Support Systems of Working Cares in Japan and Taiwan-Controls and Globalisation

1. Support Systems of Working Cares in Japan and Taiwan-Controls and Globalisation Masaya Shimmei & Yueh-ChingChou 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

2. 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

4. 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 carersof 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

5. Related legislation in Japan

6. 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)

7. 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 caregivera 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 3 • 2009: Welfare of Older PeopleAct: 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

8. 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 vacuumof 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?

9. 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

10. 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 carersto 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

11. Workshop F: East Asian countriesSupport 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?