Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Family and Household Changes in Contemporary Japan
Results of the 4th National Survey on Household Changes (1999)

Hachiro NISHIOKA,Toru SUZUKI, Yasuyo KOYAMA, Masato
SHIMIZU and ChizukoYAMAMOTOI Outline of the Survey
1.

Outline of the 4th National Survey on Household Changes

Japan has experienced marked demographic changes during past several decades.
Although the improvement in life expectancy continues due to the mortality decline inolder ages, it is predicted that the total population starts declining because of the very
low fertility rate prevailing since 1970’s. Rapid population aging will continue andeven be accelerated when the post-war baby-boom cohort reaches at age 65. Changing
gender relationship has been prompting such nuptiality changes as the delay in marriage,
the increase in the proportion never marrying, and the rise in the divorce rate.
These changes have exerting impacts on the static distribution of household size andcomposition as well as on the dynamic process of household formation and dissolution.
Such household changes as increase in the propensity to live alone among the elderly,
the growth in the number of one-parent family households, and the growing propensitiesof young adults to stay longer in their parental househods are of great concern both foracademic and political worlds.
The 4th National Survey on Household Changes was conducted on July 1, 1999,
succeeding the previous round conducted five years before. This series of household
surveys are designed to study various household changes and to obtain importantparameters for household projections. The survey covered a similar set of topics as in
the previous survey, which included the size and the composition of the households,
individuals’ experiences of assuming and resigning headship, timing of young adults’leaving parental home, transitions between marital states, and so forth.
2.

Survey Procedures and Collection of Questionnaires

This survey was conducted as a “rider” of the Comprehensive Survey of the Living

1Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Conditions of People on Health and Welfare conducted by the former Ministry of Healthand Welfare (presently the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare). Out of 1,048
survey areas sampled for the Comprehensive Survey, 300 were assigned for thissurvey. Designated interviewers distributed and collected questionnaires, which were,in principle, requested to be filled out by household heads.
Out of a total sample of 16,267 households, completed questionnaires were collectedfrom 13,385 households, among which 12,434 were regarded valid for analysis. The
collection rate was 82.3 percent while the valid response rate was 76.4 percent.
The age distribution of respondent household heads is shown in Table I-1.
Comparing with the result of the 1995 Census, the number of household heads below
age 50 seems to be under-represented. Although this gap partially reflects the change
in age structure of the population in the past four years, the lower collection rate fromone-person households of people in their 20s did cause some distortion in the data file.
Besides calculation and analysis by household, this survey calculates and analyzes all
the household members at age 18 and above. The age structure of the body of
respondents aged 18 and above of the survey with that of the population estimate in1999 (Table I-2) are almost the same, because the year of statistics is the same, and thecollection rates among different ages were not much different except for heads ofhouseholds in their 20s.
Table I-1: Number of Heads of Households by Age GroupAge ofHousehold HeadHousehold Survey (1999)
Number of
respondedhouseholds

Total

-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84

12,434
123
391
613
870
905
1,016
1,345
1,503
1,387
1,263
1,116
913
505
312
172

Census (1995)*

Age distribution Number of private Age distribution
households(％)(％)(x 1000)

100.0
1.0
3.1
4.9
7.0
7.3
8.2
10.8
12.1
11.2
10.2
9.0
7.3
4.1
2.5
1.4

43,900
585
2,537
2,879
3,141
3,260
4,140
5,383
4,802
4,376
4,130
3,466
2,355
1,524
907
415

85 and over
*Report on the 1995 Census, Statistics Bureau, Management and Coordination Agency

2

100.0
1.3
5.8
6.6
7.2
7.4
9.4
12.3
10.9
10.0
9.4
7.9
5.4
3.5
2.1
0.9

Differences

-0.3
-2.6
-1.6
-0.2
-0.1
-1.3
-1.4
1.1
1.2
0.7
1.1
2.0
0.6
0.4
0.4

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table I-2 Number of Household Members at Age 18 and over by Age Group
Age
Total ofmembers at 18
and over

18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84

N

Household Survey (1999)
Age distribution (%)

Population in 1999*
N(x 1000)
Age distribution(%)

Differences (%)

28,767100.0103424

100.0

-

829
2,265
2,515
2,371
2,195
2,336
2,799
2,822
2,559
2,271
1,996
1,618
1,042
639
510

2.9
7.9
8.7
8.2
7.6
8.1
9.7
9.8
8.9
7.9
6.9
5.6
3.6
2.2
1.8

3,135
8,890
9,895
8,678
7,916
7,897
9,444
9,856
8,897
7,630
6,951
5,737
3,926
2,468
2,104

3.0
8.6
9.6
8.4
7.7
7.6
9.1
9.5
8.6
7.4
6.7
5.5
3.8
2.4
2.0

-0.1
-0.7
-0.8
-0.1
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3

85 and over*Population Estimates as of October 1, 1999, Statistics Bureau, Management and Coordination Agency

3

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

II. Present Status of Households
There can be three types of household statistics; first, targeting at the heads ofhouseholds, second, targeting at household members, and third, statistics based on therelation between specific members within a household. The first type of statistics has
been conventional, but it can hardly reflect the life of elderly people in the recent rapid
population aging in Japan. The second type has been employed for recent years and isable to demonstrate the living arrangements of the elderly. In this section, the present
status of households will be discussed mainly based on the statistics taken by the second
method, seen from individual members.
1. Household Sizes and Family Types
The sizes of households to which individuals aged 18 and over belong were, by order of
frequencies, 4-person households (24.9%), 3-person households (22.7%), 2-personhouseholds (21.7%) and 5-person households (12.0%). The order remains the same as
the previous survey, as shown in Table II-1. The largest increase over the previous
survey was found in the proportion of 2-person households (plus 2.9 points), followedby 3-person households (plus 1.6) and 4-person household (plus 0.4) but the number of
5-person or larger households has decreased. The average number of household
members was 3.5 persons, a fall by 0.1 from 3.6 persons in the previous survey.
Table II-1 Distribution of Household by Size
Number of persons at 18 and over
4th survey

3rd survey

1999

Number of households

(%)

Total
1 person
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
5 persons
6 persons
7 personsover 8persons
average(persons)

4th survey

1994
(%)

3rd survey

1999
(%)

1994
(%)

28,767
2,456
6,229
6,525
7,149
3,446
1,856
813

100.0
8.5
21.7
22.7
24.9
12.0
6.5
2.8

20,788
1,621
3,914
4,380
5,098
2,884
1,786
795

100.0
7.8
18.8
21.1
24.5
13.9
8.6
3.8

12,434
2,456
3,184
2,543
2,501
1,053
464
179

100.0
19.8
25.6
20.5
20.1
8.5
3.7
1.4

8,578
1,621
1,993
1,660
1,764
853
445
181

100.0
18.9
23.2
19.4
20.6
9.9
5.2
2.1

293

1.0

310

1.5

54

0.4

61

0.7

3.5

3.6

2.9

4

3.1

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure II-1

Household Composition by sex, age group, and household size
Male

FemaleMale

Female100%

100%More than 6
persons

90%
80%

More than 6
persons

90%
80%

5 persons

5 persons

70%

70%
60%

60%

4 persons50%
40%

4 persons50%
40%

3 persons30%

3 persons30%
2 persons

20%
10%

2 persons20%

1 person10%

1 person

0%

85+

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

-19

20-24

85+

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

-19

20-24

0%

The numbers of households by size were in order of 2-person households (25.6%),
3-person households (20.5%), 4-person households (20.1%), and one-person households(19.8%). Comparing with the results of the previous survey, 2-person households
increased by 2.4 points, followed by 3-person households by 1.1 points, while 4-personhouseholds and larger decreased, with the largest fall occurring in 5-person households
by 1.9 points. The average household size with household base, not individual base,was 2.9 persons, a decrease by 0.2 persons from 3.1 persons.
Household sizes to which people aged 18 and over belonged are shown by age group in
Figure II-1. The largest portion of both men and women under age 24 and below, oneof three, belonged to 4-person households. Among men aged 25 and over, the largest
portion (a little less than 30%) of people in the 25-34 age group belonged to 3-personhouseholds, the largest proportion of people in the 35-54 age groups were those who
belonged to 4-person households (30-35%), the largest among men in the 55-59 age
group were in 3-person households (33%), that among men at age 60 and over (32%)
were in 2-person households, and in particular, about a half of the 65-84 age groups
were living in 2-person households. Among women, the largest portion of the 25-29
age group (32%) belonged to 3-person households, followed by 4-person households
among the 30-49 age group (the 30-percent level), 3-person households among the50-54 age group (30%), and 2-person households among the 55-79 age groups(30-45%). In particular, the percentage of women who were living in 2-personhouseholds as 2.4 times greater in the 65-69 age group than in the 25-29 age group, thelargest body among younger generations. Among women aged between 80 and 84, thelargest portion (21%) belonged to one-person households, while among women at 85
and over, 3-person households occupied the largest share (27%). Around 20 percent of5

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

older elderly women lived alone, which was four times more than men in the same agegroup living alone (around 5%). The higher ratios of people living in 2-personhouseholds suggest that children who had lived with parents have left their parents’houses.
The average household size by age and sex is shown in Fig. II-2. Although women
lived in larger households among people below age 50, men lived in larger households
at 50 and over. Starting with 3.8 for men and 4.0 persons for women aged 19 andbelow, the average household size gradually became smaller hitting bottom at 3.4
persons for women in the 25-29 age group, and 3.2 persons for men in the 30-34 age
group, then rose again to the largest at 4.0 and 4.2 persons in the 40-44 age group formen and women respectively. The smallest size for men at 3.0 persons was found in
the 60-64 age group, and for women at 2.9 persons in their 65-69 age group, after which
the average household size became larger again increasing to 3.7 persons for men and
3.5 persons for women after they became 85 years old. Comparing with the outcomeof the previous survey, both men and women in all age groups, except for men in the
25-29 age group, were living in smaller households. Larger gaps between the twosurvey times were found among women aged 60 and over, and among those aged 85
and over, the average size decreased from 4.1 to 3.5 persons, a decline by 0.6 persons.
Figure II-2 Average Household Size by Sex and Age Group

Average Household Size

5.0
4.5
4.0

4th survey, men
4th survey, women

3.5

3rd survey, men
3rd survey, women

3.0
2.5

85+

80〜84

75〜79

70〜74

65〜69

60〜64

55〜59

50〜54

45〜49

40〜44

35〜39

30〜34

25〜29

20〜24

０〜19

2.0

Table II-2 shows respondents’ household compositions. The majority (64.4%) lived in“nuclear family” households, 25.3 percent lived in “other households,” and 8.5 percent
in “one-person households.” This order was the same as in the previous survey withsome increases in both “nuclear family” and “one-person” households, while “otherprivate households” decreased by 5.8 points. It may suggest that the householdcomposition is becoming simpler in Japan.

6

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Table II-2

Number of Persons and Households by Family Type
Number of people aged 18
and over4th survey(1999)
3rd survey(1994)
persons%

persons%

Total

28,767

One-person

2,456

100.0

20,7888.5

1,621

Nuclear family
Couple-only

18,509

64.4

4,771

16.6

Number of households
4th survey(1999)
N

%

100.0

12,4347.8

2,456

12,687

61.0

3,031

14.6

3rd survey(1994)
N

%

100.0

8,578

100.0

19.8

1,621

18.9

7,769

62.5

5,215

60.8

2,406

19.4

1,518

17.7

Parent/s and child/ren

13,738

47.8

9,656

46.4

5,363

43.1

3,697

43.1

Couple + child/ren

12,140

42.2

8,556

41.2

4,568

36.7

3,155

36.8

Father + child/ren

262

0.9

196

0.9

128

1.0

94

1.1

Mother + child/ren

1,336

4.6

904

4.3

667

5.4

448

5.2

Other private households

7,280

25.3

6,457

31.1

1,966

15.8

1,721

20.1

925

3.2

591

2.8

293

2.4

186

2.2

54

0.2

81

0.4

13

0.1

18

0.2

4,459

15.5

4,041

19.4

1,124

9.0

1,013

11.8

1,657

5.8

1,698

8.2

462

3.7

482

5.6

185

0.6

46

0.2

74

0.6

22

0.3

522

1.8

23

0.1

243

2.0

21

0.2

Parent/s + a child’s couple
Parent/s + child/ren + a child’s
coupleParent/s + a child’s couple andtheir child/ren
Other relatives households
Non-relatives households
Unknown

Note: Non-relatives households are included in “Other private households”

A close examination into the table reveals that the largest portion (42.2%) belonged tohouseholds “consisting of a married couple and their child/ren” followed by “couple
only” (16.6%) and “parent/s and a married child’s couple and their child/ren” (15.5%).
In the previous survey, the largest portion was shared by the same nuclear families with
41.2%, but the second largest was by three-generation families with 19.4% and the third
place was by couple-only households with 14.6%.
Seen by household basis, not by individual basis, households consisting of “a married
couple and their child/ren” had the largest share with 36.7 percent just as above, but“one-person households” ranked second with 19.8 percent and “couple-onlyhouseholds” third with 19.4 percent. The order remained the same from the previous
survey time with some increases in second and third places.
Family types constituting households to which respondents belonged are shown in
Figure II-3 by sex and age group. The majority of both men and women less than age
60 belonged to households of “couple and child/ren,” followed by “other privatehouseholds.” Among men in the 60-84 age group, “couple-only” and “other”
households occupied first and second places, and the order was reversed among men
aged 85 and over. The first and second largest portions of women in their 60s lived in7

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

“couple-only” and “other” households, and women in their 70s lived in “other” and“one-person” households. With regard to “one-person” households, men continued tofall from their peak at 19.0 percent among men younger than 20 to 5.3 percent among
men aged 85 and more. Contrary to this, older elderly women living alone were morethan double of the ratio of young women (especially high in the 80-84 age group with21.8%).
Households by (4) family types by sex and age group
Male

FemaleOther
privatehousehold60%

60%
Parent/s andchild/renCouple-only

65〜69

60〜64

55〜59

50〜54

40〜44

35〜39

30〜34

25〜29

０〜19

85+

80〜84

75〜79

70〜74

65〜69

60〜64

55〜59

50〜54

45〜49

40〜44

85+

One-person

0%
35〜39

30〜34

25〜29

One-person
０〜19

Couple-only

20%

80〜84

20%

20〜24

Parent/s andchild/ren

40%

20〜24

40%

0%

Other
privatehousehold

80%

75〜79

80%

100%

70〜74

100%

45〜49

Figure II-3

Note: Number of the unknown is not calculated in the denominators.

2. Housing
Table II-3 showing the breakdown of the houses by ownership revealed that the
majority (66.2%) lived in detached houses owned by themselves. Those who were
living in private rented houses (15.3%), condominiums of their ownership (7.0%), andpublic rented houses (4.4%) followed. Similar tendencies were observed both among
men and women, but a little more women were living in detached and condominium
houses of their own, and in public rented houses than men. From the previous survey,
third and fourth places were replaced.
Ownership of houses by sex and age group is shown in Figure II-4. Those who owned
detached houses were the smallest among the 30-34 age groups of both men and womenwith 44.4 and 46.9 percent, respectively. The largest portions of people around age 30
lived in rented houses of both public and private ownership (private rented houses
32.8% and public rented houses 6.9% among men in the 30-34 age group; 30.6 and 6.6
percent among women in the 25-29 age group). People in these age groups were in theearly stage of forming households after marriage and have the least financial strength toobtain houses. The proportion of those who lived in detached houses they owned
increased among older people. Older elderly people had high percentages between 80

8Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

and 90 percent who owned their own houses. As far as house ownership is concerned,
older elderly people showed greater stability.
Type of house by sex
4th survey (1999)

3rd survey (1994)

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

FemaleTotal

28,767

13,853

14,914

26,10012,647

13,372

Owned houses (detached)
Owned houses (tenement,
apartment or flats)
Public rented houses

66.2%

65.4%

66.9%

66.5%

65.8%

67.1%

7.0

6.8

7.2

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.4

4.2

4.6

6.5

6.4

6.4

Private rented houses

15.3

16.1

14.5

14.1

14.2

14

Issued houses

2.5

2.8

2.3

4.0

4.5

3.5

Others

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

Unknown

3.4

3.4

3.4

2.9

3.0

2.8

Type of house by age and sex
Male

Female

100%

100%

80%

Male80%
60%

100%
80%

40%

60%
40%

20%

Owned houses (detached)
Public rented houses
Issued houses

85+

〜84
8085+

75〜79

65〜69

55〜59

60
64
〜〜
75
79

〜〜
50
54
70
74

45〜49

35〜39

25〜29

〜〜
30
34
60
64

85+
45〜49

75〜79
〜〜
4080
4484

65〜69
35〜〜
39
70 74

55〜59
30〜34
60〜64

45〜49
25〜29
50〜54

0%
35〜39
20〜24
40〜44

0%

25〜29
0〜19
30〜34

0〜19

0%

20〜24

20%

0〜19

20%

〜〜
55
59
20
24

40%

50〜54

60%

〜〜
40
44
65
69

Figure II-4:

70
74
〜〜
80
84

Table II-3

Owned houses (tenement, apartment or flats)
Private rented houses
OthersIII. Availability and Co-residence with Kin
In this section, the availability of kin and their spatial distribution will be discussed. In
Japan, inter-generational reciprocal support and assistance have been taken for granted
as normal practices. Well-organized studies should be conducted on the level of care,and on what generational relations has care been given. However, even today,
inter-generational exchanges of supports are closely dependent on physical distances
between the dwellings of both sides. This section investigates co-residence with andspatial distribution of three categories of kin; 1) children, 2) parents, and 3) other9Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

relatives.
1. Children
Co-residences with adult children or with parents have had close association with social
norms and institutions regarding living or not living together, or with whom to live
together. These living arrangements with relatives have been largely determined bysocio-economic and cultural factors such as the development of the social security andsocial welfare systems. The recent changes in values and below-replacement fertility
and other demographic changes, however, have exerted influence on the attributes ofchildren and the forms of living together. From a point of inter-generational
relationship for support and care-giving to elderly members, the attributes of parents
and children and the forms of living together will be described for parents in their 50s
and above.
Figure III-1 shows the age pattern of co-residence with children. The proportion ofpeople who have children aged 18 and over was 49.8 percent (52.3% in the previous
survey, hereafter, figures in a parentheses are the figures in the survey of 5 years
before.), and that of people at 65 and over was 92.6 (94.1) percent. The proportion
rises by age and reaches 82.7 (89.7) percent at the age of 50.
Figure III-1:
100%

Living Arrangements with Children (aged 18 and over) by Age.

No children aged
18 and older
18歳以上の子なし

80%
18.2

30.4

19.8

Separate
別居
41.9 46.0

36.7

34.2

56.5

60.6

45.1

60%
40%
64.4

20%
0%

60.3

76.0

Co-reside
同居
49.5

45.6

46.5

11.8
20-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+
Age
（年齢）

The proportion living together with children older than 18 years was 32.0 (37.6) percent
of all survey targets aged 18 and above, and 52.1 (58.3) percent among those at 65 andover. By age group, the proportion co-resident in the 50-54 age group was 64.7 (74.0)
percent, and the proportion living apart was 18.2 (15.6) percent. As people grewolder, proportion co-residing decreased, while proportion living apart increased. In the10

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

65-69 age group, the co-residence hit the lowest with 45.6 (52.3) percent, while living
apart reached the highest with 46.0 (40.6) percent. Proportion co-residing reached thebottom by people at ages 65-69, after which it rose among older age groups while
proportion living apart declined. Co-residence is highest among people at 85 and overwith 76.0 (78.2) percent.
Figure III-2:

Availability and Co-residence with Children by Age and Sex

（％）
100
94.5

95.9 96.1 95.6 91.0

89.7 92.5 93.9

78.0
68.4

60

83.8
85.4

22.1

97.1
77.0

80

74.1
69.4

49.1
40

94.0 96.4 94.995.9

86.7

80

20

（％）
100

男
Male

62.4
50.7
51.9
59.5
55.1
56.5
53.4
53.9
48.3 47.4

69.9
60

女
Female97.5 97.2 95.8 90.3
95.7
92.9 92.993
93.8 96.5
90.2 91.1
91.8
90.7
87.6
86.6
80.0
76.7
82.1
79.9
71.1
77.9
64.6
65.1
61.3 64.269.9
64.2 58.8 60.0
51.8

40

子供あり（第4回）
Have children (4th survey)
同居子あり（第4回）
Co-reside with children (4th)
同居子あり（第3回）
Co-reside with children (3rd)

32.8

48.8

51.8

子供あり（第4回）
Have
children (4th survey)
同居子あり（第4回）
Co-residewith children (4th)
同居子あり（第3回）
Co-residewith children (3rd)20

25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+（年齢）
29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84
Age

25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+（年齢）
29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84
AgeFigure III-2 further looks into the proportion having children and co-residing withchildren by sex and age group of respondents. More than 90 percent of both men andwomen at 50 and over have children. The proportion living with children was higher
among younger age groups and declined in the early 40s when their children began toleave the nests. Despite the gender difference, proportion living with children waslowest during the empty nest period in the latter 60s and early 70s. The proportion fell
from those of the previous survey among both men and women. In the survey five
years before, proportion co-residing never fell below 50 percent in any age groups, but
in the 1999 survey, the proportion fell to the 40-percent level among people in the latter
half of 60s. Until the early half of their 60s, men showed a higher proportion
co-residing than women, while women aged 65 and over showed higher proportion thanmen. This suggests that women after being widowed came to live with their children
and that changes in their proportion currently married affected the proportion livingwith children. The tendency to avoid co-residence with children among the elderly
people was further strengthened from the previous survey. The fall of the proportion
among women in ages 65-74 is particularly notable. As they grew older, the gap of the
proportion between the two survey results was narrowed, and the proportions werehigher among older elderly people. More men and women chose to stay independentwhile they were physically healthy and chose to live with their children when they grew
very old. From this result, it is inferred that co-residence with children was not totally

11

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

denied.
Figure III-3:
Children

Proportion of Parents Living with children by Age and Birth Order of100%

18歳以上子なし
No children aged 18 and older

80%

別居
Separate
13.6

60%
17.9

20%

9.0

15.4

40%

11.6
35.4

31.8

28.0

8.5

27.8

10.1

同居（長女以外の女）
Co-residence(Daughter except

7.1

29.4

同居子不詳
Unknown(co-residing child)for the eldest daughter)

36.6

37.5

43.1

Co-residence(Eldest daughter)
同居（長女）
Co-residence(Daughter except
同居（長男以外の男）
for the eldest daughter)

0%50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85Age

同居（長男）
Co-residence(Eldest son)Figure III-3 shows attributes of children who live with respondents. By sex and birthorder of children, 18.8 (19.7%) of the total respondents aged 18 and over lived with
their eldest sons (58.8% of the children living with respondents, which was 56.2% in theprevious survey), followed by those living with their eldest daughters with 7.3 percent(7.1%) (22.6% of the children living with respondents, which was 20.1% in the previous
survey). While the propensity to live with adult children lowered, the proportion ofeldest sons and daughters among the co-residing children were heightened. The
portion of eldest sons and daughters are increasing due to the fertility decline in Japan.
The age pattern of co-residence with eldest sons was similar with that of co-residencewith all children, and the higher their age, the higher the proportion co-residing.
Co-residence with daughters rose after age 70. Among people aged 65 and over,co-residence with sons was 38.0 (41.2) percent while that with daughters was 13.2
(10.6) percent. Of people who were living with their children, 25.4 (18.8) percent wasliving with their daughters. It implies that parental preferences shifted from livingwith sons to with daughters during five years.
The process of parents to have come to live with their children is presented in Figure
III-4, whether they have lived with their children continuously or they have rejoined
after their children once had left home. The portion of continued co-residence fell
gradually from 42.9 percent among the 50-54 age group to 20.2 percent among the70-74 age group, after which it rose to 33.4 percent among people older than 85 years
old. Co-residence with returned children began to rise from 20.5 percent among thosein the 60-64 age group, and rose further among the 65-69 age group. Among the12

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

people over 85, the proportion was 37.1 percent. The main reason for the rise in the
proportion living with returned children when parents entered an older elderly age group(75 and on) may be the consideration extended by their child generations to support andgive care to their old age parents for health and other reasons.
Figure III-4: Proportion of Parents Living with children by Age and Child Experienceof Leaving Home100%
No children aged 18 and older
18歳以上の子なし

80%
別居Separate
60%
33.4
40%

42.9

34.7

25.7

25.7

21.1

20.2

20.5

21.5

23.1

20%
18.6

22.3

26.4

25.7

離家有無不詳（同居）Unknown(Child Experience ofLeaving Home)

30.1

37.1

離家無し（継続同居）
Continued co-residence

0%50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85Age

離家あり（再同居）
Co-residence with returned

2. Parents
In the previous section, respondents’ co-residence with children was examined from theviewpoint of parent generation. Here, the opposite direction is studied.
Among respondents aged 18 and above, 68.1 (64.1) percent had at least one parent alive,
and 31.9 (35.9) percent had both parents deceased (Table III-1). Of those who had atleast one parent alive, 45.9 (42.0) percent had both parents alive, 18.8 (18.5) percent
only mother alive, and 3.4 (3.6) percent only father alive. Parent survival rates haverisen since the 1994 survey reflecting the general tendency toward longevity.
Table III-1:

Parents’ Survival Rates.
Total of Living Parents
Both deceased
Both parents alive
Father alive Mother alive
24,396
16,615
11,194
824
4,597
7,781
100.0
68.1
45.9
3.4
18.8
31.9

Total
Total
Percentage

Figure III-5 shows the survival rates of parents by age of respondents. As respondents
grew older, their parents’ survival rates fell while their decease rates rose as a matter of13

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

nature. Those who had both parents alive shared 92.7 (91.4) percent of those in their
20s, 59.8 (52.7) percent of those in their early 40s, after which it sharply fell to 1.2 (0.4)
percent of those above 65. However, more than a half of respondents in their 50s and28.5 percent of those who were in the 60-64 age group had one parent still alive. For
the whole body of respondents over 65, 8.2 (4.9) percent had one parent. In the past
five years, parental survival rates have risen in all age groups.
Figure III-5:

Parents’ Survival Rates by Age of Respondents

100%
Both
deceased

80%
60%

Both parents alive

40%
20%

Mother alive

Father alive

0%
1819

2024

2529

Figure III-6:
Parents-in-law)

3034

3539

40- 4544 49
Age

5054

5559

6064

65-

Number of Alive Parents by Age of Respondents (includes

100%

5.8
28.2

80%

4 parents
28.0
45.1

13.7

17.2

41.2
26.8

2 parents

None
36.8
54.9

17.0

3 parents

60%

86.7

30.0
97.0

88.6

40%

17.4

28.6

26.4

59.2
31.8

20%

21.0

31.9

10.5
1 parent

29.1
24.7

31.6

34.4

31.8

21.9
0%

4.6

6.1

5.3

7.3

10.8

18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64

10.9
65-

Figure III-6 illustrates the survival rates of four parents including the parents of one’s
spouse. Among respondents aged 18 and over, 24.8 (27.9) had their four parents
deceased, in turn, 75.2 (72.1) percent had at least one parent alive. The breakdown

14

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

showed that 16.5 (15.8) percent had one parent, 37.4 (31.2) percent two parents, 13.3
(11.2) percent three parents, and 17.3 (13.9) percent had all the four parents alive.
Parents’ survival rates have increased over the previous survey.
By age group, themajority of parents were deceased for respondents aged 65 and over, yet, one out ofeight persons had a living parent, as 10.9 (7.9) percent of them had one parent, and 1.7(1.1) percent had two parents still alive.

The survival rates of one’s own parents and co-residence with them are shown in Table
III-2. The proportion living with at least one of parents was 27.3 (26.3) percent, thatliving separately was 41.3 (37.8) percent, and that both parents deceased was 31.5
(35.9) percent. Proportions co-residing with at least one parent were 32.8 (33.2)
percent among men and 22.0 (19.7) percent among women, that living separately were38.2 (33.6) percent among men and 44.1 (42.0) percent among women. Proportions
co-residing were higher among men in both surveys, but the figure increased slightly
among women in the past five years.
Table III-2:

Co-residence with Own Parents by Age of Respondents

Total
Sex
Total
Male
FemaleActual Number(persons)
24,703
12,026
12,677

Co-residence with Parents
(%)
100.0
100.0
100.0

with father withwithand mother father mother
27.3
18.8
1.4
7.0
32.8
21.7
1.9
9.3
22.0
16.1
1.0
4.8

Separate

41.3
38.2
44.1

Both of parents
deceased

31.5
28.9
33.9

Figure III-7 charts the breakdown of male and female age pattern of parental
survivorship and co-residence. Difference by sex becomes apparent at age 30 andthereafter. Both men and women in the 20-24 age group lived with their parents ataround 80 percent. Women living with their parents showed a sharp decline while they
were in their 20s and 30s because they leave parental households for marriage. Men
between age 30 and 34 who live with their parents stood at 39.0 (41.2) percent, andwomen in the same age range 22.9 percent, which was larger than the data in theprevious survey five years ago with 21.5 percent. This increase coincides with theincrease of unmarried women and the delay in leaving home. In general, co-residencewith parents fell along with ages among both men and women. Yet, 4.3 (3.3) percent
of men and 1.1 (0.8) percent of women were living with their parents after they became
65 years old.

15

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure III-7 Survivorship and Co-residence with Own Parents by Age and Sex of
Respondents
Female

Male
100%

100%
80%
Separate

60%

BothParents
Deceased

60%

Separate

40%

40%
20%

Both
Parents
Deceased80%

20%

Co-reside0%
18- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 6519 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64

Co-reside0%
18- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 6519 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64

Figure III-8 shows the living arrangements with parents-in-law among currently married
respondents. The proportion living with one of their spouse’s parents was 10.6 (11.3)
percent, that of those who were living apart was 53.4 (49.0) percent, and that of whose
spouse’s parents were dead was 36.0 (39.7) percent. Currently married men who lived
with their wife’s parents stood at 4.8 (4.0) percent while those who lived separately
occupied 60.8 (58.6) percent. Among currently married women, 16.3 (18.0) percent
were living with their husband’s parents and 46.0 (40.0) were living apart. More wives
were living with in-laws, reflecting the traditional characteristics of family formation in
Japan. Comparing with the data of the 1994 survey, husbands living with their wife’s
parents remained almost the same, while wives living with husband’s parents decreasedslightly. The proportion of men living with parents-in-law peaked at 7.3 percent inages 45-49 while that of women peaked at 23.7 percent in the same age group. Thatthe proportion reached the peak in the 45-49 age range would mean that the survival
rate of their in-laws were high and they are entering latter old age.
Figure III-8 Survivorship and Co-residence with Parents-in-low by Age and Sex of
Currently Married Respondents
Male

Female

100%

100%
Both
Parents
Deceased

80%
60%

60%

Separate
40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

Both
Parents
Deceased80%

Co-reside
20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 6524 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64

16

Separate

Co-reside0%
20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 6524 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

3. Other Relatives
The availability of kin other than spouse, parents and children has greatly been shrunk
in recent cohorts comparing to prewar and immediate postwar cohorts.
Here, only the changes in number of living siblings are presented (Table III-3, Figure
III-9, and Table III-4). The average number of living siblings (including oneself)
peaked with 4.31 by 1935-39 birth cohort and declined rapidly to 2.38 by 1975-79 birthcohort. The average number of siblings in the 1999 survey was 3.21, which was lesser
than 3.44 of the previous survey. This fall reflects not only the decrease in born
siblings due to fertility decline but also the decrease in living siblings due to the deathof old siblings.
Among people born after 1960, the average number of siblings has
stayed around 2.5.
Decreasing numbers of siblings have consequent increases in daughters-only orsons-only sibling sets. The proportion of female respondents without male siblings
increased from 23.7 percent of the 1935-39 cohort to 44.9 percent of the 1975-79 cohort(Table III-4). The proportion of the eldest son and that of the eldest daughter were also
increasing, reaching at 71.7 percent of male respondents in the 1975-79 cohort were theeldest sons.
Table III-3:

Average Number of Siblings by Birth Cohort
Birth cohort

Total
〜1924
1925〜29
1930〜34
1935〜39
1940〜44
1945〜49
1950〜54
1955〜59
1960〜64
1965〜69
1970〜74
1975〜79

Total

Average Number of Siblings(persons)
4th survey
3rd survey

28,153
3.21
3.44
2,305
2.94
3.31
1,677
3.77
4.22
2,026
4.19
4.58
2,268
4.31
4.59
2,596
4.12
4.21
2,939
3.70
3.80
2,685
3.28
3.31
2,311
2.77
2.88
2,212
2.52
2.57
2,366
2.44
2.46
2,526
2.43
2.43
2,242
2.38
* Total does not include “unknown.”

17

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure III-9:

Number of Siblings by Birth Cohort
5
3rd Survey
4
4th Survey
3

2

1975〜79

1970〜74

1965〜69

1960〜64

1955〜59

1950〜54

1945〜49

1940〜44

1935〜39

1930〜34

1925〜29〜1924

1Birth Cohort

Table III-4:

Relation with Parents (based on living siblings) by Birth Cohort
(%)

Male
Birth cohort
Total(persons)

FemaleTotal(persons)

Eldest son Others

No brothers
Eldestdaughter

Total
13,470
63.0
834
84.7
〜1924
779
70.9
1925〜29964
60.1
1930〜34
1,103
52.2
1935〜391,258
49.0
1940〜441,473
51.5
1945〜49
1,349
54.8
1950〜54
1,158
63.2
1955〜59
1,110
68.8
1960〜64
1,187
72.3
1965〜691,176
69.5
1970〜74
1,079
71.7
1975〜79* Total does not include “unknown.”

37.0
15.3
29.1
39.9
47.8
51.0
48.5
45.2
36.8
31.2
27.7
30.5
28.3

14,478
1,452
891
1,045
1,155
1,320
1,453
1,316
1,140
1,086
1,167
1,324
1,129

Have
brothers
Others

22.3
43.7
23.1
17.8
13.7
17.0
15.1
15.5
21.7
25.9
24.9
23.6
23.3

14.1
11.7
12.9
11.8
10.0
10.3
10.1
13.7
16.8
15.3
17.0
18.8
21.6

63.6
44.6
64.0
70.4
76.3
72.7
74.7
70.8
61.5
58.8
58.2
57.6
55.1

IV. Continuity and Emergence of Households
Various household changes such as the reduction in household size and increase innuclear-family households have been observed in contemporary Japan. More insights
could be obtained by relating such cross-sectional changes with dynamic processes ofhousehold formation and dissolution. This chapter examines retrospective data on
household dynamics such as transitions to and from headship, migration of members toand from household, and changes in household size and family type.

18

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

1. Experiences of Household Heads
Among household members at age 18 and above, 75.8 percent of men and 14.0 percent
of women were the heads of household on the survey date. Although a majority ofthem were already the heads five years before the survey, some newly became the heads
in the past five years. The heads that held the status for five years numbered 9,863
persons, or 85.4 percent of the current household heads (Table IV-1). New household
heads counted 1,691 persons, or 14.6 percent. Among the continued household heads,
there were heads labeled “unchanged” whose household did not include an individual
who was the head of other household in 1994 (82.1% of the current household heads)
and those labeled “merged” whose household include a former head (3.3 %). The newheads could be divided into “replaced” heads who succeeded the headship withoutleaving the household (5.1%), and “emerged” heads who newly established households(9.5%). Since households of “unchanged”, “merged” and “replaced” heads alreadyexisted five years before, these are called “continued” households. The heads of thesehouseholds occupied 90.5 percent. It is clear that the number of households decreases
by merging and increases by emerging. That the number of “emerged” heads wasnearly triple of the number of “merged” heads indicates the increase in the total numberof households during past five years.
Figure IV-1 shows age profile of type of heads described above. It is noted that ninehousehold heads under 18 were included in the age group 18-19. Most male heads intheir tens to twenties belonged to the “emerged” type as they left homes to live
independently, after which most belonged to the “unchanged” type. The highest
portion of the emerging type was found in the 25-29 age group with 20.1 percent, andthat of unchanged type in the 65-69 age group with 91.7 percent. The household headsof the “merged” and “replaced” types were comparatively few in number, although themerged type increased among those in their early 30s (3.2%), and then again frompeople in their early 50s to early 60s (6.4%). The rise in the early thirties may suggest
the formation of new households by a merger of two single-heads upon marriage, andthat in latter ages by a merger with a child’s household. Most of the replaced heads
might be children succeeding their parents. From people in their 20s to 50s, this typeof heads maintained the 3-percent level, with the highest ratio at 4.0 percent in the
30-34 age group.

19

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Female heads occupied small portions in all age ranges. The proportion of heads
remained 10 percent or so among women in their early 20s, fell among women in their30s, after which gradually rose until it reached the peak among women in their early 80s(31.3%). By type of heads, female heads in their early 20s belonged to the emerged
type (10.4%) as was the case with men. After this, the proportion of women heading
households declined, mostly upon marriage, and increased again among women in their
50s and on by replacing the former household heads. Among female heads in their 50s
and older, those belonging to the unchanged type kept increasing. The largest portionof the replaced type was seen among women in the 70-74 age group (6.5%). The
increase in female heads of replaced and unchanged types in old ages may imply thatthey became and remained the heads after the death of their husbands.
Even though the proportion of heads decreased among men in their latter days, morethan 80 percent remained as household heads in the 80-84 age group. In addition to
the high proportion of elderly women of the unchanged and replaced types, elderly men
remained as household heads in their late years. This fact may reflect a recent
tendency that many elderly people prefer living apart from their children.
Table IV-1

Profile of Current Household Heads
Total No. of Current Household Heads(1) Continued heads(1-1) unchanged(1-2) merged(2) New heads(2-1) replaced type(2-2) emergent type12,432
9,863
9,483
380
1,691
590
1,101

persons

(%)
85.4
82.1
3.3
14.6
5.1
9.5

(1) +(2-1) (continued household heads)
10,453
90.5
Percentages are based on the number of current household heads excluding thenumber whose profiles are unknown.

Age Profile of Household Heads by Type（％）

発生型
EmergedReplaced
交代型
Merged
合併型
Unchanged
不変型20.4 23.6

26.3

80〜84

5.1
19.3

85〜

75〜79

65〜69

60〜64

55〜59

50〜54

45〜49

8.4 10.5 13.1 14.6

6.5

70〜74

5.7

40〜44

20〜24

18〜19

85〜

80〜84

75〜79

70〜74

65〜69

60〜64

55〜59

45〜49

40〜44

35〜39

30〜34

25〜29

20〜24

18〜19

50〜54

Age group

Female

35〜39

Male

30〜34

（％）

100
100
6.4 5.1
90
90
4.7
80
80
70
70
60
60
15.4
50
50
91.7
88.3 90.1
88.1
81.4 78.4
80.8 83.4
40
40
72.5
20.1
64.1
61.7 30
30
43.1
20
20
17.3
1018.910
9.6 10.4
0
0

25〜29

Figure IV:1

Age group
Note: Proportions are to the total number of respondents of each age group.
However, heads below age 18 are included in the 18‑19 age group.

20

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Among the 590 household heads of the replaced type, 42.5 percent succeeded the statusfrom their parents, while 42.0 percent from their spouses; and these two occupied morethan 80 percent. The remainders included spouse’s parents (3.7%), a child (2.0%), andgrandparents (1.9%). Among male heads of the replaced type, 72.8 percent of theirprevious household heads were their own parents, 6.0 percent were their spouses, and5.6 percent were their spouse’s parents. Among female household successors, 79.9
percent of their previous householders were their spouses, and 10.8 percent were theirparents. Replacement rates with parents were higher among men in their late 20s to
those in their early 50s (the peak was 3.3% among men aged 30-34). Replacement
rates with spouse were higher among women in their late 60s and early 80s (5.2% as thehighest among those aged 70-74).
Among the replaced type, 43.1 percent had been living together, and 56.9 percent cameinto the position upon the death of former heads. More than half (65.6%) of the maleheads of the replaced type had been living with the former heads, while the great
majority (80.6%) of women became new household heads after the former heads’ death.
By age group, men became heads when they were in their latter 20s to early 30s while
they were living with the former heads. Women succeeded headship when their latter
60s to early 80s after the death of former heads.
As a whole, men succeeded headship from their parents while they were living with
their parents, and women from their husbands after their death.
Figure IV-2:

Replacement Rate by the Condition of Former Heads of Household
Male
男

（％）
6
5

5

4

4

3

1.3
1.4 1.42
1

2.6 2.3 2.3

1.8 1.7 1.8

死亡■death同居■alive死亡■death同居■alive

3

4.2

2

1.8

1
1.3 1.2

2.0

5.2

2.4

3.6
3.3
1.7

0

年齢

18〜19
20〜24
25〜29
30〜34
35〜39
40〜44
45〜49
50〜54
55〜59
60〜64
65〜69
70〜74
75〜79
80〜84
85〜

18〜19
20〜24
25〜29
30〜34
35〜39
40〜44
45〜49
50〜54
55〜59
60〜64
65〜69
70〜74
75〜79
80〜84
85〜

0

Age group

Female女（％）
6＊18〜19には18歳未満の世帯主も含む。
Age group

年齢*Householders under age 18 are included in the 18-19 age group2.

Arrivals and Departures of Household Members

Among the continued households that already existed in 1994, 16.1 percent experienced
arrivals of new members, while 26.7 percent experienced departures of their members.

21

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

The larger percentage of households experiencing reduction suggests the overall decline
in the mean household size, although this depends on the number of persons moving inand out.
Figure IV-3 shows the reasons for arrival and departure of household members. The
first reason for arrival was childbirth (0.14 persons per continued household), followedby marriage (0.05), occupation (0.02), others (0.01) and support for parents or children(0.01). The reasons for departure were marriage (0.10 persons per continued
household), death (0.07), occupation (0.06), and education (0.04). When all of thesewere calculated, the number added per household was 0.26 and that reduced was 0.38,
indicating net reduction in household size.
Figure IV-3:

In- and Out-Flows of Members Per Household by Reason（persons） 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.14

Birth

0.05

Marriage

Widowhood

0.00
0.00

Education

0.01

Arrivals

Occupation

0.02

Support for parents or children
Others0.01
0.01

Unknown

0.02
0.38

Total

0.07

Death

0.10

Marriage
Widowhood
Divorce
Education
Occupation
Illness
OthersUnknown

0.4

0.26

Total

Divorce

0.3

0.00
0.01

Departure

0.04
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.05

*Targets are only the continued households whose membership changes are clear.

The increase of divorce-related reduction from the previous survey indicates theincrease in divorce rates, and those in occupational reasons and marriage may be adirect result of the second baby boomers reaching the ages for such life events. The
great number of births as a reason of arrival is a result of a five-years period ofinspection. There were more arrivals for “support for parents or children” amongmerged households, suggesting the needs for elderly support or childcares were met byuniting child and parent households.

22

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

3.

Changes in Household Size

Comparison of household sizes of continued households shows a reduction of members
by 0.1 persons from 3.08 to 2.97 in the five years. The proportions of one-person,
2-person and 3-person households increased among continued households, while that of
4-person households decreased (Figure IV-4). Households with a net member increase
occupied 13.7 percent, while 22.0 percent saw a net decrease. From this angle, thedeclining tendency of household size is obviously ongoing. A closer look into thechronological change for the past five years proves that households with more than
three members five years ago generally were reduced in size. The decline from three to
two among them (20.8%) was larger than the rate of increase from three to four (16.7%).
However, of these households which had two members five years before, more saw
expansion than reduction in the five year period. This trend expected to reverse whenmore two-person households are the elderly couples than young couples because of therapid population aging in Japan.
Figure IV-4: Continued Households by Size（％）

30
Household size in 1994

25

Household size in 1999

20
15
10

*Percentages to the total number of continued
households (8,790) whose size was clear for1994 and 1999.

5
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 (persons)

4. Changes in Family Types
Table IV-2 compares distributions in family types for continued households, except forhouseholds whose types are unknown, are shown in. One-person and couple-onlyhouseholds increased from 16.7 to 17.8 percent, and from 19.2 to 20.1 percent,respectively, while parents-children households and other types decreased.
Transitions in family type in the five years are observed in Table IV-3. The mostnotable changes were from one-person households to parents-children households(8.9%), from couple-only households to parents-children households (15.1%), fromparents-children households to couple-only households (8.7%), and from otherhouseholds to parents-children households (10.4%). While the former two transitions
expand household sizes, the latter two cases reduce them. Regarding couple-only23

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

households, greater numbers were in the direction of expansion rather than reduction
toward one-person households (9.4 %). As population aging proceeds, however, thegap between these two transitions would be narrowed.
Table IV-2:

Changes in Family Types (Continued Households)

1994
1999
No. ofNo. of(%)
Households
Households
One-person
1,455
16.7
1,548
Couple only
1,676
19.2
1,748
Parent/s and child/ren.
4,181
48.0
4,032
Other
1,401
16.1
1,385
Total
8,713
100.0
8,713
*Households whose composition in 1994 were unknown are excluded.
*“Parent/s and Child/ren” include households the sex of whose parent is unknown.
Family type

Table IV-3:

(%)
17.8
20.1
46.3
15.9
100.0

Changes in Family Types (Continued Households)

1999
One-person
1994
One-person
81.9
Couple only
9.4
Parent/s and child/ren.
3.8
Other
2.9
Total
17.8

Couple only
7.8
72.9
8.7
3.6
20.1

Parent/s andOtherchild/ren.
8.9
1.4
15.1
2.6
83.8
3.7
10.4
83.2
46.3
15.9

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

5. Ceasing to be Household Heads
In this survey, those who had been the heads of households five years before(including those who lived alone) but who were no longer the heads of households on
the survey date were defined as “former heads.” They were further grouped into those
who ceased to be householders because they were absorbed in another household(“absorption” type) and those giving away the position within the same household,(“replacement“ type). The former heads of household of the “absorption” typeoccupied 1.5 percent among men and 2.5 percent among women aged 18 and above(including below-18 household heads), and those of the “replacement” type 0.3 percent
of men and 0.5 percent of women. The higher portion of the “absorption” type among
women indicates that more women cease to be the heads of household because of
marriage.
By age group, both men and women showed higher portions of the “absorption” type in
their late 20s (men 6.7%, and women 10.9%). The proportion declined toward ages
50s and rose afterward. The rise in their late 20s may be caused by their marriage or
returning home (so called U-turn, going out to large cities for education andemployment and returning home later) to live with their parents. The rise among the24Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

elderly may mean that increasing numbers of them come to live with their children’s
families. In the “replacement” type, proportions increased among men in their 60s andonward, and among women in their late 50s. Many people appear to hand overheadship to their children around these ages.
Most former heads who returned to parents’ households in their late 20s are likely tohave done so to seek new employment opportunities in their hometowns. It isconsidered that these returnees increase when the economy is unfavorable. Therefore,
the trend of increasing co-residence with parents may reflect, to some extent, recent
economic conditions in Japan.

V. Household Formation and Expansion
This section studies the household formation behavior of young individuals in theprocess of transition into adulthood. The process involves life course events such asleaving parental home, marriage and childbearing. Household size and composition
are affected not only by timing of each event but also by coincidence and sequences of
events. This section examines these sequential patterns as well as the prevalence andthe average age at each event is experienced.
1. Leaving Parental Home
It is thought that leaving home before marriage has been promoted by social changes
such as growing demand for higher education, participation in labor force as employees,
and decline in traditional stem family system. Even today, however, not all of theyoung people leave their homes before marriage in Japan. Hence, the trend of leaving
parental home is affected by nuptiality changes. Recent nuptiality decline is thought todelay the leaving home of children and increase the propensity of young adults to stayin their parental households.
It is considered that, in addition to the delay in home-leaving at marriage, leaving homeamong single persons are also declining. These pre-marital leavers leave home inorder to enter colleges or to get jobs that are not available in their hometown. Suchhome-leaving for educational or occupational purpose was prevalent in 1950s and 1960s,
the period of rapid economic growth and intensive rural-urban migration in Japan.

25

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Today, however, as domestic migration has calmed and city-born children (second
generation of migrants) have increased, the necessity for leaving home for educationand employment is lowered. Further, the decline in the number of siblings andworsened labor market condition also may deter young adults from leaving home before
marriage.
Figure V-1 compares the proportion living with parents between the 1994 and 1999
surveys. Increase in women staying with their parents is obvious, especially among
women in their late 20s. The proportion among men did not increase, except for thosein their late 20s. However, it is not clear whether the declining proportion among men
in other than late 20s suggests increases in home-leaving or decreases in retuning home
after leaving.
Figure V-2 shows the average age at respondents left home for the first time by sex andcohort. The data of the youngest cohort of 1965-69 do not present accurate figures
because of censoring. Therefore, it can be seen that delay in home-leaving has been
occurring after 1945-49 birth cohort among men and after 1950-54 cohort among
women. Since the average ages at leaving were between 20 and 22 for most of thecohorts, it is inferred that the delay started around 1970 when the rapid economic
growth in Japan was slowed down.
Figure V-1a:

Proportion Living with Parents: Men
100.0

91.3
78.8

75.0

81.3

77.7

58.3

% 50.055.4
3rd survey

25.0

41.3

37.4

39.0

4th survey

31.7

35‑39

30‑34

25‑29

20‑24

18‑19

0.0

Age Group

Proportion Living with Parents: Women
100.0

87.0
78.3

75.0

86.9
77.5
51.3

% 50.046.2
3rd survey

25.0

22.9
15.7

4th survey
21.5

14.1

35‑39

26
Age Group

30‑34

25‑29

20‑24

0.0

18‑19

Figure V-1b:

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure V-2: Average Age at Leaving Parental Households
23.0
22.3
21.9

22.0
21.4
21.0

20.0

21.9 21.8
21.5

22.0

21.1 21.1
20.8
21.1

20.5 21.0

21.1
20.8
20.3 20.2

20.2

20.4

20.4
Men

Women

1965‑69

1960‑64

1955‑59

1950‑54

1945‑49

1940‑44

1935‑39

1930‑34

1925‑29

before 1924

19.0

Figure V-3 shows the reasons for leaving by sex and birth cohort. The greatest
difference between men and women was found in the share of leaving at marriage.
More than 70 percent of men who have left parents appeared to have left before
marriage, while more than half of women remained with their parents until they married.
Although the difference has been narrowed, there still is a considerable gender gap evenfor the youngest cohort.
Figure V-3a: Reasons for Leaving Parental Households: Men
0%

25%

50%

75%

before 1924

10.7

40.8

22.2

1925‑29

14.2

30.4

34.4

1930‑34

10.2

41.3

1935‑39

12.8

1940‑44

11.1

1945‑49
1950‑54

23.0

45.0

27.7

1960‑64

33.2

1965‑69

35.1
education

20.9

43.6

8.9

25.5

32.0

27

8.7

23.1

21.6

29.0

marriage

10.4

24.6

19.4

34.2

occupation

16.5
31.1

55.6

33.3

26.3

32.0

45.8

1955‑59100%

20.7
others

9.2
10.9
12.3
12.3

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure V-3b: Reasons for Leaving Parental Households: Women
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

3.7

17.0

1925‑29

4.9

17.2

71.0

6.9

1930‑34

3.5 15.8

73.1

7.6

before 1924

1935‑39 5.3

21.2

1940‑44 5.8
9.4

1950‑54

15.0

6.1

67.4

30.5

1945‑49

8.9

70.4

30.8

20.8

17.9

1960‑64

20.6

18.2

1965‑69

21.0

17.1

education

occupation

4.2

54.6

5.1

51.8

28.3

1955‑59

59.5

56.2
54.6
51.3
marriage

5.0
5.0
6.7
10.6

othersMost people leaving home for higher education or employment are thought to bepre-marital leavers. In those days when secondary and tertiary educations were lesscommon, leaving for employment constituted an overwhelming majority. However, as
more people go to higher educational institutions, leaving home for these two reasonscame close to each other in recent years. Although the leaving home for higher
education increased promptly after 1945-49 birth cohort, the growth rate seemed to have
hit the ceiling for the latest cohorts.
2. Marriage
The delay of marriage among women is a long-term process that has occurred
throughout the 20th century, though the tendency was temporarily suspended at times
such as in late 1940s when post-war marriage boom took place and in the 1960s andearly 1970s when full-time housewives increased.
Since the latter half of the 1970s,
however, the delay of marriage has been constantly in progress among both men andwomen. Average age at first marriage in the 1999 Vital Statistics was 28.7 for men and26.8 for women. Compared with 1975, men’s average age was delayed by 1.7 years
and women’s average age by 2.1 years. Census reports show that the proportion ofboth men and women staying single at the age of 50 were below 5 percent until the
1980s, but men’s proportion went up to 9 percent and that of women exceeded 5 percent
in 1995. Hence, it is clear that the trend toward less marriage is also in progress aswell as that toward late marriage.
As shown in Table V-1, the proportion of men staying single did not change much in thefive years, but the proportion of women in the late 20s and early 30s rose by 4 to 5
points. Although changes in the proportion around age 50 were small, rises by more

28

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

than one point were observed among men aged 45-49 and women aged 50-54.
results suggest that the trend of nuptiality decline is still in progress.
Table V-1 Proportion Single by Sex and Age GroupAge group
18〜19
20〜24
25〜29
30〜34
35〜39
40〜44
45〜49
50〜54
55〜59
60〜64
65 and overMen
3rd survey(1994)
99.7
93.3
66.0
33.2
20.5
13.8
9.0
5.0
4.0
1.2
0.4

4th survey(1999)
98.5
93.4
64.4
34.2
20.9
16.3
10.7
5.4
3.8
2.2
0.9

These

(%)
Woman
3rd survey(1994)
98.2
88.6
46.4
16.6
9.7
5.0
4.0
2.7
3.3
3.4
2.7

4th survey(1999)
97.6
88.4
51.3
20.7
9.7
6.1
4.6
4.4
3.2
2.7
2.3

3. Life Course Patterns
The life course patterns of household formation will be discussed here by combining
leaving parental households, marriage, and childbearing. The household formation
process is divided into the following five stages. These stages were divided inaccordance with the marital status and the living arrangement at the time of survey.
1) Living with parents:
Never married and living with parents or grandparents, (including those who had
returned home after having left once.)2) Having left parental home:
Never married, not living either with parents or grandparents.
3) Married:Ever married or cohabitation with a partner, not living either with parents or
grandparents.
4) Having children:Ever married, not living with their parents or grandparents, but living with their own
children.
5) Married and had children without leaving parental home:Ever married and living with parents or grandparents.
The processes of household formation for men and women are shown in Figure V-4.
Among the youth aged 18-19, 21.5 percent of men and 14.6 percent of women were29

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

already started household formation. The gender difference in the proportion staying
with parents mostly disappears in early 20s but starts developing in the opposite
direction in latter 20s when more women leave home for marriage than men. By age
35, however, majority of men and women experiences three life-course events ofdeparture from parental household, marriage and childbearing. The traditional
household formation pattern of staying with parents after marriage is more common
among men than women.
Figure V-4a: Stages of Household Formation: Men
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%
Living with parents

18‑19

78.5

20‑24

74.6

20.1
Leaving parents

18.1
Marriage

48.6

25‑29
23.8

30‑34

15.0 13.4

10.2 16.2

10.9

38.9

12.7 7.9 11.8

35‑39

17.6

15.9

51.7

Childbirth
Marriage and childbirthwithout leaving parents

Figure V-1b: Stages of Household Formation: Women
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%
Living with parents

85.4

18‑19

11.7
Leaving parents

74.3

20‑24

13.4
Marriage

43.1

25‑29

7.4 17.4

28.0Childbirth

30‑34

15.8

35‑39 7.1 9.7

15.6

60.4
Marriage and childbirthwithout leaving parents

74.7

Figure V-5 shows the 1999 status of those who were “living with parents” in 1994.
These figures can be interpreted as the transition probability from the initial status andare essential parameters for household projections.

30

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

Figure V-5a: Household Formation among Men who were living with parents five years
before
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%
Living with parents

18‑19

80.1

18.3

20‑24

80.6

14.1

25‑29

12.2 16.7

50.7

35‑39

8.0 9.6

36.0

Marriage

10.210.0

67.2

30‑34

Leaving parents

Childbirth

16.5

Marriage and childbirthwithout leaving parents

42.9

Figure V-5b: Household Formation among Women who were living with parents five
years before.
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%
Living with parents

18‑19

88.7

9.6
Leaving parents

20‑24
25‑29

80.7
61.3

10.7
14.6

30‑34

51.3

15.7

35‑39

48.8

10.2 11.8

17.6

21.6
25.2

MarriageChildbirth
Marriage and childbirthwithout leaving parents

Household formation behavior of a hypothetical cohort can be constructed bysequentially applying these probabilities. For example, the probability of remaining in
the initial status of “living with parents” until ages 35-39 will be calculated bymultiplying non-change probabilities of each age interval. In the case of men, it will
be calculated with 0.801 x 0.806 x 0.672 x 0.507 x 0.360 = 7.9%. The actual
proportion of men was 12.7 percent according to Figure V-4. From this, it can be
imagined that there were quite a few men who returned home after leaving or marriage.
Regarding women’s hypothetical cohort, the probability staying in the initial status is0.887 x 0.807 x 0.613 x0.513 x 0.488 = 11.0%, which is higher than the actual 7.1%.
This suggests that overall delays in home-leaving, marriage and childbearing are in
progress, and that in future a higher portion of women at ages 35-39 may remain “livingwith parents” than today.

31

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

VI Household Dissolution and Reduction
The dissolution and shrinkage of households occur along with life course events such as
children leaving home, the death of a spouse, and divorce. This section inspects these
events that mainly take place in later ages. In addition, the relationships between
health status of elderly people and household characteristics are also examined.
1. Divorce and Widowhood
The proportion of men who experienced the transition from currently married towidowed within five years was 1.4 percent, while that of women was 4.7 percent.
Naturally, the proportions were higher among people at age 65 and over, with 3.4 and16.7 percent among men and women, respectively.
Table VI-1 shows the transition between family types for those who experienced spousedeath within five years interval. Among men, non-transition staying in “other”
household, transition from couple-and-children to one-parent-and-children, that fromcouple-only to one-person accounted for more than 20 percent. Among women,transition from couple-only to one-person and non-transition in other household
accounted for more than 30 percent, and transition from couple-and-children to
one-parent-and-children accounted for 20 percent. Although somehow different inrates, both men and women showed similar transition tendencies. When men andwomen combined, more than 90 percent of “couple-only” households transited to“one-person” households, 83.5 percent of which were women living alone.
Table VI-1 Transitions between Family Types in the Past Five Years (Spouse Death)
(%)
Male

FemalePresent(1999)

Present(1999)
One-parent-an
One-parent-an
One-person
OthersOne-person
Others5 years ago (1994)
d-children
d-children
One-person
9.6
1.0
3.2
0.5
0.3
Couple-only
22.1
1.0
0.0
31.3
1.3
0.0
Couple-and-children
1.9
23.1
3.8
1.6
22.4
3.5
One-parent-and-children
5.8
1.9
0.3
1.1
0.3
Others
1.9
27.9
0.8
2.7
30.7
*Households whose family types are unknown were excluded. No couple-only or couple-and-children households
were found as present family types.

Those who divorced in the five years occupied 1.2 percent (0.8% in the previous
survey) of men and 1.7 percent (1.1 %) of women. The proportions experiencing
divorce were relatively high among people below 40.
Among the entire body of32

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

people under 40, 4.0 percent (2.7%) of men and 5.0 percent (3.3%) of womenexperienced divorce.
Table VI-2:

Transitions between Family Types in the Past Five Years (Divorce)(%)
Present(1999)

5years ago(1994)
Male
One-person
Couple only
Couple+ children
Father+ children
Mother+ children
OthersFemaleOne-person
Couple only
Couple+ children
Father+ children
Mother+ children
OthersOne-person

Couple +childrenFather +childrenMother +children

Others

14.6

-

-

-

1.1

16.9
12.4
2.2
1.1

2.2
4.5
1.1

1.1
5.6
2.2
-

1.1
1.1
4.5
4.5

1.1
4.5
1.1
1.1
15.7

2.3

-

-

0.8

3.9

10.2
4.7
1.6

3.1
0.8
0.8

-

2.3
37.5
4.7
3.1

3.1
10.2
0.8
3.1
7.0

The transition between family types of those who divorced in the five years can beobserved in Table VI-2. The greater portions of men transited from couple-only to
one-person or from couple-and-children to one-person, accounting for 16.9 percent and12.4 percent, respectively. Among women, however, more than 30 percent transitedfrom couple-and-children to one-parent-and-children. The cases such as transitions
couple-only to one –parent-and-children or to couple-and-children may imply that oneof the divorced spouses re-joined one’s parental household. When both men andwomen are combined, more than 70 percent of couple-only households became
one-person households. Unlike the cases of spouse death, the propensities to live
alone after divorce were almost equal between men and women.
2. Departure of Children and Empty Nests
Figure VI-1 shows the proportions of households that transited fromcouple-and-children to couple-only households by age of heads. The distribution isbi-modal, with two peaks in the latter 20s and early 60s. For the younger generation, itmeans that children in couple-and-children households left their parents to marry andform new couple-only households of their own. Therefore, the so-called “empty nest”
can be applied to “couple-only” households in 40-44 and older age groups. The
transition probabilities to empty nests sharply rose among heads in the latter 50s,
reached the peak at ages 60-64 with 23.7 percent, and then gradually decreased. As a33

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

whole, 9.8 percent of continued households transited from couple-and-children tocouple-only households in past five years.
Figure VI-1: Households Transited from Couple–and-children to Couple-only by Age ofHeads (%)
(%)
30.0
25.6
25.0

23.7
21.5
19.2

20.0

17.7

17.5

15.0
12.1
10.0
6.7

5.6
4.3

5.0

5.6

3.9
1.4
0.0

0.0
2024

2529

3034

3539

4044

4549

5054

5559

6064

6569

7074

7579

8084

85+

In the following section, the transition to empty-nest of parental household is examinedby dividing the process of children leaving home into the following four stages.
Ⅰ. Before the transition (All the children live together.)Ⅱ. On progress (Some children left and some remain.)
Ⅲ. Completed within the past 5 years (All the children left after July 1994.)
Ⅳ. Completed more than 5 years before (All the children left before July 1994.)
Distribution of all the parents by stage were that 45.5 percent (47.2% in the previous
survey) belonged to Stage Ⅰ, 30.0 percent (32.1%) to Stage Ⅱ, 6.2 percent (8.3%) toStage Ⅲ, and 18.3 percent (12.4%) to Stage Ⅳ. Comparing the previous survey,
those who belonged to Stage Ⅳ increased, and those who belonged to the rest
decreased. The parents in Stages Ⅲ and Ⅳ can be regarded as in empty nests
because they live apart from all of their children, even though this does not necessarilymean that they are of the form of couple-only households. The proportion of theseparents was 24.5 percent, and 7.5 percent of parents who had children in their houses(Stages Ⅰ + Ⅱ + Ⅲ) five years before, shifted to empty nests (Stage Ⅳ) in the past
five years.
By age group, as shown in Figure VI-2, the portions belonging to Stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ

34

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

rose among men in their early to latter 50s and women in their latter 40s toward early
50s. About a half of both men and women in the ages 65-69 was living in empty nests.
It was in the 55-59 age groups of both men and women that showed outstandingtransition to empty nests (Stage Ⅲ) with men 15.1 percent and women 14.3 percent
It is understood that the transition to empty nests occurs most rapidly during this age
group.
In contrast, the proportion of Stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ decreased among women above the65-69 age group, and among men above the 70-74 age group, while that of Stage Ⅱ
increased in older ages. This tendency was particularly notable among women. It isconsidered that parents join their children’s households when they become very old.
Figure VI-3 shows the proportion of parents in Stages Ⅰ and Ⅱ who live withreturning children who ever left home by age of parents. As parents became old, those
who were living with children who once had left them increased. More than half ofwomen above 65, and around half of men above 65 were living with children who had
once left home. Behind this reunion phenomenon, changes on the parent side such as
spouse death, and those on the children side such as divorce may be associated.
Figure VI-2:
0

Transition to Empty Nests by Stage
Male
40

20

60

Female

(%)
100

80

0

Under39

Under39

40-44

40-44

45-49

45-49

Ⅰ

50-54

20

40

60

80

(%)
100

Ⅰ

50-54

55-59

Ⅲ

55-59

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

60-64

Ⅱ

60-64

65-69

65-69

Ⅳ

70-74

70-74

75-79

75-79

80+

80+

Ⅳ

Figure VI-3: Proportion of Parents Living with Children Who Ever Left Home by Age
(%)
60.0
53.3

50.0

46.5
47.5

42.3

40.0

55.6

55.6
51.9
50.7

53.3

53.4
51.0

48.3

42.2
33.3

36.1

30.0
24.4

20.0
10.0

14.1

27.1

Male
Female

17.7

13.8

0.0
40- 4544 49

50- 55- 60-35 65- 70- 7554
59 64
69
74
79

80- 85+84

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

and Sex of Parents

3. Health of the Elderly and Co-residence with Children
The proportions of elderly members aged 65 and over who needed care were 10.7
percent and 14.9 percent of men and women, respectively. More than 20 percent ofboth men and women above 80 needed some care and assistance in daily living.
Family types of respondents above 65 are shown by the need of care-giving in FigureVI-4. Elderly men and women in need of care were less likely to live alone or in
couple-only households and more likely to live in “other” households than healthy
persons. In particular, there was a great difference among women; 25.6 percent of
women who did not need others’ care lived in couple-only households, while only 9.8
percent those in need of care were in couple-only households. Generally in Japan,
when a husband requires care, the wife gives care, but, in turn, when a wife requirescare, not her husband but a woman within the same household (son’s wife or her own
daughter) gives care. From here, it is understood that when a wife becomes weakened
and in need of care in a couple-only household, it would entail some kind of structuralchange in the household.
Figure VI-4. Family Types of Elderly Members Aged 65 and Over by Health Condition
Male
0%

20%

In need of care 5.2

40%

43.4
33.3

No need of care

60%

80%

17.4

31.6
2.5
44.4

16.9
2.1

3.3
One-person
Parent+children
0%
In need of care

Couple-onlyFemaleOthers
20%
40%

18.6

25.6

7.8

No need of care 13.0 9.8
6.8
One-person
Parent+children

100%

Couple+children
60%

80%

100%

39.9
8.1
58.4

12.0

Couple-only
Others

Couple+children

Whether children living with parents above age 65 had left parents in the past or not isshown in Figure VI-5 by sex and by need of care of parents. Men who needed care36

Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Vol.1 No.1

had a higher proportion of living with children who once had left them than those who
did not need care by 11.3 points, and women by 5.7 points. The backward transition
from empty nest to living with a child appears to be triggered by parents’ poor healthconditions.
Figure VI-5: Elderly Members Aged 65 and Over by Child Experience of LeavingHome0
No need of care

20

40

48.1

60

80

(%)
100

51.9

Male

FemaleIn need of care

59.4

40.6

No need of care

52.4

47.6

In need of care

58.1

41.9

Child living together has left parents before.
Child living together has never left parents.

37