Care Diamonds in Asia
Varieties of Familialism

OCHIAI Emiko (Kyoto University)
1Finland
SwwedenDen
nmark
Noorway
FranceIrreland
New ZealandUSThe Phillipines

CaanadaM
Macao
Hong Kong
Korea
KUkkraineSloovakiaPolandRussiaRSingaapore
Italy
Rommania
Gerrmany
JJapanCzech
C
Hungary
Spain
S

Total fertility
y rates ((2004-06))
Lowest low fertility in East Asia

3.0

2.5

20
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.02

JJapanGerrmany
Italy
Greeceweden
Sw
Portugal
AustriaA
Spain
S
Switzeerland
FranceFinland
UK
HungaryDen
nmarkThhe Netherrlands
RussiaRPoland
Ausstralia
CaanadaUSArgeentinaKorea
KSinga
apore
China
CTha
ailandProportion
pof population
p p65+ ((2005-07))
Japan is an exception in Asia

25.0

20.0

15.0

10 0
10.0

5.0

0.0

3

Fertilityy Decline in Asia and EuropepCompressed modernity in Asia
765
SwedenJapan
4England and Wales
Italy
Germany3

China
Singapore

2

Korea
Thailand

1

1900
1903
1906
1909
1912
1915
1918
1921
1924
1927
1930
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996

04

Ageg Structure in Asian Societies
Demographic dividend except for JapanF e m a le

15%
10%5%0%-5%

0 - 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75 - 80 - 85 - 90 - 95 - 100 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99

M a le-10%-15%

China_M
China_F
Thailand_M
Thailand_F
Singapore_M
Singapore_F
Taiwan_M
Taiwan_F
Korea_M
Korea_F
Japan_M
Japan_F

Age
5

Questions

6• Care regimes in contemporary
Asia for childcare and elderly care• The roles of policies in creatingcare regimes

7Theoretical Framework

8Keyy conceptsp• Familialism
A familialistic system… is one in which public
policy assumes that households must carry theprincipal responsibility for their family members’welfare. (E-A 1999)• Defamilialization= The degree to which individual
adults can upholdpa sociallyy acceptablepstandardof living, independently of family relationships,
either throughg ppaid work or throughg the social
security system (Lister 1994)
9

Two directions of defamilialization• Def. by the state and def. through market• Particularly important in the study of careregimes in Asia
Ochiai(2009)

StateSocialization

Sociali lSocialism Sdemocracy
Familialism Liberalism

MarketCommodification

10

Theoretical framework for this study• Def. by the state / def. through market• Def.
Def of service / def
def. of finance• Familialism as a social regime(not only as a type of social policy)• Care diamond(Adding community to the care triangle
as a key to understand changes)
11Comparison of Six AsianSocieties

12

“AsianAsian Gender Project”
Project• Purpose: To reveal family and gender role changes
i EinEastt anddSSoutheasttht AsianA i societies
i ti ffocusing
i on
the patterns of care provision in childcare andelderly
ld l care.
• Research areas: China, South Korea, Taiwan,Singapore, Thailand, Japan. (India, Indonesia,Vietnam were added later.)• Focus: Urban middle class.
Semi structured interview supplemented• Method: Semi-structured
by surveys in some areas.
• ResearchRh period:
i d 2001
2001~2003~present
2003
t.
13

Research Areas

14

Background• Ethnicity:
Chinese/Korean/Thai/Japanese• Religion:
R li iConfucianism/Buddhism/Taoism/
Shintoism• Kinship system: Patrilineal/Bilateral/• Social regime:gCapitalism/Socialism
pHuge diversity
15

GenderThree Types of Female Lifecourse• Type 1: a high employment rate ismaintainedi t i d (Chi(China, ThThailand)il d)• Type 2: a decline starting from the 30s orchildren’s reaching a certain age(Singapore Taiwan)(Singapore,• Type 3: a temporary decline in the late 20s
followed by a rise (“M-shape pattern”)((Korea,, Japan)p )16Female Labor Force Participation Rates byAge in Six Asian Societies
100%
90%
80%
70%

ChinaThailand
Singapore
TaiwanJapan
Korea

60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
1519

2024

2529

3034

3539

4044

4549

5054

5559

6064

17

Research outcome:Patterns of care provision
p18

Providers of Childcare
M thMother

F thFather

R l ti
RelativeC
Community
it

China

A-A

A

B

ThailandAA

B

Singapore

A-

B

TaiwanA

Korea

A+Domestic
workerC (B forlarge
cities)

A

B

B

D

A

C

A

A

B

A

C

B

C

C

B

B

CC

B

DC（（B foro C（（B foroJapan

A+Institution forchildren under 3

dualcareerfamily）

dualcareerfamily）

C（B for dualcareer family）

19

Providers of Elderly Care
ChildChild’sspouseRelative

Comm
unity

Care worker

InstitutionChina

A *All children

BB

A

B

CThailand

A *All children witha bias on daughters

B

B

B

C

D

Singapore

A *All children
hildwith
iha bias on sons

B

B

CA

C

TaiwanA *All children witha bias
bi on sons

B

B

C

AC

Korea

A *Eldest son

AB

B

BCJapan

A *Eldest son

AC

CC (Changed(by LTCI)

B

20

Summary of findings• (1) Relatives are most effective providers of bothchildcare and elderly care
care. Chinese and Thaifathers are most active in childcare, while
daughter in laws are active in Japan and Korea
daughter-in-laws
Korea.
• (2) Foreign domestic workers are used in manysocieties
i ti exceptt ffor JapanJ
particularly
ti l l ffor elderly
ld lcare in Taiwan and both childcare and elderly carei SiinSingapore.
• (3) The institutional childcare is developed insocialist China and developmentalist Singapore
for utilizing female labor, while the institutional
elderly care is most developed in Japan.
21• (5) Various kinds of effective providers forchildcare exist in the societies wheremothers with small children usually work.
(Type 1 and 2 societies
societies, especially Chinaand Singapore), while support networks
are poor ini theh “M“M-shape”
h” societies
i i wherehy stayy atmothers with small children usuallyhome (Type 3 societies, namely Koreaand Japan), particularly in Japan.
• (6) The community is officially activated forelderly
ld l care iin Chi
China.

22

Analysis:
Care diamonds andth roles
thel off policyli23

Care diamond• State• MarketCare triangle• Family• Community or voluntary

Carediamond24• Foro appapplying
y g thiss modelode foro Asiansasocieties, the third sector should be
renamed as “FamilyFamily and relatives”
relatives .
• Institutional care can be divided into thestate sector (public institution) and the(private institution).
)market sector (p• The use of care worker with public
subsidies can be partially attributed to thestate sector.
25

The roles of policy in formingcare diamonds• The role of policy is not only related toth provisionthei i off care services
iorfinancing of care cost by the state.
• The policies also promotes or restricts
care provision from other sectors
either by financing or by regulation.
26

The Care Diamonds in China
ChildChildcare
SStateElderly
Eld l CareC
Making familial
care as legal duty

Using
community as
unit of local ggov.

Community

MarketFamilyRelatives

27

The Care Diamonds in Singapore
Childcare
Immigration
policy tax
policy,reduction

Elderly Care
Immigration
policy tax
policy,reduction

Making familial
care as legal
g dutyy28The Care Diamonds in Taiwan
ChildChildcare
Immigration
policy(restriction)

Elderly
Eld l Care
CImmigration
policy, tax
reduction

29

The Care Diamonds in Japan
ChildChildcare
Immigration
policypy(restriction)

Elderly
Eld l CareC
Support forcommunityycareLong-term
careinsurance

30

The Care Diamonds in Korea
ChildChildcare

Elderly
Eld l CareC
Long-term
careinsurance

Support forcommunitycare

31The Care Diamonds in Thailand
Childcare

Elderly Care32

Conclusion:
Varieties of Familialism in Asia

33

Varieties of Familialism in Asia

StateSocialism smugglinggg gcommodification andfamilialism

Developmentalist
familialism

CSocialization
Familialism

JExtended familialism

KSTwThCommodification

Familialism smuggling
commodification

Market34

Remaining family responsibility• Defamilialization through market is wellwelldeveloped in Asian societies (except for Japan).
• However,
However in those cases
cases, the financial
responsibility remains on the family. (Taiwan,Korea Thailand)
Korea,• There are strong state support for childcare inChi andChinad Si
Singapore. B
Butt ththe llatert costt ffor
education is enormous due to the lack of sociali
investment.
tt→ low fertility, housewifization
35

Not only family policy matters• The activation of market and communityy policyp yby• The significance of the immigration policyin particular• Long-term care insurance in Japan andKorea• Legalization of familial care duty in Chinaand Singapore
36Different ppaths in the transformation ofcare regime• In European modernity
Familyy and relatives + Domestic worker→ Family (housewife)
1st modernity→ Family + Welfare state 2nd modernity• In Asian compressed modernity
Family and relatives + Domestic worker→ Family and relatives + FDWypfamilialization*with no pperiod of typical37

Figure 2 Fertility and Modernity
First Modernity

Second Modernity

50 yrs
1st Fertility Decline

2nd Fertility Decline

Figure 3 Gender and Modernity
First Modernity

Housewifization

Second Modernity

De housewifization
De‐housewifization39

• In Japanese half compressed modernity
Family and relatives + Domestic worker→ Family (housewife)*Consolidated by policies in 1980s
Difficulties in changing the system even after thedemographic and economic conditions changed

The Japaneseplost decades since 1990s
40

Conclusion• The care regimes in Asia are diverse interms of degree of defamiliali
defamilialization
ation in ttwoodirections.
• However, all of them can be calledfamilialism in the sense that they assume
family responsibility at least in finance.
• It explainsl i llow ffertility
tilit andd th
the ttrend
d offhousewifization in this area in spite ofavailability of care services from relatives
and through market.
41• AsianA i care regimes
iare hheavily
il ddepending
diupon commodification of care because
Asia was exposed to globalization before
the establishment of a closed modern
family and with traditional domestic
workers still in existence
existence. Commodificationof care work took place quickly to fill thegap caused
ca sed b
by a lack or ins
insufficiency
fficienc of
the welfare state.
42• However, for Japan, where the modern
family had barely been established andthe government was about to launch at diti
traditionall ttype off welfare
lfstate,t t a quick
i kpolicy change for commodification of care
was difficult (path dependency). The
government is seeking for a constructionof a moderate welfare state.
• We
W should
h ld consider
id more th
the iimpactt off
regulations as an explicit tool of familialismand defamilialization.
43

Publications• Emiko Ochiai and Barbara Molony eds.,
g Gender Role
Asia’s New Mothers: Crafting
Changes and Childcare Networks in Eastand Southeast Asian Societies
Societies,
Folkestone: Global Oriental, 2008.
• Emiko Ochiai,O2009,2009 “C“Care Diamonds andgin East and South-East
Welfare Regimes
Asian Societies,” International Journal ofJapanese Sociology, 18: 60
60-78.
78.
44

Publications• Emiko Ochiai
Ochiai, 20102010, “Reconstruction
Reconstruction ofIntimate and Public Spheres in AsianModernity: Familialism and Beyond
Beyond,””Journal of Intimate and Public Spheres,No.0 (Pilot Issue) : 2-22.
• Emiko Ochiai
Ochiai, et al.,al 2010(forthcoming),2010(forthcoming)“The Struggle against Familialism:
Reconfiguration of the Care Diamond inJapan,” The Political and Social Economy
off Care:CR
ResearchhR
Reportt 55, UNRISD.
UNRISD45