least two weeks of constant care. Workers covered in labour-management agreements are not eligible for the leave if:
the worker has been employed at the current workplace for less than six months;
the worker works two scheduled days or less a week;
the worker is engaged in jobs unsuitable for time off in an hourly increments.
Notice must be given in writing, or by phone on the day, if the working carer is unable to apply in advance.
Long-term leave
Long-term care leave was designed to enable workers to address a situation involving the person they care for and to make longer-term arrangements for combining work and care, rather than to provide care directly. Based on this premise, the Child and Family Care Leave Act allows workers to take long-term leave for a maximum of 93 days (per relevant family member) to care for a family member needing care due to injury, illness or physical or mental disability that requires more than two weeks of constant care. ‘Family member’ includes a partner (including a common-law partner), parents, children (in a legal parent–child relationship, including adopted children), parents of the partner, grandparents, siblings and grandchildren. The 93 days’ leave can be split into one, two or three instalments. This long-term care
have worked at their current workplace for a year or more;
have at least 93 days and six months left on their contract from the start date of the care leave.
Workers covered in labour-management agreements are not eligible for the leave if:
the worker has been employed at the current workplace for less than a year;
the worker works two scheduled days or less a week;
the worker’s contract ends within 93 days after application for the Family Caregiver Leave.
The worker must apply in writing to their employer at least two weeks before the planned start date of the leave. The worker can defer the leave once, within the scope of the 93 days, by applying at least two weeks before the planned end date of the leave.
Table 8.1 shows the maximum length of long-term care leave that workplaces such as offices, factories or shops provide according to their work rules. Many workplaces (82.9 per cent) limit the care leave up to 93 days based on the statutory provision, although over 10 per cent accept the leave for one year or more.
Maximum length of long-term care leave in work rules of workplace
| Up to 93 days in total | Over 93 days and under 6 months | 6 months | Over 6 months and under 1 year | 1 year | Over 1 year | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work place with regulation on the maximum length of long-term care leave | 82.9% | 3.2% | 2.9% | 0.9% | 8.2% | 2.0% | 100.0% |
Table 8.2 shows how working carers use long-term care leave in practice. It shows that about half of employed working carers who take long-term care leave return to work within under one month (49.2 per cent); 55.5 per cent of male long-term care leave takers return to work within one week, although about one third of female long-term care leave takers need over three months. While some workplaces will accept workers taking care leave over the statutory 93 days if needed, the majority of employed working carers are adequately supported with using the 93 days divided into three portions.
Percentage of employed workers who returned from long-term care leave
| Under 1 week |
1 week or more and under 2 weeks | 2 weeks or more and under 1 month | 1 month or more and under 3 months | 3 months or more and under 6 months | 6 months or more and under 1 year | 1 year or more | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 26.1% | 5.8% | 17.3% | 25.3% | 7.4% | 11.0% | 7.1% | 100.0% |
| Female | 12.1% | 4.0% | 17.7% | 32.5% | 8.1% | 15.3% | 10.3% | 100.0% |
| Male | 55.5% | 9.8% | 16.4% | 10.2% | 5.9% | 1.9% | 0.4% | 100.0% |
Note: Every number rounds off to the second decimal place.
Source: MHLW (2022)Table 8.3 summarises the carer leave options available in Japan.
Carer leave schemes, Japan (November 2023)
| Leave details | Eligibility | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leave name and introduced | Time period | Compensation | Worker/employee status | Qualifying period | Person needing care | Evidence | Notice period and process |
| Short-term care leave, 2009 | 5 days (10 days if there are 2 or more such family members) per annum | Unpaid | All employees (but not day labourers) | Not eligible: working individuals in a labour-management agreement; people employed at the current workplace for less than 6 months and working 2 days or less per week | Spouse, parents, children, parents-in-law, grandparents, siblings or grandchildren | – | Notice given in advance in writing or over the telephone on the day in emergencies |
| Long-term care leave, 1995 | A total of 93 days per family member (the 93 days can be split into up to three separate blocks) | Unpaid but can receive up to 67% of salary through employment insurance system | All employees (but not day labourers); limited-term contract workers need a certain period left on their contract before the leave starts | Not eligible: working individuals in a labour-management agreement; people employed at their current workplace for less than 1 year; if the contract will end within 93 days after the application is made; people working 2 days or less per week | ‘Family member’ includes a partner (including a common-law partner), parents, children (in a legal parent–child relationship, including adopted children), parents of the partner, grandparents, siblings and grandchildren | – | Application in writing to their employer at least two weeks before the planned start date of the leave |
Other support measures
Flexible working arrangements
Additionally, employers are required to introduce flexible working arrangements, within specified options. These include arrangements to reduce scheduled working hours; flexitime; staggered time; and a financial subsidy to support use of care services that enable workers to care for a family member for at least three years. Workers can use the system twice or more within the three-year period.
Analysis of survey data on working carers conducted by the Japanese Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT) in 2019 showed that long-term care leave, exemption from overtime and staggered time may have positive implications for carers’ ability to remain in employment until their caring role ends, as Table 8.4 shows. In multivariate analysis, reducing scheduled working hours and flexitime time did not seem to have such an effect. Findings nevertheless indicate that exemption from overtime might be replaced by staggered time. As for systems of reducing scheduled hours, this may require redesign, in terms of hourly care leave, as hourly short-term care leave is available from 2021 (Ikeda, 2023). In sum, research has highlighted the importance of paying attention to the variety of ways in which short-term care leave, long-term care leave and flexible working arrangements can be combined to enable workers to address the various challenges they face when providing care.
Determinant factors of quitting jobs at the start of providing care by the end of providing care
| Explained variable (yes=1, no=0) | Job quitting by the end of providing care | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimation1 | Estimation2 | |||||||
| β | SE | EXP(β) | β | SE | EXP(β) | |||
| Sex (male=1, female=0) | –.589 | .176 | .555 | ** | –.609 | .178 | .544 | ** |
| Age at the start of providing care | .021 | .007 | 1.021 | ** | .021 | .007 | 1.021 | ** |
| Education (BM: high school) | ||||||||
| Junior college | –.256 | .172 | .774 | –.283 | .173 | .753 | ||
| College or graduate school | –.211 | .172 | .810 | –.222 | .173 | .801 | ||
| Terms of providing care | .213 | .017 | 1.238 | ** | .215 | .017 | 1.239 | ** |
| Jobs at the start of providing care | ||||||||
| Employment types (regular=1, non-regular=0) | –.293 | .179 | .746 | –.316 | .180 | .729 | ||
| Job categories (BM: clerical work) | ||||||||
| Professionals or managers | .272 | .195 | 1.312 | .259 | .196 | 1.296 | ||
| Sales or services | .235 | .185 | 1.265 | .232 | .186 | 1.261 | ||
| Blue-collar | –.187 | .212 | .830 | –.191 | .214 | .826 | ||
| Number of employees at company (100 and more=1,under 100=0) | .084 | .141 | 1.087 | .064 | .143 | 1.066 | ||
| Daily working hours (including overtime work) | .064 | .037 | 1.066 | .066 | .037 | 1.069 | ||
| Support system for balancing work and family care | ||||||||
| Long-term care leave | –.505 | .215 | .603 | * | –.466 | .227 | .628 | * |
| Exemption from overtime work | –.660 | .324 | .517 | * | –.523 | .362 | .593 | |
| Reducing scheduled working hours | – | .021 | .280 | 1.021 | ||||
| Flexitime | – | .387 | .252 | 1.473 | ||||
| Staggered working hours | – | –.682 | .283 | .506 | * | |||
| Constant | –3.067 | .489 | .047 | –3.036 | .491 | .048 | ** | |
| Chi-square | 230.78 | ** | 237.54 | ** | ||||
| Df | 13 | 16 | ||||||
| N | 1410 | 1410 | ||||||
| method: logistic regression | Yes=1, no=0 | ** p<.01, * p<.05 | ||||||
Note: BM = Bench Mark.
Source: Ikeda (2023: 89), using Survey on Work and Long-term Family Care (JILPT, 2019)COVID-19 pandemic response and implications for employed carers
In April 2020, during the global COVID-19 pandemic, the labour force participation rate in Japan reached a low of 61.5 per cent (rising to 62.2 per cent in August 2021). The (pre-pandemic) 2.4 per cent unemployment rate (February 2020) rose to a peak of 3.1 per cent in October 2020, and was 2.8 per cent as of August 2021, based on the Statistics Bureau of Japan’s Labour Force Survey (e-stat, 2023).
COVID-19 created additional demands on services, including childcare and care for older and disabled people. Nursery and school closures were mandated by an emergency declaration of the government in 2020, creating challenges for those combining work and childcare. Home care services for older people were also reduced to curb infection rates, but the implications for combining work and care for older people seem not to have been as severe (NHK, 2020).
A similar subsidy was available for parental leave to deal with the temporary closure of elementary schools in emergency situations. During the pandemic, parents faced challenges, caring for their children by themselves at home when elementary schools closed to prevent the spread of infection (Takami, 2021). The rationale for the subsidy for family care leave was based on the premise that carers of older people faced similar challenges to those experienced by parents needing to arrange childcare. In general, the system for supporting care for older people introduced in the Child and Family Care Leave Act and related measures follows similar support previously introduced for childcare. The subsidies for childcare and family care are based on the same idea, with the emergent situation related to childcare instigating the development of support for family care.
Adequacy of care leave policies
Equity/inclusivity
The Child and Family Care Leave Act was specifically designed to protect employees with permanent contracts with their employer, and thus excludes self-employed workers and people on temporary or fixed-term contracts. This has implications in terms of inequalities of coverage, as most full-time employees with long service records are male, while part-time and temporary workers are predominantly female. As a result, the Child and Family Care Leave Act may have the effect of widening the gender gap in employment security among working carers. Furthermore, current care leave policy does not support young carers who have not yet entered the labour market, although they experience challenges related to accessing education and in finding employment. Japanese care leave policy currently focuses on a rather narrow cohort of carers, lending support to the argument that the Japanese government should reform the policy to provide more comprehensive support for carers, including bringing more diverse groups of working carers, and young carers, within its remit.
Flexibility
In Japan, workers typically opt to use statutory paid annual leave (20 days per year, which can be carried over for up to one year) to provide periods of unpaid care (Sodei, 1995; JILPT, 2006). It was claimed that this reflects the greater flexibility, compared with the care leave policies, of the annual leave system (Sodei, 1995; JILPT, 2006; Nishimoto 2012). Responding to this, in 2009 the Child and Family Care Leave Act established annual short-term care leave (time off for family care) of up to five days, in addition to the
Job protection and income security
Workers who apply for, or who take, either short-term or long-term care leave are protected from disadvantageous treatment, such as dismissal, under the Child and Family Care Leave Act. Workers are not compensated at their full salary for either short-term leave or long-term leave. Instead, when taking long-term family care leave, they receive compensation (up to 67 per cent of normal salary) through the employment insurance system.
Other support measures applicable to carers
The Japanese government released ‘Model measures in workplace to prevent job leaving due to family care’ (MHLW, 2014), which includes pamphlets for employers and employees focused on preventing labour market exit due to long-term care. The pamphlets emphasised the importance of communication between employers and employees, encouraging the former to provide information about the support for working carers available to their employees. Identifying working carers is challenging for employers, as many workers try to combine work and care without telling their companies (Nishikubo, 2015; Ikeda, 2016); employers are therefore encouraged to create an open working environment (Nishikubo, 2015; Ikeda, 2016). Government has recommended that employers design their workplace policies in ways that reflect the lived experience of working carers, suggesting introducing surveys of their employees before designing measures to support them (Sato and Yajima, 2014). The Promotion and Research Project on Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management (2013, 2014, 2022), in the business school of Chuo University, undertakes employee surveys in response to employers’ requests in order to highlight the challenges related to providing support to facilitate the combination of work and family care.
Employees also need to communicate with others who are part of their caring networks, including care recipients, other family members and care workers before leaving the labour market, and we recommend that the government should provide further guidance to support these discussions.
At a glance, care leave and other support systems for combining work and care look comprehensive in Japan and seem to be focused on the defamilialisation of care. There is statutory long-term care leave of up to 93 days; annual short-term care leaves of up to five days a year; and flexible working arrangements for up to three years, as well as exemption from overtime work until the end of long-term care. The long-term family care leave provides income replacement at 67 per cent of recipients’ wages.
However, it is not clear that these care leave policies are sufficient for working carers. The numbers who take either short or long-term care leave are very small, arguably because the framework for the care leave does not fit with the realities of working carers’ needs (JILPT, 2006; Ikeda, 2010, 2017a; MHLW, 2015). It is also possible that the LTCI reduced the need for long-term family care leave, which is supposed to be taken before care recipients begin to use care services (Ikeda, 2010). On the other hand, family carers need to be able to change their working hours flexibly after the expansion of home care services, which are more widely available since the introduction of the LTCI and intended to release family carers from the daily provision of care (Shimizutani and Noguchi, 2005; JILPT, 2006; Ikeda, 2010). It is often said the provision of care services through the LTCI is insufficient, especially for full-time working carers, as there is a mismatch between the usage time frames of home care services and the working hours of family carers. In response, the government expanded the usage time frame of home care services and improved flexible working arrangements (MHLW, 2015; JILPT, 2020; Ikeda, 2021a, 2021b; 2023).
In an attempt to fill the gap between the care leave policy and the realities of working carers’ needs, the 2016 amendment of the Child and Family Care Leave Act allowed workers to divide the leave period over the course of the year, enabling them to return to their workplace as soon as possible. The amendment did not oblige employers to reduce the scheduled working hours, as is required in cases of childcare, however; instead, an exemption from overtime work was introduced. Reducing scheduled working hours, along with optional flexible working arrangements such as flexitime and staggered working time, is still based on the assumption that changes in scheduled working hours must be adapted to the varied situations of people providing care (MHLW, 2015; Ikeda, 2019, 2021a). It is true that some working carers are eager to reduce their scheduled working hours, even if their income or opportunities at work are similarly reduced; however, others prefer staggered time or flexitime, keeping the overall length of their working hours, if they need to change their start or end time of work to provide care (JILPT, 2015; MHLW, 2015; Ikeda, 2021a, 2021b).
Looking to the future, the LTCI system may face further challenges with continued ageing of the population. The challenges faced by the childcare
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that it remains unclear whether current statutory care leave policies in Japan adequately address working carers’ difficulties in combining work and care. The Child and Family Care Leave Act focuses on the conflict between work and providing care in terms of attendance during working hours. Although many working carers have caring demands that conflict with working schedules, there are also care tasks that fall during non-working hours and through the night, leading to fatigue. This issue, which affects carers’ health, is particularly acute in care for older people (Ikeda, 2014, 2015, 2017b), and pent-up fatigue, due to providing care at night, sometimes causes presenteeism in the workplace (Ikeda, 2015), where working carers are not absent but do not work at their full capacity or potential. The Child and Family Care Leave Act, in its focus on time management between work and providing care, does not address this problem.
To gain further insight into the challenges carers of older adults face, in contrast to those with childcare responsibilities, the government has recommended that employers survey their workforce to find out about workers’ care responsibilities and what support would be most appropriate. Carers’ experiences and perspectives are diverse, with some appreciating the ability to take leave to provide care, while others would like respite care. For others, to ensure the care they provide is sustainable, work provides a form of opportunity to distance from the people they care for and taking care long-term
References
Abegglen, J.C. (1958) The Japanese factory: Aspects of its social organization, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Cabinet Office (2013) ‘Basic policies for economic and fiscal management and reform: ending deflation and revitalizing the economy’. Available from: https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai1/2013/20130614_2013_basicpolicies_e.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
Cabinet Office (2016) ‘Basic policy on economic and fiscal management and reform 2016’. Available from: https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai1/basicpolicies-e/archives.html [Accessed 24 January 2024].
Cabinet Office (2022) ‘Annual report on the ageing society’ [Published in Japanese]. Available from: https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/whitepaper/w-2022/zenbun/04pdf_index.html [Accessed 24 January 2024].
Dore, R. (1973) British factory – Japanese factory: The origins of national diversity in industrial relations, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social foundations of post-industrial economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
e-stat (2023) Labour force survey. Available from: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/stat-search/files?page=1&layout=datalist&toukei=00200531&tstat=000000110001&cycle=1&year=20200&month=12040604&tclass1=000001040276&tclass2=000001040277&result_back=1&tclass3val=0 [Accessed 23 November 2023].
Expert Research Committee on Work–Life Balance (2008) ‘Merit for enterprise to tackle work life balance, Council for Gender Equality, Cabinet Office’. [Published in Japanese]. Available from: https://www.gender.go.jp/kaigi/senmon/wlb/pdf/wlb-0.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
Fujisaki, H. (2009) ‘The long-term care insurance and defamilization and refamilization of elderly care’, Japanese Journal of Welfare Studies, 6: 41–57. [Published in Japanese]
Hazama, H. (1996) The thought which made the Japanese economic miracle: Labor ethos in high economic growth, Tokyo: Bunshin-do. [Published in Japanese]
Hirayama, R. (2014) In the face of the age of sons giving care: An insight from the lives of 28 caregivers, Tokyo: Kobunsha. [Published in Japanese]
Hirayama, R. (2017) Sons who care: A blind side of masculinities and analyzing care from the perspective of gender, Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2000) ‘The principle of subsidiarity and long-term care insurance’, Journal of Social Security Research, 36(2): 200–9. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda S. (2002) ‘The thought and system of long-term care insurance’, in W. Ohmori (ed), Elderly care and support for independence: The aims of long-term care insurance, Kyoto: Minerva Shobo, pp 115–43. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2010) ‘Leaving jobs for long-term care and the need for family care leave: the need for consecutive time off and factors determining leaving employment’, Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 599: 88–103. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2013) ‘A new issue of supporting combining work with care: addressing working caregivers’ fatigue’. JILPT Discussion Paper 13-01. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2014) ‘Working carers’ fatigue and taking time off’, Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 643: 41–8. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2015) ‘The impacts of working caregivers’ health on their work. In combining work and care’, JILPT Research Report, 170: 70–88. Tokyo: JILPT. [Published in Japanese]
Ikeda, S. (2016) ‘Addressing the issue of fatigue among working carers: the next challenge after reforming the family care leave system’, Japan Labor Review, 13(2): 111–26.
Ikeda, S. (2017a) ‘Family care leave and job quitting due to caregiving: focus on the need for long-term leave’, Japan Labor Review, 14(1): 25–44.
Ikeda, S. (2017b) ‘Supporting working carers’ job continuation in Japan: prolonged care at home in the most aged society’, International Journal of Care and Caring, 1(1): 63–82.
Ikeda, S. (2019) ‘Combining work and family care in Japan: Part II: What is the challenge after reforming the long-term care leave system?’ Japan Labor Issues, 3(5): 18–23.
Ikeda, S. (2021a) Combining work and family care, Diversity Management Series, Tokyo: Chuo-Keizai-Sha.
Ikeda, S. (2021b) ‘The necessity of reduced working hours under the re-familization of elderly care’, Japan Labor Issues, 5(30): 16–33.
Ikeda, S. (2023) ‘Structure of job quitting for caregiving: workers’ needs for support to balance work and long-term care under the Child and Family Care Leave Act’, JILPT 4th term Project Research Series No.4.
Imada, S. (1996) ‘Women’s employment and job continuity’, The Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 433: 37–48. [Published in Japanese]
Imada, S. and Ikeda, S. (2007) ‘The problem of women’s job continuity and the childcare leave system’, Japan Labor Review, 4( 2): 139–60.
Inagami, T. (2005) Post-industrial society and Japanese corporate society, Kyoto: MINERVA Shobo. [Published in Japanese]
International Labour Organization (1985) ILO’s Convention on Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (C156). Available from: https://www.ilo.org/century/history/iloandyou/WCMS_213324/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed 29 November 2023].
Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT) (2006) ‘For expanded use of family care leave system: report on the Study of Utilization of Family Care Leave System and Related Matters’, JILPT Research Report (73). [Published in Japanese] Summary in English available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/english/reports/documents/jilpt-research/no73.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
JILPT (2015) ‘Combining work and care’, JILPT Research Report (170). Tokyo: JILPT. [Published in Japanese] Summary in English available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/english/reports/jilpt_research/2015/no.170.html [Accessed 24 January 2024].
JILPT (2019) ‘Survey on Work and Long-term Family Care’, JILPT Research Report (204). Tokyo: JILPT. Available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/english/reports/jilpt_research/2020/no.204.html [Accessed 2 January 2024].
JILPT (2020) ‘Combining work and care under the re-familization of elderly care in Japan’, JILPT Research Report (204). Tokyo: JILPT. [Published in Japanese] Summary in English available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/english/reports/jilpt_research/2020/no.204.html [Accessed 24 January 2024].
Kasuga, K. (2001) Sociology of long-term care issues, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. [Published in Japanese]
Kröger, T. and Yeandle, S. (eds) (2013) Combining paid work and family care: Policies and experiences in international perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Maeda, N. (1998) ‘The effects in the extended household on women in work force’, The Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 459: 25–38 [Published in Japanese]
MHLW (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour) (2002) The further countermeasures against falling birthrate. [Published in Japanese] Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/09/h0920-1.html?msclkid= e4fd51fdceb011ec918ba9a4c14995bf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
MHLW (2014) ‘Model measures in workplace to prevent job leaving due to family care’, Tokyo: MHLW.
MHLW (2015) ‘Report of working group on support for work family balance in the future’, Tokyo: MHLW. [Published in Japanese.]
MHLW (2017) ‘Annual health, labour and welfare report 2017’. [Published in Japanese.] Summary in English available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw11/dl/summary.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
MHLW (2022) Basic survey of gender equality in employment management. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/71-23.html [Accessed 24 November 2023].
MHLW (2023) ‘Report of working group on balance support between work and child care and family care in the future’. [Published in Japanese] Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11909500/001108929.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2024].
NHK (2020) Close up gendai, 23 April.
Nishikubo, K. (2015) Crisis of elderly care: How Japanese companies can prepare for the risk of loss of human resources, Tokyo, Jumpo-sha. [Published in Japanese]
Nishimoto, M. (2012) ‘Taking family leave from employment: does a system compatible with family care and employment exist?’ Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 623: 71–84. [Published in Japanese]
Osawa, M. (1993) Beyond enterprise-centered society: Reading contemporary Japan from gender perspective, Tokyo: Jiji-Tsushin-Sha. [Published in Japanese]
Prime Minister’s Office of Japan (2015) Revising Japan revitalization strategy 2015. Available from: https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/dai1en.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2023].
Promotion and Research Project on Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management (2013) ‘Problems on companies’ support system on combining work and family care which enable employees’ job continuation: research report on employees’ needs of support for family care 2011–2012’, Business School of Chuo University. [Published in Japanese]
Promotion and Research Project on Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management (2014) ‘Problems in supporting employees who have possibilities of facing family care or who actually face the family care: survey on combining work and family care 2014’, Business School of Chuo University. [Published in Japanese]
Promotion and Research Project on Work–Life Balance and Diversity Management (2022) ‘Problems of employees combining work and Family Care in 3 participant companies’, Business School of Chuo University. [Published in Japanese]
Sato, H. and Yajima, Y. (2014) Protecting employees from job leaving due to family care: A new problem of work–life balance, Rodo Chosa Kai.
Shimizutani, S. and Noguchi, H. (2005) ‘What accounts for the onerous care burden at home in Japan? Evidence from household data’, Keizai Bunseki, 175: 1‒32. [Published in Japanese]
Shimoebisu, M. (2015) ‘Position of the family in care policies’, Japanese Journal of Family Sociology, 27(1): 49–60. [Published in Japanese]
Shinkawa, T. (2014) Turning point of welfare state reform: Labor, welfare, liberty, Kyoto: Minerva-Shobo. [Published in Japanese]
Sodei, T. (1989) ‘Women and elderly care’, in M. Ozawa, N. Kumura and H. Ibu (eds), Women’s lifecycle: Comparing income security between Japan and US, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, pp 127–49. [Published in Japanese]
Sodei, T. (1995) ‘The issues and meanings of the family care leave system’, Japanese Journal of Labor Studies, 427: 12–20.
Statistics Bureau (2017) Employment status survey. Available from: https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/shugyou/index.html [Accessed 23 November 2023].
Takami, T. (2021) ‘Working hours under the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan’, Japan Labor Issues, 5(30): 2–10.
Takeishi, E. (2006) Employment system and women’s careers, Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. [Published in Japanese]
Takeishi, E. and Takasaki, M. (2020) Supporting womens’ career development, Diversity Management Series, Tokyo: Chuo-Keizai-Sha.
Tsudome, M. and Saito, M. (2007) White paper on male carers, Kyoto: Kamogawa-Press. [Published in Japanese]
Winicott, D.W. (1965) The maturational processes and facilitating environment, London: Hogarth.
Yamato, R. (2008) The making of life-long carers in Japan: Reconstructed generational relationship and strong rooted gender relationships, Tokyo: Gakubun-Sha. [Published in Japanese]
Yokoyama, F. (2002) Postwar Japan’s policies on women, Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. [Published in Japanese]
