Support Systems of Working Cares in Japan and Taiwan-Controls and Globalisation Masaya Shimmei & Yueh-Ching Chou Masaya Shimmei: Human Care Research Team, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Yueh-Ching Chou: Institute of Health & Welfare Policy, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

Distinctive features of the East-Asian welfare system Fast population aging and policy learning process Confucian remnants and family obligations Generous public policies to elder populations Relatively well established disability benefits Strong labour market orientation with welfare system Strong central government control Strong influence of medical and health services

Support available to carers through statutory employment rights and working time/place flexibility CountryCarers of seriously ill or disabled childrenCarers of frail, sick or disabled older peopleCarers of sick or disabled partners Japan Paid family care leave, max. 93 days for each family member (self-employed not eligible). Paid or unpaid nursing leave for 5 days per year (10 days per year if more than one dependant). Legal right to request flexible working: employers must offer carers i) shortened working hours; ii) flexible working time; iii) limitation of extra working hours, up to one year per application. Taiwan Unpaid parental leave for 2 years (until child’s 3 rd birthday), parents without labour insurance. Unpaid leave to care for relatives. Paid parental leave (60% of salary) parents (one at a time) with children aged 6 mths-3 yrs, parents with labour insurance. Paid care leave, 5 days p.a. children <12 yrs, civil servants only. Flexible working or unpaid one-hour early leave, employees with children <3 yrs, companies with 30+ employees only. Publicly-funded support available to carers through national social and healthcare systems Japan Healthcare system (with 30% user fees). Social services Community carer support programme within LTCI (training, carer exchange, support schemes). Some respite services for carers under the Basic Law for Persons with Disabilities and LTCI Early intervention support services. Nursing care at home. Short-term hospitalization. Day service for disabled children. Specialist medical care. Taiwan Variable, discretionary LA-funded carer services (respite, training, support groups, counseling, information). Universal insurance-funded healthcare (NHI) system. Financial support available to carers through state welfare benefits and social security arrangements Japan Family Care Leave Supplement (through unemployment insurance, for carers with prior employment record only). Special Child Rearing Allowance. Family Caregiver Benefit (some municipalities only).Income tax allowance. Welfare Allowance for Children with Severe Disabilities. Income tax allowance. Taiwan Income tax allowance. Special Care Allowance for low income citizens (family carers aged and without a full-time job only).

Commonality and differences in support to carers in Japan and in Taiwan Commonality Compartmentalised public and financial support for carers through state and social security benefits Differences Japan Universal statutory employment rights to all range of carers More flexible and generous paid leaves Public financial (fringe) benefits for carers of disabled children and for disabled partners Taiwan Care for family members (older/disabled) --Family responsibility Public policies/benefits provided for care recipients but not carers Paid care leave only available for care for young children aged less than 3 since 2009 Employers/support from workplace--never been involved (lack of flexible working hours or part-time job provided) Policies being developed, e.g., Care for young child less than 3 has been concerned since 2002 Care for older people –LTCI under developed (2016 LTCI law might be issued)—paid concern to older people (ageing population 37% in 2050) instead of carers Care for disabled children --lack of attention Care for disabled spouse aged younger than 65-- new issue

Related legislation in Japan 1950s 60s Major social welfare legislations 1970s1972:Working Women Welfare Act 1980s1986:Equal Employment Opportunity Act for Men and Women 1990s 1995:Childcare and Family Leave Act (Revised) extended to care of ‘other family members’ in addition to childcare, employers recommended to offer family care leave. 1999: Childcare and Family Leave Act (Revised) obliged employers to offer family care leave. 1998: Law to Promote Specified Nonprofit Activities (NPO Law) 1999:Equal Employment Opportunity Act for Men and Women (Revised) Labor segration strictly prohibited 2000s 2000: Long Term Care Insurance Act: (includes a family carer support programme). 2000: The Basic Structural Reform of Social Welfare 2001: Family Care Leave extended / amended. 2002: Family Care Leave extended / amended ： Support Fee System for Disabled 2004: Family Care Leave extended / amended. 2005: Family Care Leave extended / amended. 2005:Long-term Care Insurance Act: (Major Revision) 2006:Abolish Support Fee System for disabled and legislated Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities Act 2009: Childcare and Family Care Leave Act (revised)

Direction of Policy Change in Japan Policy response (Japan) The Basic Structural Reform of Social Welfare (2000) (1) To establish a system which respects individuals’ choice (2) To expand high-quality welfare services (3) To improve regional welfare to give comprehensive support to achieve individuals’ independent life Implementation Policy learning Different stage of social developments and response at the policy level corresponding policy learning (Glendinning et al, 2009; Colombo et al, 2011) BeforeAfter Unit of InterventionHouseholdIndividual Service ProvisionQuasi-publicPrivatised Decision for service useAdministrative dispositionContract based

Direction of Policy Change in Taiwan 1991: live in migrant care workers available for family to hire through the application from the Council of Labour ( 306 care workers in 1991; 197,854 in 2011) NGO /parental groups + LA: 1993: Respite care initially introduced (in Taipei City) Parental group/NGO+ law makers  1997: Disabled Persons (Respite Care) Act (20 days a year) Family Carer or family caregiver a new term Taiwan Association of Family Caregivers (TAFC), established in 1996, by health professionals, scholars and carers Lack of concern by woman group gender equality movement: 2002: Gender Equality in Employment Act: unpaid leave to care for relatives 2004: 5 days per year paid care leave (govt. officials only). 2007: Welfare of Older People Act: included Special Care Allowance to mid- or low-income senior citizens 2007: Welfare of People with Disabilities Act: LAs to co-operate with NGOs on respite/ carers’ services. 2009: Employment Insurance Act: unpaid care leave for carers of family members paid care leave for parents with children aged less than : Welfare of Older People Act: LAs to co-operate with NGOs on respite/carers’ services. 2016: LTCI Act: care allowance (in cash) to family carers or care recipients, under debated TAFC campaigns on four main issues: one day a week respite for family carers; paid family care leave; inclusion of family carers in the forthcoming Long-term Care Services Act (drafted in 2011); and economic security for carers

Strength and weakness of support system for carers in Japan Strength Fiscal control Individualized unit of intervention, less family obligations Job creation Capacity building of human resources Weakness Unclear distinction between household and individual, creating vacuum of responsibility between public and private Compartmentalised legislation between carers of elder and disabled, no or limited support for spouse carers Shortage of manpower Less impact of voluntary organisations supporting carers No cash benefits to cares?

Strength and weakness of support system for carers in Taiwan Strength Social movement/NGOs strong: woman groups, disabled and older people groups, carer association Social change in democratic society: nothing impossible Weakness Citizens: Family responsibility –majority people: filial piety Care still a family affair > dedomesticalised, degendered, NGOS: different preference: eg. Migrant care workers Association for migrant care worker: equal pay for local and migrant workers—family affairs law Disabled and older people association—cheap fee for migrant care worker Government: election oriented > civil rights/well-beings International force: Taiwan isolated

Conclusion and recommendations Conclusion Japan - consensus built, entitlement enlarged but still compartmentalised beneficiaries Taiwan - in the phase of building consensus among women, cooperatives and the government Policy Recommendations Dissemination of the concepts of support to carers in order to enhance its positive implementation at work place Resolve the chasm between individual and household responsibilities Define clear state responsibilities and develop intermediary organisations supporting carers to effectively provide indivualised service Streamline the benefits for carers of all the categories on the ground of universalism Set a standard with regard to qualification of care workers and construct decent labor market through capacity building

Workshop F: East Asian countries Support Systems for Working Carers in Japan and Taiwan - Controls and Globalisation 1. What is distinctive or important about this welfare system? 2. What differences are there in the two countries? 3. What is the direction of change in these countries? 4. What are the strengths / weaknesses of the support this system offers to working carers?