UNICEF
Office of Research

National Institute of Populationand Social Security ResearchChild well-being
in rich countries
Comparing Japan

This version of Report Card 11 is jointly authored by Aya K. Abe andJunko Takezawa with the support of the Social and Economic Policy
Section at the UNICEF Office of Research. The original version ofReport Card 11 was written by Peter Adamson.
The authors would like to thank the UNICEF Committee for Japan for
their generous support in producing this version of Report Card 11.
Any part of this publication may be freely reproduced using thefollowing reference:
UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Child Well-being in Rich Countries:
Comparing Japan’, Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research,
Florence.
The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare theperformance of economically advanced countries in securing the rightsof their children.
In 1988 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established aresearch centre to support its advocacy for children worldwide andto identify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’s work.
Through strengthening research partnerships with leading academic
institutions and development networks in both the North and South,
the Office seeks to leverage additional resources and influence insupport of efforts towards policy reform in favour of children.
Publications produced by the Office are contributions to a global debate
on children and child rights issues and include a wide range of
opinions. For that reason, some publications may not necessarily reflect
UNICEF policies or approaches on some topics. The views expressed
are those of the authors and/or editors and are published in order tostimulate further dialogue on child rights.

Cover photo © luxorphoto/Shutterstock©United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), National Instituteof Population & Social Security Research, December 2013
ISBN: 978-88-6522-024-5

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org

Child well-being
in rich countries
Comparing Japan2

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panPART 1
A league table of child well-being
The table below shows the ranking of Japan among 31 developed countries according to the overall well-being of their children.
Each country’s overall rank is based on its average ranking for the five dimensions of child well-being considered in this review.
A light blue background indicates a place in the top third of the table, mid blue denotes the middle third, and dark blue the bottom third.
Overall well-being

Dimension 1

Dimension 2

Dimension 3

Dimension 4

Dimension 5

Average ranking

Material
well-being

Health andsafetyEducation

Behaviours
and risks

Housing andenvironment(rank)(rank)(rank)(rank)(rank)

1

Netherlands

3.2

2

5

2

3

4

2

Finland

5.0

1

3

5

10

6

2

Iceland

5.0

4

1

10

5

5

4

Norway

5.4

3

8

7

6

3

5

Sweden

6.0

5

2

12

2

9

6

Japan

9.8

21

16

1

1

10

7

Germany

10.4

10

13

4

11

14

8

Switzerland

11.0

11

12

17

13

2

9

Luxembourg

11.4

6

4

24

16

7

10

Belgium

11.6

15

11

3

17

12

11

Slovenia

12.0

8

6

6

18

22

11

Ireland

12.0

17

15

18

9

1

13

France

12.6

9

10

15

12

17

14

Denmark

12.8

13

24

8

4

15

15

Czech Republic

14.4

14

7

13

19

19

16

Spain

15.4

26

9

27

7

8

17

United Kingdom

17.6

12

17

25

23

11

18

Poland

18.0

20

19

11

15

25

18

Portugal

18.0

25

14

19

14

18

20

Hungary

18.4

16

21

9

22

24

21

Austria

19.2

7

27

23

26

13

22

Italy

19.4

24

18

26

8

21

23

Canada

19.8

18

28

16

21

16

24

Estonia

21.2

19

23

14

24

26

25

Slovakia

21.4

23

22

22

20

20

26

Greece

24.2

22

20

29

27

23

27

Lithuania

25.8

27

25

21

28

28

28

Latvia

26.4

28

30

20

25

29

29

USA

28.0

30

26

28

29

27

30

Bulgaria

30.2

29

29

31

31

31

31

Romania

30.4

31

31

30

30

30

Lack of data on a number of indicators means that the following countries, although OECD and/or EU members, could not be included in the league table ofchild well-being: Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Israel, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n3

Introduction

About this Report
This report is a Japanese versionof the UNICEF Innocenti Report
Card 11. In the original report,
Japan was not included in theleague table of child well-being
because data on a number ofindicators were missing.
Using national data sources fromJapan and matching these carefully
with the data used in the original
Report Card 11, this report manages
to include Japan in the league table
and subsequent ranking in each of
five dimensions in order to assess
Japan’s performance in child wellbeing among developed countries.
Maintaining as much as possible
the original framework of theReport Card, the analysis is basedon indicators that are strictly
comparable between Japan and theother countries. Thus, the report
uses only indicators that areavailable for Japan and in doing so
dropped six from the original set ofindicators in Report Card 11: ‘Low
family affluence’ in the ‘Material
well-being’ dimension and ‘Eating
fruit’, ‘Taking exercise’, ‘Smoking’,‘Cannabis’ and ‘Fighting’ in the‘Behaviours and risks’ dimension.
In doing so, the number ofcountries which could be includedin the list increased from 29 to 31
including Japan and Bulgaria.

Japan’s performance in theleague table
Japan’s overall ranking is 6th
among the 31 countries, placing
it among the top performers inchild well-being. Japan’s
performance is mainly driven byachieving top ranking in the‘Education’ and ‘Behaviours andrisks’ dimensions and fairly good
performance in the ‘Housing andenvironment’ dimension.
The country achieves middle
ranking in the ‘Health and safety’
dimension, but is found in thebottom third of countries in‘Material well-being’.
The mixed performance of Japanis perplexing because countries,
especially those with high overall
performance, tend to have a similar
ranking between dimensions. For
example, the top five countries,

Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden, are in the
top third in all five dimensions,
except for the ‘Education’dimension for Sweden. Japan’s
poor performance in ‘Material wellbeing’ is puzzling given the
excellent performance in ‘Education’and ‘Behaviours and risks’.
One explanation of this mixed
result for Japan may simply be thechoice of indicators used to create
the table. Choosing appropriate
indicators which represent thewell-being of children in all
countries is a challenging task in
any international comparison.i
However, the fact remains that
there tends to be a correlation
across a country’s performancein the five dimensions, and for thatreason, this report should be taken
as a warning that Japan’s highperformance in dimensions suchas ‘Education’ and ‘Behaviours andrisks’ might suffer in the future.

4

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panBox 1 How child well-being is measured

The table below shows how the overview of child well-being has been constructed and sets out the full list of
indicators used. The score for each dimension has been calculated by averaging the scores for each component.
Similarly, component scores are arrived at by averaging the scores for each indicator.
Dimensions

Components

Dimension 1
Material well-being
Figure 1.0

Monetary deprivation

Dimension 2
Health and safety
Figure 2.0

Dimension 3
Education
Figure 3.0

Indicators

Figure no.

Relative child poverty rate

1.1a

Relative child poverty gap

1.1bChild deprivation rate

1.2

Infant mortality rate

2.1a

Low birthweight rate

2.1b

Preventive health services

Overall immunization rate

2.2Child and youth mortality

Death rate, age 1 to 19

2.3

Participation rate: early childhood
education

3.1aParticipation rate: further education,age 15–19

3.1b

NEET rate (% age 15–19 not in
education, employment or training)

3.1c

Average PISA scores in reading,maths and science

3.2

Being overweight

4.1aEating breakfast

4.1b

Teenage fertility rate

4.2a

Alcohol

4.2bBeing bullied

4.3

Rooms per person

5.1aMultiple housing problems

5.1b

Homicide rate

5.2a

Air pollution

5.2bMaterial deprivation
Health at birthParticipation

Achievement

Health behaviours
Dimension 4
Behaviours and risks
Figure 4.0

Dimension 5
Housing and environment
Figure 5.0

Risk behaviours

Housing

Environmental safetyC h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n5Dimension 1 Material well-being
Figure 1.0 An overview ofchildren’s material well-being

FinlandNetherlands

The league table of children’s material
well-being shows each country’s
performance in relation to the averagefor the 31 developed countries underreview. The table is scaled to showeach country’s distance above or
below that average.

NorwayIcelandSwedenLuxembourg
Austria
Slovenia

The length of each bar shows eachcountry’s distance above or below theaverage for the group as a whole. The
unit of measurement is the ‘standard
deviation’ – a measure of the spread ofscores in relation to the average.

FranceGermany
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Denmark
Czech Republic
Belgium

Findings

Hungary» Japan ranks 21st among 31

Ireland
Canadacountries in the overall ratingof material well-being. The
negative position on the scale
indicates that the material
well-being of children in Japanis below the average of the
31 countries being compared.

Estonia
PolandJapan
GreeceSlovakia
Italy
Portugal» Across the 5 dimensions,

Spain

Japan’s performance is theworst in this dimension.

Lithuania
Latvia» Japan’s performance

Bulgaria
United States
Romania
-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0

1

2

Assessing material well-being
COMPONENT S

Monetary
deprivation

Material
deprivation

IND I C ATOR S

Relative child poverty rate (% of children living inhouseholds with equivalent incomes below 50%
of national median)Child poverty gap (distance between national
poverty line and median incomes of households
below the poverty line)
Index of child deprivation (% of children lacking
specific items)

was below the median forboth the components ofincome poverty andmaterial deprivation.

6

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panChildren’s material well-being
To arrive at this overall rating ofchildren’s material well-being, twocomponents have been considered –relative income poverty and material
deprivation. It is believed that bothmeasures are necessary to achievea rounded view of children’s material
well-being.

Relative poverty:
child poverty rates
Two separate indicators havebeen used to measure monetarydeprivation. They are the relative
child poverty rate (Figure 1.1a) andthe ‘child poverty gap’ (Figure 1.1b).
The relative child poverty rate shows
the proportion of each nation’schildren living in households where
disposable income is less than 50%of the national median (after taking
taxes and benefits into account andadjusting for family size andcomposition). This is the definitionof child poverty used by the majorityof the world’s developed economies
and also by the Ministry of Health,Labour and Welfare in Japan.
Broadly speaking, it shows the
proportion of children who are tosome significant extent excluded
from the advantages andCountries with grey bars have not been
included in the overall ranking tables, or in
the overall league table of child well-being,as they have data for fewer than 75% of
the total number of indicators used.

opportunities which most children inthat particular society would consider
normal. The data for Japan used here
was derived from the same database(2010 Comprehensive Survey of
Living Conditions) as the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan,
but because of a slight difference inthe equivalent scales used to adjust
for household size, the child poverty
rate here is slightly different from theone published by the Ministry.

Figure 1.1a Relative child poverty rates% of children aged 0-17 living in households with equivalent incomes
below 50% of the national median.
FinlandNetherlands
Denmark
Iceland
NorwaySlovenia
SwedenAustria
Ireland
Switzerland
Germany
FranceCzech Republic
United Kingdom
Hungary
Belgium
Luxembourg
Estonia
Slovakia
PolandCanadaJapan
Portugal
GreeceItaly
Lithuania
Spain
LatviaBulgaria
United States
Romania
CyprusMalta
Australia
New Zealand
0

5

10

15

20

Findings» Finland shows a relative poverty rate of less than 5% and heads theleague table by a clear margin of more than two percentage points.

» Japan’s relative child poverty rate is 14.9% which is 22nd among the
31 countries.

25

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n7

Japan ranks 22nd indicating it has
one of the highest child poverty rates
among 31 developed nations interms of relative child poverty rates.

Figure 1.1b Child poverty gaps
Gap between the poverty line and the median income of thosebelow the poverty line – as % of the poverty line.
Luxembourg
Hungary
Netherlands
Austria
FinlandFranceNorwaySwedenGermany
Slovenia
Iceland
Switzerland
CanadaUnited Kingdom
Czech Republic
Belgium
PolandGreecePortugal
LatviaDenmark
Estonia
Slovakia
Romania
Italy
Japan
Bulgaria
IrelandLithuania
United States
Spain

Relative poverty:
the poverty gap
The relative child poverty rates in
Figure 1.1a show what percentage
of children live below each nation’s
relative poverty line. But they reveal
nothing about how far below that line
those children are being allowed tofall. To gauge the depth of relative
child poverty, it is also necessary tolook at the ‘child poverty gap’ – thedistance between the poverty line
and the median incomes of thosebelow the line.
Figure 1.1b shows this ‘child poverty
gap’ for each country.
Japan ranks 26th out of 31 countries,
even lower than its ranking for thechild poverty rate. Together with Italy,
Lithuania, Romania, Spain and theUnited States, Japan is one of six
countries that appear in the bottom
third in both tables. By contrast,
there are also six countries thatfeature in the top third of both tables– Austria, Finland, Netherlands,
Norway, Slovenia and Sweden.

CyprusMalta
Australia
New Zealand
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Findings» Hungary and Luxembourg have the smallest child poverty gap.
» Japan ranks 26th out of 31 countries, indicating that not only is the
proportion of children in Japan living in poverty high, but also thatthe depth of the poverty they live in is severe.

40

In Japan, nearly 15% of children
aged 0-17 years old live inhouseholds whose incomes fall
below the relative poverty line andthey fall over 30% below that line.
In the Netherlands or Austria, on theother hand, 6% to 8% of children fall
below the relative poverty line and,on average, they fall approximately
16% below.
Taken together, these two childpoverty indicators – the rate and thegap – make up the relative income
component of children’s material
well-being.

8

C h i l dMaterial deprivation:
the Child Deprivation Index

Well-b eing

in

R ich

about the actual living conditions ofchildren in different countries. We
also need a perspective to include
the relative positions of each country
with different living standards. In
order to arrive at a more complete

Relative income measures, thoughhighly indicative of the relative
position of children in the society
in which they live, have little to say
Figure 1.2 Child deprivation rate

% of children aged 1-12 lacking two or more specific items – see text.
Iceland
NorwaySwedenNetherlands
FinlandDenmark
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Malta
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
FranceCyprusEstonia
Czech Republic
Belgium
Spain
Japan
Italy
GreecePolandLithuania
Slovakia
Portugal
Hungary
LatviaBulgaria
RomaniaC o untries :C o mpa ringJa panpicture of child poverty, a measureof actual material deprivation has
therefore also been included.
Material deprivation is a widely usedmethod of measuring actual living
conditions and is increasingly usedby international organizations andgovernments. In the original Report
Card 11, two indicators were used,
the UNICEF Child Deprivation Rateand the Family Affluence Scale.
Because of limited data availability
for Japan, a modified version of theChild Deprivation Rate is used in thisreport. The rates for countries otherthan Japan are mostly calculatedusing the European Union Statistics
on Income and Living Conditions.
The rate for Japan was calculatedusing the 2008 Social Living Survey(Shakai Seikatsu Chosa). Figure 1.2
shows what percentage of children(aged 1 to 12) in each nation lack
two or more of the following
8 items:
1. Books suitable for the child’s
age and knowledge level (notincluding schoolbooks)
2. Outdoor leisure equipment(bicycle, roller-skates, etc.)
3. Indoor games (at least one
per child, including educational
baby toys, building blocks,
board games, computer
games, etc.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

4. Money to participate in school
trips and events

Findings

5. A quiet place with enough roomand light to do homework» The material deprivation differs quite drastically depending on the

6. An internet connection

overall level of economic development in each country.

» While many long-established high-income countries have material
deprivation rates below 5%, non-OECD countries, such as Bulgaria,
Latvia and Romania have much higher deprivation rates.

» Japan’s child deprivation rate is 7.8%, higher than most long-establishedhigh-income countries.

7. Some new clothes (i.e. not all
second-hand)
8. The opportunity to celebrate
special occasions such as
birthdays, name days, religious
events, etc.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :Figure 1.2 presents the childdeprivation rate for 31 countries;
Japan ranks in 20th place. The item
most often lacking for children in
Japan was ‘an internet connection’,followed closely by ‘a quiet placewith enough room and light to do
homework’ (see Annex).

Real and relative
The differences between the twocomponents of children’s material
well-being – relative poverty andmaterial deprivation – are often
misunderstood. It is not the casethat one is a relative measure andthe other absolute. Both are relative
measures. Deprivation rates may
appear to measure absolute poverty
because they are based on a
specific list of possessions rather
than the median income of eachnation. But those possessions arechosen to represent what mostpeople consider normal for a childgrowing up in any wealthy country
in the early 21st century. They are
therefore relative to both time andplace. The true difference between
the two approaches is that one
measures poverty in relation to an
income norm that varies fromcountry to country (the national
median income) whereas the othermeasures poverty by a common
standard for all of the countries
under review.

C o mpa ringJa pa n9

1 0

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panDimension 2 Health and safety
Figure 2.0 An overview of childhealth and safety

IcelandSwedenThe league table of children’s healthand safety shows each country’s
performance in relation to the averagefor the 31 developed countries underreview. The table is scaled to showeach country’s distance above or
below that average.

Finland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Slovenia
Czech Republic
NorwayThe length of each bar shows eachcountry’s distance above or below theaverage for the group as a whole. The
unit of measurement is the ‘standard
deviation’ – a measure of the spread ofscores in relation to the average.

Spain
FranceBelgium
Switzerland
Germany
Portugal
IrelandJapan
United Kingdom
Italy
PolandGreeceHungary
Slovakia

Findings

Estonia» Japan ranks 16th, a little better

Denmark
Lithuania
United States
Austria
CanadaBulgaria
LatviaRomania
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Assessing health and safety
COMPONENTS

Health at birth

IND I C ATOR S

Infant mortality rate (death under
12 months old per 1,000 live births)
Low birthweight rate (% babies born below
2,500 grams)

Preventive healthservices

National immunization rate (average coveragefor measles, polio and DPT3 for children aged
12 to 23 months)

Child and youth
mortality

Overall child and youth mortality rate
(deaths per 100,000 aged 1 to 19)

than the average. The fairly
good performance in infant
and child mortality rates wasoffset by a poor performancefor the low birthweightindicator. The differencesin the immunization rate
among the countries analysed
were small.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n1 1

Health and safety
The health dimension of children’swell-being is based on threecomponents for which internationallycomparable data are available.
The components are:a) health at birth – as measured by
the infant mortality rate and thepercentage of babies born with low
birthweight (below 2,500 grammes).
b) the availability of children’s
preventive health services – asmeasured by national immunizationlevels for measles, polio and DPT3.
c) child health and safety – asmeasured by the death rate ofchildren and young people(aged 1 to 19) from all causes.
The chart on the previous page
(Figure 2.0) combines these threecomponents into a league table ofchild health for the 31 developed
countries under review.

Health at birth: infant mortality
In all developed countries, infantmortality rates (IMRs) have been
reduced to fewer than 10 infant
deaths per thousand live births.
The relatively small differences
between countries therefore reflect
not variations in the fundamentals
of public health such as safe waterand sanitation, but variations in thecommitment and the capacity todeliver whatever services arenecessary to protect every mother-tobe, every birth, and every infant in theearliest days and weeks of life. The
IMRs set out in Figure 2.1a may
therefore be read as a measure ofcommitment to maternal and childhealth for all – including the mothers
and children of the poorest and mostmarginalized families.
The infant mortality rate of Japan is
2.4 per 1,000 births which is the 4th
lowest among the 31 countries.

Figure 2.1a Infant mortality rates
Deaths under 12 months old per 1,000 live births.
Iceland
Slovakia
SwedenJapan
Luxembourg
Finland
NorwayPortugalEstonia
Italy
Denmark
Czech Republic
Germany
Ireland
Austria
FranceNetherlands
Belgium
Spain
GreeceSwitzerland
United Kingdom
CanadaLithuania
PolandHungary
United States
Slovakia
LatviaBulgaria
Romania
CyprusAustralia
New Zealand
Malta
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Findings» 26 of the 35 countries have reduced infant mortality to 5 or fewer
per 1,000 births.

» Japan’s infant mortality rate was 2.4 per 1,000 births, among the top
5 countries with the lowest rates.

14

1 2

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

Health at birth: low birthweight

Figure 2.1b Low birthweightThe second indicator used tomeasure health at the beginning oflife is the proportion of babies whoare born with low birthweights(below 2,500 grams).

% of babies born below 2,500 grams.

According to the United States
Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, “The birthweight of an
infant is the single most important
determinant of its chances ofsurvival and healthy growth.” ii
It is also a guide to the general
health, and health behaviours, ofpregnant women and mothers, bothof which are important to every
other dimension of child well-being.
Low birthweight is also known to
be associated with increased risk
across a range of health problems
in childhood and on into adult life.
Figure 2.1b shows the percentage
of babies born with low birthweightin each of the 27 countries forwhich data are available.
Japan ranks last indicating that therate of children born underweight is
the highest among the 27 countries.
Japan is unique among developed
countries in that the low birthweightrate has almost doubled in the past
three decadesiii passing from 5 percent in the late 1970s to almost
10 per cent in the late 2000s.
Experts point out many causes forthe increase, including an increaseof women with low weight, an
increase in smoking among young
women, a tendency for stricter dietcontrol during pregnancy, and anincrease in income disparity.

Preventive health services:
immunization
The second component chosen
to evaluate child health is theavailability and effectiveness of eachcountry’s preventive child healthC o untries :C o mpa ringJa panIcelandSwedenFinland
Estonia
Ireland
NorwayNetherlands
Slovenia
PolandCanadaDenmark
Luxembourg
Switzerland
FranceBelgium
Germany
Italy
United Kingdom
Austria
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Spain
United States
Portugal
Hungary
GreeceJapan
New ZealandAustralia
0

2

4

6

8

10

Findings» Nordic countries tend to have low incidence of low birthweight.
» The low birthweight rate for Japan is the worst of all the
27 countries compared.

12

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n

1 3

Figure 2.2 Immunization rates
Average coverage for measles, polio and DPT3 for children aged 12 to 23 months.
Hungary
GreeceSlovakia
FinlandCzech Republic
Luxembourg
PolandSwedenBelgium
Portugal
Netherlands
Japan
Spain
Romania
FranceBulgaria
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Lithuania
IcelandGermany
Estonia
Italy
Switzerland
United States
NorwayIreland
LatviaDenmark
CanadaAustria

Routine immunization rates in thedeveloped nations are generally
maintained at high levels, averaging
close to 95%. As with infantmortality rates, the relatively small
differences between countries cantherefore be said to mirror
commitment to the ideal of reachingout to every single child, including
the most marginalized, with anessential preventive health service
to which all children have a right.
Figure 2.2 presents an immunization
league table for 31 countries.

CyprusAustralia
New Zealand
Malta
70

services. This has been measured
by each country’s immunization rate
(average vaccination coverage formeasles, polio and DPT3).

75

80

85

90

95

Findings» Greece and Hungary head the table with 99% immunization coverage.
» Japan ranks 12th among the 31 countries.

100

It might be suspected that low
immunization rates in countries suchas Austria, Canada and Denmark
have been affected by rumours,
based on discredited research,linking the triple MMR vaccine(measles, mumps and rubella) with
autism. This would not really be an‘excuse’ for low coverage rates, as
running a first class immunization
programme means making sure thatthe public is well informed and that
false information is not allowed toput children at risk. But in fact the
MMR scare would not appear to be
the major cause of low immunization
rates in Austria, Canada andDenmark – all of which have low
rates even when measles
vaccination is excluded from thecalculations (in Canada, the measles
immunization rate is higher than for
DPT3 or polio).
Japan is the 12th ranking country
in this Figure. The lowest rate wasfor measles at 94%, while for polio
and DPT3, the immunization rate
was 98%.

1 4Child health:the 1 to 19 death rate
The third component used to build
an overall picture of child health isthe death rate among children andyoung people between the agesof 1 and 19.
Deaths in this age group are rarein advanced economies and thecauses go beyond disease and theefficacy of health services toinclude deaths from suicide,murder, traffic injuries, drownings,
falls and fires. Differences between
countries in the death rate forchildren and young people in thisage group may therefore be said
to reflect overall levels of healthand safety throughout childhood
and adolescence.
Figure 2.3 presents the 1- to
19-year-old death rate for eachcountry. In absolute numbers, thedifferences between countries areclearly small. But it is worth notingthat if all European countries had
the same child death rate as Icelandor Luxembourg then over 8,000
child deaths a year could be
prevented – each one representing
unimaginable anguish for thefamily concerned.
The death rate for children aged
1 to 19 in Japan is 15.5, 7th fromthe lowest.
Taken together, the threecomponents set out above provide
an approximate guide to the healthdimension of children’s well-being.
Ideally, such an overview would also
have included some indicator ofchildren’s mental and emotional
health, and of the prevalence ofchild abuse and neglect. But such
issues are difficult to define andmeasure even within an individual
country; internationally, no
comparable data are available.

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panFigure 2.3 Child and youth mortality rates
Deaths per 100,000 aged 1 to 19.
Iceland
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Netherlands
SwedenSpain
Japan
Germany
NorwaySlovenia
Italy
United Kingdom
FinlandDenmark
FrancePortugal
Ireland
Austria
Czech Republic
Belgium
GreeceHungary
PolandSlovakia
Estonia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
LatviaRomania
Cyprus
Malta
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Findings» Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland
head the table with child death rates below 15 per 100,000.

» Japan follows next with 15.5 deaths per 100,000.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n1 5

Dimension 3 Educational well-being
Figure 3.0 An overview
of children’s educational
well-being

Japan
Netherlands

The league table of children’s
educational well-being shows eachcountry’s performance in relation
to the average for the 31 developed
countries under review. The table isscaled to show each country’s
distance above or below that average.

Belgium
Germany
Finland
Slovenia
NorwayDenmark
Hungary

The length of each bar shows eachcountry’s distance above or below theaverage for the group as a whole. The
unit of measurement is the ‘standard
deviation’ – a measure of the spreadof scores in relation to the average.

Iceland
PolandSwedenCzech Republic
Estonia
FranceCanadaSwitzerland
Ireland
Portugal
LatviaLithuania

Findings

Slovakia» Japan ranks the highest inAustria

terms of educational wellbeing of children, followedby Belgium, Finland, Germany
and the Netherlands – each ofwhich achieves an overall
score significantly above theaverage for the 31 countries.

Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
United States
GreeceRomania» Japan’s high ranking is mostly

Bulgaria
-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Assessing educational well-being
COMPONENT S

IND I C ATOR S

Preschool participation rate (% of those aged
between 4 years and the start of compulsory
education who are enrolled in preschool)

Participation

Further education participation rate (% of those
aged 15 to 19 enrolled in further education)
NEET rate (% aged 15 to 19 not in education,
employment or training)

Achievement

Average score in PISA tests of reading, maths
and science literacy

driven by the high score in
PISA tests.

1 6

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panEducational well-being
In gauging educational well-being,
two main components have been
considered – participation rates andachievement levels. Taken together
they provide an approximate guideto both quantity and quality ofeducation. Figure 3.0 combines
the two into a single overview ofchildren’s educational well-being
for 31 developed countries.

Participation:
early childhood education
The first component – participation –has been assessed by three
indicators:» participation in early childhood
education» participation in further education» the proportion of young people,
aged 15 to 19, who are notparticipating in education, trainingor employment.
In recent times it has been widely
acknowledged that the foundationsof educational success are laid down
before formal education begins.v
In response to this and otherpressures, all governments indeveloped countries have invested
to a greater or lesser degree in freeor subsidized preschool education.
Figure 3.1a presents the preschoolparticipation rate for 32 developed
countries.
The age at which compulsory
education begins varies between
4 and 7. The preschool participation
rate is here defined as thepercentage of children between
the age of 4 and the beginning ofcompulsory education who areenrolled in preschools. The low
enrollment rate for Finland is partly
due to the fact that compulsory
schooling in Finland does not begin
until a child is 7 years old.

Figure 3.1a Preschool enrollment rates% of children aged between 4 years and the start of compulsory education who areenrolled in preschool.
FranceNetherlands
Spain
Belgium
DenmarkJapan
Italy
NorwayUnited Kingdom
Germany
IcelandSwedenLuxembourg
Hungary
Austria
Slovenia
Estonia
Portugal
Czech Republic
LatviaIrelandRomania
Bulgaria
Switzerland
Lithuania
Slovakia
PolandUnited States
GreeceFinland
Malta
Cyprus
60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Findings» Early childhood education is virtually universal in Belgium, France, theNetherlands and Spain.

» While not quite as high, Japan’s preschool enrollment rate is 97.9, almost
reaching 100 per cent.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n

1 7

Figure 3.1b Participation in further education

Findings% of children aged 15 to 19 in education.

» Five countries enroll 90% or moreof their young people in further
education – Belgium, Ireland,
Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia.

Belgium
PolandIreland» Japan’s ranking is 10th among

Lithuania

the 31 countries.

Slovenia
Hungary
Netherlands
Czech Republic
LatviaJapan
Germany
SwedenFinland
NorwaySlovakia
Iceland
Switzerland
Estonia
Portugal
FranceDenmark
GreeceItaly
Spain
CanadaUnited States
Austria
Romania
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
New ZealandAustralia
Cyprus
Malta
60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Note: It is possible that some countries with very small populations, for example Luxembourg andMalta, may show low rates of participation in further education because a proportion of the relevant
age group are continuing their studies outside their own countries.

Further education
At the other end of the educationalladder is the further education
participation rate (Figure 3.1b)which shows the percentage ofyoung people aged 15 to 19 whoare enrolled in schools andcolleges. Participation in further
education reflects ‘educational wellbeing’ in as much as it indicates
successful passage through theyears of compulsory schooling. It isalso, of course, associated with awider range of opportunities at the
beginning of adult life.

Japan’s ranking is 10th among the
31 countries with 88.6% of young
people being in further education.

1 8

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panFigure 3.1c NEET rate

Findings% of children aged 15 to 19 not in education, employment or training.

» At the top of the table, Denmark,Norway and Slovenia have
NEET rates below 3%, but atthe bottom, Bulgaria, Ireland,
Italy and Spain have NEET rates
above 10%.

NorwaySlovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
Czech RepublicNetherlands» Japan’s NEET rate is 4.1% and is

Polandthe 10th among the 30 countries.

Germany
LithuaniaJapan
Slovakia
FinlandSwedenResearch in different countries
has also shown associations
between NEET status and mental
health problems, drug abuse,
involvement in crime, and long-term
unemployment and welfare
dependence.vi

Hungary
Belgium
Austria
FrancePortugal
Switzerland
GreeceFigure 3.1c records the NEET rate
for advanced economies.

Estonia
LatviaCanadaUnited States
United Kingdom
Romania
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Bulgaria
CyprusAustralia
Malta
New Zealand
0

2

4

6

NEET rate
The third indicator of educational
well-being looks at participationfrom a different perspective – thepercentage of young people (aged
15 to 19) who are not participatingin either education, employment or
training (the so-called ‘NEET’ rate).
In all countries, NEET rates areaffected by economic conditions

8

10

12

14

16

18

and employment opportunities aswell as by the effectiveness ofeducation systems in preparing
young people for the transition towork. Equally obviously, a high
NEET rate represents a threat to thepresent and future well-being ofyoung adults, a disincentive tothose still in the education system,
and a waste of educational
investment and human resources.

To make international comparisonsfair, the data must refer to a similar
period of time. Unfortunately, thelatest available common year for
NEET rates is 2009–2010. Figure
3.1c may therefore not reflect thecurrent situation. It does howeverreflect the major impact of thecurrent economic downturn on
youth unemployment rates in OECD
countries (which reached a peak of
18.3% in November 2009 and wereslightly below that level in 2012). In
total, more than 23 million young
people in OECD countries now fall
into the NEET category and morethan half of this total are reported tohave given up looking for work.vii
Japan’s data was calculated using
Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare’s Comprehensive Survey of
Living Conditions 2012. It shows thepercentage of population aged
15 to 19 years old who are not
employed nor in school to be 4.1%.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n

1 9

Figure 3.2 Educational achievement by age 15

Findings

Average score in PISA tests of reading, maths and science literacy.

» Finland is a remarkable outlier –registering a score almost 20
points clear of the second placedcountry.

FinlandJapan
Canada» Japan shows the 2nd highest

Netherlands

performance, closely followed by
Canada.

Switzerland
Estonia
Germany» Three of Europe’s wealthiest

Belgium

countries, Austria, Luxembourg
and Sweden, find themselves inthe bottom half of theeducational achievement table,
as do all four countries ofsouthern Europe.

PolandIceland
NorwayUnited Kingdom
Denmark
Slovenia
IrelandFranceUnited States
Hungary
SwedenCzech Republic
Portugal
Slovakia(PISA) which measures pupils’
abilities in three basic competences– reading, maths and science.

Austria
LatviaItaly
Spain
Luxembourg
Lithuania
GreeceBulgaria
Romania
New ZealandAustralia
400

420

440

Educational achievement
The second component ofeducational well-being is the qualityof the education received.
This key element of child well-being
is of course difficult to define andmeasure on an internationallycomparable basis. Ideally, theconcept of ‘quality’ in education
would embrace a broad range of

460

480

500

520

540

560

factors such as the development ofsocial understanding and value
formation (including education for
citizenship) as well as theopportunity to develop the diverse
abilities and potentials of young
people. But this lies in the future.
At present, the only practicalmeasure of quality in education isprovided by the OECD’s Programmeof International Student Assessment

Repeated every three years, thetests are administered torepresentative samples of 15-yearolds and are intended to measureknowledge and skills in relation to
the demands of managing lives
and careers in the modern world.
In total, 34 member countries of
the OECD, plus non-member
partner countries, participate inthis evaluation of educational
achievement.
Figure 3.2 presents an overview
of the results of the latest PISA
survey for the countries underreview. In each case, the scoresshown are an average of results inreading, maths and science. All
scores have been re-presented on
a common scale based on an
unweighted average score for allparticipating countries (re-set to 500
to make interpretation easier).

2 0Disadvantage
The indicators used here tomeasure children’s overall
educational well-being broadly
reflect each nation’s commitment
to fulfilling every child’s right tobe adequately prepared for thedemands of the world in which
he or she will live. Managing andnegotiating that world – making
decisions about jobs and careers,families and homes, finances andpensions, citizenship andcommunity participation – demands
a highly developed ability to acquireand analyse new information and toadapt to changing circumstances.

1 Report Card 9 in this series focused on thisissue, showing that some countries do much
more than others for their lowest-achieving
pupils (i.e. have a much smaller ‘educational
achievement gap’ between the lowest-achieving
10% and the national average).

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

In such a society, the educationallydisadvantaged are likely to be verymuch more disadvantaged than in
the past. They are also likely to findit ever more difficult to benefit from,and contribute to, the complex
societies in which they live.1 Aswith the other dimensions of childwell-being considered in this report,
educational well-being is therefore
a critical measure both for children
today and for their societies
tomorrow.

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panC h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n2 1

Dimension 4 Behaviours and risks
Figure 4.0 An overview of
behaviours and risks

Japan
SwedenThe league table of children’s
behaviours and risks shows eachcountry’s record in relation to theaverage for countries under review.
The table is scaled to show eachcountry’s distance above or belowthat average.

Netherlands
Denmark
Iceland
NorwaySpain
Italy

The length of each bar shows eachcountry’s distance above or below theaverage for the group as a whole. The
unit of measurement is the ‘standard
deviation’ – a measure of the spread ofscores in relation to the average.

IrelandFinlandGermany
FranceSwitzerland
Portugal

For this Japanese version, 5 out of the
10 indicators used in the original
Report Card 11 were omitted due tonon-availability of data for Japan. In
addition, the indicator for alcohol was
revised to fit Japanese data.

PolandLuxembourg
Belgium
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Slovakia
CanadaHungary
United Kingdom
Estonia

Findings

Latvia» Using the 5 indicators that

Austria

are available for Japan, thecountry ranks at the topof the ’behaviour and risks’dimension.

GreeceLithuania
United States
Romania» Japan’s performance is

Bulgaria
-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

Assessing behaviours and risks
COMPONENT S

Eating and exercise
Risk behaviours
Exposure to violence

IND I C ATOR S% overweight% eating breakfast daily
Teenage fertility rate
Alcohol
Being bullied

0.0

1.0

2.0

among the top five in all ofthese indicators.

2 2

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panBehaviours and risks
The fourth dimension of child wellbeing incorporated into the overall
league table is more difficult to pin
down than material well-being or
health or education. The dimension
labeled ‘Behaviours and risks’includes a range of habits andbehaviours critical to the present
and future well-being of children.
Three separate components areincluded. The first is the extent
to which children in each country
are forming healthy, well-informed
habits of eating. This has beenmeasured by two individual
indicators:a) the percentage who are
overweight (as measured by bodymass index (BMI) computed fromself-reported height and weight)b) the percentage of children ineach country who report eating
breakfast every day.
The percentage of children who
report eating fruit every day and thepercentage who report engaging inphysical exercise – included in theoriginal Report Card 11 – wereomitted because data is notavailable for Japan. It is regrettablethat no indicators on exercise
behaviour were included sinceregular exercise is linked not only tophysical and mental health but tothe prevention and/or treatment ofsuch specific problems as asthma,obesity, anxiety and depression.
Unhealthy eating patterns in theearly years have also been shownto increase the risk of later-life
health problems including diabetes,
heart disease and cancer.viii
Figures 4.1a and 4.1b show country
rankings for being overweight andeating breakfast. For Japan, the data
on being overweight is calculated
from the School Children Health

Figure 4.1a Being overweight% of children aged 11, 13 and 15 who are overweight by BMI.

Japan
Netherlands
Switzerland
Denmark
FranceLatviaLithuania
Belgium
SwedenNorwayUnited Kingdom
Slovakia
Germany
Iceland
Luxembourg
Austria
Estonia
Romania
Czech RepublicHungary
IrelandFinland
PolandSpain
Italy
Slovenia
Portugal
CanadaGreeceUnited States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Findings
Obesity» Childhood obesity levels are running at more than 10% in all countries
except Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and are higher
than 20% in Canada, Greece and the United States.

» The rate of obesity among children in Japan is very low at less than 5%.

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n2 3Survey 2010 by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology which surveys
weight and height as well as other
health aspects of school children
measured at schools. The data forbreakfast was drawn from the2010 Child Dietary Life Survey by
the Japan Sports Council, aquestionnaire-based survey
completed in part by parents.
For countries other than Japan,
both indicators are drawn fromquestionnaires completed byyoung people themselves.

Figure 4.1b Eating breakfast% of children aged 11, 13 and 15 who eat breakfast every day.

Japan
Netherlands
Portugal
Denmark
SwedenIceland
Ireland
Belgium
NorwayFinlandFranceGermany

In both indicators, Japan is the top
performer among 30 countries forwhich the data was available.

Spain
Estonia
LatviaItaly

For the 'overweight' indicator
Japan has the lowest rate at 4.9%,
more than three percentage points
lower than the Netherlands, insecond place.

CanadaUnited Kingdom
PolandLuxembourg
Lithuania

For eating breakfast, Japan is again
the top performer showing nearly
87% of children eating breakfast
every day.

Switzerland
Slovakia
Austria
Czech RepublicHungary

Risk behaviours

GreeceThe second component considered
under ‘Behaviours and risks’ isthe prevalence of a second setof behaviours that represent
immediate dangers to children
as well as serious threats to longerterm well-being. Within thelimitations of the available data,
two such risk indicators have beenchosen:United States
Romania
Slovenia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Findings
Eating breakfast» More than 50% of children eat breakfast every day except in Romania
and Slovenia.

» Japan has the highest rate of children eating breakfast every day at
86.6%.

100a) the teenage fertility rate (annual
number of births per 1,000 girls
aged 15 to 19)b) the alcohol abuse rate
(percentage of children aged 11,
13 and 15 who report having
alcohol more than once a week).

2 4The cigarette smoking rate andcannabis use rate which were
included in the original Report
Card 11 were omitted due to nonavailability of data for Japan.
Giving birth at too young an age
puts at risk the well-being of bothmother and child. The mother is
at greater risk of dropping out ofschool, of unemployment, poverty,
and welfare dependence – thus
contributing to perpetuate
disadvantage from one generation
to the next. The child is also atgreater risk – of poverty, poor
health, and under achievement
at school.
Japan has the 4th lowest teenage
fertility rate among 31 countries.
Threats posed to physical andmental health by alcohol are wellestablished. Figure 4.2b shows thepercentage of children aged 11, 13
and 15 who report having alcohol
more than once a week. This
indicator differs from the one
originally included in Report Card 11(the percentage of children aged 11,
13 and 15 having been drunk atleast twice), since this data was
not available for Japan. Thus the
ranking of all countries are different
from the original Report Card 11.
For Japan, the data is from the
National Survey of Underage
Drinking and Smoking 2010 fundedby the Health and Labour Sciences
Research Grant by the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare. The
survey covers junior high school
students aged 13 to 15. The datafor other countries are from the
Health Behaviour in School-agedChildren survey (HBSC).

Violence
The final component of the‘Behaviours and risks’ dimensionof child well-being is the degree to

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panFig 4.2a Teenage fertility rate
Births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19.

Switzerland
Netherlands
Slovenia
Japan
Italy
Denmark
SwedenFranceGermany
NorwayFinland
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
GreeceAustria
Spain
CanadaBelgium
Iceland
PolandIreland
Portugal
Hungary
LatviaLithuania
Slovakia
Estonia
United Kingdom
Romania
United States
Bulgaria
New Zealand
Malta
Australia
Cyprus
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Findings
Teenage births» The Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland have the lowest rates
of teenage births (below 5 per 1,000), as opposed to Romania, theUnited Kingdom, the United States and Bulgaria which have thehighest rates of teenage births (above 29 per 1,000).

» Japan ranks 4th, closely following the top 3 countries.

45

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n2 5

Figure 4.2b Alcohol% of children aged 11, 13 and 15 who report having alcohol more than once a week.

Japan
Iceland
Portugal
NorwayIrelandFinlandSwedenUnited States
CanadaPolandGermany
Netherlands
Estonia
Luxembourg
Switzerland
FranceSpain
Belgium
Denmark
Lithuania
Slovenia
LatviaUnited Kingdom
Hungary
Slovakia
Austria
Italy
GreeceRomania
Czech Republic
0

5

10

15

20

Findings
Alcohol» Alcohol abuse by young people is lowest in Japan.
» While 15 countries out of 30 report the percentage of children aged 11,
13 and 15 drinking more than once a week to be more than 10%, therate for Japan is 1.6%, considerably lower even than the 2nd ranking
country (Iceland).

25

which children and young people
experience violence in their lives.
Given the known dangers of
growing up in a violent environment– from immediate suffering andinjury to longer-term problems ofanxiety, depression, behaviouralproblems, and propensity to use
violence ix – it is unfortunate thatfew data are available to compare
children’s exposure to violence
either as victims or as witnesses.
For Japan, data from theLongitudinal Survey of Bullying 2009by the National Institute of
Educational Policy Research wasused. This survey reports on thepercentage of children aged 13 to
15 experiencing different types ofbullying. For this report, the itemwith the largest percentage ofchildren being bullied, i.e. “left outof groups, ignored and backbitingfrom classmates in the last threemonths” was used. For the othercountries, data come from the
Health Behaviour in School-agedChildren survey x and thepercentage of children who
experienced being “bullied at schoolat least once in the past couple ofmonths” was used. The age
brackets and phrasing of question
are slightly different between thetwo datasets, but it was deemedsatisfactory for comparison.

2 6

Figure 4.3 shows the percentage ofchildren who reported being bullied.
Being bullied can make a misery ofa child’s life for weeks, months oreven years. It can also contributeto emotional and behaviouralproblems, including anxiety anddepression, impaired school
performance, and increased
absenteeism and truancy.xi Japanranks 12th out of 30 countries,
showing 27.4%, more than aquarter of children aged 13 to 15,
reported being bullied. While far
behind many countries, such as
Lithuania which report more than
50%, it is a much bigger problem
than other areas in the behaviour
and risk dimension.

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panFigure 4.3 Being bullied% of children aged 11, 13 and 15 who report “being bullied at school at least once inthe past couple of months.
Italy
SwedenSpain
Czech Republic
IcelandDenmark
Slovenia
Netherlands
NorwayPolandSlovakia
Japan
United States
Hungary
GreeceUnited Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Germany
FinlandFranceCanadaSwitzerland
Belgium
Portugal
Austria
Estonia
Romania
LatviaLithuania

0

10

20

30

40

Findings
Being bullied» Japan ranks 12th out of 30 countries.
» More than a quarter of children aged 13 to 15 in Japan reportbeing bullied.

50

60

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n2 7

Dimension 5 Housing and environment
Figure 5.0 An overview of
housing and environment

Ireland
Switzerland

The league table of children’s housing
and environment shows eachcountry’s performance in relation to
the average for the 31 developed
countries under review. The table isscaled to show each country’s
distance above or below that average.

NorwayNetherlands
IcelandFinland
Luxembourg
Spain

The length of each bar shows eachcountry’s distance above or below theaverage for the group as a whole. The
unit of measurement is the ‘standard
deviation’ – a measure of the spread ofscores in relation to the average.

SwedenJapan
United Kingdom
Belgium
Austria
Germany
Denmark
CanadaFrancePortugal
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Italy
Slovenia
GreeceHungary
PolandFindings

Estonia» Japan is the 10th among theUnited States
Lithuania
LatviaRomania
Bulgaria
-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Assessing housing and environment
C O M PONENT S

IN D I C ATO R S
Rooms per person

Housing

Environmental safety% of households with children reporting morethan one housing problem
Homicide rate (annual number of homicides
per 100,000)
Air pollution (annual PM10 [µg/m3])

1.5

31 countries in this dimension.
Japan’s performance inhousing and environment
appears mediocre, however
the very low homicide rates
may provide some comfort.

2 8

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panHousing and environment
An acknowledged weakness of thefirst UNICEF overview of child wellbeing (Report Card 7) was the lackof any measure of children‘senvironmental well-being. This has
now begun to be remedied bydrawing on recent data from theEuropean Unionxii and the World
Health Organization. Two components
have been considered:Figure 5.1a Rooms per persona) housing – as measured byovercrowding and reported
housing problems

United Kingdomb) environmental safety – asmeasured by children’s exposure
to crime and pollution.

Overcrowding
In many families, the modern era has
seen an emptying of children’s lives
and homes. Instead of having fouror five siblings, today’s child morecommonly has one or none. At thesame time, rising divorce andseparation rates, changes in family
structure, and the rise of out-of-homechild care mean that many children
live in homes that are significantly
less crowded than in the past.
Nonetheless, where overcrowding
remains, it is a significant factor inchildren’s well-being. Apart from theloss of opportunity for privacy, and for
quiet time and study, overcrowding
has also been linked to adverse
effects on parenting behaviours andon children’s cognitive and emotional
development, including increased riskof stress and behavioural difficulties.xiii
Given the available data,xiv the mostsignificant variable appears to berooms-per-person and this is themeasure used in Figure 5.1a. For
Japan, the data on number of rooms
except kitchen, toilet and dining
kitchen, from the 2008FY Social
Living Survey was used.

Belgium
Ireland
Malta
CyprusNetherlands
Spain
Finland
NorwayLuxembourg
SwedenDenmark
Germany
FranceAustria
IcelandJapan
Portugal
Italy
Czech Republic
GreeceEstonia
Slovenia
Slovakia
Lithuania
PolandBulgaria
Romania
LatviaHungary

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Findings» The number of rooms per person varies from 1.47 (Belgium)
to 0.75 (Hungary).

» Japan ranks 17th from the top.

1.4

1.6

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :Japan’s ranking is 17th from the
top of the table, a little below themedian.

Multiple housing problems
Figure 5.1b complements theovercrowding indicator byattempting an assessment of thephysical quality of children’s homes.
Specifically, it shows whatpercentage of households withchildren report more than two of
the following problems (the phrases
in brackets are translations of theJapanese terms used):
1. leaking roof, damp floors/walls/
foundations/rot in windows [rainleaks in or chill seeps in]
2. dwelling too dark [dwelling does
not get any sun]
3. no bath or shower [no bath or
shower for family’s own use]
4. no indoor flushing toilet for thesole use of the household [notoilet for family’s own use].
Japan is 19th from the top, showing
4.7% of households with children
have more than two of the four
housing problems listed above.
The problem most often faced byhouseholds with children in Japan
is “dwelling does not get any sun”,
followed by “rain leaks in or chill
seeps in”.

C o mpa ring

2 9

Figure 5.1b Multiple housing problems% of households with children reporting more than two housing problems.
Iceland
NorwayDenmark
Netherlands
SwedenSlovakia
IrelandMalta
Spain
Czech Republic
FinlandGermany
Austria
FranceCyprusGreeceUnited Kingdom
Italy
Japan
Portugal
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Belgium
Hungary
PolandEstonia
Lithuania
LatviaBulgaria
Romania0

Crime and pollution
The second component ofchildren’s environmental well-beingis the safety of the environment asmeasured by two quite different
indicators: the level of crime andthe level of pollution.

Ja pa n

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Findings» Nordic countries lead the table with fewer than 1% of households
reporting multiple housing problems.

» Japan’s ranking is 19th among 30 countries, showing a rather
mediocre performance.

» Most countries ranking below Japan are eastern European countries.

45

3 0

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

Crime

Figure 5.2a Homicide rates

Suffering violence, witnessing
violence, or fearing violence should
not be part of growing up. And
although it seems that early
exposure to violence affects somechildren more severely than others,
the risk for all children is that anenvironment of violence may
disrupt normal development andaffect well-being in both the shortand long term. Consequences may
include behavioural disorders suchas aggression and an inability torelate to others, emotional disorders
such as depression and anxiety, andhealth-related disorders such as
sleep disruption and nightmares.xv

Annual number of homicides per 100,000.

According to the Safe Start initiativein the United States, exposure toviolence “can interfere with a child’s
ability to think and learn and candisrupt the course of healthy
physical, emotional, and intellectual
development.” xvi
Measuring and comparing violencein the child’s environment isobviously problematical. Crime andvictimization rates would be apossible measure, but variations inmethods of defining and recording
crimes in different legal systems
make it impossible to make reliablecross-national comparisons. The
one available indicator thateliminates most of the potential forbias is the homicide rate for eachcountry. Rather than omit altogether
the important issue of violence inthe environment of the child, it was
decided to accept the homicide rate
as an approximate guide to theoverall level of violence in thesociety (Figure 5.2a).
Japan has the second lowest
homicide rate among 35 countries.

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panIcelandJapan
Austria
NorwaySlovenia
Switzerland
Germany
Spain
SwedenCzech Republic
Luxembourg
Italy
FranceNetherlands
United Kingdom
Portugal
GreecePolandHungary
Denmark
Slovakia
Belgium
CanadaRomania
Bulgaria
IrelandFinland
LatviaUnited States
Estonia
Lithuania
Malta
Australia
CyprusNew Zealand

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Findings» Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the United States are the only countries
in which the homicide rate rises above 4 per 100,000. Almost all othercountries fall into the range of 0 to 2.5 per 100,000.

» Japan’s ranking is 2nd among 31 countries.

8C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n3 1

Figure 5.2b Air pollution

Pollution

Average annual concentration of fine particulate matter in the atmosphere.

The second component ofchildren’s environmental well-being– the extent of environmental
pollution – is also difficult tocompare internationally. One
common standard for which data
are available is the level of outdoor
air pollution and this has been used
to construct the league table
presented in Figure 5.2b.

Estonia
Ireland
Luxembourg
United States
Finland
CanadaLithuania
Japan
NorwayJapan ranks 10th among 31
countries and 12th among 35
including 4 countries which are notin the league.

Switzerland
United Kingdom
Iceland
Austria
Germany
SwedenNetherlands
Belgium
FranceHungary
Denmark
Slovakia
Portugal
Spain
Czech Republic
Slovenia
PolandItaly
LatviaRomania
GreeceBulgaria
Australia
New Zealand
Malta
Cyprus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Findings» The lowest levels of air pollution are found in Estonia, Finland, Ireland,
Luxembourg and the United States (all below 20 parts per million).

» Japan’s air pollution level is 22 parts per million, making Japan’s ranking
10th among the 31 countries.

70

3 2

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panConcluding remarks about data
In June 2013, Japan enacted the‘Law on Measures to Counter
Child Poverty’, which mandates thegovernment to enact policy tocombat, and to establish means tomonitor, child poverty. It is our hopethat this report contributes to thedebate on what measures are taken
both in policies and monitoring ofchild poverty and child well-beingin Japan. However, choosing a setof indicators appropriate formonitoring child poverty and childwell-being in general is a difficultand controversial process. The fivedimensions of child well-being
considered here – material wellbeing, health, education, behaviours
and risks, and housing andenvironment – contribute equallyto the league table of overall childwell-being on page 2. But as will
be obvious from the comments
on each of the indicators used,
the measurement and comparisonof child well-being levels acrossdifferent countries is an imperfectexercise with significant gaps andlimitations. Ideally, it would also
require better and more childoriented data on such criticallyimportant indicators as:» the quality of parenting» the quality as opposed toquantity of early childhood
education» children’s mental and emotional
health» children’s exposure to violence inthe home (both as victims and as
witnesses)» the prevalence of child abuse
and neglect» the quality and safety ofchildren’s specific environments
including the opportunity forsafe, unsupervised play

» the well-being of children beingbrought up in the care of the
state» the well-being of children withdisabilities» the commercialization andsexualization of childhood» the exposure to, and effect of,media of all kinds in children’s
lives.

The earliest years
In addition to these gaps, there is
one other weakness in almost all
current attempts to monitor thewell-being of children, whether
internationally or within individual
countries. That weakness is thelack of data about children’sdevelopmental well-being in theearliest months and years of life.
It is perhaps no longer necessary toargue the case for the importanceof the early years. Advances in bothneuro-science and social science
have repeatedly confirmed that it isat this time that genetic potential
interacts in infinitely complex ways
with early experience to construct
the neural pathways andconnections that quickly become
both the foundations and thescaffolding for all later development.

It is therefore at this time that thechild’s well-being, health anddevelopment are most in need ofsociety’s concern and protection.
Yet in practice most of the available
data on children’s lives relate toolder children and young teenagers.
The two major international surveys
on which this report draws, forexample, are the Health Behaviourin School-aged Children survey(focusing on children aged 11 to 15)
and the Programme of International
Student Assessment (examining the
educational progress of pupils atage 15).
The almost total absence ofnationwide data on thedevelopmental progress of very
young children may reflect the factthat the importance of earlychildhood development has only
relatively recently been brought topublic and political prominence. Inpart, also, it may reflect thetraditional view that the collection ofdata on the lives of the very young
is impractical, potentially intrusive,and of limited relevance to public
policy. But in part, also, the problem
has been the lack of any widely
applicable means of measuring andmonitoring children’s developmental
progress in the earliest years of life.
Without such a measure, policy isblind, expenditure difficult to justify,
goals impossible to set, andprogress incapable of being
monitored.
This may now be beginning tochange as two countries – CanadaC h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :and Australia – become the first in
the world to begin the regularmonitoring of early years
development for all children.
In essence, the method deployed inboth countries is a teachercompleted checklist for every childat about the age of five years (a few
months after entry into formal
schooling). The checklist includes
approximately 100 items covering
five domains of early childdevelopment – physical health andwell-being, social competence,emotional maturity, language andcognitive skills, and communication
skills. “We now have communitylevel information about earlychildhood development for all ofAustralia,” says the foreword to thefirst issue of the Australian Early
Development Index (AEDI).xvii “In thesame way that the GDP is a measureof our economic status, the AEDI isa national measure of how well weare supporting our children’sdevelopment.”
There is a long way to go before any
nation can say that it has adequate
information about the early years
development of all its children. But a
start has been made in Australia andCanada towards making known the
proportion of the nation’s young
children who are developmentally‘on track’, ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’.
Capable of being aggregated andmapped for a specific geographic
community, for an electoral ward or
administrative district, for a State orProvince or for the nation as a whole– such data are beginning to assist

C o mpa ringJa pa nparents, communities, children’sorganizations, the academic
community, and government at
all levels to become involved in
knowing more and doing more insupport of ensuring the best
possible start in life for every child.
No one should claim that supportingchild development in the early years
is a simple proposition, or that all
the answers are available if only the
resources could be found. But it has
become equally clear that properly
directed investment in these years
can have very substantial andsustained effects on the well-beingof children today, on their lives
tomorrow, and on the long-termwell-being of their societies as awhole.xviii
In the future, therefore, it is hopedthat the UNICEF overview of childwell-being will be able to also take
into account data on childdevelopment in the critical earlymonths and years of children’s lives.

3 3

3 4

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panDATA SOURCES

The data for countries other thanJapan, and also for some indicators
for Japan used for this report, aremainly from UNICEF Child Well-beingin Rich Countries: A comparative
overview (Innocenti Report Card 11)
and its background papers.
Dimensions
Material
well-being

Health andsafetyEducation

Behaviours
and risks

Housing andenvironment

The data for Japan which were notincluded in the original Innocenti
Report Card 11 are gathered andcalculated by Aya Abe and Junko
Takezawa (National Institute ofPopulation and Social Security
Research). Data from public

statistics were used primarily, but inindicators where public data is notavailable, survey data conducted byresearchers was used.*1 The sourcesof data are as follows:

Indicator

Original Data Source

Relative child poverty
rate, poverty gap

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2010 Comprehensive Surveyof Living Conditions

厚生労働省「2010年国民生活基礎調査」

Child deprivation rate

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research2008 Social Living Survey

2008年社会生活調査 *2

Low family affluence

Not available

Infant mortality rate

The World Bank, World Development Indicators

Low birthweight

OECD StatExtracts

Immunization

Immunization Summary for 2010 data (the 2012 edition) jointly producedby the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World HealthOrganization (WHO)Child death rate

Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour 2010 Vital Statistics and Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communication National Census 2010

Participation rate: earlychildhood education

OECD, Education at Glance (2011)

Participation rate: further
education

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication National Census 20102010年国勢調査

NEET rate

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Comprehensive Survey of Living
Conditions 2012

平成24年国民生活基礎調査

PISA score

OECD, PISA (2009) reported in EdStats World Bank

OverweightNIPSSR's calculation based on Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology School Children Health Survey 2010

Breakfast

Japan Sports Council 2010 Child Dietary Life Survey

Eating fruit

Not available

Exercise

Not available

Teenage fertility rate

The World Bank, World Development Indicators

Smoking

Not Available

Alcohol

Nihon University, National Survey of Under Age Smoking
and Drinking 2010

Cannabis

Not Available

Fighting

Not Available

Being bullied

National Institute of Educational Policy Research Longitudinal
Survey of Bullying 2009

文部科学省教育政策研究所「いじめ追跡調査」

Rooms per person

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research2008 Social Living Survey

2008年度社会生活調査*2

Housing problems

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research2008 Social Living Survey

2008年社会生活調査 *2

Homicide rate

NIPSSR's calculations based on Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare Vital Statistics 2010 and Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunication National Census 2010

厚生労働省「人口動態統計」、2010年国勢調査

Air pollution

WHO database

2010学童学校保健統計調査
平成22年度児童・生徒の食事状況等調査

2010年未成年の喫煙・飲酒状況に関する実態
調査 *3*1 The calculations were done for the 8th meeting for the Working Group of Women and Economy, Cabinet Office Gender Equality Bureau (2011.12.20.)
内閣府男女共同参画会議基本問題・影響調査専門調査会 女性と経済WG 第8回資料3. 2011.12.20. *2 This survey was conducted as a part of Health Labour
Science Research Grant Research on Policy Planning and Evaluation Project “The Status of Low-Income People and Social Security System” (2007-2009,
Project Head: Aya Abe). 厚生労働科学研究費補助金(政策科学推進研究事業)「低所得者の実態と社会保障のあり方に関する研究」（平成19年～21年、研究代
表者：阿部 彩）の一環として行われたものである。 *3 This survey was conducted as Health Labour Science Research Grant Research on Circulatory
Diseases and Life Style Project “Research on Smoking and Drinking of Adolescents” (2008, 2010, Project Head: Takashi Ohida). 厚生科学研究費補助金（循環器疾患等生活習慣秒対策総合事業）「未成年者の喫煙・飲酒状況に関する実態調査研究」（平成20、22年度、研究代表者：大井田隆 日本大学）の一環として行われたものである。

C h il d

W e l l- b e i n g

i n

Ri c hC o u n tr i e s :C o mpa ringJa pa n

3 5

ANNEX

Proportion of children deprived in each indicator
A light blue background indicates a place in the top third of the table, mid blue denotes the middle third, and dark blue the bottom third.

Books
suitablefor age

Outdoorleisureequipment

Indoorgames(blocks etc.)

Money toparticipate
in schooltrips

A quietplace to do
homework

Internetconnection

Some newclothes (notall secondhand)

Celebrate
on special
occasions

Lacking 2
or more

IS

0.00

0.00

-

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

-

0.00

NO

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

SE

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

NL

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

FI

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.01

DK

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.02

UK

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.02

IE

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.12

0.03

0.01

0.03

LU

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.08

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.03

MT

0.01

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.04

SI

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.10

0.02

0.05

AT

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.06

0.03

0.04

0.05

DE

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.07

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.05

FR

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.05

CY

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.07

0.01

0.04

0.06

EE

0.04

0.07

0.02

0.05

0.04

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.06

CZ

0.01

0.05

0.02

0.04

0.08

0.09

0.05

0.02

0.06

BE

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.07

0.08

0.07

0.03

0.06

ES

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.03

0.16

0.03

0.04

0.07

JPN

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.10

0.11

0.07

0.02

0.07

IT

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.07

0.12

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.10

GR

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.01

0.09

0.14

PL

0.07

0.09

0.07

0.11

0.05

0.18

0.03

0.10

0.14

LT

0.08

0.10

0.07

0.08

0.07

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.14

SK

0.11

0.13

0.07

0.13

0.09

0.16

0.14

0.07

0.15

PT

0.12

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.14

0.18

0.14

0.11

0.19

HU

0.13

0.18

0.12

0.13

0.08

0.21

0.22

0.09

0.21

LV

0.12

0.19

0.11

0.14

0.07

0.13

0.24

0.14

0.22

BG

0.29

0.48

0.34

0.41

0.23

0.29

0.35

0.26

0.40

RO

0.34

0.58

0.52

0.55

0.28

0.37

0.25

0.34

0.61

3 6

C h i l d

Well-b eing

in

R ich

C o untries :C o mpa ringJa panREFERENCES
i For a better understanding on theselection of the indicators please see:Martorano, B., L. Natali, C. de Neubourg
and J. Bradshaw (2013). ‘Child Well-being
in Economically Rich Countries: Changes
in the first decade of the 21st century’,Working Paper 2013-02. Florence: UNICEF
Office of Research.
ii Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (1984). ‘Morbidity andMortality Weekly Report’ (MMWR),
US Department of Health and Human
Services, Atlanta, August 17, 1984,
Vol. 33(32):459-60,465-67.
iii Hokama T, Binns C. (2009) Trends in theprevalence of low birthweight in Okinawa,
Japan: a public health perspective. Acta
Paediatrica. 98(2):242–246.
iv Ohmi, H., K. Hirooka, A. Hata andY. Mochizuki (2001), Recent trend ofincrease in proportion of low birthweight
infants in Japan, International journal of
Epidemiology, 30: pp. 1269-71.
Nakamura, K. (2008) “Analysis of
Background for the increase of lowbirthweight children (Teishusshou taijuji
shushoritsu zouka no haikei youin ni
kansuru kento)” Report on 2003 Jido
Kankyo Dukuri to Sogo Chosa Kenkyu,
Boshi Aiiku Kai.
http://www.aiiku.or.jp/aiiku/rpi/nakamura/works/lbw_met_tokyo.pdf

Fujiwara, T., J. Ito and I. Kawachi (2013)‘Income inequality, parentalsocioeconomic status, and birth outcomesin Japan’, American Journal of
Epidemiology, 177(10): 1042-52.
v Institute of Health Equity (2012). ‘An
Equal Start: Improving outcomes inchildren’s centres: The evidence review’.
London: Department of Epidemiology andPublic Health, University College London.
vi Godfrey, C., S. Hutton, J. Bradshaw,
R. Coles, G. Craig, J. Johnson (2002).
‘Estimating the Cost of Being “Not in
Education, Employment or Training” at
Age 16-18’, Research Report RR346. York:
Social Policy Research Unit, University
of York.
vii Quintini G., J. P. Martin and S. Martin(2007). ‘The Changing Nature of the
School-to-Work Transition Process inOECD Countries’, IZA discussion paper
2582. Paris: OECD Employment Division.
Available at:
ftp://ftp.iza.org/SSRN/pdf/dp2582.pdf
viii Currie, C., C. Zanotti, A. Morgan, et al.
(2012). ‘Social Determinants of Health andWell-being among Young People’. HealthBehaviour in School-aged Children(HBSC) Study: International report fromthe 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen: World
Health Organization.
ix Ibid.
x Ibid.
xi Moore, K., N. Jones and E. Broadbent(2008). ‘School Violence in OECDCountries’, Woking: Plan Limited.

xii Cornell University (2007).‘Child
Development and the PhysicalEnvironment’, Cornell University, Collegeof Human Ecology. See also:
http://www.who.int/ceh/indicators/en/ andhttp://ec.europa.eu/health/healthy_
environments/partnerships/index_en.htm
xiii Evans, G. W. (2006). ‘Child
Development and the PhysicalEnvironment’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 57: 423-451.
xiv European Union Statistics on Incomeand Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (2009).
xv Margolin G. and E. B. Gordis (2004).
‘Children’s Exposure to Violence in the
Family and Community’, Current
Directions in Psychological Science,
Vol.13, No. 4: 152-155. Available at:
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/
dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/peers_social_
general/margolin.exposure2violence.
curdir.04.pdf
xvi Cohen, E., B. McAlister Groves and
K. Kracke (2009). UnderstandingChildren’s Exposure to Violence. Moving
From Evidence to Action’, Children
Exposed to Violence Issue Brief No. 1.
North Bethesda, MD: Safe Start Center.
xvii Council of Australian Governments,
COAG, Human Capital Reform: Report by
the COAG National Reform Initiative
Working Group, February, 2006.
xviii Institute of Health Equity, op. cit.
(2012).

Acknowledgements
The Japanese version of the Innocenti
Report Card 11 was realized by the close
cooperation of researchers at the UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti in Florence
and the National Institute of Populationand Social Security Research, Tokyo. We
would like to thank all those at the Officeof Research for making this publication
possible, especially Bruno Martorano,
Luisa Natali and Yekaterina Chzhen who
meticulously re-calculated the entire
league tables for this issue, and reviewed

all the details. We also thank Chris De
Neubourg for making the entire project
possible and Sudhanshu Handa forseeing it through. The publication wasmade possible by the generous supportof the Japan Committee for UNICEF fortranslation and printing. We are gratefulfor their unwavering support in bringing
Japan to the table of international
comparison in child well-being. We hopethat this report will bring about further
discourses on child well-being in Japanand the rest of the world and encourage
development of a comprehensive policy
to support children.
November 2013
Aya AbeJunko Takezawa
National Institute of Populationand Social Security ResearchPrevious issues in this series:
Innocenti Report Card 1
A league table of child poverty in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 2
A league table of child deaths by injury in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 3
A league table of teenage births in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 4
A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 5
A league table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 6
Child poverty in rich countries 2005
Innocenti Report Card 7
Child poverty in perspective: An overview of childwell-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 8
The child care transition: A league table of early childhood
education and care in economically advanced countries
Innocenti Report Card 9
The Children Left Behind: A league table of inequality inchild well-being in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 10
Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of childpoverty in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 11
Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative
overview
Graphics: MCC Design, UK (mccdesign.com)

Child well-being in rich countries:
Comparing Japan

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 20 330
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org
ISBN: 978-88-6522-024-5© The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
December 2013