Introduction

Japanese society is ageing rapidly. Currently over 20% of the people in Japan are over 65 years old, and this proportion will grow to 27.8% in 2020. How to cope with this ageing population has been on the agenda as an urgent policy issue since the 1980s, and continuous welfare reforms were made in the 1990s. The most important policy development in this field was the introduction of public Long-term Care Insurance (LTCI) in 2000. This aimed to reduce the heavy burden on the informal care system (the family) and to socialise the care of older people by expanding community-based social care services. Five years on, a review of LTCI is in progress. This chapter will explore current issues concerning Japanese social care policy and informal care.

An outline of the social care system for older people in Japan

The Japanese welfare system has been characterised by its residual aspects, in which care for older people was traditionally given mainly by the family, and more precisely by women. However, this arrangement should not be seen as explained by tradition or culture. At one point, Japan tried to develop the western style of welfare state, and the social service programme was expanding until the first oil crisis interrupted Japanese economic development. Then, in the late 1970s and 1980s, a popular argument arose, in favour of a Japanese-style welfare society in which the family and the informal sector would play a greater role in social care (Hiraoka, 2006). This was typical of the political ideologies of the period of low economic growth, which attempted to stem the expansion of social expenditure. It was argued that the Japanese welfare system should find its own development path, based on Japanese culture and tradition, rather than adopt a western-style welfare state.

Even though the ‘Japanese-style welfare society’ is a mere political slogan, the Japanese residual welfare system remained until at least the 1990s. Public social care for older people was provided on the basis of assessment of needs and financed by taxation and income-related charges. Eligibility was judged by local authorities, which had broad discretion.