WORKING MOTHERS IN FINLAND : A MODEL FOR JAPAN OR NOT? HARUKA MATSUOKA

INTRODUCTION FINLAND

‣ Finland Size of land: 338,000 ㎢ Population: 5,430,000 Capital: Helsinki Official languages: Finnish & Swedish Letters from Santa Claus(2013) Fig2. Map of Finland

The current situation of working women in Japan ‣ Fig1. Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate by Age Series Source: Gender Equal Bureau Cabinet Office (2011)

‣ Gender Gap Index(2013) Source: Yomiuri shimbun (2013)

Source: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training(2009:13) ‣ Fig.2 Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate in Japan and Finland

‣ Fig.3 Changes of the Total Fertility Rate in Finland and Japan Source: Takahashi, Tamminen, Watanabe(2009:46)

 1.Introduction  2.Defining terms  3.Evidences for a model  4.Evidences for not a model  5.Analysis  6.Conclusion OUTLINE

 Model ＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate (Oxford Dictionary:2013)  Working mothers ＝ mothers who have full-time jobs DEFINING TERMS

⇒ Is the social system of Finland an ideal one for full-time working mothers to cope with continuing their careers and bringing up their children which Japan can take for a model? ‣ The question is…

 1.Introduction  2.Defining terms  3.Evidences for a model  4.Evidences for not a model  5.Analysis  6.Conclusion OUTLINE

 3.1 Government support  3.2 Consciousness of Finns  3.3 Short working hours EVIDENCES FOR A MODEL

3.1 Government support The durationThe allowance Maternity leave105 working days→90% (The first 56 working days) →70-75% (the rest of that) Parental leave158 working days70-75% Paternity leave58 working days70-75% Source: Mikko(2013:28-30) Table1. Finnish Leave in Relation etc.

ネウボラ 育児パッケージ A model ＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

3.2 Consciousness of Finns The durationThe allowanceThe usage rate Maternity leave105 working days→90%(The first 56 working days) →70-75%(The rest of that) All mothers Parental leave158 working days70-75%Almost all mothers 23% of fathers used partly(2010) Paternity leave58 working days70-75%80% of fathers Source: Mikko(2013:28-30) Table2. Finnish Leave in Relation etc. and the Usage Rate

Fig4. Daily Housework Carried out by Men and Women in Finland Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:55) A model ＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

3.3 Short working hours ‣ The average annual working time (2012) Finland: 1672 hours (OECD 2013a) Japan: 1745 hours ＋？？？ (OECD 2013b) A model ＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

 1.Introduction  2.Defining terms  3.Evidences for a model  4.Evidences for not a model  5.Analysis  6.Conclusion OUTLINE

 4.1 The demerit of “big government”  4.2 The high divorce rate  4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation EVIDENCES FOR NOT A MODEL

4.1 The demerit of “big government” ‣ The high consumption tax A tax on value added is 23%! (Zenkoku Kanzeikai Sorengokai 2012) ‣ too intrusive social security system “From cradle to grave!” Not a model

4.2 The high divorce rate ‣ Finnish divorce rate: about 50%(2012) (Statistics Finland 2013) Not a model

4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation Fig5: The proportion of employees classified by industry groups in gender in Finland Source: Hashimoto(2006:43)

Fig6: Gender wage gap (2006) Source: Gender Equal Bureau Cabinet Office(2010)

Fig7: Gender wage Gap ( ) Not a model Source: OECD(2013c:1)

 1.Introduction  2.Defining terms  3.Evidences for a model  4.Evidences for not a model  5.Analysis  6.Conclusion OUTLINE

 3.1 Government support  3.2 Consciousness of Finns  3.3 Short working hours  4.1 The demerit of “big government”  4.2 The high divorce rate  4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation ANALYSIS

3.1Government support The duration The allowance Maternity leave 105 working days →90% (The first 56 working days) →70-75% (the rest of that) Parental leave 158 working days 70-75% Paternity leave 58 working days 70-75% The durationThe allowance Maternity leave 14 weeks2/3 Childcare leave (for both mother and father) 1.5 years50% Table3. Finnish Leave in Relation etc.Table4. Japanese Leave in Relation etc. Not so different!! However, there are many other services to support mothers keeping their jobs Japan don’t have. Source: Mikko(2013:28-30) Source: Asahi Shimbun(2013); Nikkei Shimbun(2013)

3.2 Consciousness of Finns Fig8. Worker’s Opinion about the Reaction of Workplace to Using Leaves in Finland Source: Hashimoto(2006:40)

Fig9. Daily Housework Carried out by Men and Women in Finland Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:55)

3.3 Short working hours Source: 社会実情データ図録 (2013) Fig. 10 Proportion of Long Time workers(2010)

Source: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training(2009:13) Fig11. 継続就業のために会社に希望すること（複数回答） ( 平成１６年） (in Japan)

4.1 The demerit of “big government” TAX ⇒ Various social services ⇒ Creating the equality

4.2 The high divorce rate Fig.12 Type of Family in Finland Source: Hashimoto(2006:36) ‣ The values about marriage and divorce

4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation Table3. Number and Proportion of Director in 100 Finnish Biggest Companies Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:54)

 1.Introduction  2.Defining terms  3.Evidences for a model  4.Evidences for not a model  5.Analysis  6.Conclusion OUTLINE

A MODEL  3.1 Government support ★★  3.2 Consciousness of Finns ★  3.3 Short working hours ★★★ NOT A MODEL  4.1 demerit of “big government” ★  4.2 High divorce rate ★  4.3 Gender gap in the type of occupation ★★★ CONCLUSION Working mothers in Finland can be a model for Japan!!

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING