A Challenge of Japan’s Welfare Society:
Message to the World from the Japan Welfare Sociology Association

Japan Welfare Sociology Association

I. HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE JAPAN WELFARE SOCIOLOGYASSOCIATION (Fukushi Shakai Gakkai)
In this section the history and current status of the Japan Welfare Sociology Association will be
described.
In English-speaking countries one rarely finds books entitled “welfare sociology” or “thesociology of welfare,” compared to an abundance of books with phrases like “welfare economics”
and “the economics of welfare” in their titles. This may reflect the fact that “welfare economics” isalready established as a subfield in economics in those countries, while “welfare sociology” is not insociology. In contrast, the term “welfare sociology” (fukushi shakai gaku) has long been popular inJapanese sociology. The Japan Welfare Sociology Association (Fukushi Shakai Gakkai, hereafter
JWSA) was established in 2003 as one of the “hyphen-sociology” associations of sociology.1
Welfare sociology is a subfield of sociology which deals with “welfare” based on sociologicalresearch methods. The research issues of researchers who belong to JWSA cover a wide range of
topics. Referring to the categories of Research Committees of International Sociological Association,
the topics overlap with RC11 (Sociology of Aging), RC15 (Sociology of Health), RC19 (Poverty,
Social Welfare, and Social Policy), RC41 (Sociology of Population), RC49 (Mental Health andIllness), and RC55 (Social Indicators). The study of “care” (including child care, long-term care, andhealth care) and disability studies are other issues tackled by many members.
JWSA was officially established on June 28th, 2003. It is a relatively young academic
association with a history of only eleven years. However, there is a long history of welfare sociology
in Japan before the establishment of JWSA. Professor MATSUBARA Haruo, who was coeditor of
Welfare Sociology (Fukushi Shakaigaku), which was published from Yuhikaku Publishing in 1966,
continued theoretical investigations into the possibility of welfare sociology. Professor SOEDA
Yoshiya, who co-edited the book and later became the first president of JWSA, continued empiricalresearch on some issues of welfare sociology. In the 1970s, Professor TOMINAGA Ken’ichi andother Japanese sociologists launched a research project on social design and social indicators.
In the 1980s, when there were heated arguments on the “crisis of the welfare state” in European
countries, Japanese social scientists had just begun to study welfare states on a full scale, led by aresearch project of the Institute of Social Science at Tokyo University. Japan was a “belated welfare1

One of the associated academic societies is Japanese Society for the Study of Social Welfare(Shakai Fukushi Gakkai), which is an interdisciplinary society on social work and social welfare
policy. The two societies partly overlap in research issues and methods, partly not.
193

state.” After the late 1980s, in the National Institute of Social Security a comparative research
project was carried out at full swing that was headed by a younger generation of sociologists. In thesame period, academic research on the practices of social work and social support was conducted bysome sociologists based on the framework of sociology, not social work.
These different streams of sociological research formed the basis of JWSA in 2003. Since then,
the number of JWSA members has been on the increase, amounting to almost 500 as of June 2013.
The average age of the members of JWSA appears to be relatively low compared to otherhyphen-sociology associations in Japan.
JWSA has sponsored an annual meeting every year since 2003 in which several oral sessions
and symposia are organized. In principle, the sessions are held in Japanese. The number ofparticipants of each meeting amounts to 100 to 200. The annual meeting of 2011 was planned to takeplace at Tohoku University in Sendai when the Great East Japan Earthquake hit the Tohoku region.
Although great confusion prevailed in Japanese society after 3.11, 2011, we decided and managed tohold the annual meeting at Tokyo Metropolitan University. Besides the annual meetings, JWSA
sponsors research meetings several times a year in different regions of Japan, amounting to 39 times
in total as of December 2012.
The other major work of JWSA is publishing an annual scholarly journal (Journal of Welfare
Sociology), which carries original papers, book reviews, and featured articles based on the
symposium of the past year. The trend of original papers published in the journal shows that a large
proportion of the papers are based on qualitative methods, presumably reflecting the fact that active
members of JWSA belong to a younger generation. The issues of the papers range widely, including
themes such as care (elderly care and child care), volunteers, NGOs/NPOs, and comparative social
policies. The themes of featured articles of the journal reflect social issues in Japan. In the 2012 and2013 issues the articles dealt with themes concerning the problems of social welfare after the Great
East Japan Earthquake. Needless to say, these various issues reflect Japan’s unique experience insocial change, such as an exceptionally high level of ageing and fertility decline.
In 2013, JWSA reached its ten-year anniversary. In celebration of this, JWSA edited a book
(Handbook of Welfare Sociology, published from Gyosei) under the leadership of MIENO Takashi,
the current President of JWSA. A ten-year anniversary symposium was also held during the 11th
annual meeting at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. The chapters included in this book reflect thecurrent research interests of JWSA members.
In the same year, the Welfare Sociology Series was published in four volumes from Universityof Tokyo Press. Most of the authors of these volumes are members of JWSA. The content of thevolumes is as the following: TAKEGAWA Shogo, ed., Welfare sociology of the public sphere: Whatis a fair society?; SOEDA Yoshiya, ed., Welfare sociology of conflict: Society as dramaturgy;
FUJIMURA Masayuki, ed., Welfare sociology of cooperation: Solidarity in an individualizedsociety; SHOJI Yoko, ed., Welfare sociology of the intimate sphere: Social relationships woven bycare practices.
As a young association, JWSA is still developing and changing. One of the important tasks for
JWSA is boosting international research collaboration and academic interchange. Our foremost task
194should be to render our journal and annual meeting more accessible to foreign scholars, thus sharing
Japan’s experience in welfare and social policies with sociologists worldwide. Besides this,comparative research projects on the various institutions and practices concerning “welfare” indifferent countries would be most fruitful. We hope that there will be a richer interchange between
JWSA and ISA members interested in “welfare sociology” in the 21st century world.
(TAKEGAWA Shogo and TABUCHI Rokuro)

II. JAPAN’S PROPOSITION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE JAPAN WELFARE
SOCIOLOGY ASSOCIATIONThe Japan Welfare Sociology Association (JWSA) consists of researchers who share an interestin the welfare society. The term “welfare society” is used almost as a synonymous term with “civilsociety,” but without implying any negative connotations such as a dependence on society. However,the former better fits Japan’s context. The foundation of the JWSA lies in that term’s context.
This section focuses on three topics that demonstrate how the welfare society concept isintertwined with the distinctive nature of contemporary Japanese society. The topics are analternative notion of “public” and the public sphere based on a symbiotic government-private
relationship, the possible new roles of for-profit organizations in a mixed economy, and therelational aspects of “self” in defining oneself. They correspond to three different levels of
viewpoints—at the macro, mezzo, and micro levels, respectively.
1. Alternative Notion of “Public” and the Public Sphere Based on a Symbiotic
Government-Private Relationship
Confusion is rampant in discussions held in relation to the term “public.” Jürgen HABERMAS’
seminal work (1962, 1973) on the concept of “public” and the public sphere is well known in Japanand frequently cited even today. However, it is a challenge for Japanese scholars to understandHabermas’ theory because it is deeply ingrained within European historical and institutional contexts.
The theory’s interpretation is also influenced by how a scholar interprets Japan’s historical andinstitutional contexts. In addition, Japan’s welfare state regime is undergoing a transformation,
leading to changing relationships between the government and the private sector. “Public” (公,oh-yake) means government in Japan, and thus institutional changes necessitate the redefining of“public” to align with Japan’s transforming context. This changing situation deepens the alreadyexisting confusion in discussions about “public” and the public sphere (Nakamura, 2002).
Meanwhile, the concept of the welfare society has been widely used in Japan to summarize
interest in the quality of family and community life. However, the assumptions about governmentprivate relationship remain unchanged. Japan’s current economic prosperity was possible because ofa symbiotic relationship between a strong government and citizens who aspired to fulfill theirmaterial needs. The quality of family and community life is pursued within the same institutional
context. A typical example is the Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) system implemented in 2000.
195

LTCI is a governmental insurance program that provides a wide range of services, such as
institutionalized care, visiting nurses, and care workers for people aged 65 and older. The
government funds 50% of the cost; the other 50% is paid out of insurance premiums compulsorilycollected from people aged 40 and older. The co-payment of service users is 10%, and LTCI covers
the remaining cost. Numerous service organizations operating under LTCI create job opportunities.
Some for-profit service organizations add luxurious services to attract wealthy seniors; while
nonprofit organizations focus on supporting low-income seniors. Whatever the goal of a service
organization may be, the quality of service is closely monitored by the government. This situation
increases options from which a service user can safely choose service providers according to theirpreferences. Each party related to LTCI—the government, service users and their families, workers,
and private service organizations—takes on certain responsibilities and receives specific benefits.
The public welcomes government intervention and both for-profit and nonprofit organizations learn
to play on the same field for the public’s benefit.
The symbiotic relationship between the government and the private sector in Japan contrasts
with the Western perspective, which is cautious about “the functional imperatives of highly
formalized domains,” such as administrative-governmental function “penetrat[ing] into the private
and public spheres” where citizens discourse and collaborate (Habermas, 1987: p. 323). However, atthe same time, N. FRASER (1990) argues that the Western conception of the public sphere is limited
as a tool in critically examining “actually existing democracy in late capitalist societies,” andcautions “people in other parts of the world against heeding the call to install” a Western democraticsystem as such (p. 77). Japan’s preferring the term “welfare society” to “civil society” may suggest
its “cautious” approach in designing an alternative democratic system while appreciating its own
historical and institutional context. Japan’s Welfare Society Association promotes discussions ofcivil society based on Japan’s distinctive notion of “public” and the public sphere.
2. Possible New Roles of For-Profit Organizations in a Mixed Economy
In contemporary times, effort is being expended to cultivate potential roles for for-profit
organizations in increasing citizens’ welfare. New concepts are emerging through these efforts, forinstance, corporate social responsibility, social entrepreneurship, social enterprise, andphilanthrocapitalism. These terms are as elusive as “public.” For example, P. A. DACIN, T. DACIN,
and M. MATEAR (2010: 38) identified 37 different definitions of “social entrepreneurship.” In
addition, there is persistent skepticism pertaining to these concepts. Is it possible that a single entity
can secure enough profit to stay in business while also addressing social problems on a not-for-profit
basis? Is it really possible that for-profit organizations will give up profit?
LCTI, which was mentioned earlier, again provides an example for exploring the possibilities.
LTCI enabled for-profit organizations to participate in providing public (governmental) humanservices for the first time in Japan’s history. Y. SUDA and B. GUO (2011) revealed that for-profit
service organizations operating under LTCI are learning to emphasize the importance of supporting
low-income seniors while containing their profit-seeking motives. Many of these for-profit service
organizations are operating as branch offices of a larger entity. The entities are usually engaged in196other business activities, such as selling assistive devices or offering consultation services tohospitals. The organizations are accumulating profits in their business activities while taking
advantage of the legitimacy established by contributing to the community as LTCI service
organizations. In sum, LTCI enjoys the contributions of for-profit organizations, and in exchange it
provides them with leverage to profit in other business areas.
The model observed under LTCI appears to be a realistic one in exploring the possible
contributions of for-profit organizations to the public interest. The government’s role is again crucial
in creating the mixed economy system that LTCI exemplifies. Redefining roles of for-profit
organizations in the process of designing a welfare society is another important task for Japan’s
Welfare Sociology Association.
3. The Relational Aspect of “Self” in Defining Oneself
Based on Alzheimer’s patient care studies, W. E. DEAL and P. F. WHITEHOUSE (2000) argue
that Japan’s view of “self” contrasts greatly with that of the United States or the West. From theJapanese viewpoint, “self” is socially constructed. For example, “Consider the relationship between
a woman who has Alzheimer’s, no longer able to talk or care for herself, and her son” (p. 320). She
can still be her son’s mother as long as the son recognizes and treats her as his mother. People
treating her as her son’s mother support her “self.” On the other hand, in the US or Western view, thedefinition of “self” emphasizes autonomy. Thus, Alzheimer’s patients are often seen as “incomplete
persons, or, in the extreme, as having lost their selves altogether” (p. 318). Deal and Whitehouseterm the Japanese view of “self” as “relational self” and the US or Western view as “individual self”(p. 318).
The concept of relational self resonates with the way Japanese nonprofit and voluntaryorganizations operate. They exhibit their prominence especially in disaster relief and pay carefulattention to the context of victims’ daily lives when designing instrumental support. This helps thevictims maintain their integrity and remember who they were before the disaster. At the same time,the emphasis on compassion, mutual understanding, and deference to groups with different
standpoints could contain an attempt to insist on one’s own interest.
R. PEKKANEN (2006) summarizes Japan’s nonprofit and voluntary organizations as“members without advocacy” (p. 3). Advocacy often goes hand in hand with identity politics. If theJapanese have “relational selves,” identity may be constructed in a different manner from US or
Western identity, and this can lead to a different approach in expressing one’s interests. The
without-advocacy approach appears to be an avenue for further exploring distinctive relationships
between “self” and society in Japan. Japan’s Welfare Society Association will contribute toilluminating the context of Japan’s welfare society by incorporating cross-cultural perspectives into
civic discourse.
(SUDA Yuko)

197

III. WELFARE SOCIOLOGY AFTER 3.11 AND OUR MESSAGE TO THE WORLD
1. The Great East Japan Earthquake as a turning point
The Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 revealed many problems and contradictions whichwere latent in Japanese society. One of the challenges for Japanese welfare sociology is to makeclear what this unprecedented disaster means for welfare system in Japan and to provide guiding
principles for the “reconstruction” of the welfare system.
One of the unique characteristics of the postwar Japanese welfare system is that it has several“functional equivalents” for low public expenditures on social welfare: family welfare based on agendered division of labor, company welfarism limited to men, full-fledged breadwinners, and a low
unemployment rate made possible by government-initiated public works. Under this welfare system,
each household can sustain a secure life only if it follows a standard lifestyle that includes afull-fledged male breadwinner. However, following a “non-standard” lifestyle, i.e. a family’s
breadwinner being an irregular employee or female, leads to the increased risk of an unstableeconomic life. This is why the Japanese welfare system can be characterized as being both a liberal
regime (in which income inequality is large) and a conservative regime (in which gender inequality
is large) at the same time.
The year 1995, when Japan was hit by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, marked a turning
point in Japanese postwar history. Around 1995, the standard lifestyle in Japan began to collapse
ever faster. The declining birthrate and increased ageing of the population, coupled with theincreasing individualization of families (marked by a rising divorce rate and decreasing marriagerate), resulted in the dysfunction of family welfare. Neo-liberal political forces took greater power,
and the deregulation of the labor market, which was promoted under the political ideology ofneoliberalism, increased the number of irregular employee who cannot enjoy the fruits of company
welfarism. The expansion of expenditures on social security was curbed, and expenditures on public
works were also reduced. This has resulted in a greater level of inequality and social exclusion in
Japanese society.
Whereas neoliberal policies severely devastated Japanese society, they also led to changes in
the political climate in the direction of expanding social security expenditures once again. In the2009 election a more progressive party (Japan Democratic Party, JDP) took power. Some of thepolicy reforms of the social security system under the JDP included suggestions to realize a universal
welfare system in Japan.
The Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, however, blew off this tiny sign of change toward
universal welfare. Because large-scale fiscal expenditures were initiated in order to rebuild from theearthquake, the generous benefits for children introduced under the JDP government were reduced
and eligibility for applying for public assistance for the poor was tightened. A conservative party (theLiberal Democratic Party) took power again, intolerant nationalism is on the rise, and the social
movement toward an anti-nuclear society has diminished in prominence. Are we to choose to revert
back to the “old” Japan? The pattern of damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake tells us “No.”In order to prepare for future damage from natural disasters, we need a universal, inclusive society.
198

One of the tasks to be tackled by welfare sociology in Japan is to analyze the damage from theearthquake and to try to find a way to reconstruct the Japanese welfare system.
2. Vulnerabilities of Japanese society revealed by the Great East Japan Earthquake
While natural disasters are “accidental” in the sense that they are not man-made, the damage
caused by them are not accidental because it occurs according to the pattern of socioculturalvulnerability. The characteristics of the damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake is that the
problems in Japanese society were magnified in it. Here I will explore the risks caused by theearthquake by focusing on four concepts that are concerned with “space”: public space, housing,region, and community.
The first concept is vulnerability in public space. The mortality rate from this earthquake wasparticularly high among the elderly and persons with disabilities; for instance, the mortality rate ofpersons with disabilities was twice as high as that of persons without disabilities. This can be
explained by the fact that the physical environment and the early warning systems of the damaged
cities were designed for persons without disabilities, and they hindered the quick evacuation ofphysically disabled persons and visually and hearing impaired persons. Moreover, in some cases
physically disabled persons and the elderly found it hard to evacuate to public facilities because
there were many barriers such as grade differences in them. Just as the welfare system in Japan was
designed on the assumption that regular employees are the “standard”, so too is public space inJapan designed on the assumption that persons without disabilities are the “standard;” thus it is noteasily accessible to those who do not conform to this standard. In order to include sociallyvulnerable people into society, public space itself must also be universal, not only income and theprovision of social service.
The second concept is vulnerability in housing. Many people have lost their housing due to thetsunami and radioactive contamination. Many victims are still compelled to stay in temporary
dwellings, and the risk of death in isolation (kodokushi) is particularly high among the elderly inthose dwellings. The government is trying to redevelop damaged areas using vast sums of money
and time, but the reconstruction of housing is still underway. In the meantime, non-damaged
properties on high ground are being bought by real estate companies at high prices, and this ismaking reconstruction even more difficult. Evacuees from the contaminated areas in Fukushima areforced to live inconvenient lives outside their communities or go back to their communities at therisk of low-level radiation. In the background of this situation is the characteristic of the Japanese
welfare system in which secure personal space or housing is regarded as a “private good,” not a“public good” to be provided by the government. However, on top of the large number of evacuees,
we are facing an increasing number of people who cannot live in safe dwellings because of insecure
employment. This requires that we reevaluate the right of residence as being an important social
right.
The third concept is the different levels of vulnerability of regions. The regions that suffered themost from this earthquake had not only already been suffering from depopulation and population
ageing, but the number of employees who work at local governments and social welfare councils had
199slimmed down because of the reduction of public work and local grant-tax initiated by neoliberal
reforms. The degradation of social capital is also remarkable across such examples as public
transport and local hospitals, resulting in delays in support for victims and reconstruction. In
devastated regions anti-nuclear actions are likely to be restrained, because nuclear power plants aremajor providers of employment in regions without notable industries and jobs. In order for adequate
local welfare to be secured in every region not only must we provide an environment in which every
citizen can access welfare and medical services, but we must also confront the difficult challenge ofcreating region-based employment opportunities.
The fourth concept is the different levels of vulnerability of communities. The mass media
praised the existence of orderly mutual support even in the case of emergencies as a virtue of theJapanese, but this is attributable to the abundant social capital of local communities. The amount ofsocial capital affects the quality of actions intended to prevent death in isolation and to increase thevictims’ quality of life. If this is the case, in urban areas where community-based activities are very
modest, urban residents will face a tremendous risk from the absence of social order and support
activities when disasters occur. We must investigate how and what we can substitute for the functionof social capital.
Thus far I have examined four different types of vulnerability that the earthquake revealed. The
vulnerabilities described here are those which replicate the vulnerabilities and fluctuations of theJapanese welfare system. This means that the reconstruction of the welfare system will lead to thereconstruction of Japanese society itself.
Japan is a country noted for its high frequency of natural disasters and its rapid ageing of the
population. How can we share the risks of disasters in a hyper-aged society and construct analternative system of solidarity in Japan? This question might be one of the important research issues
which Japanese welfare sociology must send out to the world.
(NIHEI Norihiro)
REFERENCES
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, T., and Matear, M., 2010, “Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a newtheory and how we move forward from here.” The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol.
24, No. 3: 37–56.
Deal, W.E. & Whitehouse, P.F., 2000, “Concept of personhood in Alzheimer’s disease: Considering
Japanese notions of a relational self.” In, S. O. Long (ed.), Caring for the elderly in Japan andthe U.S.: Practices and policies (pp. 318–333). New York: Routledge.
Fraser, N., 1990, “Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing
democracy.” Social Text, No. 25/26, pp. 56–80.
Habermas, J., 1987, The theory of communicative action, volume two. Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J., 1962, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie derbürgerlichen Gasellshaft. Luchterhand. (Translated into Japanese by: Hosoya, S. & Yamada, M.
(1973) as Kokyo-sei no kozo tenkan. Mirai-sha.)200

Nakamura, S., 2002, “Kindai shiso-shi kenkyu to kokyo-ken ron.” Problématique, No.3, pp.13–26.
Suda, Y., & Guo, B., 2011, “Dynamics between nonprofit and for-profit providers operating under
the Long-Term Care Insurance system in Japan.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
40(1), 79–106.
Pekkanen, R., 2006, Japan’s dual civil society: Members without advocates. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Japan Welfare Sociology Association Office
Japan University CO-OP Support Center for Academic Societies
Wada 3-30-22, Suginami-ku, Tokyo 166-8532, Japan
E-mail: ws@univcoop.or.jp
Official Website: http://www.jws-assoc.jp/

201