国立社会保障・人口問題研究所
所内研究報告 第 55 号
2014 年 9 月 26 日

中日人口与社会保障研讨会
CASS-IPSS Joint Workshop on Population and Social Security

日中人口・社会保障ワークショップ
報告書
Report2014 年 9 月 15 日

北京

September 15, 2014 Beijing

中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所
Institute of Population and Labor Economics (IPLE)
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
中国社会科学院日本研究所
Institute of Japanese Studies (IJS)
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
中国社会科学院社会学研究所
Institute of Sociology (IOS)
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
日本 国立社会保障・人口問題研究所
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (IPSS)概要
本次研讨会是中国社会科学院相关研究所与日本国立社会保障与人口问题研
究所就两国人口老龄化背景下的人口和社会保障问题进行的学术交流。研讨会主要议题有：（1）人口变动；（2）收入与家庭；（3）就业与社会保障；（4）老年健康与政策应对等。中日两国具有相似的人口变化进程。目前中国人口老龄化进程加速，日本则已先于中国数十年进入老龄化社会，中日两国在人口与社
会保障方面具有很多共同关注的议题。两国学者将借此研讨会推动在共同关注
议题方面的中日比较合作研究。
Summary
As national research institutes, the 3 Institutes of CASS and IPSS share commonrole and interest in promoting the research to advance national policies in the field of
population and social issues. This workshop was organized on the 15th September
2014 in Beijing, China to capitalize the individual collaborations so far accumulated
and create the common future framework of collaboration facilitating the synergy ofall parties concerned. Presentations were made in 4 sessions namely (1)Population
issues, (2) Income, family and household, (3) Employment and Social security, (4)Well-being of elderly and policy responses to ageing. Active discussions were madeby the presenters and participants of Chinese and Japanese specialists and policy
makers.

概要
本ワークショップは、日本国立社会保障・人口問題研究所と中国社会科学院の関連研究所（人口与労働経済研究所、日本研究所、社会学研究所）により 2014 年 9 月 15 日北京にて開催された。国立社会保障・人口問題研究所からは 4 名の研究者が、中国社会科学院からは 7 名の研究者が（1）人口、（2）
収入・家族および世帯、（3）就業と社会保障、（4）老年健康と政策対応の 4
セッションにて報告し、日中両国専門家および政策担当者も交えて、討論が行われた。

会 议 日 程PROGRAM中冶大厦九层会议室

9th Floor Conference Room, MCC Tower
Registration
9:00

签到Opening Session 开幕
Chair 主持: WANG Wei 王伟

9:30-9:40

Welcome Remarks 致辞
Session 1: Population issues
第一单元 人口议题
Chair 主持: WANG Wei 王伟

9:40-10:30(IJS, CASS 中国社科院日本研究所)(IJS, CASS 中国社科院日本研究所)

1. ZHENG Zhenzhen 郑 真 真 （ IPLE ） “Demographic trend in China:
population aging and urbanization”（中国人口变动趋势：人口老龄化和
新型城镇化）
2. Reiko HAYASHI 林玲子(IPSS) “Mobility comparison in East Asia andchanging regional population distribution (東アジアにおける人口移動の国際比較と地域人口分布変動)”
Panel discussion 讨论

10:30-10:50

Tea break 茶歇Session 2 : Income, family and household
第二单元 收入，家庭与住户Chair 主持: Reiko HAYASHI 林玲子(IPSS 日本国立社会保障・人口問題研究所)

10:50-12:20



1. WANG Wei 王伟 (IJS) “Elderly income in China and Japan”(中日老年人
收入差距比较)2. Toru SUZUKI 鈴木透(IPSS)“Family patterns and population changes in
Eastern Asia (東アジアの家族パターンと人口変動)”
3. MA Chunhua 马春华(IOS)“Family structure and family relationship in East
Asia: a comparative study”(东亚四国家庭结构和家庭关系比较研究)Note: Each presentation will be no longer than 20 minutes, Q&A and discussion will be after presentations.
注意：每位发言不超过 20 分钟，请主持人注意控制时间。单元所有发言后进行提问和讨论。

Panel discussion 讨论
12:20-12:30

Group photo 合影

12:30-14:00

Lunch 午餐
Session 3 : Employment and Social security
第三单元 就业与社会保障
Chair 主持: WU Xiaoying 吴小英(IOS, CASS 中国社科院社会学研究所)

14:00-15:20

1.Yoshihiro KANEKO 金 子 能 宏 (IPSS) “Sustainability of the social
insurance system - in the case of pension and health care insurance”
2.ZHANG Zhanxin 张展新（IPLE）“Hukou reform and social insurance reformin China”(中国的户籍制度与社会保障改革)
3.DING Yingshun 丁英顺 (IJS) “Elderly human resource development in Japanand implication to China”（日本开发老年人力资源的经验及启示）
Panel discussion 讨论

15:20-15:40

Tea break 茶歇Session 4 : Well-being of elderly and policy responses to ageing
第四单元 老年健康与政策应对
Chair 主持: ZHENG Zhenzhen 郑真真（IPLE，CASS 中国社科院人口与劳动经济研究所）

15:40-17:00

1. SHI Jinqun 石 金 群 (IOS) “Mental health and insurance of Chinese
elderly”(中国老年人的精神健康及其保障)
2. Katsuhisa KOJIMA 小島克久(IPSS) “Long-term care system in Japan –Implications to East Asian policies(日本の介護制度と東アジアへの政策的示唆)”
3. LIN Bao 林宝（IPLE）“Options of long-term care system in China”(中国长期护理保险的方案选择)Panel discussion 讨论
Discussions on future collaboration and concluding remarks
17:00-17:30
18:00

关于未来合作的讨论，结束Dinner 晚宴

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
参会者名单
Name

Affiliation

1

Reiko Hayashi
林玲子

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
日本国立社会保障和人口问题研究所

2

Toru Suzuki
鈴木透

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
日本国立社会保障和人口问题研究所

3

Kaneko Yoshihiro
金子能宏

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
日本国立社会保障和人口问题研究所

4

Kojima Katsuhisa
小島克久

National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
日本国立社会保障和人口问题研究所

5

ZHENG Zhenzhen郑真真Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

6

ZHANG Zhanxin张展新Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

7

LIN Bao
林宝Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

8

WANG Wei
王伟Institute of Japanese Studies, CASS
中国社会科学院日本研究所

9

HU Peng胡澎Institute of Japanese Studies, CASS
中国社会科学院日本研究所

10

DING Yingshun
丁英顺Institute of Japanese Studies, CASS
中国社会科学院日本研究所

11

ZHAO Gang赵刚

Institute of Japanese Studies, CASS
中国社会科学院日本研究所

12

WU Xiaoying
吴小英Institute of Sociology, CASS
中国社会科学院社会学研究所

13

MA Chunhua马春华Institute of Sociology, CASS
中国社会科学院社会学研究所

14

SHI Jinqun
石金群

Institute of Sociology, CASS
中国社会科学院社会学研究所

15

BAO Dina
鲍迪娜

JICA China Office, Assistant Representative
JICA 中国事务所 所长助理

16

DOI Kenichi
土居健市

JICA China Office, Assistant Representative
JICA 中国事务所 所长助理

17

NISHIKAWA Masato
西川昌登

Embassy of Japan in China, First Secretary
在中国日本国大使館 一等書記官

18

Du Peng杜鹏Renmin University of China, Professor
中国人民大学老年学研究所教授

19

JungNim Kim
金貞任

Tokyo University of Social Welfare, Professor
東京福祉大学教授

20

Shen Jie
沈潔

21

YU Jianming
于建明

22

RU Xiaomei
汝小美Japan Women's University, Professor
日本女子大学教授
Policy Research Center, Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s
Republic of China
民政部政策研究中心
National Health and Family Planning Commission of thePeople’s Republic of China
国家卫计委中日合作项目中方专家组组长23

WANG Jianhua
汪建华Institute of Sociology, CASS
中国社科院社会学研究所

24

XU Jin徐进Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

25

NIU Jianlin
牛建林

Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

26

ZHANG Yan张妍

Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

27

FENG Ting
封婷Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
中国社会科学院人口与劳动经济研究所

28

Liang Shuang
梁爽

Tsinghua University
清华大学

発表資料
Presentations

Demographic trend in China: population
aging and urbanizationѝഭӪਓਈࣘ䎻࣯˖Ӫਓ㘱喴ॆ઼ᯠර෾䭷ॆ
Zheng, Zhenzhen 䜁ⵏⵏ(zhengzz@cass.org.cn)
Institute of Population and Labor Economics
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
September 15, 2014

Outline ѫ㾱޵ᇩ
• Background㜂Ქ• Demographic transition and structure changeӰਙ䖢਎ф㔉ᶺ਎ौ• Changes and challengesӰਙ਎ौ਀ެ᥇ᡎ
• Policy responses
᭵ㆌᓊሯBackground: Industrialization, urbanization, and agriculturalmodernization, 1950-2010㛼Ჟ˖ᐕъॆǃ෾䭷ॆ઼ߌъ⧠ԓॆ䘋〻˄┎ਾҾᐕъॆⲴ෾䭷ॆ˅
90

100000

80

90000

70

80000
70000

60

60000

50

50000

% 40

40000

30

30000

20

20000

10

10000

0

0
1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

PercentofGDPfromIndustryandServices

PercentnonͲagriculturalemployment

PercentPopulationUrban

Totalagriculturalmachinerypower(10000KW)

Source: National Bureau of Statistics. 䍺ᯏᶛⓆφളᇬ㔕䇗ቶ

Demographic transition, 1950-2010
Before 1970: average TFR§6; since 2000: TFR§1.6 or lowerӪਓ䖜ਈˈ1950-20101970ᒤԕࡽᙫ઼⭏㛢⦷ᒣ൷㓖Ѫ6, 2000ᒤԕਾっᇊ൘1.6ᡆᴤվ




0RUWDOLW\XQGHU



7)5

















       
 
   










Fertility decline in China and other countriesѝഭ઼ަԆаӋഭᇦⲴ⭏㛢⦷л䱽
A shorter path to below-replacement fertility in some countriesᴿӑളᇬⲺ⭕㛨⦽൞䖹⸣ᰬᵕс䲃ࡦᴪᴵ≪ᒩԛс

Population size and growthѝഭӪਓ㿴⁑ਈॆ˖൘21ц㓚Ⲵབྷ䜘࠶ᰦ䰤ᤱ㔝л䱽

Source˖United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division (2013). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, DVD Edition.
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm

Changes after
demographictransitionӪਓ䖜ਈਾⲴਈॆ
• Labor force alreadyreaches the peakࣩࣞᒪ喺Ӱਙᐨ䗴ጦ
‫ٲ‬











































































• Dependency ratio ofyoung and old: 19502100
ቇ‫ૂݵ‬㘷ᒪӰਙ䍕᣻
㌱ᮦⲺ਎ौ

'HSHQGHQF\UDWLR

7RWDOGHSHQGHQF\UDWLRGHSHQGHQF\UDWLRGHSHQGHQF\UDWLR

Changes in age structure ᒤ喴㔃ᶴਈॆ: 1950-2100

Health and longevity ‫ڕ‬ᓧо䮯ሯ• Life expectancy at birth (2010): average 74. 83– Women: 77.37– Men: 72.38• Male-female difference increased from 1.7 in 1990 tonearly 5 in 2010, mainly due to decreased female
mortality of infant & elderly• Centennials: 35,934 (2000: 17,877)• ࠰⭕人ᵕስળδεᒩൽχྩ77.37˗⭧72.38• 人ᵕስળⲺ⭭ྩᐤࡡԄᒪⲺ኷໔ࣖࡦᒪⲺ኷θѱ㾷⭧ӄྩႪ↱ӗ⦽ૂ㘷ᒪྩᙝ↱ӗ⦽с䲃• Ⲵ኷㘷Ӱ: 35,934 (2000: 17,877)

Proportion of 65+ population by province, 2010
ᒤ਴ⴱ65኱ԕк㘱ᒤӪਓ∄ֻ
2010ᒤ

The western provinces had
fastest ageing due to the outmigration of youth㘷喺ौ䙕ᓜᴶᘡⲺⴷᒬуᱥ⭕
㛨⦽ᴶ‫ݾ‬с䲃Ⲻⴷθ㙂ᱥᒪ䖱ࣩ࣑ࣞཝ䠅䗷࠰ⲺⴷMajor sending provinces ⍱ࣘӪਓѫ㾱䗱ࠪൠ• 63% migrants from Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan,
Guangxi, Sichuan, and Guizhou: mostly in the third group of
GDP except Guizhou
63% ⍷ࣞӰਙᶛ㠠ᆿᗳȽ⋩঍Ƚ⒌्Ƚ⒌঍Ƚᒵ㾵Ƚ഑ᐓૂ䍫ᐔθ䲚䍫ᐔཌཐѰӰ
ൽGDPփቻㅢп㓺ⲺⴷԳFour groups of provinces by
GDP per capita in 2012

3000~4000
4000~6000
6000~9000>10,000

Major destinationᒪⴷӰൽ*'3Ⲻ഑Ѡቸ⅗

⍱ࣘӪਓѫ㾱䗱‫ޕ‬ൠ• About 70% to Pearl River Delta, Changjiang Delta, andBeijing/Tianjin
㓜70%⍷ࣞӰਙ⍷ੇ⨖⊕п䀈⍨Ƚ䮵п䀈൦॰ૂ्Ӣ/ཟ⍛൦॰• Cities had largest migration increase during 2000-2010:
ShanghaiˈBeijingˈTianjinˈSuzhou

2000-2010ᒪ䰪⍷ࣞӰਙ໔䮵ᑻᓜᴶཝⲺคᐸφр⎭θ्Ӣθཟ⍛θ㤅ᐔ• Changjiang Delta will replace Pearl River Delta, to be thearea attracts most in-migrants䮵п䀈ሼ਌ԙ⨖п䀈θᡆѰ੮ᕋ⍷‫ޛ‬ӰਙᴶཐⲺ൦॰Size of migrants and urban population growth⍱ࣘӪਓ㿴⁑઼෾ᐲት≁໎䮯
221.4
0LJUDWLRQVL]H PLOOLRQ
3HUFHQWDJHRIXUEDQUHVLGHQFH

51.3

43.0
36.2

25.3

147.4

29.0

26.4

21.1

102.3
70.7

6.6

18.1

21.4















• New Urbanization Plan (2014-2020) aims at: urban residence reaches
60%, while residence with urban household registration reaches 45%
ളᇬ᯦ශค䭽ौ㿺ࡈδᒪεਇኋⴤḽφᑮօӰਙค䭽ौ⦽ᐜ
਩θᡭ㊃Ӱਙค䭽ौ⦽ᐜ਩
• Who will be new residence in city? Will elderly still be left behind?
䈷ՐᡆѰ᯦ᐸ≇ϋߒᶇ㘷Ӱ䘎Ր㔝㔣⮏ᆾ੍ϋ

Demographic impact of migration to destination⍱ࣘӪਓሩ䗱‫ޕ‬ൠӪਓᶴᡀⲴᖡ૽
• City population growth คᐸቻ≇㿺⁗໔䮵
• Age distribution changes: Shanghai population in 2010Ӱਙᒪ喺㔉ᶺ਎ौφᒪр⎭Ӱਙδ哺㢨Ѱᡭ㊃Ӱਙε
90+
85~89
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
15~19
10~14
5~9
0~4





Local M

Migrant M

Local F

Migrant FChanges in household structure, 2000-2010ᇦᓝ㔃ᶴਈॆ• Average family size ᒩൽᇬᓣ㿺⁗˖ 1990: 3.96
2010: 3.10
• A decrease in the share of core household, while the share of
single member household increased significantly, and a slightly
increase in stem family; changes in rural has been moresignificantṮᗹᇬᓣ∊ׁ᱄ᱴс䲃θঋӰᡭᱴ㪍рॽθ⴪㌱ᇬᓣ⋗ᴿ䲃քਃ㙂⮛ᴿ໔ࣖ; ߒᶇ਎ौ⴮ሯᴪཝχ• Migration, smaller family size, ageing, marriage and living
arrangement all play significant rolesӰਙ⍷ࣞȽᆆྩᮦ䠅ȽӰਙ㘷喺ौȽ႐ေૂօᡵ᛻߫ሯᇬᓣ㔉ᶺ
਀ެ਎ࣞᴿᱴ㪍ᖧଃ
H o u s e h o ld s t r u c tu r e

2010

2000

1990

1982

6 0 .8 9
2 2 .9 9
1 3 .6 7

6 8 .1 8
2 1 .7 2
8 .5 7

7 0 .6 1
2 1 .3 3
6 .3 46 8 .3 0
2 1 .7 4
7 .9 8ᇦ ᓝ ㊫ රN u c le a r Ṩ ᗳ ᇦ ᓝ
S te m ⴤ ㌫ ᇦ ᓝS in g le m e m b e r অ Ӫ ᡧ

[WUWW

[WUWW

ZWUWW

ZWUWW

Rural
ߌᶁ

L

\WUWW

L

Urban
෾ᐲ

\WUWW

YWUWW

YWUWW

XWUWW

XWUWW

YWXW総

YWXW総
WUWW

WUWW

YWWW総
W

XW
\

YW
X\

ZW
Y\

[W
Z\

\W
[\

]W
\\

^W
]\

^\

YWWW総
W

_W

XW
\

_\R

YW
X\

ZW
Y\

[W
Z\

\W
[\

]W
\\

^W
]\

_W
^\

_\R

総漬乬
総漬乬
Percentage of three generations
household by age group: urban(left) and rural(right)пԙ⴪㌱ᇬᓣᡆ઎ᒪ喺࠼ᐹφ㘷ᒪ㓺਎ौᴶཝθߒᶇ਎ौᴪᱴ㪍
[WUWW

[WUWW

ZWUWW

YWUWW

L

L

ZWUWW

YWUWW

XWUWW

XWUWW

YWXW総

YWXW総
YWWW総

WUWW
W

XW
\

YW
X\

ZW
Y\

[W
Z\

\W
[\

]W
\\

^W
]\

_W
^\

_\R

YWWW総

WUWW
W

XW
\

YW
X\

ZW
Y\

[W
Z\

\W
[\

]W
\\

^W
]\

_W
^\

_\R

Percentage of couples総漬乬
only household by age group: urban総漬乬(left) and rural (right)ཡ྽ᇬᓣᡆ઎ᒪ喺࠼ᐹφѣ㘷ᒪཡ྽ᇬᓣ໔ཐ
Source: Wang Yuesheng (2013) ⧁䏹⭕”ѣളคҗᇬᓣ㔉ᶺ਎ࣞ࠼᷆Ĉѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ
δεChallenges from demographic changeӪਓਈॆᑖᶕⲴ᥁ᡈ
• Ageing process and on going social welfare system reformӰਙ㘷喺ौф⽴Րؓ䳒᭯䶟ੂᰬਇ⭕
• The changes in family/household structure and weak social
supportᇬᓣૂօᡭ㔉ᶺ਎ौθ⽴Ր᭥ᤷࣕ㜳у䏩ԛᴵԙᇬᓣࣕ㜳• Fast urbanization and large flow of migrationᘡ䙕ค䭽ौૂᤷ㔣Ⲻཝ㿺⁗Ӱਙ⍷ࣞ• Impact of migration (not only rural to urban, but also urban tourban migration)Ӱਙ⍷ࣞⲺཐᯯ䶘ᖧଃδуӻᱥҗ-ค⍷ࣞθ䘎ऻᤢค-ค⍷ࣞε• Intertwined impact of changes at both macro and micro levelsуੂ਎ौ਀ެ֒⭞Ӛ㓽θᖧଃࡦᇅ㿸ૂᗤ㿸ቸ䶘Responses to population ageingᓄሩӪਓ㘱喴ॆ• Related laws and amendments⴮ᓊ⌋㿺ᮽԬⲺ࠰ਦᡌ‫ؤ‬䇘• Development Plan 2011-15 on ageingѣള㘷喺Ӂѐਇኋ㿺ࡈ 2011-15• Plan of social service on elderly care 2011-15
⽴Ր‫ޱ‬㘷ᵃࣗ։㌱㿺ࡈ 2011-15• Suggestions by State Council, 2013: Promote development of old
age service systemളࣗ䲘θ2013φࣖᘡਇኋ‫ޱ‬㘷ᵃࣗѐⲺ㤛ᒨᝅ㿷 (2020ᒪਇኋⴤḽ)• Related data collection and analysis, national strategic research⴮ީᮦᦤ᭬䳼ф࠼᷆θളᇬᡎ⮛⹊ガ• Learn experiences and lessons from countries already “old”
ᆜҖૂٕ䢪ć‫ݾ‬㘷ĈളᇬⲺ㔅僂ૂᮏ䇣

THANK YOU䉒䉒୰᪥ேཱྀ୚♫఍ಖ㞀◊子఍
CASS-IPSS Joint Workshop on Population and Social Security
15 September 2014ѝߦབྷ৖ҍቲՊ䇞ᇔ 9th Floor Conference Room, MCC, Beijing

MobilitycomparisoninEastAsiaand
changingregionalpopulationdistributionᮾ䜰䝆䜰䛻䛚䛡䜛ேཱྀ⛣ື䛾ᅜ㝿ẚ㍑䛸
ᆅᇦேཱྀศᕸኚື
ᯘ⋹Ꮚ Reiko Hayashi
hayashi-reiko@ipss.go.jpᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䠄᪥ᮏ䠅National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Japan

ேཱྀᐦᗘ

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

4.22

4.36

4.49

10.36

10.20

9.79

6.16

5.92

5.65

13.72

15.45

12.77

13.48

7.56
11.04
3.51
8.88

20%

10%

5.48

7.61
12.01
3.29
8.29
5.14

5.39

5.00

4.76

4.57

4.48

10.84

9.98

8.71

8.18

7.88

7.73

5.19

5.46

5.53

5.50

5.30

6.24

17.50

15.69

19.12

23.25

24.51

25.72

26.33

11.86

12.65

10.55

10.08

9.92

9.83

7.70

5.16

7.69

13.37

10.82

2.99

3.13

7.78

8.17

4.56

5.07

11.48
7.85

4.30

J
5.46
A
᪥
P
ᮏ
27.81
A
N
7.29

9.54
Hokkaido

8.38

8.43

8.54

8.67

8.86

TohokuN.Kanto12.21

14.02

13.79

Tokyo

13.54

13.39

13.34

2.81
7.43
4.41

2.76

2.88

2.97

3.04

2.98

6.75

6.48

6.27

6.09

5.91

3.76

3.56

3.39

3.27

3.10

Chubu
NagoyaOsaka
KeihanChugoku15.60

14.97

14.32

14.54

13.81

11.64

12.02

11.74

11.63

11.40

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Shikoku
Kyushu0%SouthKorea 㡑ᅜ100%IncheonIncheon
Seoul

90%
Seoul
80%

GyeonggiͲdo70%

GyeonggiͲ
doGangwonͲdo
Daegu
Gyeongsang
bukͲdoUlsan

60%
GangwonͲdo

50%

Daegu
GyeongsangbukͲdo
Ulsan

40%

Busan
30%
GyeongsangnamͲdo
20%

10%

0%
1966

1970

1975

1985

1990

1995

ChungcheongbukͲdo
Daejeon
ChungcheongnamͲdoJeollabukͲdo
Gwangju
JeollanamͲdo
Jeju
1998
2000
2010

Busan
GyeongsangnamͲdoChungcheon
gbukͲdoDaejeon
Chungcheon
gnamͲdoJeollabukͲdoGwangju
JeollanamͲdoCHINA୰ᅜ
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1953

1964

1982

2000

2010

Beijing
Tianjin
Hebei
Shanxi
NeiMongol
Liaoning
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Shanghai
Jiangsu
Zhejiang
Anhui
FujianJiangxi
Shandong
Henan
Hubei
Hunan
Guangdong
Guangxi
HainanChongqing
Sichuan
Guizhou
YunnanXizangShaanxi
Gansu
Qinghai
NingxiaHui
XinjiangUygur

Population=Birth– Death㼼㼼 Migration

ேཱྀ=ฟ⏕ – Ṛஸ 㼼⛣ືHowtomeasuremigration/mobility⛣ື䜢䛹䛾䜘䛖䛻 䜛䛛

1. Placeofresidenceatonetimepointᒃఫᆅ᫬Ⅼ

1yearago䠄1ᖺ๓䠅,5yearsago䠄5ᖺ๓䠅,atbirth䠄ฟ⏕᫬䠅,,,
9
9
9
9
9

Thesameplaceasnow䠄⌧ఫᆅ䛸ྠ䛨䠅
Samemunicipality,sameprefecture䠄ྠ䛨ᕷ⏫ᮧ䠅
Differentmunicipality,sameprefecture䠄ྠ䛨┴䛾㐪䛖ᕷ⏫ᮧ䠅
Differentprefecture䠄㐪䛖┴䠅
Foreigncountry䠄እᅜ䠅

2.Numberofmoveinaperiodoftime⛣ືᅇᩘᮇ㛫
1month䠄1䛛᭶䠅,1year䠄1ᖺ㛫䠅,,,Datasources 䝕䞊䝍
1. Japan ᪥ᮏ
999PopulationCensusᅜᅜໃㄪᰝ (2010)
ReportonInternalMigrationbytheBasicResidentRegistersఫẸᇶᮏྎᖒேཱྀ⛣ືሗ࿌
NationalSurveyonMigration(NSMͲJ) ேཱྀ⛣ືㄪᰝ(2011)

2. SouthKorea 㡑ᅜ999PopulationandHousingCensus ேཱྀఫᏯ⥲ㄪᰝ (2010)
AnnualReportonInternalMigrationStatisticsfromcivil
registration
SamplesurveysconductedbyKoreaNationalStatisticsOfficeandothers

3. China ୰ᅜ
999PopulationCensusㅜ‫ޘ⅑ޝ‬ഭӪਓᲞḕ (2010)
Administrativedataonthechangeofhouseholdregister
Samplesurveys

Assumption௬௬ᐃ
Migrationratechangeaccordingtothelevelof
mobility⛣ືᛶྥ䛻䜘䜚䚸ྛᣦᶆ䛿୍ᵝ䛻ኚ໬䛩䜛
䠄Forexample,if5yearmigrationrateishigh,then
1yearmigrationrateishigh౛䛘䜀䚸䜒䛧5ᖺ⛣ື⋡䛜㧗䛡䜜䜀1ᖺ⛣ື⋡䜒㧗䛔)

Method᪉ἲUsingadatasetofacountrywhereallthemigrationratesare
available,andmeasurethelevelofmobilityofanothercountryincalculatingtheratioagainstthereferencecountry’scorrespoinding migrationrate䛩䜉䛶䛾⛣ືᣦᶆ䛜䛒䜛ᅜ(ᇶ‽ᅜ)䛾ᣦᶆ䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ྛᅜ䛾ᚓ䜙䜜䜛ᣦᶆ䛸ᇶ‽ᅜ䛾䛭䛾ᣦᶆ䛾ẚ䜢⏝䛔䛶䚸ྛᅜ䛾⛣ືᛶྥᣦᶆ䛸䛩䜛䚹Nameofindicator㸦᪥ᮏࡢሙྜ㸧Thesameresidenceatbirth䠄ฟ⏕ᆅ䛜ྠ䛨䠅
Birthinthesameminor
administrativedivision䠄ฟ⏕ᆅ䛜ྠ䛨ᕷ⏫ᮧ䠅
Birthinthesamemajor
administrativedivision䠄ฟ⏕ᆅ䛜ྠ䛨㒔㐨ᗓ┴䠅
5yearmobility䠄5ᖺ⛣ື⋡䠅5yearmobilityofmajor
admin.division䠄5ᖺ┴㛫⛣ື⋡䠅
5yearimmobilityofminor
admin.division䠄5ᖺᕷෆᐃఫ⋡䠅1yearmobility 䠄1ᖺ⛣ື⋡䠅1yearmobilityofmajor
admin.division䠄1ᖺ┴㛫⛣ື⋡䠅
1yearimmobilityofminor
admin.division䠄1ᖺᕷෆᐃఫ⋡䠅
MobilityIndex

Country

China

Source2010
Censusrate(%)
1Ͳx
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
vs.Japanrate(%)
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
vs.Japanrate(%)
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japan

Japan
2010
Census2011NSMͲJ2010Census

22.1
77.9
1.000
47.5
52.5
6.96
1.000
71.7
28.3
7.36
1.000

7.8
92.2
1.184
40.6
59.4
10.95
1.574
46.6
53.4
18.85
2.562
51.0
2.236
12.0
4.25
2.632
81.1
18.9
3.49
2.065
18.1
1.930
4.2
1.49
3.440
93.5
6.5
1.20
2.252

83.0
17.0
2.14
0.307
92.0
8.0
2.28
0.310

4.6
1.31
0.809

SouthKorea

22.8
1.000
6.2
1.62
1.000
87.2
12.8
1.69
1.000
9.4
1.000
1.7
0.45
1.000
96.0
4.0
0.53
1.000

0.475

1.000

2.196

Mobility
indicators
of
China,
Japanand
SouthKorea
around2010᪥୰㡑䛾⛣ືᛶྥᣦᶆ
䠄2010ᖺ๓ᚋ䠅

Geographicalextentofmove⛣ື䛾⠊ᅖᶍᘧᅗ

Move (differenthouse)⛣ື䠄㐪䛖ᐙ䠅

Stay withinminor
adm.div.
ྠ䛨ᑠ⾜ᨻ༊ෆ

Movetodifferentmajoradm.div.
㐪䛖኱⾜ᨻ༊䞉ᅜእ

Hatchedareaisthelocationofpreviousresidence䝝䝑䝏㒊ศ䛜௨๓䛾ᒃఫᆅon“K”
basedonCourgeau(1973)

M :Mobilityrate,expressedasthenumberofmigrantsdividedbythe
totalpopulation
N :Numberofadministrativedivisionofwhichmigrantsarecounted
whencrossingtheborder

K :Levelofmobilityregardlessoftheadministrativedivision

Nameandbasiccharacteristicsofdifferentlevelofadministrativedivision
ofChina,JapanandSouthKorea䠄᪥୰㡑⾜ᨻ༊ศ୍ぴ䠅(Bold namesrefertomajororminoradministrativedivisionusedincensuses)
China
Province(┬乏:┬ᕷ)Name

34
37,327,378
104,303,132
3,002,166
Prefecture(ᆅ乏:ᕷᕞ┕ )333
3,151,810
14,047,625
95,465County(⍧乏:⍧ᕷ༊)2,856
379,869
2,226,017
251
Township*(ḉ乏:ḉ擯⾤㐨)40,906
40,577*373,094*
2,705*

NumberMedianpop.
Max.pop.
Min.pop.
Name
NumberMedianpop.
Max.pop.
Min.pop.
Name
NumberMedianpop.
Max.pop.
Min.pop.
Name
NumberMedianpop.
Max.pop.
Min.pop.

Japan

SouthKorea

Prefecture(㒔㐨ᗓ┴)

Province(㔲☚)47
1,706,242
13,159,388
588,667

Municipality(ᕷ༊⏫ᮧ)
1,901
30,498877,138201

17
1,902,611
11,379,459
531,905
Municipality
(㔲ῆῂ)
302
201,070
9,417,766
7,764
SubͲmunicipality(㦣Ⳋ☯)
3,472
10,311
121,301101*Duetothedatalimitation,median,maxandminpopulationofTownshiplevelofChinaisthatofJiangsuProvince.
Source:Populationcensusstatisticsof2010forProvinciallevelofChina,populationcensusstatisticsof2010compiledby www.citypopulation.deforPrefecturallevelofChina,statisticsof2007ofMinistryofPublicSecurity(2008)andcompiledby
www.datatang.comforCountylevelofChina,statisticsof2004byStatisticsBureauofJiangsuProvince(2005)forTownshiplevelofJiangsuProvince,China;populationcensusstatisticsof2010forJapanandSouthKorea

Numberofadministrativedivision

Populationsizedistributionbydifferentlevelofadministrative
divisionofChina,JapanandSouthKorea
1000䠄᪥୰㡑⾜ᨻ༊ศ✀㢮ูேཱྀศᕸ䠅

100

10

1
100

1,000

Korea:Provincial
China:Provincial(┬乏)Jiangsu:Township(ḉ)

10,000100,000
1,000,000
Population(inperson)

10,000,000

100,000,000 1,000,000,000

Korea:Municipal(‫)˱˳ݤ‬China:Prefectural(ᆅ乏)Korea:SubͲmunicipal(ࡹִѰ)
China:County(⍧乏)Japan:Prefectural(㒔㐨ᗓ┴)Japan:Municipal(ᕷ༊⏫ᮧ)

Country

China

Japan

SouthKorea

Nameofindicator
SourceThesameresidenceat
birth
Birthinthesameminor
administrativedivision

Birthinthesamemajor
administrativedivision5yearmobility
5yearmobilityofmajor
admin.division5yearimmobilityofminor
admin.division1yearmobility
1yearimmobilityofmajor
admin.division1yearmobilityofminor
admin.division2010Census 2010Census

rate(%)
1Ͳx
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
vs.Japanrate(%)
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
vs.Japanrate(%)
K
vs.Japanrate(%)
1Ͳx
K
vs.Japan

2011NSMͲJ2010Census

22.1
77.9
1.000
47.5
52.5
6.96
1.000
71.7
28.3
7.36
1.000

7.8
92.2
1.184
40.6
59.4
10.95
1.574
46.6
53.4
18.85
2.562
51.0
2.236
12.0
4.25
2.632
81.1
18.9
3.49
2.065
18.1
1.930
4.2
1.49
3.440
93.5
6.5
1.20
2.252

83.0
17.0
2.14
0.307
92.0
8.0
2.28
0.310

4.6
1.31
0.809

22.8
1.000
6.2
1.62
1.000
87.2
12.8
1.69
1.000
9.4
1.000
1.7
0.45
1.000
96.0
4.0
0.53
1.000

MobilityIndex

0.475

1.000

2.196

China:Minor
(County⍧ level)

Japan:Major
(Prefecture┴ level)

Mobility
indicators
of
China,
Japanand
SouthKorea
2010

AgeͲspecifichouseholdͲregisterseparationrate,China,2010ᒪ喘࡛Ӱᡭ࠼⿱⦽ ୰ᅜ 2010ᖺ
40%

ForthosewhoseregisteredaddressisoutofpresentTownshipᡭਙⲱ䇦൦җ䭽㺍䚉ⲺӰਙ൞ཌҗhouseholdregisterseparationrate

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Age

ྜ孉 Total⏨ MaleSource:PopulationCensusofChina

ዪ FemaleAgeͲspecifichouseholdregisterseparationrate(China)andlifetimeminoradministrativedivisionmobility(Japan2011,SouthKorea2010)୰ᅜᒪ喘࡛Ӱᡭ࠼⿱⦽δε三ള࣭ᰛᵢ⭕⏥ቅ㺂᭵॰䯉〱ऋ⦽
80
70
60

%

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40
China

50
Japan

60

70

80

90

Age

100

SouthKorea

Source:CensusforChinaandSouthKorea,NationalSurveyonMigrationforJapan5yearmobilityinJapanandSouthKoreabyageᖺ㱋ู5ᖺ⛣ື⋡ Ͳ 㡑ᅜ䛸᪥ᮏ䛾ẚ㍑

80
70

Mobilityrate%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5Ͳ9

10Ͳ14 15Ͳ19 20Ͳ24 25Ͳ29 30Ͳ34 35Ͳ39 40Ͳ44 45Ͳ49 50Ͳ54 55Ͳ59 60Ͳ64 65Ͳ69 70Ͳ74 75Ͳ79 80Ͳ84(75+)

5yearmobilityJapan5yearmobilitySouthKorea

5yearmobilitymajorJapan5yearmobilitymajorSouthKorea

85+

Note:“5yearmobilitymajor”signifiestheproportionofpeoplewhomovedacrossthemajoradministrativedivision(prefecturefor
Japan,ProvinceforSouthKorea)since5yearsago.
Source:Census2010ofJapanandSouthKorea

Trendof5yearmobilityinSouthKorea,1970Ͳ2010㡑ᅜ5ᖺ⛣ື⋡䛾᥎⛣䚸1970Ͳ2010
5yearmobility

Migrants㸦⛣ື⪅ᩘ㸧

MobilityRate(%)
㸦⛣ື⋡㸧

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

TotalbetweenMunicipalities

4,394

7,658

9,871

9,711

8,234*

WithinProvince,
between
Municipalities

1,918

3,879

4,380

4,191

3,120

BetweenProvinces

2,457

3,739

5,435

5,386

5,083

Other

20

40

55

134

338

TotalbetweenMunicipalities

16.2

22.8

24.6

23.1

18.1

WithinProvince,
between
Municipalities

7.1

11.5

10.9

10.0

6.9

BetweenProvinces

9.1

11.1

13.5

12.8

11.2

2.5

Personsinmillions ⓒ୓ே

2.0

Bordercontrolorfreemovement?
⛣ື⟶⌮䛛⮬⏤⛣ື䛛䠛

14

EconomicgrowthandJapaneseinternational migration

12⤒῭Ⓨᒎ䛸᪥ᮏ䛾ᅜ㝿ேཱྀ⛣ື

ᅾ᪥
እᅜேᩘ

10

㔅⎄ᡆ䮵⦽

8

1.5
6
4
1.0
2
0

0.5

ᅾእ᪥ᮏேᩘ

Ͳ2

AnnualEconomicGrowthRate(5yearaverage)%

*“TotalbetweenMunicipalities”in2010includesunknown.
Source:CensusofSouthKorea,thedatafrom1970to2000iscitedandcompiledbyChoi(2004)

Japan ᪥ᮏ0.0
Ͳ41880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
NonͲJapanese

NonͲJapanese(PreͲwar)

OverseasJapaneseOverseasJapaneseincluding
thosewhoarebornabroad

NonͲJapaneseincludingTaiwanese,
ManchuriansandKoreans
EconomicGrowthRate(5yearaverage)

9

Bordercontrolorfreemovement?
⛣ື⟶⌮䛛⮬⏤⛣ື䛛䠛

8

EconomicgrowthandJapaneseinternal migration12ᅜෆ⛣ື⪅ᩘ䠄ὶ㔞䠅

Personsinmillions⤒῭Ⓨᒎ䛸᪥ᮏ䛾ᅜᅜෆேཱྀ⛣ື
7

10

6

8

㔅⎄ᡆ䮵⦽

5

6

4

4

3

2

2

0
ᅾ᪥እᅜேᩘ

1

Ͳ2ᅾእ᪥ᮏேᩘ

0
1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950
Year

1960

NonͲJapanese

NonͲJapanese(PreͲwar)

OverseasJapaneseOverseasJapaneseincluding
thosewhoarebornabroad

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Ͳ4
2020

NonͲJapaneseincludingTaiwanese,
ManchuriansandKoreansInternalmigrant(flow)

AnnualEconomicGrowthRate(5yearaverage)%

14Ё᮹㗕ᑈҎᬊܹᏂ䎱↨䕗ਛᣣ㜞㦂⠪ᚲᓧᩰᏅߩᲧセ
ਛ࿖␠ળ⑼ቇ㒮ᣣᧄ⎇ⓥᚲ₺ உᴀ᭛ᰃ᥶䅼Ё᮹㗕ᑈҎᬊܹᮍ䴶ⱘϡৠǄᧄⓂ䈲ਛ࿖䈫ᣣᧄ㜞㦂⠪䈱ᚲᓧ䈱㕙䈮䈍䈔䉎㆑䈇䉕ᬌ⸛䈜䉎䉅䈱䈪䈅䉎䇯ᴀ᭛᠔ᓩ⫼᭄᥂བϟ᠔߫ǄᧄⓂ䈱ᒁ↪䊂䊷䉺⾗ᢱ䈱಴ᚲ䈲ਅ⸥䈱䈫䈍䉍䈪䈅䉎䇯噝 ᮹ᴀȃɏόɇ䊛᭭噝 Ё೑䌘᭭˖噝 ᑈ㄀݁⃵Ҏষ᱂ᶹ䌘᭭噝 ᑈܼ೑Ҏষᢑḋ䇗ᶹ 噝 ८⫳࢈‫ⳕڡ‬Ǎ᠔ᕫ‫ߚݡ‬䜡䂓᷏ฅਞ᳌ǎ
᭄᥂噝 ܼ೑ජеԣ᠋䇗ᶹ˄Ё 噝 ८⫳࢈‫ⳕڡ‬Ǎ೑⇥⫳⌏෎⻢䂓᷏ǎ೑ᆊᒁᬊܹ䇗ᶹ˄&+,3˅
&KLQD+RXVHKROG,QFRPH 噝 ㎣ࢭⳕǍܼ೑⍜䊏ᅳᜟ䂓
3URMHFW&+,3˅᭄᥂᷏ǎ噝 ᑈЁ೑ජе㗕ᑈҎষ⢊ 噝 ‫ݙ‬䭷ᑰǍ催唶㗙ȃ᮹ᐌ⫳‫މ‬䗑䏾䇗ᶹ᭄᥂⌏Ȁ䭶ǮȠᛣ䄬䂓᷏ǎЁ೑Ϣ᮹ᴀⱘ෎ሐ㋏᭄
ਛ࿖ߣᣣᧄߩࠫ࠾ଥᢙ
••Ё೑೑ᆊ㒳䅵ሔ2013ᑈথ㸼䖥10ᑈ෎ሐ㋏᭄ˈ2009ᑈҹᴹᬊܹϟ䰡䍟࢓Ǆ
2013ᐕ䇮ਛ࿖࿖ኅ⛔⸘ዪ䈲
10ᐕ᧪䈱䉳䊆ଥᢙ䉕౏⴫䇯
2009ᐕએ᧪䇮ਛ࿖䈱ᚲᓧᩰᏅ䈏ਅ㒠௑ะ䇯Ё೑෎ሐ㋏᭄Ё೑ȃɀɓ᭄֖
































ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ ᑈ

••᮹ᴀक޴ᑈᴹ߱⃵ߚ䜡ᬊܹᏂ䎱ᠽ໻ˈԚ‫ߚ⃵ݡ‬䜡Ꮒ䎱ϡ໻ˈ⼒Ӯֱ䱰ǃ⿢ᬊㄝѠ⃵ߚ䜡䇗㡖ᬜᵰᯢᰒǄ
1999ᐕ᧪䇮ᣣᧄ䈱ᒰೋᚲᓧᩰᏅ䈏᜛ᄢ䈚䈩䈇䉎䈏䇮␠ળ଻㓚䊶⒢䈭䈬䈮䉋䉎ᡷༀᐲ䈏ᄢ䈐䈇䇯䊛᭭˖೑ᆊ㍅㿜ሔ᮹ᴀ෎ሐ㋏᭄᮹ᴀȃɀɓ᭄֖

























߱⃵ߚ䜡
ᔧ߱᠔ᕫ



‫ߚ⃵ݡ‬䜡
᠔ᕫ‫ߚݡ‬䜡


ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ߎ᠔˖८⫳࢈‫ⳕڡ‬Ǎᑇ៤ᑈ᠔ᕫ‫ߚݡ‬䜡䂓᷏ฅਞ᳌ǎЁ೑Ϣ᮹ᴀ᠋Џᑈ啘Ϣ෎ሐ㋏᭄
਎Ꮺਥߩᐕ㦂㓏⚖೎ߩࠫ࠾ଥᢙ

㵶
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ᣣᧄᐕ啘⿧ᄢᡴ౉Ꮕ〒⿧ᄢ䇯ᣣᧄ䈲ᐕ㦂㓏⚖䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬ᩰᏅ䈏ᄢ䈐䈇䇯ਛ࿖ᢛ૕਄ᡴ౉Ꮕ〒ᄢ੓ᣣᧄ䋬ૉਈᐕ啘݇♽ਇᄢ䇯ਛ࿖䈲ో૕⊛䈮ᣣᧄ䉋䉍㜞䈇䈏䇮ᐕ㦂䈮䉋䉎㆑䈇䈏㗼⪺䈪䈲䈭䈇䇯ਛ࿖ၔᏒਈ‫᧛ݰ‬ᖱಂ᦭ਇห䇯ਛ࿖ㇺᏒㇱ䈫ㄘ᧛ㇱ䈫䈪䈲⇣䈭䉎௑ะ䇯ਛ࿖‫᧛ݰ‬ᡴ౉Ꮕ〒ᄢ੓ၔᏒ䋬๒Uሼᒻ䇯ਛ࿖ㄘ᧛ㇱ䈱ᚲᓧᩰᏅ䈲ో૕⊛䈮ㇺᏒㇱ䉋䉍ᄢ䈐䈒䇮Uሼဳ䉕๒䈜䉎䇯ᑈ

2-1.᮹
᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁϢ݊ҪᆊᒁᬊܹᏂ䎱ᣣᧄ䈱㜞㦂⠪਎Ꮺ䈫䈠䈱ઁ䈱਎Ꮺ䈫䈱ᚲᓧᩰᏅܼ䚼ᆊᒁ᠋ǂܼϪᐃ



ϛ
᮹
‫ܗ‬
ǂ
ϛ
‫ݚ‬





㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁ᠋ǂ催唶㗙Ϫᐃ




ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

ᑈ

䊛᭭˖८⫳࢈‫ⳕڡ‬Ǎᑇ៤ᑈ೑⇥⫳⌏෎⻢䂓᷏ǎ• ೼2003ᑈࠄ2012ᑈⱘ10ᑈ䯈ˈ㱑✊ܼԧᆊᒁᑇഛᬊܹ᳝
᠔‫ޣ‬ᇥˈ㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁᬊܹ᳝᠔๲ࡴˈԚϸ㗙П䯈ⱘᏂ䎱ϔⳈᕜ໻Ǆ• Ꮒ䎱᳔໻ⱘᰃ2003ᑈˈⳌᏂ288.8ϛ᮹‫ˈܗ‬Ꮒ䎱᳔ᇣⱘᰃ
2012ᑈˈⳌᏂ228.1ϛ᮹‫ܗ‬Ǆ

2-2.᮹
᮹ᴀᆊᒁ᠋Џߚᑈ啘Ѩㄝߚᆊᒁᑇഛᬊܹ
਎Ꮺਥᐕ㦂䊶ᚲᓧ੖ಽ૏㓏⚖೎䈮䉂䈢਎Ꮺᐔဋᚲᓧ

⾗ᢱ䋺ෘ↢ഭ௛⋭䇺ᐔᚑ18ᐕ࿖᳃↢ᵴၮ␆⺞ᩏ䇻䇮䉂䈝䈾✚ว⎇ⓥᚲ䋺Ǎ催唶ᳳȃ᠔ᕫḐᏂȧǾǛ㗗ǝȠǠ~∖ȖȞȡȠ᠔ᕫȃɃόɝɎȫɕɋɐȃ‫ݡ‬ᾟ㆝~ǎˈȔǯȐ㎣ⷨ䂪䲚2008ᑈċ䉋䉍ᒁ↪䇯••ᬊ᳔ܹ催ⱘ20%ᆊᒁ˄㄀Ѩㄝߚ˅䱣ⴔ᠋Џᑈ啘ⱘϞछᑇഛᬊܹгᯢᰒϞछˈ㗠݊Ҫಯ㒘ⱘᆊᒁैᰃ䱣ⴔ᠋Џᑈ啘ⱘϞछᑇഛᬊܹ㓧᜶ϟ䰡Ǆ䇈ᯢ᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁ෎ሐᣛ᭄‫أ‬催ˈᰃ಴Ўফࠄњᴹ㞾ϸϾᮍ䴶ⱘᕅડ˖ϔᰃᬊܹ䕗催ⱘᆊᒁ᠋Џᑈ啘䍞໻ᑇഛᬊܹ䍞催ˈѠᰃ݊Ҫᆊᒁ᠋Џᑈ啘䍞催ᑇഛᬊܹ㓧᜶ϟ䰡Ǆ

3-1.ਛ࿖ਈᣣᧄ⠧ᐕੱᡴ౉᧪Ḯਛ࿖䈫ᣣᧄ䈱㜞㦂⠪䈱ᚲᓧ᭴ᚑЁ೑еᴥቕঞҹϞ㗕ᑈҎЁ೑䖆ᴥ䚼ⅇҹϞȃ㗙 






Ё೑ජ䬛ቕঞҹϞ㗕ᑈҎЁ೑ȃ䦂ȃⅇҹϞȃ㗙











Ё೑ජᏖቕঞҹϞ㗕ᑈҎЁ೑䛑Ꮦ䚼ⅇҹϞȃ㗙








Ё೑ܼ೑˄ቕঞҹϞ㗕ᑈҎᘏԧ˅Ё೑ⅇҹϞ㗙ȃ㎣᭄









᮹ᴀ˄᳝ቕҹϞ㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁᘏԧ˅
᮹ᴀⅇҹϞȃ㗙ȃǙȠϪᐃ㎣᭄










᮹ᴀቕҹϞ㗕Ҏऩ䑿ᆊᒁ᮹ᴀⅇҹϞȃब⣀Ϫᐃ

















ࢇࡼᬊܹ˄【‫ڡ‬᠔ᕫ˅⾏䗔ӥ䞥‫ݏ‬㗕䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥࡮ᘽ㌺˅
ᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫ݏ‬ㄝ˄ҩ䗕ȟ࡮ӕὁᑈ䞥࡮‫ן‬Ҏᑈ䞥ǿǾ˅















䋶ѻᗻᬊܹ˄䉵⫷᠔ᕫ˅᳔Ԣ⫳⌏ֱ䱰䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥࡮ᘽ㌺ҹ໪ȃ⼒Ӯֱ䱰㌺Ҭ䞥˅⾗ᢱ䋺ਛ࿖㒳䅵ዪ,2010ᐕో࿖ੱญ᥉ᶹ䌘ᢱ,60ቕએ਄⠧ᐕੱ䇯ᣣᧄෘ↢ഭ௛⋭䇺ᐔᚑ22ᐕ࿖᳃↢ᵴၮ␆⺞ᩏ䇻䇮65ᱦએ਄਎Ꮺ䇯3-1.ਛ࿖ਈᣣᧄ⠧ᐕੱᡴ౉᧪Ḯਛ࿖䈫ᣣᧄ䈱㜞㦂⠪䈱ᚲᓧ᭴ᚑ᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎࢇࡼᬊܹ催ѢЁ೑㗕ᑈҎǄᣣᧄ㜞㦂⠪䈱Ⓙ௛෼౉䈲ਛ࿖䈱㜞㦂⠪䉋䉍ᄙ䈇䇯᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎ‫ݏ‬㗕䞥ᬊܹᯢᰒ催ѢЁ೑㗕ᑈҎǄᣣᧄ㜞㦂⠪䈱ᐕ㊄ฃ⛎₸䈲䈲䉎䈎䈮ਛ࿖㜞㦂⠪䉋䉍㜞䈇䇯Ё೑㗕ᑈҎᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫ݏ‬ㄝᯢᰒ催Ѣ᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎǄਛ࿖㜞㦂⠪䈱ኅᣖ䈮䉋䉎઀ㅍ䉍䈭䈬䈲䈲䉎䈎䈮ᣣᧄ䉋䉍ᄙ䈇䇯• Ё೑㗕ᑈҎᬊܹᴹ⑤᳝ජеᏂ߿˖ࢇࡼᬊܹ੠ᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫ݏ‬ජᏖᇥѢ䬛ǃ䬛ᇥѢ‫ݰ‬ᴥ˗⾏䗔ӥ䞥ජᏖ催Ѣ䬛ǃ䬛催Ѣ‫ݰ‬ᴥǄ• ਛ࿖㜞㦂⠪䈱ᚲᓧ᭴ᚑ䈮ㇺᏒ䈫ㄘ᧛䈱㆑䈇䈏䈅䉎䇯Ⓙ௛෼౉䈫ኅᣖ䈮䉋䉎઀ㅍ䉍䈭䈬䈱䈍䈇䈩䈲䇮ㇺᏒㇱ䈲㎾䉋䉍ዋ䈭䈒䇮㎾䈲ㄘ᧛ㇱ䉋䉍ዋ䈭䈇䇯ቯᐕㅌ⡯ᐕ㊄䈮䈍䈇䈩䈲䇮ㇺᏒ
ㇱ䈲㎾䉋䉍ᄙ䈒䇮㎾䈲ㄘ᧛ㇱ䉋䉍ᄙ䈇䇯
•
•
•
•
•
•

㪊㪄㪉㪅ਛ࿖ಽᐕ啘㪍㪇ቕએ਄ᡴ౉᧪Ḯਛ࿖ᱦએ਄ᐕ㦂㓏⚖೎ᚲᓧ᭴ᚑ
ᑈ啘䍞催ࢇࡼᬊܹ䍞ᇥǄᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬Ⓙ௛෼౉䈏ዋ䈭䈇䇯ᑈ啘䍞催乚প‫ݏ‬㗕䞥↨⥛䍞Ԣ䇯ᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬౏⊛ᐕ㊄ฃ⛎₸ૐ䈇䇯ᑈ啘䍞催ձ䴴ᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫⿟ݏ‬ᑺ䍞催Ǆᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬ኅᣖ䈮㗬䉎ᐲว䈇䈏㜞䈇䇯

•
•
•




ቕҹϞ







ࢇࡼᬊܹ˄【‫ڡ‬᠔ᕫ˅




̚ቕ

䋶ѻᗻᬊܹ˄䉵⫷᠔ᕫ˅





⾏䗔ӥ䞥‫ݏ‬㗕䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥˅



̚ቕ










̚ቕ

᳔Ԣ⫳⌏ֱ䱰䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥ҹ໪ȃ⼒Ӯֱ䱰㌺Ҭ䞥˅ᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫ݏ‬ㄝ˄ҩ䗕ȟǿǾ˅

























⾗ᢱ䋺ਛ࿖㒳䅵ዪ,2010ᐕో࿖ੱญ᥉ᶹ䌘ᢱ䇯㪊㪄㪊㪅Ё೑ߚᑈ啘ቕҹϞᬊܹᴹ⑤ব࣪ᚙ‫މ‬ਛ࿖ᱦએ਄ᐕ㦂㓏⚖೎ᚲᓧ᭴ᚑߩᄌൻ
ࢇࡼᬊܹ˄【‫ڡ‬᠔ᕫ˅䋶ѻᗻᬊܹ˄䉵⫷᠔ᕫ˅











































̚ቕ

̚ቕ

̚ቕ













̚ቕ
















ቕҹϞ

̚ቕ

̚ቕ

̚ቕቕҹϞᆊᒁ݊Ҫ៤ਬկ‫ݏ‬ㄝ˄ҩ䗕ȟ࡮ ӕὁᑈ䞥࡮ ‫ן‬Ҏᑈ䞥ǿǾ˅





















̚ቕ











̚ቕ

⾏䗔ӥ䞥‫ݏ‬㗕䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥࡮ᘽ㌺˅







ቕҹϞ



















᳔Ԣ⫳⌏ֱ䱰䞥˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥࡮ᘽ㌺ҹ໪ȃ⼒Ӯֱ䱰㌺Ҭ䞥˅













































̚ቕ

̚ቕ

̚ቕቕҹϞ̚ቕ

̚ቕ

̚ቕ

ቕҹϞ

4-1.Ё೑㗕ᑈҎЎ㦋ᕫ⫳⌏㒣⌢ֱ䱰ⱘ㄀ϔ䗝ᢽਛ࿖㜞㦂⠪䈱⚻ᷣ෼౉䉕⏕଻䈜䉎䈢䉄䈱╙৻䈱ㆬᛯ⢇
ቕҹϞ



̚ቕ















̚ቕ









̚ቕ









̚ቕ









̚ቕ

















খࡴ⼒Ӯ‫ݏ‬㗕ֱ䰽˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥ֱ䱎Ȁࡴܹ˅䌁фଚϮֱ䰽
˄‫ן‬Ҏᑈ䞥ֱ䱎ȧ䊋Ǜ˅ձ䴴ᄤཇ‫ݏ‬㗕˄ᄤկȀ丐Ƞ˅ϾҎ‫ټ‬㪘‫ݏ‬㗕˄㞾ߚǼ䊃䞥ǮȠ˅





䊛᭭˖㗕唶⾥ᄺⷨおЁᖗˈᑈЁ೑ජе㗕ᑈҎষ⢊‫މ‬䗑䏾䇗ᶹ᭄᥂Ǆ

•
•
•
•

ᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬౏⊛ᐕ㊄ട౉䉕ㆬᛯ䈜䉎⠪䈏ዋ䈭䈇䇯ᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬ሶଏ䈮㗬䉎ㆬᛯ⢇䉕䈫䈦䈢⠪䈏ᄙ䈇䇯ᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬⾂㊄䉕ㆬ䉖䈣䉅䈱䈏ዋ䈭䈇䇯䈬䈱ᐕ㦂ጀ䉅୘ੱᐕ㊄䉕ㆬᛯ䈚䈢䉅䈱䈏䈗䈒䉒䈝䈎䈪䈅䉎䇯

4-2.Ё೑ߚජᏖ‫ݰ‬ᴥ㗕ᑈҎЎ㦋ᕫ⫳⌏㒣⌢ֱ䱰ⱘ㄀ϔ䗝ᢽㇺᏒㇱ䈫ㄘ᧛ㇱ㜞㦂⠪䈱⚻ᷣ෼౉䉕⏕଻䈜䉎䈢䉄䈱╙৻䈱ㆬᛯ⢇
ቕҹϞ

‫ݰ‬ᴥ



ජᏖ
̚ቕ

̚ቕ

‫ݰ‬ᴥ



ජᏖ




̚ቕ










ජᏖ



‫ݰ‬ᴥ
̚ቕ






‫ݰ‬ᴥ








ජᏖ












ජᏖ









‫ݰ‬ᴥ







ජᏖ
̚ቕ









‫ݰ‬ᴥ










খࡴ⼒Ӯ‫ݏ‬㗕ֱ䰽˄݀ⱘᑈ䞥ֱ䱎Ȁࡴܹ˅























䌁фଚϮֱ䰽
˄‫ן‬Ҏᑈ䞥ֱ䱎ȧ䊋Ǜ˅









ձ䴴ᄤཇ‫ݏ‬㗕˄ᄤկȀ丐Ƞ˅䊛᭭˖㗕唶⾥ᄺⷨおЁᖗˈᑈЁ೑ජе㗕ᑈҎষ⢊‫މ‬䗑䏾䇗ᶹ᭄᥂Ǆ







ϾҎ‫ټ‬㪘‫ݏ‬㗕˄㞾ߚǼ䊃䞥ǮȠ˅

4-3.60ቕҹϞ㗕ᑈҎᬊࠄᄤཇ㒭䪅ⱘߚᏗ
ਛ࿖60ᱦએ਄㜞㦂⠪䈱ሶଏ䈎䉌઀ㅍ䉍䉕ฃ䈔䈩䈇䉎⁁ᴫ
















̚ቕ

̚ቕ





̚ቕ

̚ቕ






̚ቕ

ቕҹϞ䊛᭭˖㗕唶⾥ᄺⷨおЁᖗˈᑈЁ೑ජе㗕ᑈҎষ⢊‫މ‬䗑䏾䇗ᶹ᭄᥂Ǆ• ᐕ㦂䈏㜞䈇䈾䈬ሶଏ䈎䉌䈱⚻ᷣ⊛េഥ䈏ᄙ䈇䇯• 㜞㦂⠪䈱ㆬᛯ⢇䈫⃻ታ䈫ว⥌䇯㗕ᑈҎ⫳⌏⒵ᛣᑺ
㜞㦂⠪䈱↢ᵴḩ⿷ᐲЁ೑‫ݰ‬ᴥ  







Ё೑ජᏖ











Ё೑ܼ೑

 









᮹ᴀ











䴲ᐌ⒵ᛣ
⑔䎇ǬǻǙȠ

↨䕗⒵ᛣ
ȓǗ⑔䎇ǬǻǙȠ


ϔ㠀
ȊǹǛ


ϡ໾⒵ᛣ
șșϡ⑔ǼǗȠ

⾗ᢱ˖⠧㦂⑼ቇ⎇ⓥਛᔃ䋬ᑈЁ೑ජе㗕ᑈҎষ⢊‫މ‬䗑䏾䇗ᶹ᭄᥂䇯ౝ㑑ᐭ䋬ᐔᚑᑈ催唶㗙ȃ᮹ᐌ⫳⌏Ȁ䭶ǮȠᛣ䄬䂓᷏㌤ᵰ䇯


ᕜϡ⒵ᛣ
ϡ⑔ǼǗȠ


᳾ಲㄨ
⛵ಲㄨ

6.ᘏ㒧 䉁䈫䉄• Ё೑㗕ᑈҎᭈԧϞᬊܹᏂ䎱≵᳝᮹ᴀ໻ˈԚජеП䯈ᬊܹᏂ䎱䕗໻Ǆ• ᬊܹᴹ⑤ϞЁ᮹㗕ᑈҎП䯈ᄬ೼ᕜ໻ⱘϡৠ˖᮹ᴀ㗕ᑈҎЏ㽕ᰃ䴴‫ݏ‬㗕䞥੠ࢇࡼᬊܹˈЁ೑㗕ᑈҎ೼ᕜ໻⿟ᑺϞձ䴴ᄤཇկ‫ݰˈݏ‬ᴥ㗕ᑈҎᇸ݊བℸǄ• ೼Ҏষ㗕啘࣪᮹Ⲟࡴ࠻ǃ⫳⌏៤ᴀ๲໻ⱘᚙ‫މ‬ϟˈҞৢᕜ䲒ϔⳈձ䌪ᄤཇǄ• Ўℸˈ䳔㽕ᓎゟ‫ݏܼع‬㗕䞥ࠊᑺˈՓ‫ݏ‬㗕䞥೼㗕ᑈҎᬊܹᔧЁऴ䕗໻ⱘ↨䞡ˈথ᣹ֱ䱰㗕ᑈҎ⫳⌏ⱘ෎⸔԰⫼Ǆ• ৠᯊˈ೼ජᏖ֗䖯㗕ᑈҎህϮ‫ݡ‬ህϮˈ๲ࡴ㗕ᑈҎⱘࢇࡼᬊܹǄFamily Patterns and Population Changes
in Eastern AsiaிỴἊỴỉܼଈἣἑὊὅểʴӝ‫٭‬ѣToru SUZUKI

ᤠங ᡢ
1

Total Fertility Rate
3.0

2.5

2.0

China
1.5
1.3

Japan
Korea

1.0

Taiwan

0.5
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015
2

Recorded Lowest TFRFrance 1.66 (1994)
United Kingdom 1.63 (2001)
Sweden 1.50 (1999)
Netherlands 1.47 (1983)
Denmark 1.38 (1983)
Switzerland 1.38 (2001)
Austria 1.33 (2001)
Portugal 1.32 (2007)

1.5

1.3
Japan 1.26 (2005)
Hungary 1.24 (2011)
Poland 1.22 (2003)
Slovak Republic 1.19 (1999)
Czech Republic 1.13 (1999)

Germany 1.24 (1994)
Greece 1.24 (1999)
Italy 1.19 (1995)
Spain 1.16 (1998)

Korea 1.08 (2005)

1.0

Weak Family Tiesᙅ࠸ᐙ᪘⣣ᖏ

Taiwan 0.90 (2010)

3

Strong Family Tiesᙉ࠸ᐙ᪘⣣ᖏ

Postmodern Socioeconomic Changes

Northern/Western
EuropeSouthern
Europe

Japan

Korea
TaiwanReher, David Sven (1998) “Family ties in Western Europe: Persistentcontrasts,” Population and Development Review 24(2).
4Confucian Family൲ᩍᐙ᪘Feudal Familyᑒᘓᐙ᪘Postmodern Socioeconomic Changes

Northern/Western
EuropeSouthern
Europe

Japan

Korea
TaiwanSuzuki, Toru (2014) Low Fertility and Population Aging in Japan andEastern Asia, Tokyo: Springer.
5㏆௦໬๓ⓗᐙ᪘ᶍᘧ
ᷕ⚥

㛅汄

㖍㛔

シ孮⼊⾩

慵奮⬅

慵奮⬅

慵奮⾈

⤛⿏䘬⛘ỵ

᷍㟤䘬昼䥣

᷍㟤䘬昼䥣

㭼弫⸛䫱

Ṛ㕷普⚊

䇞䲣⇞

䇞䲣⇞

⍴䲣⇞ㆾ⻙≧䇞䲣⇞

⨂⦣

⎴⥻ᶵ⨂

⎴⥻ᶵ⨂

㕷ℭ⨂

℣⫸ℛ䲣

⺪⥻ᶵ℣
慵奮ᶾẋ

⺪⥻ᶵ℣
慵奮ᶾẋ

朆埨什⎗ẍ℣
㖈奮ᶾẋ

亏㈧

䓟⫸⛯↮

攧⫸Ề⼭

⋽䊔亏㈧

⎰ỷㆾ䇞㭵⛐⎬᷒⃧⫸⭞弖ỷ

䚜䲣⭞㕷

䚜䲣⭞㕷

⭞⹕乻㜬

摫㛐德炷Ⓒ㯠Ṗ孹炸ˬ᷄Ṃ䘬Ỷ↢ṏ䌯⍲侩漬⊾斖桀炼㖍㛔ί枑⚥ίᷕ⚥⎘㸦ᷳ㭼弫˭䌳ệᷣ亾ˮᷕ㖍枑Ṣ⎋侩漬⊾ᶶ侩⸜Ṣ斖桀˯ᷕ⚥䣦Ể䥹⬎↢䇰䣦-!
3125-!qq/!2.28/
6

Eastern Asian Family Patterns
Immediately before the Westernization
China

Korea

Japan

Ideology

Filial piety

Filial piety

Loyalty

Trust on non-family

Low

Low

High

Women’s position

Rigid segregation

Rigid segregation

Relatively equal

Kinship group

Patrilineal

Patrilineal

Bilateral

Marriage

ExogamyExogamyEndogamy

Adoption

Within clan

Within clan

Free

Inheritance

Equal among sonsPrimogeniture

Primogeniture

Household

Joint family orparents circulated

Stem family

Stem family

Suzuki, Toru (2014) Low Fertility and Population Aging in Japan andEastern Asia, Tokyo: Springer.
7

Sex Ratio at Birth
125

120

China
115

110

Taiwan
Korea
Japan

105

100
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015
8

ᐙ᪘୺⩏㸦ࠕᙉࡃ㈶ᡂࠖࡢ㸣㸧
ྎ‴

㡑ᅜ

᪥ᮏ

୰ᅜ

⮬ศࡢᖾ⚟ࡼࡾࡶࠊᐙ᪘ࡢᖾ⚟ࡸ฼┈ࢆඃ
ඛࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ

28.5

21.5

4.4

9.3

ぶࡢ㄂ࡾ࡜࡞ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡣດຊࡍ࡭
ࡁࡔ

34.2

18.3

2.7

19.5

ኵ࡜ጔࡢ୧᪉ࡢぶ᪘ࡀࠊጔࡢຓࡅࢆᚲせ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊጔࡣኵࡢぶ᪘ࢆඃඛࡋ
࡚ຓࡅࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ

8.2

7.8

1.5

3.2

୕ୡ௦ྠᒃࡣᮃࡲࡋ࠸

72.2

58.4

67.5

59.5

㛗⏨ࡀࠊከࡃࡢ㈈⏘ࢆ┦⥆ࡍ࡭ࡁࡔ

3.0

6.1

1.5

2.8

࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞≧ἣ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ∗ぶࡢᶒጾࡣᑛ㔜ࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ

25.9

31.1

3.9

17.6

ጔ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊ⮬ศ⮬㌟ࡢ௙஦ࡼࡾࡶኵࡢ
௙஦ࡢᡭຓࡅࢆࡍࡿ᪉ࡀ኱ษ࡛࠶ࡿ

12.8

12.8

1.8

5.1

ኵࡣእ࡛ാࡁࠊጔࡣᐙᗞࢆᏲࡿ࡭ࡁࡔ

15.4

9.7

2.2

5.6

ᬒẼࡀࢃࡿ࠸࡜ࡁ࡟ࡣࠊ⏨ᛶࡼࡾࡶዪᛶࢆ
ඛ࡟ゎ㞠ࡋ࡚ࡼ࠸

2.0

1.8

1.0

1.5

ᒾ஭⣖Ꮚ࣭ಖ⏣᫬⏨⦅ࠗࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ぢࡿᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢᐙ᪘ほ࠘2009.

Familism in EASS (% of strongly agree)
Taiwan

Korea

Japan

China

(1) One should give priority to the happiness andbenefit of the family than one's own.

28.5

21.5

4.4

9.3

(2) A child should pay effort to make parents tobe proud of.

34.2

18.3

2.7

19.5

(3) A wife should help her husband's family whenboth families need help.

8.2

7.8

1.5

3.2

(4) Three generation household is desirable.

72.2

58.4

67.5

59.5

(5) The eldest son should inherit more property.

3.0

6.1

1.5

2.8

(6) A father's authority should be respected
whatever the situation is.

25.9

31.1

3.9

17.6

(7) It is more important for a wife to support her
husband's work than her own work.

12.8

12.8

1.8

5.1

(8) A husband should work outside and a wife
should keep the house.

15.4

9.7

2.2

5.6

(9) It is allowed to lay off women before men in arecession.

2.0

1.8

1.0

1.5

ᒾ஭⣖Ꮚ࣭ಖ⏣᫬⏨⦅ࠗࢹ࣮ࢱ࡛ぢࡿᮾ࢔ࢪ࢔ࡢᐙ᪘ほ࠘2009.
10

Natural Increase Rate30

20(‰) 10

China
0

Japan

Korea
Taiwan2090-2095

2080-2085

2070-2075

2060-2065

2050-2055

2040-2045

2030-2035

2020-2025

2010-2015

2000-2005

1990-1995

1980-1985

1970-1975

1960-1965

1950-1955-10

United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects 2012 Revision11

Total Dependency Ratio
110
100
90

Taiwan

80

Japan

China

(%) 70

Korea

60
50
40
30
1950

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

2070

2090

United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects 2012 Revision

12

Anxiety for Early Aging侩漬㼖㜍炻⸠䤷ᷕȾ䂎〤ȿ傥⏎⮹ᶨ䁡烎 \Ṣ㮹仹.峊乷根忻 3124.12.41^
ᷕ⚥䘬侩漬⊾䣦Ể⍹⯽⏰䍘↢崟㬍嘥䃞弫㘂Ữ㗗⍹⯽弫⾓䘬䈡䁡ˤ㚜ᷢ᷍慵䘬㗗炻⮡㭼⍹彦⚥⭞␴⛘⋢炻㕘≈✉徃ℍ侩漬⊾䣦Ể㖞Ṣ⛯HEQ⶚乷彦⇘⮮役
21111伶⃫炻℞Ṿ⍹彦⚥⭞⛐ᶲ᷒ᶾ乒徃ℍ侩漬⊾䣦Ể㖞Ṣ⛯HEQ悥⛐6111伶⃫ⶎ⎛炻侴ᷕ⚥⛐3111⸜徃ℍ侩漬⊾䣦Ể㖞Ṣ⛯HEQ⎒㚱2111伶⃫ⶎ⎛炻὿宕宜Ⱦ㛒⭴⃰侩ȿ炻征㚜≈慵Ḯ䣦Ể侩漬⊾䘬᷍ⲣ⿏ˤ⏕⏘ᖺ㱋ேཱྀࡀῶᑡࠊ୰ᅜࡣ࠸࠿࡟㧗㱋໬ࢆ㏄࠼ࡿ࡭ࡁ࠿㸽̿୰ᅜ࣓ࢹ࢕࢔
>5HFRUG &KLQD @୰ᅜࡢ㧗㱋໬♫఍ࡢⓎᒎࡣࠊ㛤ጞࡀ㐜ࢀࡓࡀ㐍⾜ࡀ㏿࠸࡜࠸࠺≉ᚩࢆᣢࡘࠋඛ㐍ᅜ࣭ᆅᇦࢆぢࡿ࡜ࠊ౛࠼ࡤࢩ࣏࣮ࣥ࢞ࣝࡀ㧗㱋໬♫఍࡟✺ධࡋࡓ㝿ࡢ
ேᙜࡓࡾ*'3ࡣ୓ࢻࣝᙅ࡟㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡑࡢ௚ࡢඛ㐍ᅜࡶ๓ୡ⣖࡟㧗㱋໬♫఍࡟✺ධࡋࡓ㝿ࠊேᙜࡓࡾ*'3ࡀ⣙ࢻࣝ࡟㐩ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ୰ᅜࡀᖺ
࡟㧗㱋໬♫఍࡟✺ධࡋࡓ㝿ࠊேᙜࡓࡾ*'3ࡣࢃࡎ࠿ࢻࣝ࡯࡝࡛ࠊࠕ㇏࠿࡟
࡞ࡿ๓࡟ᖺ⪁࠸ࡿࠖ࡜⛠ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࢀ࡟ࡼࡾࠊ୰ᅜ㧗㱋໬♫఍ࡢ῝้ࡉࡣቑࡋ
࡚࠸ࡿࠋ

13

Anxiety for Early Aging୰ᅜ♫⛉㝔๪㝔攧ᮤᇵᯘᅾ㯱ᣦฟ ேཱྀ乊฼ᣂⅬᡈனᖺ฿᮶
>㛗Ụ᪥㉍@୰ᅜேཱྀ乊฼ⓗᣂⅬ㸪栬孉ᅾᖺᑵ఍ᥦ๓฿᮶̾̾᫖᪥㸪ᕷጤᖖጤ୰ᚰ乬
㸦㈑኱㸧ᷦ⾜ࠓᡃᅜᙜ๓ⓗẸ⏕ᘓ学࿴⩌ఋᕤసࠔᶻ桀㉍࿌఍㸪୺孚ᶻᐙࠊ୰ᅜ♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔๪㝔攧ᮤᇵᯘ㏱㟢஢征୍栬㳳乻ᯝࠋ≛≐ຊ౪ồ᪉㠃㸪≛≐ຊᖺቔ㔞ᑗ㏲ᖺୗ㝆㸪᭱买㉮ྥ峇ቔ攧ࠋᮤᇵᯘ孌ᷢ㸪ᙜ๓ฟ䍘ⓗᣍᕤ晦୙᫝▷ᮇᛶࠊᏘ刪ᛶⓗ㸪Ꮽྍ⬟᫝攧ᮇᛶⓗඛ඙ࠋ୰ᅜࡢேཱྀᵓ㐀ࠊᖺ࡟ࡣ㏫ࣆ࣑ࣛࢵࢻᙧ࡟ >5HFRUG&KLQD@ᖺ᭶᪥ࠊ㛗Ụ᪥ሗࡀሗࡌࡓ࡜ࡇࢁ࡟࡜ࡿ࡜ࠊ୰ᅜ♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔ࡢᮤᇵᯘ㸦࣮࣭ࣜ࣌࢖ࣜࣥ㸧๪㝔㛗ࡀࠊࠕ୰ᅜࡢࠗேཱྀᏛⓗ㓄ᙜ࠘ࡣࠊ㐣ཤࡢண᝿ࡼࡾ
ᖺ᪩࠸ᖺ࡟ࢱ࣮ࢽࣥࢢ࣏࢖ࣥࢺࢆ㏄࠼ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠖ࡜ࡢヨ⟬ࢆࠊ᪥࡟㛤ദࡉࢀࡓඹ⏘ඪṊ₎ᕷጤဨ఍ᖖົጤဨ୰ᚰࢢ࣮ࣝࣉࡢሗ࿌఍࡛ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓࠋ
ປാຊ୙㊊࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛ࠊປാຊࡢቑຍ⋡ࡣ௒ᚋࠊᖺࠎపୗࡋࠊ᭱⤊ⓗ࡟ῶᑡ࡟ኚࢃࡿ࡜ぢࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮤ๪㝔㛗ࡣࠕ㏆ᖺࠊ᫓⠇ ᪧṇ᭶ ๓࡟࡞ࡿ࡜ࠊከࡃࡢ
ฟ✌ࡂປാ⪅ࡀᖐ┬ࡋᡠࡗ࡚᮶࡞࠸ࡓࡵࠊ୰ᅜྛᆅ࡛ປാ⪅୙㊊ࡀ⏕ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
࠸࠺ࡢࡣࠊ▷ᮇⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶᏘ⠇ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛ࡶ࡞ࡃࠊ㛗ᮇⓗ࡞඙ೃࠖ࡜ࡢぢ᪉ࢆ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
14

Optimism for Early Aging୰ᅜṇ᷏ኻேཱྀ乊฼ ከᆅ༊⣜⑊≛≐ຊ▷⨃ >䍗⌫㖞㉍ @୰ᅜேẸ኱Ꮫேཱྀ◊✲ᡤேཱྀᏛᐙ旰⌓宜㸪ἐᚲせᷢ᭱᪂ᩘᤣ⪋ᝤៃࠋ≛≐ຊᩘ㔞௔ᅾ亏井ቔ攧㸪ቔ攧⋡㉸彯⪁漬໬⋡ࠋ᪂ฟ䍘ⓗ⎀໬ᖼ୙௦⾲ᑵ᷂ᕷ⛢ⓗ弔ᢡⅬࠋ௚宜征᫝ୖୡ乒ᖺ௦ฟ⏕ⓗ⨜ඒ₻୍௦ࠊ栬ᮇᑑ࿨୙᩿ቔ攧௨ཬ䍘௦໬⮤⮴⏕⫱⋡኱ᖜୗ㝆➼୍⣔ิᅉ⣲ඹྠస⏝ⓗ乻ᯝࠋປാຊேཱྀࡢẚ⋡㧗࠸ࠕேཱྀ࣮࣎ࢼࢫࠖᮇࡀ⤊↉ࢆ㏄࠼ࠊປാຊ୙㊊ࡀ῝้໬̿
୰ᅜ >5HFRUG&KLQD@ࡇࡢ⤖ᯝ࡟ᑐࡋࠊ୰ᅜேẸ኱Ꮫேཱྀ◊✲ᡤࡢᑓ㛛ᐙ࣭㝞⾨㸦ࢳ࢙࣭࢙ࣥ࢘
࢖㸧Ặࡣࠕៃ࡚ࡿᚲせࡣ࡞࠸ࠋປാຊࡣ౫↛࡜ࡋ࡚ቑຍࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢቑຍ⋡ࡣ㧗㱋໬⋡ࢆ㉸࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠖ࡜ᴦほⓗ࡞ぢ᪉ࢆ♧ࡋࠊປാຊேཱྀࡀῶᑡ࡟㌿ࡌࡓཎᅉ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠕᖺ௦ࡢ࣋ࣅ࣮ࣈ࣮࣒ࠊᑑ࿨ࡢ㛗ᮇ໬ࠊ⌧ᅾࡢฟ⏕⋡ࡢపୗࠖ࡞࡝ࢆᣲ
ࡆࡓࠋ

15

Optimism for Early Aging⌱௨Ꮼ㸸᪂୕኱乊฼ṇ᭰௦ᪧ乊฼ >孩ๆ㖞㉍⨒ @ⴭྡ乷㳶Ꮫᐙ⌱௨Ꮼᅾ᪥ᷦ≆ⓗ➨༑஧ᒆ୰ᅜ乷㳶孢✃ୖᣦฟ㸪୰ᅜᮍ᮶⍹ᒎⓗ୺せ᪉ྥ᫝⭆య乷㳶ⓗᅇ⻺୚弔ᆺ㸪⪋ᅇ⻺⭆య乷㳶ᑵせቔຍᢞ峬⪅ⓗಙᚰࠊ宫≐Ẹ斜ⓗ䦗ᯉᛶࠋ
⌱௨Ꮼ⛠㸪᪂ேཱྀ乊฼ࠊ᪂峬※乊฼࿴᪂ᨵ㠉乊฼ṇᅾ᭰௦ᪧⓗ乊฼ࠋ௚ᣦฟ㸪᪂ⓗேཱྀ乊฼ṇᅾṏ⏕㸪୰ᅜṇᅾ௕ᢏᕤ㖞௦弔ྥ㧗乏ᢏᕤ㖞௦ࠋྠ㖞㸪⛉Ꮫᢏ㛗᪉㠃ⓗᢞ峬ஓᅾṏ⏕᪂ⓗ峬※乊฼㸪┦⮡னᪧ峬※乊฼⪋ゝ㸪᪂ⓗ峬※乊฼୺せᅾன⮡⛉Ꮫᢏ㛗ⓗ฼⏝㸪ዴᾏỈῐ໬ቔຍ஢峬※㸪἞⌮Ἃ໬ቔຍⓗᅵᆅ㸪᣺ℜⲡ
⛢᷂ቔ徃ᅵᆅ峬※ⓗ฼⏝➼㸹⪋᪂ⓗᨵ㠉఍亁乷㳶⍹ᒎᥦ౪᪂ⓗᮘ㐝ࠋ୰ᅜࡢ㧗ᡂ㛗ࡣࡶ࠺⤊ࢃࡗࡓࡢ࠿㸽ࠕ᪂ேཱྀ࣮࣎ࢼࢫ࡛ࠖ෌ࡧ๓㐍࡜ᑓ㛛ᐙ̿୰
ᅜ >5HFRUG&KLQD@ᖺ᭶᪥ࠊ໭ி኱Ꮫ♫఍⛉ᏛᏛ㒊୺௵ࠊග⳹⟶⌮Ꮫ㝔ྡ㄃㝔㛗ࡢཛྷ௨ᑀ㸦࣮࣭ࣜ࢖࣮ࢽࣥ㸧Ặࡣࠊ㬅ต㈈⤒ࢧ࣑ࢵࢺ࡟ฟᖍࡋࡓࠋ
ᚋ⪅ࡢሙྜࠊ୰ᅜࡢ㧗ᡂ㛗ࡀ⤊ࢃࡾࢆ㏄࠼ࡓࡢ࡛ࡣ࡜ᝒほⓗ࡞ぢゎࡶ࠶ࡿࡀࠊ࣮ࣜ୺௵ࡣࡑࡢぢゎࢆྰᐃࠋ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ேཱྀ࣮࣎ࢼࢫࡀ⤊↉ࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡼ
ࡾ㧗ᗘ࡞カ⦎ࢆཷࡅࡓேᮦࡢᩘࡀቑ࠼ࡿ᪂ࡓ࡞ேཱྀ࣮࣎ࢼࢫࡀጞࡲࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡉࡽ
࡟ࡣᾏỈῐỈ໬ᢏ⾡ࡸ◁₍ࡢ฼⏝࡞࡝௒ࡲ࡛౑࠼࡞࠿ࡗࡓ㈨※ࡀ౑࠼ࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞
ࡿ㈨※࣮࣎ࢼࢫࡀⓎ⏕ࡍࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡋࡓࠋ
16

GDP per capita
50,000Japan
40,00030,000

Korea

(US$)

Taiwan20,00010,000

China

0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database 201417

Conflict between Socio-Economic System and Family System

Post-Modern Socio-Economic System(led by Anglo-Saxon countries)
Northern/Western
European Family
Southern/Eastern
European Family

Japanese
FamilyConfucianFamily18

Pessimistic Scenario

Dependency Ratio of China

GDP per capita
of Korea

GDP per capita of China
1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Chinese economy is alreadytrapped by demographic
onus and the GDP per
capita stays around
US$ 10,000. As assumed
in UNPD (2013), TFR
fluctuates in 1.6 ~ 1.8 andpopulation aging is milder
than in Korea and Taiwan.
୰ᅜ⤒῭ࡣ᪤࡟⨜࡟࠿࠿ࡗ࡚
࠾ࡾࠊ୍ேᙜ*'3ࡣ୓ࢻࣝ๓
ᚋ࡟࡜࡝ࡲࡿࠋᅜ㐃᥎ィࡢ㏻ࡾࠊ7)5ࡣ㹼࡟࡜࡝ࡲ
ࡾࠊேཱྀ㧗㱋໬ࡣ㡑ᅜ࣭ྎ‴࡯࡝ᛴ⃭࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋ

2050
19

Optimistic Scenario

Dependency Ratio of China

GDP per capita
of Korea

GDP per capita of China
1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Rapid economic development
continues and the GDP per
capita approaches to
US$ 20,000. Then, TFR
declines to extremely low leveland population aging becomesas severe as in Korea andTaiwan. However, suchdemographic condition does notcheck China’s economic
development.
ᛴ㏿࡞⤒῭Ⓨᒎࡀ⥆ࡁࠊ୍ேᙜ
*'3ࡣ୓ࢻࣝ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠋࡍࡿ࡜
7)5ࡣᴟ➃࡟ప࠸Ỉ‽࡟పୗࡋࠊ
㡑ᅜ࣭ྎ‴୪ࡳࡢᛴ⃭࡞ேཱྀ㧗㱋໬ࡀ㐍ࡴࡀࠊ⤒῭Ⓨᒎ࡟ࡣᙳ
㡪ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋ

2050
20

Middle Scenario

Dependency Ratio of China

GDP per capita
of Korea

GDP per capita of China
1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Rapid economic development
continues and the GDP per
capita approaches to
US$ 20,000. Then, TFR
declines to extremely low leveland population aging becomesas severe as in Korea andTaiwan. Such demographic
condition does check China’s
economic development.
ᛴ㏿࡞⤒῭Ⓨᒎࡀ⥆ࡁࠊ୍ேᙜ
*'3ࡣ୓ࢻࣝ࡟㏆࡙ࡃࠋࡍࡿ࡜
7)5ࡣᴟ➃࡟ప࠸Ỉ‽࡟పୗࡋࠊ
㡑ᅜ࣭ྎ‴୪ࡳࡢᛴ⃭࡞ேཱྀ㧗㱋໬ࡀ㐍ࡳࠊࡑࢀࡣ⤒῭Ⓨᒎࢆ
㜼ᐖࡍࡿࠋ

2050
21

Chinese Economy and Demographic Check
Optimistic or Middle

Pessimistic

Dependency Ratio of China

GDP per capita
of Korea

Optimistic
MiddlePessimistic

GDP per capita of China
1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050
22

Covariates of Economic Development
Demographic Changes
ேཱྀኚືEnvironmental
Problem⎔ቃၥ㢟

Political
Stabilityᨻ἞ⓗᏳᐃ
Economic Development⤒῭Ⓨᒎ

Technology
Innovation
ᢏ⾡ⓎᒎInternational
Relationshipᅜ㝿㛵ಀForeign Investment
እᅜ㈨ᮏ
23

Family structure and family relationshipin East Asia: a comparative study”᷄Ṃ⚃⚥⭞⹕乻㜬␴⭞⹕ℛ䲣㭼弫䞼䨞'U0$&KXQKXD傜᱕ॾ
6HS
%HLMLQJ&KLQD
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences⌮孢側㘗 theories on family change1ࠊ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢㸸ᐙᗞ乻㜬㟠⽫⊾㸪᰾ᚰᐙᗞᏙ❧໬す᪉ᐙᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢䘬㟠⽫㤪⾝㸪ᘓᯊⓗ䍘ẋ⭞⹕㧉⺷ࠋ㯱ከඞ㸦Murdock, G. P.㸧㸸᭱᪩᫂◴ᥦฟ“᰾ᚰᐙᗞ”征᷒㤪⾝㸪⻢宫㟠⽫⭞ᗞᅾྛ⛇♫఍୰ᬑ㐢Ꮡᅾࠋ “Ꮽ௨ඹྠᒃఫࠊ乷㳶⎰ἄ␴䓇做ᷢ䈡⼩”ࠋ㸦Murdock, 1949㸧ሪ⮼䥹䈡·ᖁ᳃᪁㸦Parsons, Talcott㸧㸸᰾ᚰᐙᗞ᫝ᕤ᷂䣦Ể䘬⭞⹕⼊⺷㸪ᅉᷢ㚨ᷣ天䘬䈡⼩⯙㗗“Ꮩ❧໬”ࠋ㸦 Parsons, 1943㸧
ྂᚫ㸦Goode, W. )㸸᰾ᚰᐙᗞ࿴ᕤ᷂䣦Ể㗗䚠Ḻ循⸼䘬ࠋ䍘ẋ⭞⹕䘬堐䍘⼊ᘧྈ⬟᫝᰾ᚰᐙᗞࠋᡤ宻䘬⭞⹕⎀彩㸪 ᑵ᫝“ᐙᗞ乻㜬㟠⽫⊾”㸪௕Ỉ亇䘬㈑኱ᐙᗞ弔⎹䍘ẋ䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕ࠋ(Goode, 1964㸧
The industrialization and urbanization since the 18th century have given rise toreorganization of the basic social structure, including the family system, of society,that is, the transformation of the so-called “the traditional” (stem family )to “themodern”(nuclear family). (Murdock, 1949; Parsons 1943; Goode, 1963)ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences⌮孢側㘗2ࠊ⮡㟠⽫⭞⹕`宜䘬峐䔹ᢼ᪁฼≉㸦Laslett, P.㸧㸸“ᐙᗞ㔜乬”ᢏ㛗炻⭆旭ᶲ⛐ⶍ᷂⊾ẍ⇵㟠⽫⭞⹕⯙᫝征ṃ⚥⭞⭞⹕䘬➢㛔⼊⺷ˤ 㸦Laslett, 1975㸧
㯏ඞἲ℘㸦Macfarlane, A.㸧㸸乷℠䘬⭞⹕䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ㇨㍷徘䘬䍘ẋ⭞⹕㗗Ḣ⨾ྛᅜ⭆嶝㇨㜬⺢↢㜍䘬炻⭆旭ᶲ㗗ᶶ大㕡ᶨ㔜⣿ẟῤỻ䲣ˣ䓇㳣㕡⺷␴≀峐㜉ẞ䫱⚈䳈⭮↯䚠俼䲣䘬炷Macfarlane, 1978㸧
ྂᚫ㸸ᕤ᷂⊾ᷳ⇵䘬⭞⹕ᷣ天㗗㈑⣏⭞⹕㗗ᶨ䥵嘂㜬炻Ữ㗗ⶍ᷂䣦Ể⇵⎶ⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞⓗ⭆峐㗗ᶵ⎴䘬ˤⶍ᷂⊾␴⭞⹕Ḵ侭䘬⎀⊾㗗᷌᷒⸛埴␴䚠Ḻ循⸼ⓗ彯䦳㸪ᏭẔ悥⍿⇘䣦Ểˣ㔯⊾䫱⚈䳈䘬⼙⑵ˤ (Goode, 1967㸧
Long before the industrialization and urbanization, European families already existed
the traits of “the modern family,” that is, the nuclear family structure and low fertility
rate. Therefore, the family change as described by the modernization theory did notexist. Besides economic factors, social and cultural factors all have impacts on thefamily change. So-called “modern family” is constructed based on the practices inwestern countries. (Laslett 1975; Macfarlane 1978; Goode, 1967)
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesᩥ⊩交徘 Literature review୰ᅜ㸸ᅾᕤ᷂⊾␴❶ⶪ⊾䘬彯䦳ᷕ㸪୰ᅜ乷⌮Ḯ㟠⽫⊾⎀彩䘬彯䦳㸪“ᐙᗞ⨒”ᡂᷢ㟠⽫⭞⹕䘬堍⃭⼊⺷烊炷㼀⃩⹟炻1990㸹₫ඔᗣࠊᯘ༡㸪1987㸧ణ᫝ஓ᭷ல◊✲⪅孌ᷢᷕ⚥❶ⶪᷕᶨ䚜悥㗗㟠⽫⭞⹕⌈㌖ᷣ⮤⛘ỵ炻炷㜄㬋傄炻
2005㸧୺ᖸᐙᗞ౫↛᫝୰ᅜⓗᇶᮏᐙᗞᙧᘧ㸹㸦峡⬅忂炻1999㸹᭯Ẏ㸪1987㸧᭦᭷◊✲⪅ᣦฟ୰ᅜᙜ௦ᇛᕷⓗᐙᗞ乻㜬㗗⣂⃫侴㳩≐䘬炷㰰⣽㔸炻
2010㸧
It is argued that nuclear family was supported by the “family network”. But historicalresearches showed that long before the industrialization and urbanization the nuclear
family dominates in urban areas. Some researches demonstrated that the stem familyis the basic family structure of China.
᪥ᮏ㸸㇀⎶㟠⽫⭞⹕䘬⡆≈㸪ᖼ୙᫝୕௦ྠᇽⓗ኱ᐙᗞᅾ᪥ᮏ乷㳶檀忇ㆸ攧䘬彯⛬୰⿕◚ᆗ⪋ᙧᡂⓗ㸪᫝⏤ன⢬⛐Ṣ⎋⣾慹㖞ẋ炻㟠⽫⭞⹕ㇵỂ⡆≈ˤ侴ᶼ征ṃ㟠⽫⭞⹕ᷕ䚜䲣炷ᷣ⸚炸⭞⹕䘬奬劫ἄ䓐⸞㱉㚱ⅷ⻙ˤ征ṃ㟠⽫⭞⹕往ಖ␃╔࿴ṚⰆ仹亄䘬⭮↯ℛ䲣ࠋ㸦ⴠྜ᝴⨾Ꮚ㸪2010㸧
The increase in the nuclear family postwar is not resulted by the disorganization of
three-generation extended family during rapid economic growth, but is the result of
the demographic bonus. And the norms of stem family keep on playing role in the
nuclear family. The nuclear family still has close relationship with
their relatives.
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesᩥ⊩交徘 Literature review (continued)枑⚥㸸す᪉ᐙᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ乷℠䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炻ḇ⯙㗗䇞Ṛ⛐እᕤస崂摙ὃ℣㔜୭ᐙᗞ㸪ᖼୟ⬟⣇⁐呬ᷢ㛒㜍䘬㔁做␴ỷ㇧ Ⅾ⢯炻⛐枑⚥䘬㭼ἳ⭆旭ᶵ檀ˤ枑⚥䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炻悥㗗ṚⰆỷ⛐旬役ㆾ侭␴ṚⰆỷ⛐ᶨ崟乷㳶ᶲ⎬冒䊔䩳ˤ㸦Chang Kyung-Sup, 1997㸧
The classical nuclear family defined by the modernization theory of family, i.e., menworks and supports the whole family, and women takes care of children and keeps
house, scarcely exists in Korea. For the nuclear family of Korea, their relatives live
nearby or live together but they have independent economic resources.
ྎ‴㸸◊✲⪅ᣦฟྎ‴ᆅ༊ⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ⭆旭㗗ᷣ⸚⭞⹕⼊ㆸ彯䦳ᷕ彯㷉⼊⺷炷旰⭥㓧ˣ㴪倯⸮ˣ㜿䙲⍂炻1989㸧㸪ᅾྎ‴ᐙᗞᅾᛌ㏿ᕤ᷂⊾彯䦳ᷕ炻㟠⽫⊾炻࿴୺ᖸ໬ྠ㖞徃埴ˤ炷䪈劙⋶炻1994㸹❶ⱥ⋶ˣ滸≃炻1991㸧኱㒊௷ே኱㒊௷㖞斜往㗗䓇㳣⛐“Ỉ亇”ⓗᐙᗞᙧ⾩ᷕ炻ḇ⯙㗗␴䇞㭵⫸⤛⎴ỷ䘬ᷣ⸚⭞⹕⼊⾩炻征ḇ㗗㚨䧛⭂䘬⼊⾩ˤ炷㜐朁⇑ˣ旰⭥㓧ˣ㛶⣏㬋炻2006㸧
It is argued that the nuclear family of Taiwan is a transitional family structure during
the process of forming the stem family. During the industrialization and urbanization,
the family transformed from so-called traditional family into nuclear and stem family at
the same time. Most of people are living in the “traditional” family, i.e., stem family,
which is the most stable structure.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences◊✲斖桀 Questions1ࠊ㝶╔乷㳶⍹⯽␴Ṣ⎋弔⎀炻 ᷄Ṃ䣦Ểᷕ⢬Ḷᶵ⎴乷㳶⍹⯽㯜⸛␴䍘ẋ⊾䦳⹎ⓗᅜᐙ࿴ᆅ༊ᡤ࿊䍘↢㜍䘬⭞⹕⎀彩嶗⼬㗗⏎␴大㕡乷℠⭞⹕䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢㍷㏙୙ྠ㸽᫝ྰ“᰾ᚰᐙᗞ” ᫝征ṃ⚥⭞␴⛘⋢䍘ẋᷣ天䘬⭞⹕㧉⺷烎Is the family change in Eastern Asian society very different from that showed by themodernization theory of the family? Is the nuclear family the main family structure ofEastern Asian society?
2ࠊዴᯝ୙ྠ㸪ᏭẔ⼤㬌斜⬀⛐Ṩᷰ㟟䘬ⶖ⺪烎ᶵ⎴⚥⭞斜⛘⋢㟠⽫⭞⹕␴ṚⰆ⨒亄㗗⏎㚱䛨ᶵ⎴䘬ℛ䲣烎⬫Ẕ⎬冒䘬䍘ẋ⊾㯜⸛␴⭞⹕⎀彩ᷳ斜⬀⛐䛨Ṩ஄㟟䘬ℛ䲣烎
Is there different among family structure and family relationship of China, Japan, Korea
and Taiwan? Which relationship between their modernization level and family change
is there?

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䍘ẋ⊾䦳⹎㭼弫
GDP per capita
2006 ($)

HDI
2006

Modernization
Level

China

2069

0.772

4

Japan

34148

0.958

1

Korea

19707

0.937

2

Taiwan29500

Between China
and Korea3ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesศᯒᴫᛕ࿴ᩘᤣ analytical concept and data1ࠊ “᰾ᚰᐙᗞ” ᴫᛕ㸸ཧ⪃஢㯱ከඞ࿴ᖁ᳃᪁⮡Ḷ㟠⽫⭞⹕䘬䓴⭂炻 ༶୍⮡⣓⥣⍲℞䓇℣䘬⬑⫸䓇㳣⛐ᶨ崟烊 ᐙᗞෆ㒊⬟⣇⬴ㆸ䓇做␴㉂඿ࠊ᝟ឤ࿴Ṛ⭮ℛ䲣ˣ䓇ṏ␴㴰峡䫱⣂䥵≇傥烊 ᐙᗞⓗຌ⬟㒔᭷峾Ḷኵጔஅ斜⎰ἄ⬴ㆸ炻 ୙౫峾ḶṚⰆ仹亄䘬ⷖ≑␴㓗㊩ˤᶵ⊭⏓大㕡⭞ᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ⮡Ḷ“᰾ᚰᐙᗞ” ⓗᐙᗞය⣔ⓗ学⭂炻 ༶୔ኵ඿ᐙᖼ
ᢎᢸᕤලᛶゅⰍ㸪 ጔᏊᣢᐙᖼᢎᢸ᝟ឤᛶゅⰍࠋ
The concept of nuclear family in the study means the family in which the couple lives
with and raises their children, and lots of functions, such as childbirth, upbringing,emotional support and intimate relationship, production and consumption, could becompleted by the couple without the support from kinship. But the concept here does
not include the family relationship affiliated to the nuclear defined by themodernization theory, i.e., the husband plays the instrumental role and the wife plays
emotional role within family.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesศᯒᴫᛕ࿴ᩘᤣ analytical concept and data2ࠊศᯒ⋽ỵ㸸ᐙ㇟㸦family household㸧 㸪୙᫝ᐙᗞ㸦family㸧ࠋᐙ㇟征୭ᴫᛕ⻢宫䘬㗗“ඹྠᒃఫ” ࠋAnalysis unit: family household, not family. The former concept emphasized living
together.

3ࠊᩘᤣ㸸ᮏᩥ౑⏝2006 ᖺ᷄Ṃ䣦Ể宫㞍䘬⭞⹕ᷣ桀宫㞍㔘㌖
Data: 2006 Family Module, East Asian Social Survey

4ࠊ᭷ᩀ㟟㛔㸸୰ᅜ3208㸪᪥ᮏ2130㸪枑⚥1605㸪ྎ‴2102
Samples: China=3208, Japan=2130, Korea=1605, Taiwan=2102

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬⭞⹕乻㜬↮ⶫ Family structure distribution of China,
Japan, Korea and Taiwanьӊйഭഋൠᇦᓝ㔃ᶴ࠶ᐳ
Family structure distribution of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwanᇦᓝ㔃ᶴ family structureѝഭChinaᰕᵜJapan丙ഭKorea

110

182

217

ਠ⒮Taiwan138অ䓛ᇦᓝ single family

3.4%

8.6%

13.5%

6.6%

677

395

231

149

ཛ࿫ᇦᓝ conjugal family

21.1%

18.6%

14.4%

7.1%

1134

856

801

909

Ṩᗳᇦᓝ nuclear family

35.3%

40.3%

49.9%

43.2%

125

124

129

150

অӢᇦᓝ sole-parent family

3.9%

5.8%

8.0%

7.1%

873

525

132

567

ѫᒢᇦᓝ stem family

27.2%

24.7%

8.2%

27.0%

90

11

4

76

༽ਸᇦᓝ compound family

2.8%

.5%

.2%

3.6%

102

5

12

29

䳄ԓᇦᓝ intergenerational family

3.2%

.2%

.7%

1.4%

7

6

22

15

ᵚႊ‫ݴ‬ᕏက࿩㓴ᡀⲴᇦᓝ sibling

.2%

.3%

1.4%

.7%

32

2

3

8

㚄ਸᇦᓝ joint family

1.0%

.1%

.2%

.4%

6

0

7

0

਼ትᇦᓝ cohabitation

.2%

.0%

.4%

.0%

52

20

47

62

ަԆ others

1.6%

.9%

2.9%

2.9%

3208

2126

1605

2103

ਸ䇑

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

P=.000ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬⭞⹕乻㜬 Family structure of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan᪥ᮏࠊ枑⚥ˣ⎘㸦␴ᷕ⚥ⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ㸦᪢孢㗗⏎⊭㊔⣓⥣⭞⹕␴⋽Ṛ⭞⹕炸ẚ౛㒔ἐ᭷ᯊᡂ┦⸼䘬⸷↿炻⬫Ẕᷣ⸚⭞⹕䘬㭼ἳḇ㱉㚱㜬ㆸ䚠⍵䘬⸷↿ˤ䍘ẋ⊾㯜ᖹ఩ன୰斜ỵ伖䘬枑⚥㗗㟠⽫⭞⹕㭼ἳ㚨檀䘬炻ᷣ⸚⭞⹕㭼ἳ㚨Ỷ䘬ˤThe percentages of nuclear family of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China do not constitutea sequence corresponding to the modernization levels of them, and the percentages ofstem family of them do not constitute the reverse sequence. In Korea with middle
modernization level, the percentage of nuclear family is highest, and the percentage ofstem family is lowest.
ᅉṈ㸪୍୭ᅜᐙᡈᆅ༊ⓗ䍘ẋ⊾㯜⸛炻㖈㱽宜㖶⭞⹕⎀彩䘬㕡⎹ˤ㬋⤪⍹⯽䘬䍘௦໬⌮孢㇨孢徘䘬炻ᶵᶨ⭂乷㳶⍹⯽䦳⹎㚜檀炻㚜ᷢ䍘ẋ⊾䘬䣦Ể炻㟠⽫⭞⹕䘬ẚ౛᭦㧗㸪୺ᖸᐙᗞⓗẚ౛᭦పࠋஓ孠㗗䚠⍵䘬ˤ
Therefore, the modernization level of country or region cannot account for the
direction of family change. It is not true that more modernized society higher
percentage of nuclear family and lower percentage of lower family.
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences୙ྠᖺ漬㭝⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⎀⊾ Family structure distribution by age

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences୙ྠᖺ漬㭝⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⎀⊾ Family structure distribution by age
1ࠊ᷄Ṃ䣦Ể宫㞍㗗᷒㖞䁡⿏䘬宫㞍炻忂彯↮㜸᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘ᶵ⎴⸜漬㭝ᶵ⎴⭞ᗞ乻㜬㭼ἳ䘬⎀⊾炻㜍㍊子᷄Ṃ䣦Ể⭞⹕乻㜬㖞㛇⇓䘬⎀彩炻ẍ㬌㍊子ᶱ⚥ᅄᆅᐙᗞ乻㜬䘬ⶖ⺪炻 ᖼ௕὏朊⍵㗈᷄Ṃ䣦Ể⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⎀彩ˤ
East Asian Social Survey was cross-sectional and it is impossible to follow the familychange of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Therefore, the article discuss the family
structure across the age groups, and try to show their family change from thisperspective.
2ࠊᅾ୙ྠᖺ漬㭝炻 ୰ᅜⓗኵጔᐙᗞẚ౛ᇶᮏୖ㒔᫝᭱㧗ⓗ㸪⋽幓␴㟠⽫⭞⹕㭼౛㒔᫝᭱పⓗ㸹 ⪋枑⚥䘬⋽幓⭞⹕㭼ἳ⛐⎬᷒⸜漬㭝ⶖᶵ⣂悥㗗㚨檀䘬炻 ⪋୺ᖸᐙᗞⓗẚ౛㒔᫝᭱పⓗ㸹 ྎ‴ⓗኵጔᐙᗞẚ౛ᅾྛ୭ᖺ漬㭝悥㗗㚨ỶⓗࠋAcross age groups, the percentage of conjugal family in China is the highest, and thoseof single and nuclear family are lowest; the percentage of single family in Korea ishighest, and that of stem family is lowest; the percentage of conjugal family in Taiwan
is lowest.
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences୙ྠᖺ漬㭝⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⎀⊾ Family structure distribution by age

3ࠊዴᯝᣨ↷乷℠䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢炻⎘㸦䘬⭞⹕乻㜬悥㗗㚨ᷢỈ亇䘬炻 枑⚥㚜ᷢ䍘௦㸪 ⪋୰ᅜෆᆅ᫝Ỉ亇␴䍘ẋṌ乯⛐ᶨ崟炻 ⪋᪥ᮏⓗᐙᗞ乻㜬⏰䍘䘬㧉⺷炻ᚇ኱⛬ᗘୖྲྀ෩னேཱྀ乻㜬ˤ征ṃ␴ᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬䍘ẋ⊾㯜⸛䘬㌺⸷↢䍘Ḯ㖶㗦䘬擁ỵˤ
According to classical modernization theory of the family, the family in Taiwan is mosttraditional, the family in Korea is modern, the family in China has traditional andmodern traits at the same time, and the family structure of Japan is decided by the
population structure.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesьӊᇦᓝ㔃ᶴ࠶㊫˄㓶㊫˅
Family structure of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan (subcategory)
ᰕᵜ

丙ഭ

ਠ⒮

Japan

Korea

TaiwanṨᗳᇦᓝ˄㓿ި˅

1134

856

801

907

nuclear family(classical)

35.3%

40.3%

49.9%

43.1%

Ṩᗳᇦᓝ˄অӢ˅

125

124

129

150

nuclear family (single-parent)

3.9%

5.8%

8.0%

7.1%

ཛ࿫ᇦᓝ˄⋑ᴹᆙᆀ˅

45

65

47

30

conjugal family (no child)

1.4%

3.1%

2.9%

1.4%

ཛ࿫ᇦᓝ˄オᐒ˅

428

315

142

107

conjugal family (nest)

13.3%

14.8%

8.8%

5.1%

ཛ࿫ᇦᓝ˄઼ᒤᒬᆙᆀ࠶ᔰ˅

26

0

0

6

conjugal family (not live with young children)

.8%

.0%

.0%

.3%

অ䓛ᇦᓝ˄ᵚႊ˅

57

77

103

87

Single family ˄unmarried˅

1.8%

3.6%

6.4%

4.1%

অ䓛ᇦᓝ˄઼䝽‫࠶ڦ‬ᔰትտ˅

29

4

26

1

Single family (not live with couple)

.9%

.2%

1.6%

.0%

অ䓛ᇦᓝ˄⿫ႊᡆї‫˅ڦ‬

23

101

88

49

Single family (divorce or widowed)

.7%

4.8%

5.5%

2.3%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄ިරˈ ⡦㌫˅
Stem family (classical, paternal)

680

343

93

342

21.2%

16.1%

5.8%

16.3%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄⇽㌫˅

68

72

15

24

Stem family (matrilineal)

2.1%

3.4%

0.9%

1.1%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄йԓᐢႊ㘵˅

26

20

0

28

Stem family (three-generational couple)

.8%

.9%

.0%

1.3%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄⡦⇽઼⾆⡦⇽ᶴᡀ˅

23

63

16

52

Stem family (parents and grandparents)

.7%

3.0%

1.0%

2.5%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄वᤜᵚႊⲴ‫ݴ‬ᕏက࿩/਄՟㠵ခဘㅹ˅

62

27

8

123

Stem family (including unmarried sibling or cousins)

1.9%

1.3%

.5%

5.8%

ѫᒢᇦᓝ˄䳄ԓ˅

15

0

0

1

Stem family (intergenerational)

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4

76

༽ਸᇦᓝ

90

11

(compound family)

2.8%

.5%

P=.000



ѝഭ
China

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
.2%
3.6%
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesᐙᗞ乻㜬乮䰣↮㜸 Analyzing family structure with subcategory1ࠊ᰾᰾ᚰᐙᗞ㸸す᪉ᐙᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ“⏨୺እዪ୺ෆ”ⓗ඾ᆺ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ㸪୰ᅜ
5.0%㸪᪥ᮏ7.24%㸪枑⚥24.4%㸪ྎ‴10.8%ࠋ
Nuclear family: the so-called nuclear family defined by modernization theory is few inEastern Asian society, and the percentage of this kind of nuclear family is 5.0% in
China, 7.24% in Japan, 24.4% in Korea, and 10.8% in Taiwan.
ኵጔᐙᗞ㸸᪢孢㗗⒒᷒⚥⭞⛘⋢炻⣓⥣⭞⹕⭆旭ᶲ60%௨ୖ㒔᫝⏤✵ᕡⓗኵ2ࠊኵጔᐙᗞ乬ㆸ䘬ࠋ୰ᅜฟ䍘征䥵䉞⅝炻ᶨ㕡朊⎗傥㗗␴ᷕ⚥㖍䙲≈忇䘬侩漬⊾᭷ය㸪྄እ୍᪉㠃ྍ⬟࿴୰ᅜⓗ孉↺䓇做㓧䫾㚱ℛˤ往㚱ᶨ᷒⍇⚈⎗傥㗗Ṣཱྀⓗ኱奬㧉㳩≐炻⸜弣Ṣ⢾↢≉ⶍ炻䔁ᶳ侩⸜Ṣ䊔冒⛐⭞ࠋ往㚱䚠⻻㭼ἳ䘬᫝ᅉᷢ⫸⤛⢾↢㯪⬎侴⼊ㆸ䘬ˤ
Stem family: in Eastern Society, more than 60% of conjugal family are those “emptynest” family. In China, this phenomena is resulted by speeding ageing of population,family planning policy and large-scale internal migration.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciencesᐙᗞ乻㜬乮䰣↮㜸3ࠊ⋽⋽幓⭞⹕㸸枑⚥㗗ᶱ⚥⚃⛘ᷕ㭼ἳ㚨檀䘬ˤᷕ⚥⋽幓⭞⹕䘬㭼ἳ嘥䃞㗗㚨Ỷⓗ㸪ణ᫝௕乮䰣䚳炻⌜⎗ẍ⍹䍘␴惵„ᶵỷ⛐ᶨ崟⼊ㆸ䘬⋽幓⭞⹕㭼ἳ弫㧗㸪征⎗傥࿴୰ᅜேཱྀὶ≐䘬奬㧉␴忇⹎悥崭彯⶚乷塓㊯徃ℍ⎶ⶍ᷂䣦Ể䘬᪥ᮏࠊ枑⚥␴⎘㸦᭷ය㸪往㚱୰ᅜⓗᖹᆒ፧漬㗗㚨⮷䘬ˤ
Single family: though the percentage of single family in China is lower, the percentage
of single family resulted in not living with the couple is rather higher. This phenomena
is resulted by large-scale internal migration and average age at first marriage is lowest.
4ࠊ୺୺ᖸᐙᗞ㸸枑⚥ᷣ⸚⭞⹕䘬㭼ἳ㗗㚨Ỷ䘬ࠋ᷄Ṃ䣦Ể䍘⛐⶚乷㚱䚠⻻㭼ἳ䘬୺ᖸᐙᗞ᫝࿴ዪ᪉∗ẕᡈ⪅ዪඒඹྠ⏕άᯊᡂⓗ㸪᪥ᮏ征䰣䘬㭼ἳ䚠⻻檀ˤྡྷ୕䰣ᷣ⸚⭞⹕炻ᷕ⚥␴⎘㸦䘬㭼ἳ悥䚠⮡㖍㛔␴枑⚥㚜檀ࠋ
Stem family: it is should be emphasized that there is considerable percentage of stem
family consisting of matrilineal parent and their daughter and son-in-law in Eastern
society, including Japan and China.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences

㺘4-6н਼ᇦᓝ㔃ᶴᖡ૽ഐ㍐ⲴLogistic⁑ර࠶᷀㔃᷌ Results of logistic modelঅ䓛ᇦᓝ singleBཛ࿫ᇦᓝconjugal

Exp(B)

Ṩᗳᇦᓝnuclear

B

Exp(B)B

Exp(B)

ѫᒢᇦᓝstem
B

Exp(B)

ᆿ㿲ቲ䶒઼ࡦᓖቲ䶒Ⲵᖡ૽ഐ㍐ macro factors
ഭᇦcountry
ѝഭChina-.533***.587

1.578***

4.845-.434***.648-.275**

ᰕᵜJapan.545***

1.724

1.025***

2.787-.210**.811-.649***.522

丙ഭKorea.791***

2.206.868***

2.382.273***

1.31-1.396***.248.318***

1.375.342***

1.408-.666***

.514

.760

ਠ⒮
˄৲➗㓴˅
Taiwanᇦᓝ㿲ᘥ઼ᘱᓖ the ideas on familyᐼᵋйԓ਼տ three generations living together੖ Noᱟ˄৲➗㓴˅Yesᱟ੖᧕ਇ਼ት accepting cohabitation
᧕ਇ Yes.668***

1.950.262***

1.300

ᰐᡰ䉃does not matter.337**

1.400.160**

1.173

н᧕ਇ˄৲➗㓴˅Noᱟ੖਼᜿Ā⭧ѫཆྣѫ޵āagreeing with the idea “women keeping house and men working outside?
਼᜿Yes-.194***.823ᰐᡰ䉃does not matter-.212**.809

н਼᜿˄৲➗㓴˅Noᱟ੖਼᜿ĀᐢႊྷྣᓄՈ‫ݸ‬㘳㲁ཛᇦ࡙⳺āagreeing with the idea “married women should consider the
benefits of husband’s family firstly
਼᜿Yes-.403***.668

ᰐᡰ䉃does not matter-.165***.848н਼᜿˄৲➗㓴˅No
њӪᇦᓝ⢩ᖱഐ㍐ individual and family factors‫ݴ‬ᕏᮠⴞnumber of brothers
0.781***

2.184

1.497***

1.644

2.222**

1.249

0-.322***.724

1-.228**.796

3 and more(reference group)‫ݯ‬ᆀᮠⴞnumber of sons

2 and more(reference group)
Note˖***indicating P<.001˗**indicating P<.01˗*indicating P<.05Ǆѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences㺘4-6н਼ᇦᓝ㔃ᶴᖡ૽ഐ㍐ⲴLogistic⁑ර࠶᷀㔃᷌˄㔝˅
Results of logistic model (continued)অ䓛ᇦᓝ singleBཛ࿫ᇦᓝconjugal

Exp(B)

BṨᗳᇦᓝnuclear

Exp(B)B

Exp(B)

ѫᒢᇦᓝstem
B

Exp(B)

᧗ࡦਈ䟿˄њӪ㠚䓛ⲴӪਓ઼⽮Պ㓿⍾⢩ᖱ˅control variables
age
31-45

-.798***.450.400***

1.493

46-60

-.544***.581

1.399***

4.053

61+

.186

1.204

2.193***

8.958-.459***.632.797***

2.220-.644***.525.548***

1.731-.470***.625.374**

1.454

Low

1.373***

3.946.365***

1.440-.590***.554

Middle.345**

1.411

.191*

1.211

-.414***.661-2.310**.099

30-˄RG˅
educational level
primary schooland less
Junior middle
schoolSenior middle
schoolUniversity andabove (RG)
Family income

High (RG)
Social class(subjective)
Low.377**

1.458

Middle.230**

1.258-4.319**.016

High (RG)
constant

-2.856**

.057

.155*

1.168

*

*

*

-2 log likehood3656.1056148.030

11930.844

6465.150

df

13

11

10

14 ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ

N

7787

7623

8894

6023
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⼙⑵⚈䳈Factors which have impacts on family
structure
㸦1㸧ᏹ奪⯪朊␴⇞⹎⯪朊䘬⼙⑵⚈䳈枑⚥䘬⭞⹕ᷢ⋽幓⭞⹕␴㟠⽫⭞⹕䘬⎗傥⿏㗗㚨⣏䘬炻ᷕ⚥䘬ᷢ⣓⥣⭞⹕䘬ྍ⬟ᛶ᫝᭱኱ⓗ㸪ྎ‴ⓗᷢᷣ⸚⭞⹕⎗傥⿏㗗㚨⣏䘬ˤ征᷒乻㝄␴乷℠⭞⹕䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢栬㛇䘬乻㝄悥㗗ᶵᶨ农䘬ˤ
Macro-level factor: country㸦2㸧ᐙᗞ奪⾝␴⾩⹎“୙ᕼᮃ୕௦ྠఫ”࿴“᥋ཷྠᒃ”⾲♧ཷ孧侭㊩䚠⮡䍘ẋ䘬⭞⹕奪⾝炻侴⎴シ“⏨୺እዪ୺ෆ”࿴“ᕬ፧⤯⤛⸼Ề⃰侫嗹⣓⭞䘬⇑䙲”⾲♧ཷ孧侭䘬⭞⹕奪⾝䚠⮡Ỉ亇ˤ↮㜸乻㝄ḇ孩⭆Ḯ征ᶨ䁡ˤ⭞⹕奪⾝Ỉ亇䍘ẋᶶ⏎␴⭞⹕乻㜬㧉⺷䘬᫝୍⮴ⓗ㸪ᩥ໬➼ᅉ⣲᫝ᐙᗞ⎀彩䘬慵天⼙⑵⚈䳈ˤThe ideas and attitude on family:
Traditional: accepting the ideas “ men working outside and women keeping house”,
and “ married women should consider the benefits of husband’s family firstly”;
Modern: “not accepting that three generations live together”, “ accepting
cohabitation”
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘⭞⹕乻㜬䘬⼙⑵⚈䳈炷井炸
㸦3㸧୭ேᐙᗞ≉ᚁᅉ⣲㸸嘥䃞⛐↮㜸ᷳ⇵炻㟡㌖ẍ⼨䘬䞼䨞␴⭞⹕乻㜬䘬㜬ㆸ᪉ᘧ㸪栬㳳⎗傥㚱ᶨṃ᷒Ṣ⭞⹕䈡⼩⚈䳈Ể⮡⭞⹕乻㜬ṏ䓇慵天⼙⑵炻Ữ㗗ྈ᭷“ඒᏊⓗᩘ┠”࿴“඗ᘵⓗᩘ┠”୩୭⎀慷Ể⮡⭞⹕乻㜬⼊ㆸ⼙⑵ˤ征䰣⚈䳈⮡Ḷᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬⭞⹕乻㜬ἄ䓐ᶵ⣏ˤ
Individualistic and family factors: the numbers of son and the numbers of brothers
㸦4㸧୭ே⮬㌟ⓗேཱྀ࿴♫఍乷㳶䈡⼩㸸ᅄ୭ᅉ⣲᭷╔亇孉ᶲ䘬㗦叿⼙⑵烉⸜
漬ˣ㔁做䦳⹎ˣ⭞⹕㓞ℍ␴䣦Ể旞⯪ˤ⋽幓⭞⹕␴⣓⥣⭞⹕⎗傥⿏㚨⣏䘬炻㒔᫝61Ⱙẍᶲ䘬⸜漬乬ˤ⭞⹕䘬乻㜬⎒㗗␴⺢㜬侭䘬䓇␥␐㛇㚱ℛˤṶ㔁做⛬ᗘ᮶┳㸪኱Ꮫ௨ୖⓗ⿕孧侭䓇㳣⛐⋽幓⭞⹕ᷕ䘬⎗傥⿏㚨⣏炻侴⮷⬎ẍᶳ⿕孧侭䓇㳣⛐ᷣ⸚⭞⹕ᷕ䘬⎗傥⿏㚨⣏ˤ௕ᐙᗞᨲධ᮶┳㸪పᨲධⓗᐙᗞᷢ⋽幓⭞⹕␴⣓⥣⭞⹕䘬⎗傥⿏㚨኱㸪⪋㧗ᨲධⓗᐙᗞᷢᷣ⸚⭞⹕䘬⎗傥⿏㚨⣏ˤ征᷒乻㝄ḇ⛐ᶨ⭂䦳⹎ᶲ孩᫂஢඼௚◊✲୰ᡤᣦฟⓗ㸪୺ᖸᐙᗞ୍䰣䘬⣏⭞⹕暨天乷㳶➢䟨䘬ˤ䣦Ể旞⯪⮡Ḷ⣓⥣⭞⹕䘬⼙⑵␴㓞ℍ䘬⼙⑵Ṷ乻㝄䚳㜍㗗䞃䚦䘬ˤ征⎗傥㗗ᷣ奪⇌ᐃ♫఍旞⯪␴Ṷ㓞ℍ⇌⭂ᷳ斜䘬ᶵᶨ农⿏ˤ
Individual economic and social factors: age, educational level, family income and social
class.
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃ䣦Ể㟠⽫⭞⹕␴䇞㭵ㆸ⸜⫸⤛ᷳ斜ℛ䲣
Relationship between parents and their adult children in Eastern societyьӊ⽮ՊṨᗳᇦᓝ઼⡦⇽ᡀᒤᆀྣѻ䰤‫ޣ‬㌫
RelationshipbetweenparentsandtheiradultchildreninEasternsocietyঅս unit˖%
ѝ഻

ᰕᵜ

七഻

ਠ⒮

China

Japan

Korea

Taiwan

65.42

57.29

52.94

77.32

㓿⍾䍴ࣙ financial support

18.9

10.4

22.1

30.8

䶎㓿⍾䍴ࣙ non-financial support

22.9

11.6

23.6

27.6

㻛䁚㘵 respondentᛵᝏ᭟ᤱ emotional support

21.5

-

40.2

43.2

⡦⇽ parent㓿⍾䍴ࣙ financial support

12.6

15.5

22.5

15.8

䶎㓿⍾䍴ࣙ non-financial support

20.8

27.4

28.7

34.5

㻛䁚㘵 respondentᛵᝏ᭟ᤱ emotional support

17.3

-

33.9

30.0

㻛䁚㘵 parent㓿⍾䍴ࣙ financial support

30.2

19.8

36.0

30.6

䶎㓿⍾䍴ࣙ non-financial support

31.2

25.8

35.8

42.2

ᡀᒤᆀྣ respondentᛵᝏ᭟ᤱ emotional support

31.5

-

50.0

39.5

㻛䁚㘵 parent㓿⍾䍴ࣙ financial support

16.7

5.8

21.7

18.3

䶎㓿⍾䍴ࣙ non-financial support

21.5

7.7

23.2

23.1

ᛵᝏ᭟ᤱ emotional support

21.7

-

42.9

32.5

Ӣᆀ䰤ӂࣘ仁⦷ interaction frequency between parents
and children⡦⇽ parentᡀᒤᆀྣ respondent⌘˖㺘ṬѝⲴᮠᆇѪĀ㓿ᑨāⲴⲮ࠶∄ǄNote:thefigureinthetableindicatingthepercentageofparentsandtheiradultchildrensupportingeachotherfrequentlyѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炷㟠⽫ˣ⣓⥣␴⋽Ṛ炸 ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄䘬ℛ䲣
The relationship between nuclear family and kinship1ࠊす᪉ᐙᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ⮡Ḷ“᰾ᚰᐙᗞ” ⓗ⏺ᐃ㸪 ⭆旭ᶲ㖊㴱⍲⭞⹕䘬㜬ㆸ炻ஓໟྵ╔⮡Ḷ⭞⹕ℛ䲣䘬孌⭂ˤ征慴䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕㗗⸧ᷱ䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炻 ໟᣓኵጔᐙᗞ࿴⋽Ṛ⭞⹕ˤThe nuclear family defined by modernization theory actually refers to both family
structure and family relationship.
2ࠊྎ‴ⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ༶౑࿴∗ẕᏊዪ୙ᒃఫᅾ୍㉳㸪 ஓಖᣢ╔᭱ᷢ⭮↯䘬Ḻ≐炻࿴∗ẕஅ斜⛐㖍ⷠ䄏㕁ˣ乷㳶㓗㊩␴ねデ⌙㛢ᶲ䘬Ḻ≑㭼ἳḇ㗗㚨檀䘬ˤ⎘‴୙ṭ㜬ᾅ䔁䛨㚜⣂䘬Ỉ亇⚈䳈炻 ᐙᗞය⣔ୖஓಖ␃╔᭦ከⓗỈ亇⚈䳈ˤ
In Taiwan, there are more traditional factors affiliated to both family structure andfamily relationship.
3ࠊ枑⚥Ṷ⭞⹕乻㜬㜍䚳炻 ᫝ᐙᗞ⎀彩⏰䍘䍘ẋ⊾⚈䳈⼙⑵㚨⣂䘬炻 Ꮽⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞஓ࿴∗ẕᏊዪஅ斜Ḻ≐根䌯㚨Ỷ炻 ణ᫝࿴∗ẕ㸪 ᑬ඼᫝ᡂᖺᏊዪஅ斜䘬䚠஫ᨭᣢ࿴┦஫౫峾⌜㗗⼰㖶㗦䘬ˤ
In Korea, there are more modern factors affiliated to its family change.
ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炷㟠⽫ˣ⣓⥣␴⋽Ṛ炸 ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄䘬ℛ䲣
The relationship between nuclear family and kinship4ࠊ୰ᅜⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄ᾅ㊩䛨ṭ㫉Ḷᷕ⚥⎘㸦䘬Ḻ≐根䌯炻 ྍ᫝௦旭ᷳ斜䘬䚠Ḻὅ峾␴㓗㊩⌜ṭṭ檀Ḷ㖍㛔ˤ
The interaction frequency between nuclear family and kinship in China is only lower
than that in Taiwan, and the percentage of their interdependence in China is only
higher that in Japan.
5ࠊ᪥ᮏⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ┦⮡Ḷ℞Ṿ⚥⭞␴⛘⋢炻 ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄䘬ℛ䲣㚜ᷢ䔷径炻 ᭦ᷢ
᥋㏆ᖁ᳃᪁“᰾ᚰᐙᗞᏙ❧໬” ⓗ೥宜炻 征⎗傥␴㖍㛔䘬䣦Ểᾅ晄ỻ䲣䚠⮡㚜ᷢ⬴┬㚱䛨⭮↯䘬ℛ䲣ˤ
Compared to other Eastern Asian society, the nuclear family in Japan is distant with
their kinship, which is close to “nuclear family” defined by Parsons. This phenomena isrelated to relative complete social security system of Japan.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences⿣乻␴子孢 Conclusion and discussion1ࠊ᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬ᶵ⎴⭞⹕乻㜬⎀≐㧉⺷炻 ௨ཬ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄䘬ᶵ⎴ℛ⣔ᶍᘧ㸪 㒔࿊䍘昌Ḯᶵ⎴Ḷ大㕡⭞⹕⎀彩䘬㧉⺷炻 ᒎ䍘↢᷄Ṃ䣦Ể⭞⹕䊔䈡ⓗ⎀彩嶗⼬ˤ
The family change in Eastern Asian society is very different from that in westerncountries, showed by the modernization theory of the family. It demonstrates multiple
paths and patterns of family change.
2ࠊ㤳ඛ㸪 ᷄Ṃ䣦Ể䘬⭞⹕乻㜬㱉㚱⏰䍘↢㟠⽫⊾崳≧ˤ㖍㛔ˣ枑⚥ˣ⎘㸦␴ᷕᅜ᰿ᤣ඼䍘ẋ⊾㯜⸛㜬ㆸᶨ᷒Ṷ檀⇘Ỷ䘬⸷↿炻ᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬䍘ẋ⊾㯜⸛␴⭞ᗞ乻㜬䘬⎀≐㖶㗦↢䍘Ḯ擁ỵˤ
There is not the process of the family transforming from stem family into nuclear
family during industrialization and urbanization of Eastern Asian society. If thepercentage of nuclear family is regarded as indicator of family modernization, the levelof family modernization of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China do not correspond totheir modernization level.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences⿣乻␴子孢 Conclusion and discussion
3ࠊ඼ḟ㸪 す᪉ᐙᗞ䍘ẋ⊾䎮孢ᷕ䘬㇨宻㟠⽫⭞⹕炻 ୙ṭ㗗㊯ᶨ⮡⣓⤯␴㛒⨂⃧ዪᯊᡂⓗᐙᗞ㸪 ᭦⮡⭞⹕䘬⣓⥣ℛ䲣炷⣓⥣⸛䫱炻 ⏨୺እዪ୺ෆ㸧 ࿴ṚⰆය⣔㸦␰径␴⬌䩳炸 ೴ฟ᫂◴ⓗ奬⭂ˤ征䥵℠✳䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炻 ᅾ᷄Ṃ䣦Ểᷕẚ౛㒔᫝㠀ᖖపⓗࠋThe percentage of nuclear family defined by the modernization theory of the family is
lower in Eastern Asian society4ࠊ෌ḟ㸪 ᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬⭞⹕乻㜬⬀⛐䛨㖶㗦䘬ⶖ⺪ˤ᷄Ṃ⚃⛘⭞⹕乻㜬⏰䍘ฟⓗ征䥵㖈⸷⿏炻 ᚇ晦栬㳳ἄᷢ⚃⛘ᷕ⍹⯽㚨㘂䍘ẋ⊾䦳⹎㚨Ỷ䘬ᷕ⚥ℭᆅ㸪 ᐙᗞ乻㜬㛒㜍䘬⎀⊾崳≧炻 ణ᫝✵ᕡኵጔᐙᗞⓗẚ౛ቔຍ᫝୍⛇┦⮡䠖ᐃⓗ崳≧炻 征䥵崳≧⶚乷⺽崟Ḯ⼰⣂䞼䨞侭䘬ℛ㲐ˤ
The family structure of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan is different significantly. It isdifficult to predict the trend of family change in China according to family structure ofJapan, Korea and Taiwan at present. Undoubtedly, the percentage of “empty-nest”
family is surely increasing.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences⿣乻␴子孢炷井炸 Conclusion and discussion (continued)
5ࠊ᭱ྡྷ㸪 ᷄Ṃᶱ⚥⚃⛘䘬㟠⽫⭞⹕炷㟠⽫ˣ⣓⥣␴⋽Ṛ炸 ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄⏰䍘↢ᶵྠⓗය⣔ᶍᘧࠋྎ‴ᆅ༊ⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞṚ⫸Ḻ≐根䌯㗗㚨檀䘬炻 ୰ᅜෆᆅⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ࿴ṚⰆ仹亄ᾅ㊩䛨ṭ㫉Ḷ⎘㸦⛘⋢䘬Ḻ≐根䌯炻 ྍ᫝௦旭ᷳ斜䘬䚠Ḻ౫峾␴㓗㊩⌜ṭṭ檀Ḷ㖍㛔烊 ᪥ᮏⓗ᰾ᚰᐙᗞ┦⮡Ḷ℞Ṿ⚥⭞␴⛘⋢炻 ࿴Ṛᒓ⨒亄䘬ℛ䲣㚜ᷢ䔷径炻 征⎗傥␴㖍㛔䘬䣦Ểᾅ晄ỻ䲣㚜ᷢ⬴┬炻 බඹṏ⑩᭦⃭ᷢ嵛㚱ℛˤThe nuclear families, included nuclear, conjugal and single-parent families, among them
have different relationship with their kinship networks.

ѣു⽴ᴹ〇ᆮ䲘⽴ᴹᆮ⹊ガᡶ
Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academyof Social Sciences

TheCASSǦIPSSJointWorkshopon
PopulationandSocialSecurity,
September15,2014Beijing

YoshihiroKaneko,Ph.D
NationalInstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearchJapan

Fig.1Trendsinthepopulationofmajorthreeage groups
inJapan(MediumͲfertility,mediumͲmortalityprojections)

Source:NationalInstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearch,"PopulationProjectionsforJapan(January2012)",
Figure1Ǧ3.
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

2

Fig.2ChangesinSocialSecurityBenefitsbyCategory(Trillionyen)

Source:NationalInstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearch,“TheFinancialStatisticsofSocial
SecurityinJapanforFY2011,withdatabeingassimilatedandannouncedinFY2013”.
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

3

ChangesinSocialSecurityBenefitsbyCategoryinChina
ӯ 20,000‫ ݳ‬18,000
16,00014,00012,000ᇛ擯ᇶᮏ඿⪁ಖ昑䠄BasicPensionInsurance㸧

10,000ᇛ擯ᇶᮏ་䔿ಖ昑䠄BasicMedical
Insurance㸧

8,000
6,000

♫఍⚟฼ཬ඼௚校┠(ኻ᷂ಖ昑+ᕤỌಖ昑+⏕⫱ಖ昑+♫఍᭹≉஦᷂峡)

4,000
2,000
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

0

ᒤ

Source:1.1993~2009ᒤ෾䭷สᵜޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ˈ෾䭷สᵜ५⯇‫؍‬䲙ˈཡъ‫؍‬䲙ˈᐕՔ‫؍‬䲙ˈ⭏㛢‫؍‬䲙᭟ࠪㅹᮠᦞࠪ㠚ǉѝഭࣣࣘ㔏䇑ᒤ䢤2010Ǌ10Ǧ2শᒤ‫ޘ‬ഭ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙ส䠁᭟ࠪ 2.2010~2013ᒤสᵜޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ˈ෾䭷สᵜ५⯇‫؍‬䲙ˈཡъ‫؍‬䲙ˈᐕՔ‫؍‬䲙ˈ⭏㛢‫؍‬䲙᭟ࠪㅹᮠᦞࠪ㠚਴ᒤᓖǉӪ࣋䍴Ⓚ઼⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌һъਁኅ㔏䇑‫ޜ‬ᣕǊ 3.⽮Պᴽ࣑һъ䍩᭟ࠪᮠᦞࠪ㠚਴ᒤᓖǉ≁᭯һъਁኅ㔏䇑ᣕ੺Ǌ˄1993~2009˅ǃǉ⽮Պᴽ࣑ਁኅ㔏䇑‫ޜ‬ᣕǊ˄2010~2013˅CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

4

Fig.3InternationalComparisonofSocialExpenditures
andNationalBurdenRatios㻶 㼍㼜㼍㼚
㻿㼛㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㻱㼤㼜㼑㼚㼐㼕㼠㼡㼞㼑㻔㻑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻺㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘㻵㼚㼏㼛㼙㼑㻕
㻿㼛㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㻱㼤㼜㼑㼚㼐㼕㼠㼡㼞㼑䠄㻑㻌㼛㼒㻌㻳㻰㻼䠅㻾㼍㼠㼕㼛㻌㻔㻑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼀㼍㼤㻌㼍㼚㼐㻿㼛㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㻵㼚㼟㼡㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑㻯㼛㼚㼠㼞㼕㼎㼡㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼛㼢㼑

㻯㼔㼕㼚㼍

㻷㼛㼞㼑㼍

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐
㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐
㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙 㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥 㻲㼞㼍㼚㼏㼑㻿㼣㼑㼐㼑㼚

26.1

n,a,

11.4

20.3

27.4

35.3

39.4

37.5

19.2

3.7

10.7

16.5

21.3

26.2

28.8

27.7

40.0

n.a.

33.6

34.9

48.3

52,4

61.2

64.8

Source:DataforJapan,US,UK,Germany,France,andSweden:NationalInstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearch,“TheFinancialStatisticsofSocialSecurityinJapan
forFY2010,withdatabeingassimilatedandannouncedinFY2012”.DataforChina:ILO
SocialSecurityInquiry,TotalPublicExpenditureinChina2012.

CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

5

EstimationofFutureSocialSecurityExpenditureinJapan
(2012MarchestimationprovidedbyMHLW)LongǦtermcare

Medicalcare

Publicpensiony*CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

6

Therelationoftotalamountofpublicpensionbenefit
andpensionpremiuminalifeͲcycleclassifiedbycohort

TotalpremiumsinalifeǦcycle
TotalpremiumsinalifeǦcycle

Source:Suzukii,Masujimaii,Shiraishiiii,and Morishigei(2012)"Intergenerational
InequalityCausedbytheSocialSecuritySystem",ESRIDiscussionPaper,No.281
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

7

Therelationoftotalamountofmedicalcarebenefitand
healthinsurancepremiuminalifeͲcycleclassifiedbycohort(inthecaseforassociationͲbasedhealthinsurance)

Source:Suzukii,Masujimaii,Shiraishiiii,andMorishigei(2012)"IntergenerationalInequality
CausedbytheSocialSecuritySystem",ESRIDiscussionPaper,No.281
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

8

Therelationoftotalamountofsocialsecuritybenefitand
socialsecurityburdeninalifeͲcycleclassifiedbycohort(publicpension+healthinsurance+longͲtermcareinsurance)LongǦtermcare
Healthcare
Publicpension

Source:Suzukii,Masujimaii,Shiraishiiii,and Morishigei(2012)"IntergenerationalInequality
CausedbytheSocialSecuritySystem",ESRIDiscussionPaper,No.281
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

9

Fig.4ThePensionSysteminJapan
Individual Based DefinedContribution Pensions (0.13m)¥5,000䡚¥23,000
National
PensionFund(0.52m)

Corporation Based DefinedContribution Pensions (0.42m)¥5,000䡚
¥51,000¥5,000䡚
¥25,500
Defined Benefit Corporate
Pension(0.80m)

Employees’ Pension Insurance(34.51m)¥5,000䡚¥68,000
NPF Premium

Employees’
PensionFund(0.44)
MutualFunds(0.44m)Basic Pension

Category No.3 Category No.1 Insurer
Self-Employed etc.
Insurer(19.00 m)
Spouses of
employees(0.98m)Category No.2 Insurer
Employees(38.92m)yyNote:1)ShadedboxesindicateoptionalDefinedǦContributionpensions.Theamountinsideistherangeofpremium.2)Numbersin()arenumberofsubscribers(millionpersons).No.1,2,&3denotecategoriesofsubscribers:No.1isforselfǦemployed,farmers,
students,etc.,No.2isforemployees,andNo.3isforspousesofNo.2.AllnumbersareasofMarch2012.
Source:NationalInstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearch,SocialSecurityinJapan2013edition(forthcoming),Figure3.1,basedonWebǦsiteofMinistryofHealth,Labour andWelfare(MHLW),2013.

CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

10

Fig.6(A)TheIncomeInequalityandEffectsofIncomeRedistributioninJapan
Rate of improvement in Gini coefficient

Gini coefficient

1996
1999

0.376
0.408

Rate of improvement due to䐡redistribution
䐢Equivalent
Equivalentdisposable income
Rate ofdisposable
Rate of
䠄䐡䠇Benefits inimprovement
income䠄䐠䠉improvementkind䠅
due to socialTax䠅due to tax
security
0.327
0.312
0.310
17.7
13.7
4.7
0.350
0.337
0.333
18.4
15.3
3.7

2002

0.419

0.337

Year ofSurvey䐠䠄䐟䠇Social
Security䐟Equivelent benefits䠉
SocialmarketInsurance
Incomecontributions)

0.323

0.322

25.3

19.9

4.3

2005
0.435
0.336
0.322
0.323
25.9
22.8
4.1
2008
0.454
0.343
0.327
0.319
29.7
26.2
4.7
2011
0.470
0.343
0.322
0.316
32.8
28.6
5.8
Note1) Rate of improvement due to redistribution䠙䠍䠉䐢䠋䐟Note2) Rate of improvement due to social security 䠙䠍䠉(䐠䠋䐟)×(䐢䠋䐡)Note3) Rate of improvement due to tax 䠙䠍䠉䐡䠋䐠
Source: Summary Findings of the 20011 Income Redistribution Survey, the Ministry of Health Labour and WelfareCopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

11

Fig.7Gini coefficientclassifiedbyagegroupofthe
individualhouseholdmember:Thecomparisonbetween
equivalentmarketandequivalentdisposableincome
Dotted line: Gini coefficient of equivalent market income
Straight line:Gini coefficient of equivalent disposable income

Age group

Source:SummaryFindingsofthe2011IncomeRedistributionSurvey,theMinistryofHealthLabour and
WelfareCopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

12

RecentreformsofPublicPensionSysteminJapan
y Everyfiveyear,thesustainabilityofpublicpensionsystemis

reviewedthroughtheactuarialestimationofpublicpension
financingbasedonthefuturepopulationprojectionbyNational
InstituteofPopulationandSocialSecurityResearch(IPSS),andthe
reformplanisprovidedbytheadvisorycouncilofpensionof
MHLW.

y Themajorcontentsof2004pensionsystemreform:
y Introducingtheinsurancepremiumlevelfixationmethodandthe
macroǦeconomyindexation,utilizingthepensionreserveas
resourcefunds.
y RaisingtheproportionfundedbythenationalsubsidyfortheBasic
Pensionto1/2.(Thiswillbeimplementedgraduallyasspecifiedinthelaw.)y ReviewingthesystemoftheOldǦAgePensionforActiveWorkers
whoareintheirearly60s,introducingthesystemofdelaying
pensionableageforthosewhoare65yearsorover,andadjustingtheamountofbenefitpaymentoftheOldǦAgeEmployees’Pension
forthoseinsuredemployeeswhoare70yearsandolder.CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

13

RecentreformsofPublicPensionSysteminJapan
y Thecontentsof2014pensionsystemreform:CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

14

PartͲtimeemploymentasaproportionoftotal
employmentamongOECDcountries㻔 㻹㼍㼚 㼑 㻌 㼍㼚 㼐㻌 㻲㼑 㼙㼍㼘㼑 㻛 㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘㻕 㻌
㻝㻥㻥㻡
㻞㻜㻜㻜
㻯㼛㼡 㼚 㼠㼞㼥㻛 㼅㼑㼍 㼞
㻶 㻼㻺
㼁 㻿㻭
㻯㻭 㻺
㻳㻮 㻾
㻰㻱㼁
㻲㻾㻭
㻵㼀㻭
㻺 㻸㻰
㻰㻺㻷
㻿㼃㻱
㻲 㻵㻺
㻺 㻻㻾
㻷㻻㻾
㻭㼁㻿
㻺㼆㻸

䠉
㻝㻠㻚㻜
㻝㻤㻚㻤
㻞㻞㻚㻟
㻝㻠㻚㻞
㻝㻠㻚㻞
㻝㻜㻚㻡
㻞㻥㻚㻠
㻝㻢㻚㻥
㻝㻡㻚㻝
㻤㻚㻣
㻞㻝㻚㻠
㻠㻚㻟
䠉
㻞㻜㻚㻥

㻝㻢㻚㻟
㻝㻞㻚㻢
㻝㻤㻚㻝
㻞㻟㻚㻜
㻝㻣㻚㻢
㻝㻠㻚㻞
㻝㻞㻚㻞
㻟㻞㻚㻝
㻝㻢㻚㻝
㻝㻠㻚㻜
㻝㻜㻚㻠
㻞㻜㻚㻞
㻣㻚㻜
䠉
㻞㻞㻚㻞

䠄 䠂䠅
㻞㻜㻜㻡

㻞㻜㻜㻣

㻞㻜㻜㻤

㻞㻜㻜㻥

㻞㻜㻝㻜

㻞㻜㻝㻝

㻝㻤㻚㻟
㻝㻞㻚㻤
㻝㻤㻚㻠
㻞㻟㻚㻜
㻞㻝㻚㻡
㻝㻟㻚㻞
㻝㻠㻚㻢
㻟㻡㻚㻢
㻝㻣㻚㻟
㻝㻟㻚㻡
㻝㻝㻚㻞
㻞㻜㻚㻤
㻥㻚㻜
㻞㻠㻚㻜
㻞㻝㻚㻢

㻝 㻤 㻚㻥㻝 㻞 㻚㻢㻝 㻤 㻚㻟㻞 㻞 㻚㻥㻞 㻞 㻚㻜㻝 㻟 㻚㻟㻝 㻡 㻚㻞㻟 㻡 㻚㻥㻝 㻣 㻚㻟㻝 㻠 㻚㻠㻝 㻝 㻚㻣㻞 㻜 㻚㻠㻤 㻚㻥㻞 㻟 㻚㻤㻞 㻞 㻚㻜㻝 㻥 㻚㻢
㻝㻞㻚㻤
㻝㻤㻚㻡
㻞㻟㻚㻜
㻞㻝㻚㻤
㻝㻞㻚㻥
㻝㻡㻚㻥
㻟㻢㻚㻝
㻝㻣㻚㻤
㻝㻠㻚㻠
㻝㻝㻚㻡
㻞㻜㻚㻟
㻥㻚㻟
㻞㻟㻚㻤
㻞㻞㻚㻞

㻞㻜㻚㻟
㻝㻠㻚㻝
㻝㻥㻚㻟
㻞㻟㻚㻥
㻞㻝㻚㻥
㻝㻟㻚㻟
㻝㻡㻚㻤
㻟㻢㻚㻣
㻝㻤㻚㻤
㻝㻠㻚㻢
㻝㻞㻚㻞
㻞㻜㻚㻠
㻥㻚㻥
㻞㻠㻚㻣
㻞㻞㻚㻡

㻞㻜㻚㻞
㻝㻟㻚㻡
㻝㻥㻚㻠
㻞㻠㻚㻢
㻞㻝㻚㻣
㻝㻟㻚㻢
㻝㻢㻚㻟
㻟㻣㻚㻝
㻝㻥㻚㻞
㻝㻠㻚㻜
㻝㻞㻚㻡
㻞㻜㻚㻝
㻝㻜㻚㻣
㻞㻠㻚㻥
㻞㻝㻚㻥

㻞㻜㻚㻢
㻝㻞㻚㻢
㻝㻥㻚㻥
㻞㻠㻚㻢
㻞㻞㻚㻝
㻝㻟㻚㻢
㻝㻢㻚㻣
㻟㻣㻚㻞
㻝㻥㻚㻞
㻝㻟㻚㻤
㻝㻞㻚㻣
㻞㻜㻚㻜
㻝㻟㻚㻡
㻞㻠㻚㻣
㻞㻞㻚㻜

Source:TheJapanInstituteforLabour PolicyandTraning,Databook ofInternationalLabour
Statistics2013,basedonOECDdatabaseίhttp://stats.oecd.org/ὸJuly,2012edition.
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

15

ThecurrentissuesofpublicpensionreforminJapany CoveringpartǦtimeWorkersbyEmployee’sPensionInsurancey Ћ thenumberofnonǦstandardworkers(partǦtimeworkersanddispatched

workers)hasbeenincreasingsincethe1990s,partlybecauseoftheeconomic
needofemployerstoreducetheirlaborcosts.Thetotalnumberof
employeesin2012wasabout55million,ofwhommaleandfemalepartǦtime
workersaccountedfor28.8%.

y ReducingClassIIIinsuredpersons(Dependentspouses

whosehusbandarecoveredbyEPIandwhoseannualincomeislessthan¥1.3millioncanjoinapublicpensionplanasClassIIIinsuredpersons,anddonotneedtopay
premiumsasindividuals.)y Ћ WorkingwomenincreaseandthosewomenwhopaypensioncontributionsofEPIfeelthatitisunfairthatClassIIIinsuredpersonsdon't
payandcoveredbyEPIthroughherhusbandeligibility. Thiscriteriaof¥1.3
millionannualincomehaseconomicdisincentivetodependentspouses
reducinglaborsupplysothattheirearningsdonotexceed¥1.3million.CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

16

ThecurrentissuesofpublicpensionreforminJapan
Thepostponementofthepensionableage:
thecurrentpensionableageabasicpension: 65awagerelatedportionofemployeewelfarepension:61
thefuturepensionableage
abasicpension:olderthan65yearsofage(ex.67῍70)CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

17

InsuredPopulationbytheHealthInsuranceSystem(Thousands,AsofMarch2009)CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

18

OECDຍ┕ᅜ䛾ᅜẸ་⒪㈝䞉⥲་⒪㈝䛾≧ἣy᝻૰Ј৑ᾉẐ࠯঺25࠰༿ ࡍဃі΁ႉ୿ẑ᝻૰ዻ 2.̬ͤҔၲ
19CopyǦrightY.KanekoIPSS

TheTrendofNationalHealth
ExpendituresᅜẸ་⒪㈝䛾᥎⛣

Source:WhitePaperonHealt LaborandWelfareofJapan,2013(MHLW)NationalHealthExpenditureover
NationalIncome(NationalHealthExpenditure+
PublicHealth)overGDP

NationalHealth
Expenditure

NationalHealth
ExpenditureoverGDP

HealthCareSystemfortheElderlyPeopleCopyǦrightY.Kaneko IPSS
20

TheTrendofRateofIncreaseinNationalHealth
Expenditures(%)
NationalHealth
Expenditure
HealthCareSystemforthe
Elderly

NationalIncomey᝻૰Ј৑ᾉẐ࠯঺25࠰༿ ࡍဃі΁ႉ୿ẑ᝻૰ዻ 2.̬ͤҔၲCopyǦrightY.KanekoIPSS

21

Financialstatusofpublichealthinsurance(2009)CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

22

TheStructureofRevenuesofNationalHealth
Expenditure
StructureofRevenueAllocation
ofNationalHealthExpenditures

StructureofBurdensof
NationalHealthCareSystem

PublicFundingNational
Tax

LocalTax

Employer

Premiums

Employee

Source:WhitePaperonHealt
LaborandWelfare
ofJapan,2013
(MHLW)

CopaymentCopyǦrightY.Kaneko IPSS

23

TheStructureofAllocationofNationalHealth
ExpenditureInhospital

Hospital

HospitalOutpatient
Clinics
Clinics
Clinics

Dentisty
Medicine᝻૰Ј৑ᾉẐ࠯঺25࠰༿ ࡍဃі΁ႉ୿ẑ᝻૰ዻ
2.̬ͤҔၲ

CopyǦrightY.Kaneko IPSS

24

ThemethodofcontrolofNationalHealthExpenditurey Thepricecontrol:
y thepayment(system)formedicalservices:Thetariffsformedicalcare

servicesaredeterminedintheCentralSocialInsuranceMedical
Councily theincreaseincoǦpayment:NationalHealthInsurance:30%,
AssociationManagedHealthInsurance:10% Ѝ30%
MedicalCareSystemfortheElderlyintheLaterStageofLife:(0%Ѝ alumpǦsumamountundertheoldsystem)Ѝ10%y Thesupplysidecontrol:ThecontroloftotalnumberofbedsinLocal

HealthCareDistrictundertheplanningofallocationofnumberof
bedssupervisedbytheMinistryofHealth,LaborandWelfare(MHLW)y Regulation:ThemedicalinstitutionmustbenonǦprofit.Thenotion“nonǦprofit”meansthatfinancialsurplusfromrunningthemedical
institutioncannotbesharedtocapitalsubscriberand/orinvestor.
Financialsurplus,ifany,mustbeusedforinvestmenttothemedical
equipment,facilities,etc.orreservedasinternalreserves.
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

25

ThemethodofcontrolofNationalHealthExpenditurey thePayment(system)forMedicalServices: ThetariffsformedicalcareservicesaredeterminedintheCentralSocialInsuranceMedicalCouncil.
y TheCouncilconsistsoftherepresentativesofclinicalphysiciansandhospitals,ofinsurersinpublichealthinsurances,andofpublicinterest.
y Onceintwoyears,theCouncildeterminesandupdatesthetariffs
formedicalcareservicesaspubliclyregulatedprices.
y Theupdatesweremadebyevidencesusingtheresultsofthe
SurveyfortheFinancialSituationoftheClinicsandHospitals,
andtheresultsoftheSurveyfortheMedicalCareUtilization.The
updateisalsotheresultofthepoliticalnegotiation.
y Whenthecommitteerecognizesthatthereisneedforexpandingtheutilizationofsomeservices,butthatthelowprofitability
inhibitstheprovisionoftheservice,thenthecommittee
determinestoincreaseitspricetoinducemoremedical
institutionstoprovideit.
y TheMHLWdecidescoverageandtariffsofthemedicalservices,
basedonsuggestionfromthecouncil.
CopyǦrightY.Kaneko,IPSS

26

ѣളⲺᡭ㊃࡬ᓜ᭯䶟ф⽴Րؓ䳒᭯䶟
Hukou Reform and Social Security
Reform in China
ᕐኅᯠ
Zhanxin ZHANG
ѝഭ⽮Պ、ᆖ䲒Ӫਓоࣣࣘ㓿⍾⹄ウᡰ
Institute of Population and Labor Economics, CASS
2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

1ᕅ䀰Introduction ᡧ㉽᭩䶙о⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙˖єབྷ᭩䶙

Hukou reform and social security reform: two reformsᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙˖‫ޜ‬ᆹ䜘Competent department for hukou reform: Ministry of Public Security⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙˖Ӫ‫؍‬䜘ǃ≁᭯䜘ǃছ⭏䜘ㅹCompetent departments for social security reform: MOHRSS, Ministryof Civil Affairs, Ministry of Public Health, etc.

ᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙⹄ウо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙⹄ウ˖єབྷ亶ฏresearch on hukou reform and social security reform: two fields

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

2ᕅ䀰˄㔝˅
Introduction(Continue)ѫ仈˖Ӿ⴨ӂ‫ޣ‬㚄Ⲵ㿶䀂ⴻєབྷ᭩䶙Purpose: to examine the two reforms with a correlative perspective൘ѝഭˈᡧ㉽ࡦᓖо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌ࡦᓖ⴨ӂ‫ޣ‬㚄˄෾ґҼ‫≁ߌ˗ݳ‬ᐕ৲‫؍‬䰞仈˅
In China, hukou system and social securty system have been interrelatedѪӰѸ⴨ӂ‫ޣ‬㚄˛ᡧ㉽ࡦᓖѪ䍴Ⓚ䝽㖞ᴽ࣑
Why interrelated? The hukou system has been a device for resource allocation amongindividuals᭩䶙ᇎ䐥˖ᡧ㉽᭩䶙㕃ធˈ⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙䘋ኅᘛ
Practice: slowness of hukou reform, fast social security reformѝᗳ䇪⛩˖⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙ާᴹĀ৫ᡧ㉽䓛ԭāⲴ⢩ᖱˈᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᜿ѹл䱽
Argument: social security reform has de-hukou feature, and hence the significance of
hukou is diminishing2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

3ᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙শ〻
Process of hukou reform

80ᒤԓ઼90ᒤԓ˖ᡧਓ㇑⨶᭯ㆆⲴተ䜘䈳ᮤIn the 1980s and 1990s, partial adjustment on hukou administration

2001-2005ᒤˈᨀࠪ‫ޘ‬䶒᭩䶙ᡧ㉽ࡦᓖⲴ䇮ᜣˈնᵚ㜭ᇎᯭ
A rough reform plan was presented in 2001-2005, but it was not implemented2011ᒤˈᨀࠪĀ〟ᶱっ࿕ā᧘䘋ᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙ˈն䱫࣋‫❦׍‬ᖸབྷˈ⋑ᴹᇎ䱵䘋ኅ
In 2011 it was required to “actively and soundly” advance hukou reform, but facing strong
resistance, the reform was still no real progress

2014ᒤ7ᴸഭ࣑䲒ᨀࠪᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙Ⲵǉ᜿㿱Ǌˈߣᇊ㔏а෾ґᡧਓǃᔪ・ትտ䇱ࡦᓖˈሩн਼㿴⁑෾ᐲᇎ㹼н਼Ⲵ˄ᡧਓ˅㩭ᡧ᭯ㆆ
In July 2011 State Council issued “Opinions” about hukou reform: to unify rural and urban
hukou, to introduce residence permit system, but policies of hukou registration in cities
are different⍱ࣘӪਓ䳶ѝⲴབྷ䜭ᐲ㔗㔝ᇎ㹼㩭ᡧ䲀ࡦˈᡧ㉽ࡦᓖᖫᓅ᭩䶙䘈䴰㾱ᰦ䰤
Hukou registration in metropolitans with high floating population density is still undercontrol; it needs time to complete hukou reform

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

4⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙শ〻Process of social security reform

1978ᒤԕࡽ˖䓛ԭࡦࣣࣘቡъ‫؍‬䳌
Before 1978: status-based employment securityߌᶁᡧਓࣣࣘ㘵ᰐ㕈෾ᐲԱъⲴࣣࣘ‫؍‬䳌Rural hukou holders: no access to urban enterprises’ labor security෾ᐲӪਓѝˈਚᴹഭᴹԱһъঅս↓ᔿ㙼ᐕਟԕ㧧ᗇᆼᮤⲴቡъ‫؍‬䳌
Within cities only formal workers and staff of state units enjoyed full employment securityቡъ‫؍‬䳌Ⲵᴰࡍᖒᔿᱟ㔏ㆩᙗࣣࣘ‫؍‬䲙ˈնਾᶕᡀѪ䍒᭯ⴤ᧕䍏ᣵⲴഭᇦ‫؍‬䳌
Employment security at the beginning was labor insurance with funds pouring, but later it
became fully state resposibility through government fundingӾ80ᒤԓࡠ90ᒤԓѝᵏˈഭᴹ䜘䰘޵䜘䈅㹼ࣣࣘ‫؍‬䳌ࡦᓖ᭩䶙
From 1980s to the mid 1990s: internal reform trials in state sector

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

5⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙শ〻˄㔝˅Process of social security reform (continue)

1997-1999˖ᔪ・ቡъ‫ޣ‬㚄⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ
1997-1999: to establish job-related social insurance schemes෾䭷㙼ᐕสᵜޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ˄1997˅˗෾䭷㙼ᐕสᵜ५⯇‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ˄1998˅˗ཡъ‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ˄1999˅Urban workers’ basic pension scheme(1997), unban workers’ basic medicalcare
scheme(1998), and unemployment insurance scheme(1999)ᯠᔪⲴ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ਽ѹкн޽ተ䲀ҾഭᴹԱъˈੁᡰᴹԱъⲴࣣࣘ㘵ᔰ᭮The new schemes norminally opened to labors employed by all enterprises, no longer
limited to state-owned enterprisesᇎ䱵кˈ൘䘉аᰦᵏˈഭᴹԱъ㙼ᐕᱟ᭩䶙䟽⛩ˈަԆԱъⲴઈᐕаᰦ䘈⋑ᴹ㻛㾶ⴆIn reality during this period only state workers were covered by the new schemes, laborsin other enterprises were not⋑ᴹ෾ᐲᡧਓⲴߌ≁ᐕн㜭৲‫ˈ؍‬৏ഐᱟ᤹➗ᖃᰦⲴ⌅㿴᭯ㆆˈԆԜн኎ҾĀ෾ᐲ㙼ᐕā
Rural migrant workers to cities without urben hukou were not eligible to participate
because they were treated as an aliens labor force according to policies then2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

6⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙শ〻˄㔝˅Process of social security reform (continue) 2004 - ˖ᨀॷ⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌ࡦᓖⲴवᇩᙗ

2004 - ˖inclusive reform on social securityᐕՔ‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ˄2004˅俆⅑᰾⺞Ҷߌ≁ᐕⲴᒣㅹ‫؍‬䲙ᵳ
Job-injury insurance scheme (2004) firstly defined equal rights for rural migrantlabors

ǉ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙⌅Ǌ˄2010˅㿴ᇊˈߌ≁ᐕо෾ᐲᵜൠࣣࣘ㘵аṧ৲࣐⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙
According to Social Insurance Law (2010), rural migrant workers participate insocial insurance with the same terms and conditions as local labors2014ᒤ2ᴸˈഭ࣑䲒ߣᇊ㔏а෾ґት≁ޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ
In Feb.2014, State Council decided to unify rural and urban residents pension
systems

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

7⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙ⲴĀ৫෾ґᡧ㉽䓛ԭā᜿ѹSocial security reform˖diminishing significance of rural andurban hukou difference⭡Ҿк䘠वᇩᙗ᭩䶙ˈ෾ґᡧਓᐞ࡛ሩ⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌ᖵ䙷Ⲵᖡ૽ᐢ㓿нབྷҶThanks to these inclusive reforms, the impact of rural-urban hukou division on social
security attainments has become much less than beforeߌᶁት≁ˈᰐ䇪ᱟཆࠪᢃᐕ䘈ᱟᵜൠޫ㘱ˈо෾ᐲࣣࣘ㘵ᡆት≁਼ㅹᖵ䙷
Rural residents, no matter outwork or get pension, enjoy the same rights and interests as urban hukou
holders෾ґት≁५⯇‫؍‬䲙ሶᖸᘛ㔏аThe rural and urban residents medicalcare schemes will soon be unified਴ൠⲴ෾ґት≁ᴰվ⭏⍫‫؍‬䳌ᖵ䙷䘈ᴹᐞ࡛˗㔏а෾ґᡧਓѻਾˈ൘ߌъӪਓབྷⴱˈ䘉⿽ᐞ࡛ਟ㜭䘈Պᔦ㔝а⇥ᰦᵏ
Nowadays the minimal standards of live for rural residents and urban residents are in generaldefferent, and this disparity may keep for a period of time in provinces with large proportion ofagricultural population⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙઼ަԆवᇩᙗ᭩䶙Ѫ㔏а෾ґᡧਓࡋ䙐ҶสᵜᶑԦSocial security reform and other inclusieve reforms provide basic pre-conditions forunifying rural and urban hukou

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

8ᡧਓ䘈ᴹ⭘ੇ˛ᵜൠᡧਓо䶎ᵜൠᡧਓ
Does hukou still matter? Local hukou vs. non-local hukouᇎֻ˖෾ґት≁สᵜޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ᖵ䙷
The case of rural and urban residents’ basic pension insurance৲࣐෾ґት≁สᵜޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙Ⲵ䍴Ṭ˖ᵜൠᡧਓት≁Eligibility to residents’ pension insurance˖local hukou holderส⹰ޫ㘱䠁ᖵ䙷(2013)˖ेӜ430‫ݳ‬/ᴸˈ⋣े55‫ݳ‬/ᴸ
Base pension (2013): Beijing 430 yuan per month, Hebei province 55 yuan per monthަԆተ䲀Ҿᵜൠᡧਓት≁Ⲵ⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌˖ᴰվ⭏⍫‫؍‬䳌䍴Ṭǃ‫؍‬䳌ᡯ⭣䈧䍴Ṭˈ䶎↓㿴ቡъ㘵⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙㧧ᗇˈㅹㅹ
Other items of social security limited to local hukou residents: minimon
standard of live, security housing, social security for informal employees, etc.

⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌ѻཆⲴḀӋสᵜ‫ޡޜ‬ᴽ࣑˖ൠᯩ᭯ㆆкᡆһᇎкᧂᯕ䶎ᵜൠᡧਓӪਓ
Some basic public survices beyond social security maybe de jure or de facto
exclusive against people without local hukou

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

9ࡍ↕㔃䇪о䇘䇪
Tentative conclusions and discussion⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙൘䐘෾ґवᇩᯩ䶒ਆᗇ᰾ᱮ䘋ኅˈᴹ࡙Ҿᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙
Social security reform has achieved a lot in rural and urban inclusion,
which considerablly facilitates hukou reform⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⧠㹼փࡦࠪ⧠Ҷ᰾ᱮⲴൠ४࠶ࢢ䰞仈ˈ൘аᇊ〻ᓖкѪᡧ㉽ࡦᓖĀ‫؍‬٬ā — 䍻Ҹᵜൠᡧਓԕൠᯩ‫≁ޜ‬ᵳⲴ᜿ѹǄ䘉о⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙઼ᡧ㉽᭩䶙ⲴᲞ䙽ᙗ˄‫≁ޜ‬䓛ԭ˅৏ࡉна㠤
Current social security system has encountered obvious regional
segmentation problems, which to a certain extent reserves the value ofthe hukou system, given local hukou the significance of local
citizenship. This is inconsistant to the universal (citizenship) principleof social security reform and hukou reform⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌Ⲵла↕᭩䶙㾱᧘䘋䐘ൠ४वᇩ
Further reform of social security should emphasize inter-regional
inclusiveness2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

10ࡍ↕㔃䇪о䇘䇪˄㔝˅Tentative conclusions and discussion (continue)⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙оᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙ˈࡽ㘵ާᴹѫሬᙗǄഐ↔ˈᡧ㉽ࡦᓖ᭩䶙䘋ኅнᱟᓖ䟿ѝഭ㓿⍾⽮Պ䖜රⲴྭⲴᤷḷǄSocial security reform has been dominant. Therefore, the progress of
hukou reform cannot surve as a good indicator of China’s socioeconomic transition.

⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌᭩䶙ᱟᵳ࡙൷ㅹॆ᭩䶙Ⲵѫփ䜘࠶Social security reform is the major part of ongoing rights equalizing
reforms᧘䘋ԕᲞ䙽ᙗ‫≁ޜ‬䍴ṬѪⴞḷⲴᵳ࡙൷ㅹॆ᭩䶙ˈ䴰㾱⋫⨶ӪѪⲴൠ४ᐞ䐍
To advance rights equalizing reforms toward universal citizenship, it isnecessary to handle artificially created regional inequality

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

11

䉒䉒਴սʽ
Thanks!

2014ᒤ9ᴸ15ᰕѝᰕӪਓо⽮Պ‫؍‬䳌⹄䇘Պ(ेӜ)

12ᰕᵜᔰਁ㘱ᒤӪ࣋䍴ⓀⲴ㓿傼৺੟⽪
ᰛᵢʌ儎喘㘻䳽⭞ሴㆌʆѣളʖʌ⽰଼ѝഭ⽮Պ、ᆖ䲒ᰕᵜ⹄ウᡰб㤡丶ᒤᴸᰕѫ㾱޵ᇩаǃᰕᵜᔰਁ㘱ᒤӪ࣋䍴ⓀⲴ㛼ᲟҼǃᰕᵜᔰਁ㘱ᒤӪ࣋䍴ⓀⲴሩㆆйǃᰕᵜ㘱ᒤӪቡъ⣦ߥഋǃሩᡁഭⲴ੟⽪жȽᰛᵢʉɨɯʩ儎喘㘻䳽⭞‫׹‬䙨ʌ㜂ᲥӂȽᰛᵢʌ儎喘㘻䳽⭞ሴㆌпȽᰛᵢ儎喘㘻ʌቧᾣ⣬⋷഑Ƚѣളʖʌ⽰଼୍ࠊᰕᵜᔰਁ㘱ᒤӪ࣋䍴ⓀⲴ㛼Ჟᰛᵢʉɨɯʩ儎喘㘻䳽⭞‫׹‬䙨ʌ㜂Ქ஋ଞӪਓቁᆀ㘱喴ॆⲴ࣐ࢗሬ㠤ࣣࣘᒤ喴ӪਓⲴ߿ቁቇᆆ儎喘ौʌ䙨ኋʍ࣪‫࣑܃‬Ӱਙʌ⑑ቇʰʠɽʧɵɽଟ஌ଞޫ㘱䠁ࡦᓖⲴ᭩䶙ᒪ䠇࡬ᓜʌ᭯䶟஍ଞᰕᵜ㘱ᒤӪ৲оĀᐕ֌ǃࣣࣘāⲴ〟ᶱᙗ䶎ᑨ儈Ǆᰛᵢ儎喘㘻ʌቧᾣᝅⅨɪ儎ɢȾᰕᵜӪਓᒤ喴㔃ᶴ৺ᡰঐ∄⦷Ⲵਈॆᰛᵢᒪ喘࡛Ӱਙ਀ʑໍࣖ⦽ʌ༿ौ䠄㻑䠅
ᖺᗘ

0Ͳ14Ⱙ

15Ͳ6䠐Ⱙ

65Ⱙẍᶲ

1970

23.9

69.0

7.1

1980

23.5

67.4

9.1

1990

18.2

69.7

12.1

1995

16.0

69.5

14.6

1997

15.3

69.3

15.4

2000

14.6

68.1

17.4

2005

13.8

66.1

20.2

2010

13.1

63.8

23.0

2011

13.1

63.6

23.3

2012

13.0

62.9

24.1

2013

12ˊ8

62.1

25ˊ1

㘱喴ॆ䘋ኅᛵߥоሶᶕ亴⍻儎喘ौʌ᧞〱ʆሼᶛ᧞䀾ޫ㘱䠁㔉Ԉᒤ喴Ⲵᨀ儈ᛵߥᒪ䠇ʌ᭥㎜䯁ခᒪ喘ʌᕋɫрɰ
2013ᖺ4᭶1᪥Ͳ2016ᖺ3᭶31᪥

61↣2016ᖺ4᭶1᪥Ͳ2019ᖺ3᭶31᪥

62↣2019ᖺ4᭶1᪥Ͳ2022ᖺ3᭶31᪥

63↣2022ᖺ4᭶1᪥Ͳ2025ᖺ3᭶31᪥

64↣2025ᒤ4ᴸ1ᰕ——

65↣㘱ᒤӪ䘰Ձ৺䘰Ձᰦᵪቧᾣʉʂɢʄʌᕋ䘶਀ʑᕋ䘶ᱸᵕ

ᰛᵢᒩൽስળʆ‫ڛ‬ᓭስળʌ༿ौ

㘱ᒤӪ‫ڕ‬ᓧ⣦ߥо५⯇Ⲵഭ䱵∄䖳儎喘㘻ʌ‫ڛ‬ᓭ⣬ខʆॱⱸʌള䳑∊䔹褨ଞ襲莇ᘙ⍹腆羭襖脇峬袂訝⮡谕
ᰛᵢʌ儎喘㘻䳽⭞ሴㆌ஋ଞ⌘䟽⌅ᖻ‫؍‬䳌ࡦᓖ⌋࡬ᓜ᮪‫ۏ‬ʌ䠃㿌襲莇蠸YWXZ羭[袎X襲ᘙ藮⭆藶腦蕮紮轫訝ଲ腆羭襖賗᷂䧛話茽ଳஆ奬話缧᷂袼ᷱ≉亏井緵ఽ覇袼縒覥褙衽訝␀縒譱]\Ⱙக㈑耵亏井緵ఽ腆羭襖訝缧᷂茼⚜க誡話腦䙹縸誡聏ଟɇ儎喘㘻䳽⭞ᆿᇐ⌋Ɉφᑂᵑ㘻‫ޞ‬ଗʰ↩ʜʅ㏏㏐䳽⭞χ㏏㏐䳽⭞‫ݾ‬ʌㇺനʰᤗཝχ㗟ए䚋ਃʌԷᾣʉሴɷʩ‫ޢ‬㺞㿅ᇐʌቄ‫ޛ‬஌ଞ䟽㿶㘱ᒤᮉ㛢儎喘㘻ᮏ㛨ʌ䠃㿌
X`\[G羭学臎腦ˈᑑ舯Ꮫ◊纛఍ˉ
X`_[G羭罞ᘙ訸腆羭ᏛḈ苕ଞ譝衽覝茍඿孚謃
X``WG羭誡話଴蒥蚈ᏛḈ讂ℜ詹⢯茽ଵ
X``[羭緸ບ⇃臎腆羭耵Ꮫ葱ଞᰕᵜ㘱ᒤӪቡъ⣦ߥᰛᵢ儎喘㘻ʌቧᾣ⣬⋷ṩ ᦞᒤᴸⲴ㔏䇑ˈᰕᵜ኱ԕк㘱ᒤӪⲴቡъӪᮠ൘ᒤ䗮ࡠҶзӪˈ∄каᒤ໎࣐Ҷˈঐᰕᵜቡъ㘵ᮤփⲴ∄ֻ俆⅑䎵䗷Ҷˈ䘉ཊቁ㕃䀓Ҷࣣࣘ࣋н䏣䰞仈Ǆн਼ᒤ喴ቲࣣࣘ৲о⦷ՠ⍻ᒪ喘࡛࣪‫⦽࣑܃‬ʌሼᶛ᧞〱δᒪεஂ༢袑ஔஃ

ᒤ喴
ᙫᮠ
15̚19
20̚24
25̚29
30̚34
5̚39
40̚44
45̚49
50̚54
55̚59
60̚64
65̚69
70̚74
75̚79
80̚84
85኱ԕ
к

ᙫᮠ
⭧
ྣ
2010
2020
2030
2010
2020
2030
2010 2020ᒤ 2030ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
ᒤ
59.7
57.8
56.4
71.8
68.7
67.9
48.4
47.6
45.9
14.9
15.2
15.3
14.1
14.1
14.3
15.8
16.2
16.3
68.5
67.3
67.9
67.7
63.8
65.2
69.3
70.9
70.8
85.7
85.8
86.1
93.6
93.3
94.0
77.1
77.9
78.0
82.1
83.2
83.2
96.0
96.2
96.4
67.6
69.6
69.4
81.6
82.9
83.2
97.0
96.8
97.0
66.0
68.5
68.5
84.3
86.0
86.4
96.8
96.8
97.1
71.4
75.0
75.3
86.2
87.9
88.7
96.8
96.9
97.1
75.4
78.7
80.1
84.4
85.4
85.5
96.1
96.0
96.4
72.5
74.6
74.4
78.0
79.0
79.7
92.9
92.3
93.0
63.3
65.9
66.4
60.4
65.4
68.3
75.8
82.0
86.1
45.6
49.4
51.0
37.6
43.3
46.2
48.7
54.5
59.2
27.3
32.8
34.0
22.2
26.9
28.9
29.7
33.5
36.2
16.0
21.0
22.4
12.7
14.5
16.8
18.6
19.4
21.7
8.6
10.6
12.7
7.3
7.2
8.9
11.2
10.6
11.9
4.5
4.9
6.6
2.6
2.4
2.9
4.8
4.4
4.6
1.5
1.5
2.0

ᆎ൞ɷʩ அ亂⛯ǃሩԱъⲴᖡ૽ 䠄Էᾣʖʌᖧ丵䠅㔉Աъ໎࣐ҶӪ࣋䍩Ⲵ䍏ᣵǄԱъⴞࡽѪ→䜭ᱟԕ㙼ᐕ኱䘰ՁѪࡽᨀˈࡦᇊҶӪһǃᐕ䍴ㅹࡦᓖˈ㘼ᇎ㹼኱䘰Ձࡦᓖԕਾˈަ᭟ԈⲴ䍏ᣵҏ໎࣐ҶǄǃሩᒤ䖫ӪቡъⲴᖡ૽ 䠄㤛㘻ቧᾣʖʌᖧ丵䠅ᰕᵜᒤቡъӪᮠ∄ᒤ໎࣐ҶзӪˈնᱟࣣࣘ䘲喴Ӫਓ˄኱˅∄кᒤ߿ቁҶзӪˈަѝ
߿ቁᴰཊⲴᱟᒤ䖫ӪⲴቡъ⦷Ǆ䘉њ৏ഐѻаᱟ኱ӽ
൘ᐕ֌ⲴӪࠪ⧠໎࣐Ǆн਼ᒤ喴ቲཡъ⦷ᒪ喘࡛ཧᾣ⦽᧞〱萭ଞ⮡虇ᅜ訝ྐྵ藽ஂѣളʖʌ⽰଼ஃѣളʌӰਙ儎喘ौʆ࣪‫࣑܃‬⣬⋷詗譱YWXZ羭觽ஆ虇ᅜ]WⰩ褩葽訝腆羭襖纁貄彯᷌ṧஆ詞⿣襖纁訝X[U`Lஆ]\Ⱙ褩葽訝腆羭襖詞⿣襖纁訝`U^Lଟ缃絆ᅜ粴亇孉纰⍹跃訝ᩘ絆ஆYWXY羭虇ᅜX\Ⱙ褩葽莙㺉]W謍Ⱙ訝≛≐羭漬襖纁菲譇薨评踆紤ஆ缩亅⮡㔘ⅷ蔯腦Z[\臟ଟஂ襮ஃ誡話蒒ය茽膗誡聏ஆ賂荫⭆蹥⻡蔒粮覞衽訝赫辏誡聏藷ය擖ଟ虇ᅜ䍘蹥赫辏羭漬ஆ羖蔒]W謍Ⱙஆ羬糗莾\\謍Ⱙஆ羬縒襖\W謍Ⱙଟ襀艘訲ஆ虇ᅜ襖纁趮绰ᑑ舯㎹聇腦^[Ⱙஆ蔏藳襖纁趮绰羭漬褰乷彦聇腦_WⰩଟ襜诅 ஆ袼跼蠔谑賓㶸徃蘉赫辏苷蘉ஆ缃絆舌୭腆羭襖訝褙衽෩
話赫辏羭漬ଟ
ѣള⨴൞ʌ⌋ᇐᇐᒪ䘶㚭ᒪ喘ʍ⭭ᙝςμ↩Ƚྩᙝᒯ䜞ρρ↩Ƚྩᙝᗉᾣଗρμ↩ʆʈʁʄɢʩɪȽɱʌᒪ喘ʌཐɭʌ࣪‫܃‬㘻ʍʜɾʜɾ‫ڛ‬ᓭʅɠʨȽ≍࣑ʠ‫ݻ‬ᇕɵʄɢʩȾ ѣളӰਙᒩൽስળʍ↩ʅȽ䜳ᐸӰਙʌᒩൽስળʍ↩Ⱦஂ褨ஃ耵脇⍹訸腆羭襖俴᷂紦乵蔱ஆ赂絖腆羭襖訝賗᷂趮赊ஆ缃絆腆羭襖訝赴攧ଞℜ賝貢骡菲弫繂踵訝縒覥ⰿ袑ଟ
儎喘㘻Ӱᶆː̈˔̌ʰ䁣㄁ɵȽ儎喘㘻ʌ䊀ɩʈ⸛䆎ʆ㎂偉ʰ⭕ɩɷȾ寊 寊࠶ࡾࡀ࡜࠺ࡈࡊ࠸ࡲࡍ

ѝഭ㘱ᒤӪⲴ㋮⾎‫ڕ‬ᓧ৺ަ‫؍‬䳌tGoGGpGG
jGl⸣䠁㗔ѝഭ⽮、䲒⽮Պᆖ⹄ウᡰ

Jinqun Shi
IOS.CASS
Ǐ 2014. 9.15 ǐѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ襮ଞ子孢訝茕綝ஂiPz XU腆羭襖莙ṭ袼乷㳶縍඿輁蒥輥請腪肪芓峐苷舩訝薦蠔ஆ蚘袼誐蘡苷舩訝薦蠔ଟ覥ᷢ㺉諨腆羭襖缮莇薦蠔訝訝腆羭荦觢闬緊趽踪乷㳶荦觢ଞ蒥輥請腪荦觢輁誐蘡絔紓荦觢葱覝觥ෆଟuG GG GGGSGSGGGGGUG{GT
G G GGGG
GGGGG UGlGGSG
GGGGGGGG
GUѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ

z YU腆羭誐蘡絔紓荦觢觥譄ᅜ訝苇詖蔒

{G GGTGGGGG
Gj

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶii

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ

ZUᅜෆය蠸腆羭襖誐蘡絔紓荦觢訝子孢kGGGGTGGGG

Xஃ蠔莙蠔荦ஙˁˁᏭ藷襮校攧径訝葅఍㇀胧ஆ翯ᷢ腆羭乷㳶荦觢輁་䔿荦觢誨縍綟軆訝荼≉ଟ
{GfˁˁTGGG GGGT
GG UG
Yஃ荦蘼஄ஙˁˁ荦觢腆羭襖缮莇訝葅఍繠蟦薦纓輁詶糸繠膄薦纓ஆ栬茈糉⛇腆羭誐蘡让荠ஂ蛰腆羭賲锒譓ଞ腆羭蛗衟譓肪ஃ訝⍹蒥ଟ{GGGfˁˁpGGGGGG
GGGGGGG G
UwGGGGG GUZஃ宩㜍荦ஙஙஙˁˁ~GGGGGGGGG
 fѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ蝊ૠය褹袄责臧苯部竘jGG Gය褹袄ୖ宩㜍膈蠄罨総蝸蠿袲葃筶笵୛maG~GGGGGGG f臧苯部竘ୖ袢萫覃覀鐎篬责舭袢萫覃覀鐎篬h GmaGmGGGG G粴詳ଞṚⰆଞ恣膻肪m SGGSuS詸莧ଞ藳⛢ଞ萋反膦乬乯nSGtG
TG¡腆羭襖訝誐蘡絔紓
tGGGGGGGGGG
ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶйǃ࠶᷀h 
XU萋誀蘉譡譞闬緊訝譡譞pGGGG G
攧缽褩᮶ஆ萋誀蘉譡譞闬緊襮譺觥譄ᅜ腆羭襖訝誐蘡譡譞譄菍蜢貟謆蠔訝糐蒣ଟ翺㝶诎譄ᅜ縒᷂輀ଞ蔏擯輀訝⍹訸ஆ≛≐脇訝㎼褾ஆ粴詳奬艇蔮躧輀肪肪ஆ征萢豭乏纷闬觥譡譞腆羭襖訝誐蘡絔紓譡譞彯誎譄衒聇腦襮緊脛訝聒㇀ଟ
{GGG GGG GGGGGG
GGGG GGjUGiGGG
GGGGjG¡SGG¡SGSGGG¡GGGG SGUGGpGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGG GG
ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ粴詳 mz ⅄貐譛༊ Gz ˈ縙蔰緘඿ˉѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶˈ徃蔏縀඿ˉ

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶˈ魚ᘙ菅඿ˉ

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ蔏藳譛༊裍蠸絲脞訝俴⛢䪆ḱଞ᪸峝訝蔏藳蒥輥耲紧ଞ羭弣襖⮡䊔臎覞謆蒥輥訝蹧蟦ଞ粴詳奬艇訝仑蔮肪ஆ絖臎觥翶覐羬᮲絓踆訝Ỉ亇粴詳譡譞艇蘉晦褩⸼⮡⻻訲訝躨≧薦蠔ଟ賆䍘粴詳蔔␀蘪蘴⌳脇彯耵ଞ粴詳艎藃譍翶訝䍘蒙ଟ茜蠺蔔腦粴詳貟謆蠔訝誐蘡譡譞峬袂ଟiGGGGGGSGG
GG GSGG¡GG GGSG
GG G¡SGUG{GG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGUGyG GG
GUG{GGGGGGG
GGG Uzѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶṚⰆOyP
YWW_羭譄ᅜ葅縢袋葅఍Ꮫ蔱ˈ螘蔏藳粴詳乻㜬輁粴詳ය緊ˉ宦桀宫㞍㗦藽ஆ躥誦觼舆藷\蔏藳粴詳貟ᷢ芴詖訝ṚⰆℛ緊ஆ^WL褩
葽訝粴詳୚識荦譞诎根茬訝襲蒇軂≐ଟ莙彯征䥵蕻諨識斜訝詶糸袙覡誀襜ᷢ躥誦觼舆ᩘ訝෿蔯ଞ膄≐肪衴襜襀෿蚣ଟ
{GGGIGm GzGGm GyGGGmGjGGjˉG GG GpvzSjhzzGGYWW_G GGGGGGGGUGtGG^WLG GGG GGGGGGGGUGiGGGGGGGGSGGGGSGGGGG
GGUѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ恣膻 u
觥⅄貐葅༊ஆ裍蠸襖Ẕ絃謇菲弫緖話ஆ蒥輥乷⌮菲弫襮賹ஆ耵粴蒥輥觥襮୭菲弫薲蘱訝葅༊膻ஆ菲弫蠦蜇躨蔔裾辪訝恣膻ය緊ஆ恣絃觥㺉諨腆羭襖訝詶糸繠膄輁葅఍繠蟦薦蠔葽覇⍹㋍襮話訝覥蠯ଟ蔏藳葅༊ஆ裍蠸葅༊膻訝ᘛ峐蔒ଞ緷膄≐蔒ଞ臼腏訝蒥輥刪謏ஆ褰乷鲾晦糠奩蓋襲訝恣膻ය緊ଟpGGSGGGGGG GG
GG SGGG GGGGG
UGuGG GGGGGG
GGGGGGGGG GGGU
UGGG
ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ

YU誀蘉譡譞闬緊訝譡譞pGGGG G
詸莧OnGP¾ 藳⛢輁萋反膦乬乯OtGGTG¡P¾

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ萭ଞ乻孢ᶶ詸谕⸼⮡jGG GXUG誀蘉譡譞詸莧㊍袼襮緊脛萋誀蘉譡譞闬緊輁缩贓萋詸莧乬乯蔱莙繾⢯訝㈏蹥翯脇輁詸谕蕻耂ଟ詸莧訝謆蠔覥蠯觥ஔ茽膗詸谕訝誡話க襖觧輁峬罬訝走覂க荼≉闬緊訝繜奪䙹聲輁縸膱கˈ諫腆ଞ綜腆ଞ譇奮腆羭襖誐蘡栮蜅薦纓ˉ訝芉輀闲⚜訝反諠葽⍹㋍覞缶訝⊂赴覥蠯ଟ
z nGGG GGGG GG
GGG GGGTG
¡GGGUG{GGGGGG
GTGGGGGaG{G
GGGG bGGGGbGG
GGGGG bGGG
GGGSGGG GG GGGGGGGG Uѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ

YUG賉菅宫≐藳⛢輁萋反膦乬乯觥誐蘡඿腆栮蜅訝䦗㜩蔒ଟz m G¡GGGGGGGTG¡GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GU

ѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ

ZUG褩粴詳ᷢ譄蘴訝萋誀蘉譡譞闬緊访誻詶糸缮䟨㜬絖腦襮୭峋襷訝ଞ謆≐輁⅋輥訝譡譞緊亇ଟ௕攧径㜍糠ஆ譡譞葅఍輀藷葅఍徃荫訝跼蜥崳≧ஆ翺觥誡聏学孉輁⭆藶㖞ஆ蠔譇奮粴詳艆萢莙粯蟯褾輁豥耲訝縐翯ଟ薦誡話襮萢粴詳詸谕ஆ荦觢貟缮莇訝詶糸繠膄ଞṚ詶斖轩輁贽臽ଟ脸蛰蔏藳魚㎼㖞ஆᑾ胴亜譞衴袼訝ṚⰆ葅༊ஆ絖臎ˈ⨒亄蘉ˉ粴詳க絖臎蘝躧訝恣膻
ය緊肪肪ଟ
z {G TGGG GGGGGGG
GGGGGSGGG
GGG UGm GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
SG GGGGUGmGGG G
GSGGGGGG GGG
GGITIG GbGGGGGGUGUѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶz 寊寊脱颽୻z {G GGHѣള⽴Ր〇ᆜ䲘⽴Րᆜ⹊ガᡶ୰ᅜ♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔ᖺ᭶᪥

᪥ᮏ䛾௓ㆤไᗘ䛸ᮾ䜰䝆䜰䜈䛾ᨻ⟇ⓗ♧၀䠎䠌䠍䠐ᖺ䠕᭶䠍䠑᪥ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤᐊ㛗㻌 ᑠᓥ㻌 ඞஂ
Conflict of Interest (COI) of the Presenter䠖No potential COI to disclose

China Academy of Social Science
Beijing, China
15th September 2014

Long-term Care System inJapan - Implications to East
Asian policies Katsuhisa KOJIMANational Institute of Population and Social Security Research(IPSS)
Senior Research fellow
Conflict of Interest (COI) of the Presenter䠖No potential COI to disclose䠍䠊᪥ᮏ䛾㧗㱋໬䛸㧗㱋⪅䜢ᕠ䜛ኚ໬㻠㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜

㻠㻡㻚㻜㻑㻔㻝㻟㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕㻠㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜
㻔㻝㻞㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

ᐇ⦼್

ᖹᆒᑑ࿨
䠄ᖺ䠅

᥎ィ್

⥲ேཱྀ
䠄ᕥഃ䠄 䠅ෆ
┠┒䜚䠅

㻠㻜㻚㻜㻑

㻟㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜

㻟㻡㻚㻜㻑

㧗㱋⪅
ேཱྀ

㻔㻝㻜㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕㻟㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜

㻟㻜㻚㻜㻑㻔㻥㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

㻢㻡䡚㻣㻠ṓ

㻞㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜

㧗㱋⪅䛾ᡤᚓ᱁ᕪ䞉㈋ᅔ⋡⾲䚷ᖹᆒᑑ࿨䛾ື䛝ᅗ ᪥ᮏ䛾㧗㱋໬䠄㻝㻥㻡㻜䡚㻞㻜㻢㻜ᖺ䠅䠄㻝㻘㻜㻜㻜ே㻕

㻞㻡㻚㻜㻑

⏨

ዪ

㻝㻥㻠㻣ᖺ

㻡㻜㻚㻜㻢

㻝㻥㻢㻜ᖺ

䛒䜛ᖺ㱋䜎䛷⏕Ꮡ䛩䜛⪅䛾๭ྜ
䠄䠂䠅

⏨

ዪ

㻢㻡ṓ

㻤㻜ṓ

㻢㻡ṓ

㻤㻜ṓ

㻡㻟㻚㻥㻢

㻟㻥㻚㻤

㻥㻚㻡

㻠㻥㻚㻝

㻝㻣㻚㻟

㻢㻡㻚㻟㻞

㻣㻜㻚㻝㻥

㻢㻠㻚㻤

㻞㻜㻚㻝

㻣㻡㻚㻞

㻟㻟㻚㻤

㻝㻥㻤㻜ᖺ

㻣㻟㻚㻟㻡

㻣㻤㻚㻣㻢

㻣㻥㻚㻠

㻟㻣㻚㻤

㻤㻤㻚㻡

㻡㻣㻚㻜

㻞㻜㻜㻜ᖺ

㻣㻣㻚㻣㻞

㻤㻠㻚㻢㻜

㻤㻠㻚㻣

㻡㻞㻚㻡

㻥㻞㻚㻢

㻣㻠㻚㻡

㻞㻜㻝㻟ᖺ

㻤㻜㻚㻞㻝

㻤㻢㻚㻢㻝

㻤㻤㻚㻜

㻢㻝㻚㻜

㻥㻟㻚㻥

㻤㻜㻚㻜

㈨ᩱ䠖ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂᏶඲⏕࿨⾲䛃䚸䛂⡆᫆⏕࿨⾲䛃ᕷሙ ྍฎศ
ᡤᚓᡤᚓ㻜㻚㻡㻝㻜 㻜㻚㻟㻣㻟㻜㻚㻢㻜㻡 㻜㻚㻟㻢㻥㻜㻚㻢㻠㻤 㻜㻚㻟㻡㻥㻜㻚㻢㻤㻠 㻜㻚㻟㻠㻤㻜㻚㻢㻥㻠 㻜㻚㻟㻠㻝㻟㻡㻚㻤㻑 㻞㻟㻚㻞㻑㻠㻤㻚㻤㻑 㻞㻟㻚㻜㻑㻡㻡㻚㻠㻑 㻞㻝㻚㻞㻑㻢㻝㻚㻡㻑 㻞㻝㻚㻣㻑㻢㻠㻚㻞㻑 㻝㻥㻚㻠㻑

㻝㻥㻤㻡
㻝㻥㻥㻠
㻞㻜㻜㻜
㻞㻜㻜㻢
㻞㻜㻜㻥
㻝㻥㻤㻡
㈋ᅔ⋡ 㻝㻥㻥㻠
䠄㻻㻱㻯㻰 㻞㻜㻜㻜ᇶ‽䠅 㻞㻜㻜㻢
㻞㻜㻜㻥
䝆䝙ಀ
ᩘ䠄➼
౯ᑻ
ᗘ䠅

㈨ᩱ䠖ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂ᅜẸ⏕άᇶ♏ㄪᰝ䛃䛻ᇶ䛵䛟ヨ⟬⤖ᯝ㻔㻣㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

㻞㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜
㧗㱋໬⋡䠄ྑ┠┒䜚䠅

㻥㻜㻚㻜㻝㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻣㻡ṓ௨ୖேཱྀ๭ྜ䠄ྑ┠┒䜚䠅

㻔㻠㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

㻝㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜
㻔㻟㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

㻤㻜㻚㻜

㻝㻡㻚㻜㻑

㻣㻜㻚㻜

㻝㻜㻚㻜㻑

㻣㻡ṓ௨ୖ

㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜

⏨ዪู䞉㻞㻜㻝㻟ᖺ
୍ேᬽ䜙䛧
ኵ፬䛾䜏
㻢㻥㻚㻜
Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸ྠᒃ
㻡㻥㻚㻣

⏨ᛶ
㻝㻝㻚㻢
㻠㻣㻚㻢
㻟㻢㻚㻤

ኵ፬䛾䜏
Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸ྠᒃ
㠀ぶ᪘䛸ྠᒃ
㻠㻞㻚㻞

㻠㻜㻚㻜

㻟㻟㻚㻝

㻠㻜㻚㻜

㻞㻜㻚㻜

䜂䛸䜚ᬽ䜙䛧

㻠㻥㻚㻝

㻡㻜㻚㻜

㻟㻜㻚㻜

㻡㻚㻜㻑

㻔㻝㻡㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕

ዪᛶ
㻞㻞㻚㻠
㻟㻝㻚㻠
㻠㻞㻚㻡

䛭䛾௚䛾ぶ᪘䛸ྠᒃ

㻢㻜㻚㻜

๭ྜ

㻔㻢㻜㻘㻜㻜㻜㻕ᅗ ᐙ᪘ᙧែู䛻ぢ䛯䠄ᅾᏯ䛾䠅㧗㱋⪅䛾๭ྜ䠄㻝㻥㻤㻜䡚㻞㻜㻝㻟ᖺ䠅

㻔㻑㻕
㻝㻜㻜㻚㻜

㻞㻜㻚㻜㻑

㻞㻡㻚㻣
㻝㻠㻚㻝

㻟㻣㻚㻞
㻝㻢㻚㻥

㻟㻤㻚㻡
㻝㻣㻚㻣

㻞㻜㻜㻜ᖺ

㻞㻜㻝㻜ᖺ

㻞㻜㻝㻟ᖺ

㻝㻥㻚㻢
㻤㻚㻡

㻝㻝㻚㻞

㻝㻥㻤㻜ᖺ

㻝㻥㻥㻜ᖺ

㻝㻜㻚㻜

㻜

㻜㻚㻜㻑
㻝㻥㻡㻜 㻢㻜㻣㻜㻤㻜㻥㻜 㻞㻜㻜㻜 㻝㻜

㻞㻜

㻟㻜

㻠㻜

㻜㻚㻜

㻡㻜 㻢㻜ᖺ㈨ᩱ䠖㻞㻜㻝㻜ᖺ䜎䛷䛿⥲ົ┬⤫ィᒁ䛂ᅜໃㄪᰝ䛃䚸㻞㻜㻞㻜ᖺ௨㝆䛿ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛂᪥ᮏ䛾ᑗ᮶᥎ィேཱྀ䠄ᖹᡂ㻞㻠ᖺ䠍᭶᥎ィ䠅䛃㈨ᩱ䠖㻝㻥㻤㻜ᖺ䛿ཌ⏕┬኱⮧ᐁᡣ⤫ィ᝟ሗ㒊䛂ཌ⏕⾜ᨻᇶ♏ㄪᰝ䛃䚸㻝㻥㻥㻜ᖺ௨㝆䛿ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂ᅜẸ⏕άᇶ♏
ㄪᰝ䛃ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

1.Population Aging and Related Changes in Japan
7DEOH/LIH([SHFWDQF\LQ-DSDQ,QFRPH,QHTXDOLW\RIWKH(OGHUO\LQ-DSDQ/LIH([SHFWDQF\ 3HUFHQWDJHRIWKRVHZKRVXUYLYH<HDUVXSWRVSHFLILHGDJH᧤᧡᧥

0DOH)HPDOH

0DOH)HPDOH







































































\UV \UV \UV \UV

6RXUFH0+/:/LIH7DEOHV$EULGJHG/LIH7DEOHV

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)(TXLYDOHQW

0DUNHW'LSRVDEOH

6FDOH ,QFRPH,QFRPH*LQL&RHIILFLH
QW

3RYHUW\
5DWH


































6RXUFH(VWLPDWHVZLWK0+/:&RPSUHKHQVLYH
6XUYH\RI/LYLQJ&RQGLWLRQV䠎䠊௓ㆤಖ㝤ᑟධ䛾⫼ᬒ䐟㧗㱋໬䛸せ௓ㆤ㧗㱋⪅䛾ቑຍ㧗㱋໬䛾㐍ᒎ
1970ᖺ㻌 㧗㱋⪅ேཱྀ ⣙740୓ே㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㧗㱋໬⋡ 7.1䠂
㻌 1990ᖺ㻌 㧗㱋⪅ேཱྀ ⣙1490୓ே㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㧗㱋໬⋡ 12.0䠂䐡䛣䜜䜎䛷䛾㧗㱋⪅⚟♴せ௓ㆤ㧗㱋⪅䛾ቑຍ䠄ไᗘ᳨ウ᫬䛾ぢ㏻䛧䠅㻌 1993ᖺ㻌 ⣙200୓ே
㻌 2000ᖺ㻌 ⣙280୓ே
㻌 2025ᖺ㻌 ⣙520୓ே

䐠ᐙ᪘ᵓᡂ䛾ኚ໬䛸ᐙ᪘䛾௓ㆤ㈇ᢸ䛾ቑ኱䞉Ꮚ䛹䜒䛸ྠᒃ䛧䛺䛔㧗㱋⪅䛾ቑຍ㻌 Ꮚ䛸䛾ྠᒃ⋡䠖1970ᖺ㻌 71.9䠂ĺ1990ᖺ㻌 58.5䠂䞉௓ㆤᇶ┙䛾ᩚഛĺ㈈※䛜ᚲせ䞉⛯཰䛾☜ಖ䛜㞴䛧䛔୰䚸᪂䛯䛺㈈※☜ಖ䛾ᚲせ䞉᪋タ䚸ᒃᏯ䜿䜰䛿ᩚഛ䛥䜜䛶䛔䛯㻌 1970ᖺ௦䠖᪋タᩚഛ
㻌 1980ᖺ௦䠖ᅾᏯ䜿䜰䛾㔜ど䞉฼⏝䛿ᥐ⨨᪉ᘧ㻌 ⮬἞య䛜฼⏝䛾ྍྰ䜢Ỵ䜑䜛㻌 పᡤᚓ⪅䛜ඃඛ䚸㑅ᢥ䛾⮬⏤䛜㻌 䛺䛔䞉⑓㝔䛻㛗ᮇධ㝔䛾㧗㱋⪅䛜ቑຍ䠄♫఍ⓗධ㝔䠅
㻌 ㏥㝔ᚋ䛾ཷ䛡─䛜䛺䛔㻌 ධ㝔䛾᪉䛜ᡭ⥆䛝䛜ᐜ᫆䞉≉ᐃ䛾ᐙ᪘䠄≉䛻ዪᛶ䠅䚸㧗㱋⪅䛜௓ㆤ䠄⪁⪁௓ㆤ䠅
㻌 1998ᖺ䠖ྠᒃ௓ㆤ⪅䛾81.2䠂䛜ዪᛶ䚸34.8䠂䛜㧗㱋⪅㻌 ĺ௓ㆤ䛩䜛ே䛾㌟యⓗ䞉⢭⚄ⓗ㈇ᢸ 䛾ቑຍ䐢௓ㆤ㈝⏝䛾ቑຍ䛸㈈※䛾☜ಖ㻌

䞉1990ᖺ௦༙䜀䛛䜙᪂䛯䛺௓ㆤไᗘ䛾᳨ウ
䞉1997ᖺ㻌 䛂௓ㆤಖ㝤ἲ䛃ᡂ❧
䞉2000ᖺ㻌 ᐇ᪋ฟᡤ䠖ཌ⏕ⓑ᭩䛺䛹䜢䜒䛸䛻ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

2. Background of Long-term Care Insurance(1) Population Aging and Increase of LTC demand
Population Aging
1970㻌 About 7.4 million (65+)
㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 (7.1䠂 of total population)
㻌 1990㻌 About 14.9 million (65+)
㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 (12.0䠂 of total population)

Increase of frail Elderly(Projection in 1990s) 㻌1993㻌 About 2 million
2000㻌 About 2.8 million
2025㻌 About 5.2 million(2) Change of Living Arrangement and Care burden㻌 㻌 of family(a) Increase of the elderly living alone or couples only
㻌 1970 22.5䠂ĺ1990 36.9䠂
(b) In many cases, family Caregiver is female or the elderly(In 1992 : 85.3% is female, 49.0% is persons aged 60+)-> Negative Effect of physical and mental health of caregiver(4) Finance of the LTC costs
More development of LTC service -> More Money
More tax finance is difficult.
We need New finance scheme(3) Welfare for the Elderly
㻌 (a) Elderly Welfare started todevelop in 1960s
㻌 Facility service : In 1970s
㻌 Home care : Since 1980s(b) Service use was decided by
local government.
㻌 Priority to Low income persons
No freedom of service choice(c) Increase of the elderly
hospitalized for long period㻌 Few places to go after leaving
hospital㻌 Free access in health care

Discussion of new LTC scheme from mid
1990s-> “Long-term Care Insurance Act”
(Legislated in 1997, implemented in 2000)

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS) with Annual report of Health and Welfare 2000 etc.

2-1.᪥
᪥ᮏ䛾㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛾Ṕྐ䠄䠍䠅
➨2ḟ኱
ᡓ௨๓

(1) ㈋ᅔᑐ⟇䛾୍⎔䠄ᑐ㇟⪅䛿≉䛻㝈䜙䜜䜛䠅᜜ᩆつ๎(1874), ᩆㆤἲ(1929)(2) ♫఍஦ᴗ᪋タ䠄⠜ᚿᐙ䛾άື䠅, ᪉㠃ጤဨ䠄⌧ᅾ䛾Ẹ⏕ጤဨ䠅➨஧ḟ኱ᡓᚋ䠄1945ᖺ䠅䛛䜙1950ᖺ௦䠄⤊ᡓ䛸᚟⯆䠅㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛿⏕άಖㆤ䛾୍㒊䛷䛒䛳䛯(㣴ㆤ⪁ே䝩䞊䝮䛿పᡤᚓ䛷㌟ᐤ䜚䛾䛺䛔ே䛜ᑐ㇟)
1960ᖺ௦ (㧗ᗘ⤒῭ᡂ㛗䛸ᅜẸ⏕ά䛾Ỉ‽ྥୖ)㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛾䛿䛨䜎䜚䛂⪁ே⚟♴ἲ䛃䛾ไᐃ䚸᪋⾜(1963)᪋タ䚸ゼၥ䛺䛹䛾㧗㱋⪅䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜䛂㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛃䛸䛧䛶ไᗘ໬ᑐ㇟⪅䛿䚸పᡤᚓ䛷㌟ᐤ䜚䛜䛺䛔㧗㱋⪅䛜ඃඛ䠄䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜୙㊊䠅

䝙䞊䝈䛾௚䚸ᡤᚓ䛺䛹䛜ᑂᰝ 䠄⮬἞య䛜฼⏝䜢Ỵᐃ䠅* ᅜẸⓙಖ㝤䛜㐩ᡂ (඲ᅜẸ䛜බⓗ་⒪ಖ㝤䛻ຍධ䠅
1970ᖺ௦ (2ᗘ䛾▼Ἔ༴ᶵ䛸㧗ᗘ⤒῭ᡂ㛗䛾⤊䜟䜚)௓ㆤ᪋タ䛾඘ᐇ
ᐷ䛯䛝䜚⪁ே䛾ቑຍ䛺䛹䛜⫼ᬒ (᪋タ䛷䛾௓ㆤ䛿඲䛶䛾㧗㱋⪅䛻ᚲせ䛺䜒䛾䛸䛔䛖ㄆ㆑)⪁ே་⒪㈝䛾ቑຍ (+ 㧗㱋⪅䛾䛂♫఍ⓗධ㝔䛃䛾ቑຍ)⪁ே་⒪㈝䛾↓ᩱ໬ (1973)ᅜẸⓙಖ㝤䛸་⒪ᶵ㛵䜈䛾䛛䛛䜚䜔䛩䛥ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

2-1.Development of Welfare for the Elderly in Japan (1)Before1945(1) Poor Relief Policy (Targeted persons were severely limited)
Indigent Person’s Relief Regulation(1874), Poor Relief Law(1929)(2) Social Welfare Facility(Mainly Charity), Commissioned welfare volunteer

From 1945 to 1950s (After WWII)
Elderly Welfare was a part of Public Assistance.(Care home for the poor and lone elderly)
1960s (Rapid Economic Growth and Change in Person’s life)
Start of Welfare for the Elderly as independent policy field.
“Act on Social Welfare for the Elderly”(1963)
Facility, Home care and other services have started to develop.
But, Service provision was still limited to the elderly with low income
and without family. Needs and Means test were required.
* Universal Coverage (Health Insurance) was achieved.
1970s (End of Rapid Growth Economy with Oil Crisis)
Development of Facility for the Elderly Care
Increase of bedridden elderly (LTC is recognized as possible needs of all elderly)
Increase of Elderly Health Care Cost (+ Hospital bed used like LTC facility)
Co-payment Free Health Care for the Elderly (1973)
Universal Coverage and Free Access of Health Care
Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)

2-2.᪥
᪥ᮏ䛾㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛾Ṕྐ䠄䠎䠅
1980ᖺ௦ (Ᏻᐃᡂ㛗䛾ᚋ䛻ゼ䜜䛯䝞䝤䝹⤒῭)ᅾᏯ⣔䠄ゼၥ䚸㏻ᡤ䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾Ⓨᒎ
㏻ᡤ⣔௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜䛂⪁ே⚟♴ἲ䛃䛾ᨵṇ䛻䜘䜚ἲᐃ໬ゼၥ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᡤᚓไ㝈䛺䛹䛾⦆࿴㻌 㻌 㻌 ĺ୍⯡䛾せ௓ㆤ㧗㱋⪅䛾㛫䛻䜒฼⏝䛜ᗈ䛜䜛ྍ⬟ᛶ⪁ே་⒪䛻㛵䛩䜛ไᗘᨵ㠉䛂⪁ேಖ೺ไᗘ䛃䛾ᐇ᪋䠄⪁ே་⒪㈝䛾බᖹ䛺㈇ᢸ䝹䞊䝹䚸᳨デ䛻䜘䜛ண㜵䛺䛹)⌧ᅾ䛾䛂⪁ேಖ೺᪋タ䛃䚸䛂⒪㣴⑓ᗋ⩌䛃䠄་⒪⣔䛾௓ㆤ᪋タ䠅䛾ไᗘ໬
1990ᖺ௦ (䝞䝤䝹⤒῭䛾⤊䜟䜚䛸⤒῭䛾䜾䝻䞊䝞䝹໬)ィ⏬䛻ᇶ䛵䛟௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇ᥦ౪యไ䛾඘ᐇ䛂䝂䞊䝹䝗䝥䝷䞁䛃(1989-1999)㻌 䛂᪂䝂䞊䝹䝗䝥䝷䞁䛃(1994-2004)ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䠄ᕷ⏫ᮧ䠅䛻㧗㱋⪅⚟♴⾜ᨻ䛾୰ᚰⓗ䛺ᢸ䛔ᡭ䛻䠄⏫ᮧ䛻㧗㱋⪅⚟♴᪋タධᡤ䛾Ỵᐃᶒ䛺䛹䠅㻌 㻌 ゼၥ┳ㆤ䛾᥎㐍ᅾᏯ௓ㆤᨭ᥼䝉䞁䝍䞊䛾タ⨨䠄┦ㄯ䛸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇฼⏝䛾ㄪᩚ)௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾๰タ䠄1997ᖺἲไ໬䚸2000ᖺᐇ᪋䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢䝙䞊䝈䛻䜒䛸䛵䛔䛶฼⏝䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛ĺせ௓ㆤ㧗㱋⪅䛾⮬❧䛧䛯⏕ά䜢ᨭ᥼Ᏻᐃⓗ䛺㈈※☜ಖĺ⛯᪉ᘧ䛷䛿䛺䛟䚸♫఍ಖ㝤᪉ᘧ (䝗䜲䝒䛾ไᗘ䜢ཧ⪃䠅ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

2-2.Development of Welfare for the Elderly in Japan (2)1980s (Stable Growth Economy with the Bubble Economy)
Development of Home and Community Care Services
Community care service has been legislated in Amended Act on Social Welfare
for the Elderly.
Home care service was provided to middle and high income elderly.
Reform of Health Care for the elderly
Health and Medical Services Act for the Aged (Health Care Cost Finance Scheme etc.)
Long-term care health facility, Sanatorium type medical care facilities have started.
1990s (Global Economy After the Bubble)
Further Development of LTC service provision under National Plan
“Gold Plan”(1989-1999) “New Gold Plan”(1994-2004)
Local Government (City, Town and Village) has more
responsibility than before in elder welfare service.
More Provision of Home nursing
Establish Home care support center (Consulting and Care service coordination).
Planning of Long-term Care Insurance
LTC service provision based on “Care Needs” and Individual rights.
-> It leads to support independent life as possible at the place where the elderly wish.
Sustainable Finance Scheme -> Social Insurance Scheme (referred to German LTCI etc.)
Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)

2-3.᪥
᪥ᮏ䛾㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛾Ṕྐ䠄䠏䠅௓ㆤ᪋タ䛾ᐃဨᩘ䛾᥎⛣䠄1960ᖺ௦䛛䜙1990ᖺ௦䠅ᅾᏯ⣔䠄ゼၥ䚸㏻ᡤ䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᘏ䜉฼⏝⪅䛾᥎⛣䠄1980ᖺ௦ᮎ䛛䜙1990ᖺ௦ᮎ䠅ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜䛂ᖹᡂ12ᖺ∧ཌ⏕ⓑ᭩䛃䛾ᅗ䜢ᘬ⏝䛧䛶సᡂ

2-3.Development of Welfare for the Elderly in Japan (3)Development of Facility Care from 1960s to 1990s

Development of Home and Community Carefrom last 1980s to last 1990s

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS) with Annual report of Health and Welfare 2000.

䠏䠊௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾ᴫせ௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾௙⤌䜏

1.ᑐ㇟⪅䠄⿕ಖ㝤⪅䠅䛸ಖ㝤⪅(1) 2✀㢮䛾⿕ಖ㝤⪅➨1ྕ⿕ಖ㝤⪅㻌 㧗㱋⪅䠄65ṓ௨ୖ䠅➨2ྕ⿕ಖ㝤⪅ 40䡚64ṓ䛾⪅(2)⿕ಖ㝤⪅䛿ಖ㝤ᩱ䜢㈇ᢸ䠄㧗㱋⪅䜒ᡤᚓ䛻ᛂ䛨䛶㈇ᢸ䠅(3)ಖ㝤⪅䛿ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䠄ᕷ⏫ᮧ䠅(4)ᨻᗓ䛸㒔㐨ᗓ┴䛿ಖ㝤⪅䛷䛒䜛ᕷ⏫
ᮧ䜢ᨭ᥼
2.௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾฼⏝䠄ಖ㝤⤥௜䠅(1)䛂せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ䛃䜢ཷ䛡䚸䛂䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛃䜢సᡂ䛩䜛ᚲせ.
(2)᪋タ䜿䜰䚸ᅾᏯ䠄ゼၥ䛚䜘䜃㏻ᡤ䠅䜿䜰䛺䛹䜢䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛻䜒䛸䛵䛔䛶฼⏝䛷䛝䜛䚹」ᩘ䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾⤌䜏ྜ䜟䛫ྍ䠄せ௓ㆤᗘู䛾㝈ᗘᯟ䛾⠊ᅖ䠅(3)௓ㆤᡭᙜ䠄⌧㔠⤥௜䠅䛿⾜䛳䛶䛔䛺䛔(4)㈝⏝䛾10䠂䜢⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ

3.௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇஦ᴗ⪅䠄ᚑ஦⪅䠅(1)බႠ䛚䜘䜃ẸႠ䠄ᰴᘧ఍♫䜢ྵ䜐䠅 䛾⤌⧊䛜௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢ᥦ౪䠄ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䛛䜙䛾ᣦᐃ䛜ᚲせ䠅(2)௓ㆤ䝦䝹䝟䞊䚸䜿䜰䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䚸་ᖌ䚸┳ㆤᖌ䛺䛹ከᵝ䛺ேᮦ䛜ᚑ஦ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ䚹ᅗ䛿♫ே◊ “Social Security in Japan 2014”䜢䜒䛸䛻⩻ヂ䛧䛶ᘬ⏝

3.Long-term Care Insurance

2.Benefit(1)Care-needs assessment and careplan elaboration are required.
(2)We can use home care, community
care (Day Care Service), facility care
(Nursing Home) etc. under the ceilingof benefit by care assessment grade.
(3)Cash benefit(Care Allowance) is notavailable.
(4)We have to pay co-payment (10%)

Source of financing

Subsidy

Premium
Primary
insuredAged 65+

SecondaryinsuredAged 40-64

Co-payment
National Prefectural

Municipal

Insurer and Operator
Municipalities (Shi-Ku-Cho-Son ᕷ༊⏫ᮧ)
Care-needs assessment andCare-Plan elaboration by Care-manager

Operation

1.Insured and Insures(1) Insured are Two types
1st Persons aged 65 years old +2nd Persons aged 40 to 64 years old(2)All insured have to pay premium.
(3)Insures are Local governments(city,
town, village).
(4)Prefectures and Central government
support insures.

The Overview of Long term careinsurance in Japan

In-homeservices

Facility
services

Communitybased careservices

Preventive
services

Community-basedpreventive
services

3.Long term care service provider(1)Public and private organizations provide LTC
services.(Designation to local governments are
required).
(2)Care workers, care managers, physicians,
nurses etc. work for long term care service
providers.

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS), Figure is cited from IPSS “Social Security in Japan 2014”.

4.௓
௓ㆤಖ㝤ᐇ᪋䛾ᡂᯝ䠄䠍䠅
ᐇ᪋๓

ᐇ᪋ᚋ

௓ㆤ䝃䞊
䝡䝇฼⏝
ᡭ⥆䛝

(1) ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䜈䛾⏦ㄳ(2) ௓ㆤ䛾ᚲせᛶ䛾௚䛻䚸ᡤᚓ䛺䛹䛾ᑂᰝ䛜⾜䜟䜜䜛
(3) 䝃䞊䝡䝇฼⏝䛾ྍྰ䛿ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䛜Ỵ䜑䜛(1) ಖ㝤⪅䛻䛂せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ䛃䜢⏦ㄳ(2) 䛂せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ䛃䛿 䛂㌟ᚰ䛾≧ែ䛃 䛻䜒䛸䛵䛔䛶せ௓ㆤ䛛ྰ䛛䜢ุᐃ(3) 䝃䞊䝡䝇฼⏝䛿䛂䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛃䛾సᡂ䛷Ỵ䜑䜛

䝃䞊䝡䝇
䛾㑅ᢥ

(1) 䛹䛾䠄䛹䛣䛾䠅䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢฼⏝䛩䜛䛛䜒ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䛜Ỵ䜑䜛䠄ᥐ⨨᪉ᘧ䠅(2) ་⒪⣔䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛿་⒪ಖ㝤䛷⤥௜䠄ྠ䛨௓ㆤ䛷䜒་⒪䛸⚟♴䛿ู䚻䠅(1) 䛂せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ䛃䛾⤖ᯝ䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶䚸฼⏝⪅䛜௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢㑅ᢥ䛷䛝䜛(2) 䜿䜰䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䛜䠄୺䛻䠅సᡂ䛩䜛䛂䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛃䛻཯ᫎ䛥䜜䜛
(3) ฼⏝⪅䛿་⒪⣔䚸⚟♴⣔䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢䛂䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛃䛾୰䛷฼⏝䛩䜛䜘䛖䛻ฟ᮶䜛

௓ㆤ䝃䞊
䝡䝇䛾ᥦ
౪

(1) 㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䝃䞊䝡䝇䛿䚸ᆅ᪉⮬἞య䛸♫఍⚟♴ἲே䛻㝈䜙䜜䛶䛔䛯(2)䛂♫఍⚟♴ἲே䛃䛾タ❧䛻䛿䚸≉ู䛺チྍ䛜ᚲせ(3) 1990ᖺ௦䛿䛨䜑䜎䛷䛿䚸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛿ᚲ䛪䛧䜒༑ศ䛷䛺䛛䛳䛯(1) බႠ䛚䜘䜃ẸႠ䛾⤌⧊䛜௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢ᥦ౪䛷䛝䜛(2) ≉䛻ᅾᏯ䠄㏻ᡤ䛚䜘䜃ゼၥ䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛷䛿䚸Ẹ㛫௻ᴗ䛻䜘䜛ᥦ౪䛜ከ䛔(3) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᥦ౪䛻䛿䚸䛂ᣦᐃ஦ᴗ⪅䛃䛻䛺䜛ᚲせ䛜䛒䜛
(4) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛿኱䛝䛟ቑຍฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

4.What have Japan LTCI changed ? (1)Before㻌 2000

After 2000

Service
Use
Procedures(1) Consult to Local Government(2) Needs Assessment and Means
test are required(3) Service use was decided by
Local Government(1) Apply for Care-needs assessment(2) This assessment relates only to care needs(3) Service use is based on the careassessment result

Service
Choice(1) No Choice by Users in Welfare
Service(decided by Local
Government䠄ᥐ⨨᪉ᘧ䠅)(2) Health related LTC (Homenursing) is provided in Health
Insurance.

(1) Users have Service Choice based on Careneeds assessment result.
(2) It leads to care-plan elaboration䠄䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䠅with assist by care-manager䠄䜿䜰䝬䝛䞊䝆䝱䞊䠅.
(3) Uses can mix Welfare and Health related
LTC services in this plan.

Service
ProviderandProvision(1) Welfare Service Provision was
limited to Local Government andSocial Welfare Organization.
(2) The latter are required
permission by the government.
(3) LTC service increased only tosome extent until early 1990s.

(1) Public and Private Organizations canprovide LTC services.
(2) In Home and Community care, privatecompanies provide LTC services.
(3) LTC service provider is required to be adesignated providers to local government.
(4) LTC service has increased more than
before.

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)5.௓
௓ㆤಖ㝤ᐇ᪋䛾ᡂᯝ䠄䠎䠅
ᐇ᪋๓

ᐇ᪋ᚋ

ᐙᗞ䛷䛾
௓ㆤ䝃䞊
䝡䝇฼⏝

(1) ᅾᏯ䠄㏻ᡤ䛚䜘䜃ゼၥ䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾฼⏝䛿ᑡ䛺䛛䛳䛯(2) 䠄䛯䛸䛘䝦䝹䝟䞊䛷䜒䠅䛂௚ே䜢ᐙ䛻ධ䜜䜛䛃䛣䛸䜢᎘䛖ே䜒ከ䛛䛳䛯(1)ᅾᏯ䠄㏻ᡤ䛚䜘䜃ゼၥ䠅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾฼⏝䛜ቑຍ䛧䛯(2) ᅾᏯ௓ㆤ䛾ሙྜ䚸ᐙ᪘䛻䜘䜛௓ㆤ䛸䛒䜟䛫䛶䚸ᐙᗞ䛷௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢฼⏝䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ከ䛟䛺䛳䛯

㈝⏝㈇ᢸ
䠄㈈※䠅

(1) ⛯㔠䛷䜎䛛䛺䜟䜜䜛䠄⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䛒䜚䠅(2) పᡤᚓ⪅䛿ከ䛟䛾ሙྜ䛿↓ᩱ(3) 䛭䛾௚䛾ே䛿⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䜢ᨭᡶ䛖䠄㈇ᢸ㢠䛜㠀ᖖ䛻㧗䛔ሙྜ䜒䛒䜚䠅(1) 䠄⿕ಖ㝤⪅䛿䠅ᡤᚓ䛻ᛂ䛨䛶௓ㆤಖ㝤ᩱ䜢㈇ᢸ䠅(2) ௓ㆤಖ㝤䜈䛾⛯㔠䛛䜙䛾⿵ຓ䜒䛒䜛䠄௓ㆤ㈝⏝඲య䛾༙ศ䠅(3) ⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䛿㈝⏝䛾10䠂䠄㝈ᗘ㢠䛒䜚䠅

་⒪䛸䛾
㛵ಀ

(1) ་⒪⣔䛸⚟♴⣔䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛿ู䚻䛾ไᗘ䠄㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䛸་⒪ಖ
㝤䠅䛛䜙ᥦ౪

(1) ௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾ୗ䛷䚸䛂䜿䜰䝥䝷䞁䛃䛻䜒䛸䛵䛔䛶་⒪⣔䚸⚟♴⣔䛾௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜฼⏝䛷䛝䜛(2) ་⒪ᶵ㛵䛾⑓ᗋ䛾୍㒊䛿௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛸䛧䛶ᥦ౪
(3) ་⒪䚸௓ㆤ䛺䛹䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜㐃ᦠ䛧䛯ᙧ䛷䚸せ௓ㆤ⪅䛻ᚲせ䛺䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢ᆅᇦ䛾୰䛷ᥦ౪䛩䜛యไ䜢┠ᣦ䛧䛶䛔䜛ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

5.What have Japan LTCI changed ? (2)Before㻌 2000

After 2000

ServiceUse inHouseholds(1) Home and Community LTC
service usage was fewer than thepresent.
(2) Some persons did not like tomake non-family member enter thehome.

(1) Home and Community LTC service havebeen diffused since LTCI implementation.
(2) People use these services in thehouseholds mixed with family care.

Cost
Sharing(1) Tax funded Scheme(2) Low income persons were
exempted from co-payment.
(3) Some other persons paid copayment too much.

(1) All insureds have to pay LTCI premium
based on the income.
(2) Tax subsidies to LTCI are also available.
(3) Co-payment is 10% for all services (with theceiling).

Relationto HealthCare(1) Welfare and Health Care
Scheme had been divided even in
LTC service.

(1) In LTC service use, we can mix welfare andhealth related LTC services in care-plan.
(2) Some hospital beds are provided as LTCI
benefits.
(3) Continuous and Community based Care
including Health care and welfare LTC has
been a next step for LTC system.

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS) with Statistics of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and OECD

6.௓௓ㆤಖ㝤ᐇ᪋䛾ᡂᯝ䠄䠏䠅ᅗ㻌 ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇฼⏝⪅䛾᥎⛣ᅗ せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ⪅ᩘ䛾᥎⛣ᅗ㻌 ௓ㆤ㈝⏝䛸௓ㆤಖ㝤ᩱ䠄➨1ྕ⿕ಖ㝤⪅䠅䛾᥎⛣ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂௓ㆤಖ㝤஦ᴗ≧ἣሗ࿌䛃䚸ཌ⏕ປാ┬web䝃䜲䝖䛾ᅗ䜢ᘬ⏝䛧䛶సᡂ

6.What have Japan LTCI changed ? (3)Figure The number of persons certified for the
long-term care by care

Figure The number of service users by type of care services

Figure LTCI Expenditure and Premium

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS) with Statistics of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare7. ௓ㆤಖ㝤ἲ䛾ᨵṇ
2000ᖺ4᭶㻌 䛂௓ㆤಖ㝤ἲ䛃䛾᪋⾜䠄௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾ᐇ᪋䠅

2005ᖺ
ᨵṇ

(1) 䛂せᨭ᥼⪅䛃䛻䛂௓ㆤண㜵䝃䞊䝡䝇䛃ᥦ౪(2) ᪋タ⤥௜䛾ኚ᭦᪋タධᡤ䛾ఫᒃ㈝䚸㣗㈝┦ᙜ㒊ศ䜢⤥௜䛛䜙㝖䛟పᡤᚓ䛾ධᡤ⪅䛻䛿ู㏵䛣䜜䜙䛾⿵ຓ䜢⾜䛖(3) ᆅᇦᐦ╔ᆺ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾㛤ጞ䚸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇᝟ሗ䛾බ⾲

2008ᖺ
ᨵṇ

(1) ௓ㆤ஦ᴗ⪅䛾⟶⌮䝅䝇䝔䝮䛾ᙉ໬䠄ἲ௧㐪཯䚸୙ṇ䛺䛹䛾㜵Ṇ䠅(2) ௓ㆤ஦ᴗ䜢ᗫṆ䚸ఇṆ䛩䜛஦ᴗ⪅䛻஦๓ሗ࿌⩏ົ(฼⏝⪅䛻䛿௦᭰䛾௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢☜ಖ)

2011ᖺ
ᨵṇ

(1) 䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓ䜿䜰䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛾᥎㐍24᫬㛫ᐃᮇᕠᅇ䞉㝶᫬ᑐᛂゼၥ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᐇ᪋䚸」ྜᆺ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᐇ᪋(2) 䛂⑱䛾྾ᘬ䛃䜢௓ㆤᚑ஦⪅䛜ྍ⬟䛻䚹䛂᭷ᩱ⪁ே䝩䞊䝮䛃䛾ධᒃ㔠㏉㑏䛻㛵䛩䜛ᾘ㈝⪅ಖㆤ(3) ௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾㈈ᨻᏳᐃ໬ᇶ㔠䠄㒔㐨ᗓ┴䠅䛾ྲྀ䜚ᔂ䛧䠄ಖ㝤ᩱ䛾ୖ᪼䜢ᢚ䛘䜛䠅

2015ᖺ
ᨵṇ
(௒ᚋᐇ
᪋)

(1) ᅾᏯ་⒪䛸௓ㆤ䛾㐃ᦠ䛾᥎㐍䚸௓ㆤ⤥௜䜢௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾⤥௜䛛䜙እ䛧䚸ᕷ⏫ᮧ䛾஦ᴗ䜈㻌 㻌 㻌 䛂≉ู㣴ㆤ⪁ே䝩䞊䝮䛃䛾ධᒃ⪅䛿ཎ๎せ௓ㆤ3௨ୖ䛾⪅䛻(2) పᡤᚓ⪅䜈䛾ಖ㝤ᩱ⿵ຓ䛾ᣑ኱䚸㧗ᡤᚓ⪅䛾⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䜢20䠂䛻ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜ཌ⏕ປാ┬㈨ᩱ䜢ά⏝䛧䛶సᡂ

7. Revisions of Act on LTCI
April 2000 Act on Long-term Care Insurance implemented

2005
Revision(1) Care prevention benefits have started to provide to care support level persons(2) Facility benefits have been adjusted.
Housing and meal costs are excluded from facility benefits.
Supplemental support to low income residents in the LTC facility provided(3) Community-based Care service, Information of LTC service

2008
Revision(1) To empower the management LTC service provider by local governments(2) In advance report by LTC providers that want to stop service provision(They must provide users alternative LTC services)

2011
Revision(1) Promotion of “Integrated Community Care System”
24 hours visit home care service, multi function care service facility etc.
(2) Aspiration of sputum is allowed to LTC personnel. Consumer protection about deposit
refund of fee-based elderly homes(3) Reversal of LTC finance stability fund2015
Revision(Next)(1) Promotion of home care and home medicine
Care prevention benefits will be moved from LTCI to local governments welfare service
Intensive care home for the elderly users are basically limited to LTC grade 3+ persons(2) More premium subsidy(to low income persons) 20% co-payment(high income persons)

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS) with documents of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

8.௓
௓ㆤಖ㝤䠄ไᗘ䠅䛾ㄢ㢟
1. ௓ㆤ㈝⏝䛾ቑຍ䠄ಖ㝤ᩱୖ᪼䠅䜈䛾ᑐᛂ(1) ௓ㆤಖ㝤䛾ᨭฟ䛾ቑຍ䠄௓ㆤಖ㝤ᩱ䛾ୖ᪼䠅(2) ⌧ᅾ䛒䜚ᚓ䜛㑅ᢥ⫥௓ㆤಖ㝤ᩱᘬ䛝ୖ䛢䠄㧗㱋⪅䛾⤒῭ຊ䜢⪃៖䠛䠅⛯㔠䛛䜙䛾⿵ຓ䜢ቑ䜔䛩䠄㈈※䛿䠛䠅ຠ⋡ⓗ䛺௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䠄䝮䝎䜢ῶ䜙䛩䠛䠅㻌 ⤥௜䜢ῶ䜙䛩䠄せᨭ᥼⪅䜈䛾⤥௜䠅

4. ㄆ▱⑕䜈䛾ᑐᛂ(1) ㄆ▱⑕㧗㱋⪅䛾ቑຍ䠄⌧ᅾ⣙280୓ே䠅(2) ㄆ▱⑕௓ㆤ䛾㔜せᛶ䛜ቑ኱(3) ㄆ▱⑕䛾ண㜵䜒㔜せ䛻䛺䛳䛶䛔䜛(4) 䠄ㄆ▱⑕䛾๓ẁ㝵ⓗ䛺䠅㍍ᗘㄆ▱⑕䠄MCI䠅䜈䛾ᑐᛂ⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䛾ᘬ䛝ୖ䛢䠄㧗ᡤᚓ⪅䠅

2. ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇஦ᴗ⪅

5. 䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓ䜿䜰䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛾ᵓ⠏(1) ௓ㆤ䛾㉁(2) 䝹䞊䝹䛾㑂Ᏺἲ௧㐪཯䚸୙ṇ䛺⤥௜䜢㜵䛠䠄䛣䜜䜎䛷䛻䜒ᑐᛂ䠅(1) ᪥ᖖ⏕άᅪ䠄୰Ꮫᰯ䛾ᰯ༊䠅䜢༢఩䛻䚸་⒪䚸

3. ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇ᚑ஦⪅(2) 㧗㱋⪅䛾ఫ䜎䛔䛾☜ಖ䛜๓ᥦ(3) ་⒪䚸௓ㆤ㛵ಀ⪅䛛䜙୍⯡ᕷẸ䜒㛵䜟䜛(4) 䛭䛾୰䛷䚸་⒪䚸௓ㆤ➼䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䛜ᥦ౪(5) ᆅᇦ䛾≧ἣ䠄㧗㱋໬䚸་⒪䚸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᩚഛ≧ἣ䠅䛜␗䛺䜛䛾䛷䚸䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺䝅䝇䝔䝮䛜ලయⓗ䛻ᵓ⠏䛥䜜䜛䛛䛿ᆅᇦ䛻䜘䜚␗䛺䜛䠄ᆅᇦ䛷ᕤኵ䚸Ỵᐃ䛧䛶䛔䛟䚸඲ᅜ୍ᚊ䛾ෆᐜ䛷䛿䛺䛔䠅(1) ປാ᮲௳䛾ྥୖ㻌 ప㈤㔠䚸㛗᫬㛫ປാ䚸䜻䝱䝸䜰䜰䝑䝥䛺䛹䜈䛾ᑐᛂ(2) ㉁䛾☜ಖ(3) እᅜே䝦䝹䝟䞊䛾ཷ䛡ධ䜜(⌧ᅾ) ஧ᅜ㛫༠ᐃ䛷ཷ䛡ධ䜜䠄㝈ᐃⓗ䠅(㆟ㄽ୰) እᅜே䝦䝹䝟䞊䛾ᮏ᱁ⓗ䛺ཷ䛡ධ䜜௓ㆤ䚸䛭䛾௚䛾⚟♴➼䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢䛚஫䛔䛜㐃ᦠ䛧䛯ᙧ䛷䚸㧗㱋⪅䛜ఫ䜣䛷䛔䜛ᆅᇦ䛷ᥦ౪䛩䜛యไฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

8.Challenges of Japan LTCI system
1. Control of Long-term care cost

4. Increase of the elderly with dementia(1) The cost of LTCI has increased(2) Possible Policy Measures
We may have to raise premium more.
More tax subsidy?
Improve Efficiency (Save Cost)? Cut Benefits?
More Co-payment by High Income Persons(1) The elderly with dementia has reached 2.8
million(2) Care for them has become more important.
(3) Prevention not to be more serous indementia is also important(4) To cope with Mild Cognitive Impairment

2. Long-term Care Service Provider

5. Construction of Integrated CommunityCare(1) Quality of Care
(2) Compliance (To keep the rule in LTC system)

3. Long-term Care Workers(1) Working Condition
Wage (Low wage), Long working hours,
Carrier-up(2) Quality of Worker(3) Foreign-Born Workers(Present) Bilateral Agreement (Limited)(Discussion) Accept Foreign-Born Workers
Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)(1) Continuous service from health care, longterm care, other welfare services in theregion where the elderly live (Junior highschool district area)(2) Secure Place of Living(3) Various kinds of persons (From LTC
professional to citizens) are involved.
(4) LTC, Prevention of LTC, Health care andrelated services will be provided.
(5) No single solution, variations between
regions (Local government level?
Community level?)

8-1.䛂䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓ䜿䜰䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛾ᵓ⠏䠄䜲䝯䞊䝆䠅1. ⫼ᬒ(1) ேཱྀ㧗㱋໬䛜୍ᒙ㐍䜐
75ṓ௨ୖ䛾䛂ᚋᮇ㧗㱋⪅䛃䛾ቑຍ䛜ぢ㏻䛥䜜䜛
≉䛻2020ᖺ䛻䛿䛂➨1ḟ䝧䝡䞊䝤䞊䝮ୡ௦䛃䠄➨2ḟ኱ᡓ┤ᚋ䛾ேཱྀ䛜ከ䛔ୡ௦䠅䛜ᚋᮇ㧗㱋⪅䛻䛺䜛ぢ㏻䛧䜎䛯䚸㒔ᕷ㒊䛷䛿ᛴ㏿䛺㧗㱋໬

2. ᨻ⟇䛾᪉ྥ(2) ་⒪䜔௓ㆤ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛䝙䞊䝈䛜୍ᒙቑ䛘䛶䛔䛟

3. 䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓ䜿䜰䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䛾䜲䝯䞊䝆㧗㱋⪅䛾䝙䞊䝈䜢䜘䜚୍ᒙ཯ᫎ䛩䜛䛣䛸䛜ྍ⬟䛺ಖ೺་⒪䝃䞊䝡䝇ᥦ౪యไ䜢ᵓ⠏㧗㱋⪅䛜ఫ䜏័䜜䛯䠄ఫ䜏䛯䛔䛸ᕼᮃ䛩䜛䠅ᆅᇦ䛷䚸ᕼᮃ䛩䜛
་⒪䚸௓ㆤ䚸䛭䛾௚䛾⚟♴➼䛾䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢฼⏝䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓᨭ᥼䝉䞁䝍䞊䛃䛜୰ᚰⓗ䛺ᙺ๭᪂䛯䛻ᥦ౪䛥䜜䜛䝃䞊䝡䝇䠄౛䠅 : 24᫬㛫ᕠᅇゼၥ௓ㆤฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

8-1.Construction of Integrated Community Care System(Image)1. Background(1) Population Aging
75 years old + population would increase
In 2020 “Baby Boom Generation” would reach at the age 75.
In the Metropolitan area, population aging would proceed rapidly.

2. Direction of Policy(2) Health careand Long termcare needs would
increase
dramatically.

3. Image of “Integrated Community Care System”

To construct the system ofcontinuous service provision
based on needs of the elderly

The elderly can use various
kinds of welfare services fromhealth care, long term care,housing, other welfare
services in the region where
they live.
Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)

Main Player : Integrated Community Care Support Centers
Services needed (example) : 24hour home visit care

8-2.㧗
㧗㱋⪅㱋⪅䛾ᒃఫሙᡤ䠄䜲䝯䞊䝆䠅ᒃఫሙᡤ䠄䜲
䠅ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜௨ୗ䛾㈨ᩱ䜢⏝䛔䛶సᡂ䚹ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂♫఍⚟♴᪋タ➼ㄪᰝ䛃䚸䛂௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇᪋タ䞉஦ᴗᡤㄪᰝ䛃䚸♫఍ಖ㞀 ே ၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜௨ୗ䛾㈨ᩱ䜢⏝䛔 సᡂ ཌ⏕ປാ┬䛂♫఍⚟♴᪋タ➼ㄪᰝ 䛂௓ㆤ䝃 䝡 ᪋タ ஦ᴗᡤㄪ䛂ᝈ⪅ㄪᰝ䛃䚸⥲ົ┬⤫ィᒁ䛂᥎ィேཱྀ䛃䚸୍⯡♫ᅋἲே㻌 䛩䜎䛔䛵䛟䜚䜎䛱䛵䛟䜚䝉䞁䝍䞊㐃ྜ఍web䝃䜲䝖㈨ᩱ䠄䝃䞊䝡䝇௜䛝㧗㱋⪅ఫᏯ䛾Ⓩ㘓≧ἣ䠅ὀ䠖2012ᖺ䜢ᇶ‽䠄䝃䞊䝡䝇௜䛝㧗㱋⪅ఫᏯ䛾Ⓩ㘓ᩘ䛸䛂ᝈ⪅ㄪᰝ䛃䛛䜙䛾་⒪ᶵ㛵䛾ධ㝔⪅ᩘ䜢㝖䛟䠅䚹䛂ᝈ⪅ㄪᰝ䛃䛿ᮾ᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏䛾ᙳ㡪䛻䜘䜚䚸▼ᕳ䚸Ẽ௝἟་⒪ᅪ䠄ᐑᇛ┴䠅䛸⚟ᓥ┴䜢㝖䛟䚹

8-2.Where do the elderly live in the Integrated Community Care
System?
Elderly Population (30,793,233, in 2012)
Degree of Long Term Care Needs

Seriously
Limited in
Daily life

IndependentLong Term Care Insurance

Basic Characters"Housing for the elderly"Specified Facility Service

Fee-based home for the elderly

Elderly housing with care service

Home and Comunity Care Service(221,907)
Long Term Care Insurance
Facility Service(154,292 Houses 2014.6)

Sanatorium type medicalcare facilities (67,531)
Nursing home for the elderly (56,860)
Moderate-fee home for the elderly(care house)(80,561)

Legal Base"Act for Welfareof the Aged"

Hospital(More tha n 3 months About
407 thousands, 2011)(Les s than 3 months About 508
thousands, 2011)

Intensive care home for theelderly (429,415)

Legal Base"Act for Welfare of
the Aged, Long-TermCare Insurance Act"

Long-term care healthFacility (301,539)
Group home for the elderly withdementia(149,599)

General House(About 29 million)

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (NIPSSR) with MHLW “Survey of Social Welfare Institutions”, “Survey of Institutions and Establishments for Longterm Care” “Patient Survey” and Statistics Bureau “Population Estimates” and data of Federation of Housing & Community Centers.
Note : Data are 2012 (except for Elderly housing with care service and “Patient Survey”). “Patient Survey” does not cover Ishinomaki and
Kesennuma area in Miyagi prefecture and Fukushima prefecture.

9.ᮾᮾ䜰䝆䜰䛻䛚䛡䜛௓ㆤᨻ⟇᪥ᮏ(1) 㧗㱋⪅⚟♴䠄⛯㈈※䠅䛛䜙௓ㆤಖ㝤 (♫఍ಖ㝤᪉ᘧ)䜈
(2) ௓ㆤಖ㝤ᐇ᪋௨㝆䚸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾฼⏝䛜኱䛝䛟ቑ䛘䜛(3) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇ᇶ┙䛿1960ᖺ௦䛛䜙ᩚഛ䠄䛥䜎䛦䜎䛺ẁ㝵䜢⤒䜛䠅(4) 䛂ᆅᇦໟᣓ䜿䜰䝅䝇䝔䝮䛃䜢┠ᣦ䛩(5) ௓ㆤ㈝⏝䛾ቑ኱䛺䛹䛾䛥䜎䛦䜎䛺ㄢ㢟䜢ᢪ䛘䛶䛔䜛㡑ᅜ(1) 䛂⪁ே㛗ᮇ⒪㣴ಖ㝤䛃䠄௓ㆤಖ㝤䠅䛜2008ᖺ䛻ᐇ᪋(2) ᪥ᮏ䜢ཧ⪃䛻䛧䛯㠃䜒䛒䜛䛜䚸᪥ᮏ䛸䛿␗䛺䜛㠃䜒ከ䛔(3) 2008ᖺ௨㝆䚸௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇஦ᴗ⪅䛜኱ᖜ䛻ቑ䛘䚸㐣ᙜ➇த䛺䛹䛜ၥ㢟䛻(4) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇஦ᴗ⪅䛾㉁䚸௓ㆤປാ⪅䛾ປാ᮲௳䚸་⒪䛸䛾㐃ᦠ䛺䛹䛜ㄢ㢟䠄ྎ‴䠅

(1) 㧗㱋⪅௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾඘ᐇ䜢ᅗ䛳䛶䛔䜛䛸䛣䜝䠄⛯㈈※䛷䛒䜛䛜せ௓ㆤㄆᐃ䛾䛒䜛ไᗘ䠅(2) 2016ᖺ䛾ไᗘ໬䜢┠ᣦ䛧䛶䛂㛗ᮇ↷ㆤಖ㝤䛃䠄௓ㆤಖ㝤䠅䛜᳨ウ୰䚹᪥ᮏ䜔㡑ᅜ䜢ཧ⪃䛻䛧䛶䛔䜛䚹䠄䛯䛰䛧䚸ⱝᖺ㞀ᐖ⪅䜒ᑐ㇟䛻䛩䜛ணᐃ䠅(3) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾㔞ⓗ䛺ᩚഛ䚸ᆅᇦᕪ䛾ゎᾘ䚸䛂እ⡠┳ㆤᕤ䛃䠄እᅜே௓ㆤປാ⪅䠅䛾䛒䜚᪉䛺䛹䛜ㄢ㢟୰ᅜ䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺௓ㆤ㻌 ไᗘ䠛⛯᪉ᘧ䛛♫఍ಖ㝤᪉ᘧ䛛ᑐ㇟䛿㧗㱋⪅䛰䛡䚸ⱝᖺ㞀ᐖ⪅䜒ྵ䜐䠛௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᩚഛ䜢䛹䛖䛩䛩䜑䜛䠄ᅾᏯ䞉㏻ᡤ䝃䞊䝡䝇㔜ど䠛᪋タᩚഛ㔜ど䠛䠅ᐙ᪘䛾ᙺ๭䛸ᨭ᥼⟇䛿?
ᆅᇦᕪ䠄┬䞉኱㒔ᕷ䝺䝧䝹䛺䛹䠅䜈䛾㓄៖䛿?

ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

9.LTC Policy Trends in East Asia
Japan

(1) From Tax funded Welfare to Long-term Care Insurance (Social Security Scheme)(2) LTC Service provision and usage has increased since 2000.
(3) LTC Service infrastructure itself has developed from 1960s.
(4) Integrated Community Care System is now under construction.
(5) We face with policy challenges in LTC cost, service quality etc.

Korea(1) Elderly Long-term Care Insurance implemented in 2008
(2) Referred to Japan, but many differences with Japan LTCI
(3) LTC Service has increased dramatically from 2008. It has led to excessive competition.
(4) LTC service quality, LTC worker’s working condition, Cooperation with health care etc.
are policy challenges.

Taiwan(1) Elderly Welfare System has developed during last decade.
(2) LTCI is now planning for 2016 legislation with reference to Japan and Korea experience.
(Benefits will also be provided to younger disabilities)(3) LTC Service Provision, LTC worker’s working condition, Foreign-born care workers etc. arepolicy challenges.

China
What kindsof policy ?

Tax funded or Social
Insurance?
Universal or Not ?

Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)

LTC service Development(Home and Community
based or Facility based?)Role and Support of Family?
Difference between
Provinces?

10.ᮾᮾ䜰䝆䜰䛾௓ㆤᨻ⟇䜈䛾♧၀ – ᪥ᮏ䛾⤒㦂䛛䜙
1. ㈈ᨻ᪉ᘧ
(1) 䛂⛯᪉ᘧ䛃䛛䛂♫఍ಖ㝤᪉ᘧ䛃䛛䠛䛺䛬䚸䕿䕿᪉ᘧ䜢᥇⏝䛩䜛䛾䛛䠄ᐇ⌧ᛶ䚸ᅜẸ䛾⌮ゎ䛺䛹䠅 ………
(2) పᡤᚓ⪅ᑐ⟇
䛹䛾㈈※᪉ᘧ䛷䜒䚸పᡤᚓ⪅䛜௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䜢฼⏝䛷䛝䜛䜘䛖䛻䛩䜛ᕤኵ䛜ᚲせಖ㝤ᩱ䚸⮬ᕫ㈇ᢸ䜈䛾⿵ຓ䠄㓄៖䠅䛺䛹
2. ௓ㆤไᗘ
(1) ྛ䝺䝧䝹䛾ᨻᗓ䛾ᙺ๭㻌 ୰ኸᨻᗓ䚸ᆅ᪉ᨻᗓ䠄ᕞ䜔┬䝺䝧䝹䚸㒔㐨ᗓ┴┦ᙜ䝺䝧䝹䚸ᕷ⏫ᮧ┦ᙜ䝺䝧䝹䠅ಖ㝤⪅䛿䛹䛾䝺䝧䝹䛾⤌⧊䛷ᢸ䛖䛾䛛䠛(♫఍ಖ㝤ไᗘ䛾⤒㦂䚸⾜ᨻຠ⋡䚸ఫẸ䛸䛾㊥㞳䠖ఱ䜢㔜ど䛩䜛䛛)(2) ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇ᥦ౪యไ䛾ᩚഛ䠄ᨻᗓ䛸䛧䛶䠅᪥ᮏ䛿㛗䛔Ṕྐ䠄䛔䜝䛔䜝䛺ẁ㝵䛜䛒䜛䠅▷ᮇ㛫䛷ᩚഛ䛩䜛䛸䛺䜛䛸……
㔞䜔㉁䛾☜ಖ䚸䝞䝷䞁䝇䠄䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾✀㢮䛾㛫䚸ᆅᇦ㛫䠅

3. ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾ᥦ౪(1) ௓ㆤ஦ᴗ⪅ẸႠ䛾⤌⧊䠄ᰴᘧ఍♫䠅䛾ཧධ䛾᫝㠀ĺ ᇶ‽䚸つไ௓ㆤ䝃䞊䝡䝇䛾㉁䛾☜ಖ(2) ௓ㆤᚑ஦⪅䛂௓ㆤ䛿ᑛ䛔௙஦䛃䛸䛔䛖ព㆑ĺാ䛝䛯䛔ே䛾ቑຍ䠄䠇ປാ᮲௳䛾ᨵၿ䠅(3) ᐙ᪘ (௓ㆤไᗘ䜢ᩚഛ䛧䛶䜒኱䛝䛺ᙺ๭)䛹䛾䜘䛖䛺ᨭ᥼⟇䜢ᥦ౪䛩䜛䛛䠛┦ㄯ䞉᝟ሗᥦ౪䚸௓ㆤఇᴗ䚸௓ㆤᡭᙜ䠛᪥ᮏ䛾⤒㦂䜢ཧ⪃䛻䛩䜛䛣䛸-> ྛᅜ䞉ᆅᇦ䛻ྜ䛳䛯ไᗘタィ䛻㈨䛩䜛
ฟᡤ䠖ᅜ❧♫఍ಖ㞀䞉ேཱྀၥ㢟◊✲ᡤ䛾ᑠᓥඞஂ䛜సᡂ

10.Japan Experience – Implication for the East Asia1. Financial Scheme(1) Tax or Social Security Insurance
Why do you adopt ………
(2) For Low Income Persons
We need Tax funded Subsidy not to prevent out of LTC service coverage.
Insurance Premium, Co-Payment etc.
2. LTC system

3. LTC service provision(1) Role of Government
Central Government
Provincial or Local Government
Which level government will be a insurer ?
(Experience, Efficiency, Community-Oriented)(2) LTC service development
Japan has spent long time to develop it.
To develop for shorter period……
Quantity, Quality
Balance (Type of services, Regions)(1) Providers
Private Company can do it or not ?
-> Service standard and rule to keep
Quality of LTC providers(2) Workers
LTC work should be worth to be respected-> More Workers, Improve Working Condition(3) Family (They are still important players.)
What kinds of support do we provide?
Consulting, Care leave, or Cash Benefit

Referred to Japan Experience-> You can select policy options that are suitable for your country.
Source: By Katsuhisa KOJIMA (IPSS)

Thank You!
䛤Ύ⫈䛒䜚䛜䛸䛖䛤䛦䛔䜎䛩庱庱⇯This research is funded by Health Labour Sciences Research Grant (Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare, Japan Government) from FY2012 to FY2014. The Grant Number is H24-Seisaku-Ippan-010.
Please do not hesitate if you are interested in my research.
E-mail : katsu@ipss.go.jp

Thank You!
䛤Ύ⫈䛒䜚䛜䛸䛖䛤䛦䛔䜎䛩庱庱⇯This research is funded by Health Labour Sciences Research Grant (Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare, Japan Government) from FY2012 to FY2014. The Grant Number is H24-Seisaku-Ippan-010.
Please do not hesitate if you are interested in my research.
E-mail : katsu@ipss.go.jpѣള䮵ᵕᣚ⨼ؓ䲟࡬ᓜⲺᯯṾ䘿᤟ѝഭ⽮Պ、ᆖ䲒Ӫਓоࣣࣘ㓿⍾⹄ウᡰ᷇ ᇍlinbao@cass.org.cn
2014.9.15ѱ㾷޻ᇯᗵ㾱ᙗ ⹄ウ⧠⣦ ᭯ㆆ䎠ੁ ࠐ⛩ᙍ㘳
ᗻ㾷ᙝφ‫ޱ‬㘷ᵃࣗ䴶≸໔ࣖ


Ӫਓ㘱喴ॆ




ᇦᓝሿරॆ




ራ≲⽮Պᴽ࣑ਟ㜭ᙗ࣐བྷӪਓ⍱࣐ࣘࢗ▌൘Ӫ㗔ᢙབྷሩ⽮Պᴽ࣑‫׍‬䎆໎ᕪ䴰≲ቲ⅑ॷ㓗
䴰≲޵ᇩཊṧॆᗻ㾷ᙝφᣚ⨼䴶≸ᐞཝ2010ᒤˈ60+㘱ᒤӪਓⲴ‫ڕ‬ᓧ⣦ߥн‫ڕ‬ᓧն ⭏⍫н㜭㠚⨶ 㜭㠚⨶
˄˅
˄˅

‫ޘ‬ഭ





෾ᐲ





䭷



ґᶁ



99
96
93
90
87
84
81
78
75
72
69
66
63
60

ྣ
(30)

(20)

(10)

0

10

⭧
20

30

40

ᗻ㾷ᙝφ‫ޱ‬㘷ᵃࣗ‫ב‬㔏у䏩ǉഭ࣑䲒‫ޣ‬Ҿ࣐ᘛਁኅޫ㘱ᴽ࣑ъⲴ㤕ᒢ᜿
㿱Ǌ˄ഭਁǒ2013Ǔ35ਧ˅ޫ㘱ᴽ઼࣑ӗ૱‫׋‬㔉н䏣ˈᐲ൪ਁ㛢н‫ˈޘڕ‬෾ґ४ฏਁኅнᒣ㺑ेӜᐲǉ᜿㿱Ǌ༴Ҿ䎧↕䱦⇥ˈᆈ൘ᴽ࣑‫׋‬㔉н䏣ǃ㔃ᶴнਸ⨶ǃ䍘䟿н儈ǃ⽮Պ࣋䟿৲он‫࠶ݵ‬ǃᢦᤱ᭯ㆆн‫ޘڕ‬ㅹ䰞仈ᗻ㾷ᙝφ‫ב‬䴶ᰖ⌋९䞃ޫ㘱ᴽ࣑䴰≲ޫ㘱ᴽ࣑‫׋‬㔉





䴰≲ཊṧॆ
᭟Ԉ㜭࣋⴨ሩ䖳վ‫׋‬㔉䳮ᓖ䖳བྷ‫׋‬㔉ᡀᵜ䖳儈䴰≲㘵Ⲵվ䍝Ҡ࣋о‫׋‬㔉㘵Ⲵ儈ԧṬѻ䰤ᆈ൘⸋⴮‫׋‬㔉㘵ੁ䴰≲㘵䶐䘁˖վԧ㨾㕙䴰≲㘵ੁ‫׋‬㔉㘵䶐䘁˖儈ԧ

վ䍘
䴰≲л䱽

䴰≲л䱽
ᐲ൪㨾㕙

ᐲ൪

ᗻ㾷ᙝφᷬ䎭жᓝẛặ‫׋‬䴰३䝽Ⲵᯩ⌅ᨀ儈䴰≲ᯩⲴ䍝Ҡ࣋ᨀվ˖䘲ᖃᨀ儈䴰≲ᯩⲴ䍝Ҡ࣋ࡺ儈˖䘲ᖃ䱽վ‫׋‬㔉ᯩⲴᡀᵜ
ཊቲ⅑Ⲵ᭦‫؍ޕ‬䳌ᵪࡦ˖ޫ㘱‫؍‬䲙ǃњӪۘ㫴ǃᇦᓝᡀઈ᭟ᤱǃ⽮Պᮁࣙǃվ‫؍‬⽮ՊॆⲴ䍝Ҡ࣋‫؍‬䳌ᵪࡦ˖५⯇‫؍‬䲙ǃ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙䱽վ‫׋‬㔉ᯩⲴᡀᵜ

ཊቲ⅑Ⲵᡀᵜл䱽ᵪࡦ˖ㆰॆ〻ᒿǃՈ‫ݸ‬ǃՈᜐǃ‫ݽ‬䍩ǃ㺕䍤⽮ՊॆⲴᡀᵜ࠶᩺ᵪࡦ˖५⯇‫؍‬䲙ǃ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ᗻ㾷ᙝφᕋ‫ޛ‬䮵ᵕᣚ⨼ؓ䲟࡬ᓜ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ਟᇎ⧠䴰㾱ᣔ⨶㘵઼н䴰㾱ᣔ⨶㘵ѻ䰤Ⲵ⽮Պ‫ˈ⍾ޡ‬ਟᴹ᭸䱽վ䴰≲㘵Ⲵ䍏ᣵˈᇎ⧠‫׋‬䴰ѻ䰤Ⲵ३䝽䇙䴰䴰㾱㘵৫㧧ᗇᣔ⨶ᴽ࣑



䇙䴰㾱㘵ਟ
ਟԕ㧧ᗇᣔ⨶ᴽ࣑䇙䴰㾱㘵㧧ᗇਸ
ਸ⨶Ⲵᣔ⨶ᴽ࣑⹊ガ⧦⣬φԛԁ㔃ളཌ᭵ㆌ㘻ቻཐӻ㓽অаഭᇦⲴࡦᓖ
ᰕᵜ˄⎧嗉ˈ2013˗ቩᡀ䘌ㅹˈ2006˅ 丙ഭ˄঒⌅ᶕǃ䱸䈊䈊ˈ2012˅ ᗧഭ˄䜍ੋᇼǃᵾᗳ᜹ˈ2014˅ 㖾ഭ˄世‫ޜ‬䘌ˈ2006˅ഭ䱵∄䖳⹄ウᗧᰕ˄ઘไˈ2007˗ᡤছьˈ2007˅ 㖾ᗧᰕ˄㜑ᆿՏㅹˈ2013˅ ᰕ丙˄儈᱕‫ޠ‬ǃ⨝၏ˈ2013˅⹊ガ⧦⣬φѣള᭵ㆌ⁗ᕅⲺ᧘䇞ᡤছь˄2011˅˖⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙⁑ᔿ䈅⛩‫ݸ‬㹼 䱴Ҿ५⯇‫؍‬䲙 ཊᯩ䍏ᣵǃ⧠᭦⧠Ԉ㥶⏋˄2010˅˖й↕䎠୶ъ‫؍‬䲙 ୶ъ‫؍‬䲙઼⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙⴨㔃ਸ ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙᭵ㆌ䎦ੇφ‫ޱ‬㘷ᵃࣗѐᗍࡦグࢃ䠃㿼ॱ‫ޛ‬ቺйѝ‫ޘ‬ՊǉߣᇊǊ〟ᶱᓄሩӪਓ㘱喴ॆˈ࣐ᘛᔪ・⽮Պޫ㘱ᴽ࣑փ㌫઼ਁኅ㘱ᒤᴽ࣑ӗъǉഭ࣑䲒‫ޣ‬Ҿ࣐ᘛਁኅޫ㘱ᴽ࣑ъⲴ㤕ᒢ᜿
㿱Ǌ˄ഭਁǒ2013Ǔ35ਧ˅ࣚ࣋֯ޫ㘱ᴽ࣑ъᡀѪ〟ᶱᓄሩӪਓ㘱喴ॆǃ‫؍‬䳌઼᭩ழ≁⭏Ⲵ䟽㾱Ѯ᧚ˈᡀѪᢙབྷ޵䴰ǃ໎࣐ቡъǃ‫׳‬䘋ᴽ࣑ъਁኅǃ᧘ࣘ㓿⍾䖜රॷ㓗Ⲵ䟽㾱࣋䟿᭵ㆌ䎦ੇφԃԛ啉ࣧ୼ѐؓ䲟Ѱѱǉѝഭ㘱喴һъਁኅĀॱҼӄā㿴ࡂǊ˄2011.9˅⽮Պޫ㘱ᴽ࣑փ㌫ᔪ䇮㿴ࡂ˄2011ˉ2015ᒤ˅˄ഭ
࣎ˈ2011.12˅
ᴹᶑԦⲴൠᯩˈਟԕ᧒㍒ᇎᯭ㘱ᒤᣔ⨶㺕䍤ǃᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ǉѝॾӪ≁‫઼ޡ‬ഭ㘱ᒤӪᵳ⳺‫؍‬䳌⌅Ǌ˄2012˅⹄ウ᧒㍒㘱ᒤӪ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶ࡦᓖˈ啃࣡ǃᕅሬ୶ъ‫؍‬䲙‫ޜ‬ਨᔰኅ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ъ࣑ഭᇦ䙀↕ᔰኅ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䳌ᐕ֌ˈ‫؍‬䳌㘱ᒤӪⲴᣔ⨶䴰≲ǉഭ࣑䲒‫ޣ‬Ҿ࣐ᘛਁኅޫ㘱ᴽ࣑ъⲴ㤕ᒢ᜿㿱Ǌ˄ഭ
ਁǒ2013Ǔ35ਧ˅啃࣡㘱ᒤӪᣅ‫ڕ؍‬ᓧ‫؍‬䲙ǃ䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ǃ᜿ཆՔᇣ‫؍‬䲙ㅹӪ䓛‫؍‬䲙ӗ૱ˈ啃઼࣡ᕅሬ୶ъ‫؍‬䲙‫ޜ‬ਨᔰኅ⴨‫ޣ‬ъ࣑᭵ㆌ䎦ੇφᔶခ᧘㍘⽴Րؓ䲟䶂ዋ˖ǉ䶂ዋᐲ‫ޣ‬Ҿᔪ・䮯ᵏ५⯇ᣔ⨶ࡦᓖⲴ᜿㿱˄䈅㹼˅Ǌ˄2012,7˅








ࠑ৲࣐෾䭷㙼ᐕสᵜ५⯇‫؍‬䲙ǃ෾䭷ት≁สᵜ५⯇‫؍‬䲙Ⲵ৲‫؍‬Ӫˈ൷ᓄ৲࣐ᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙Ǆᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ส䠁᤹➗ࡂᤘᶕⓀˈ࠶Ѫ෾䭷㙼ᐕᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙઼෾䭷ት≁ᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙є䜘࠶Ǆ෾䭷㙼ᐕ˖0.2%*2˗ት≁˖0.2%˗䍒᭯˖2000з൘ᇊ⛩ᴽ࣑ᵪᶴ˖ส䠁᭟Ԉ˕˒ˁ˗൘ᇊ⛩५䲒᧕˖ส䠁᭟Ԉ˕ˌˁǄн޽䇮・䎧Ԉḷ߶Ǆ⽮‫؍‬㓿࣎ᵪᶴሩᇊ⛩ᴽ࣑ᵪᶴⲴ㔃㇇ḷ߶ˈṩᦞᇎ䐥㓿傼ᇎ㹼᤹⇿ᒺᰕवᒢᇊ仍㇑⨶࣎⌅ˈ࠶˒ˌ‫ݳ‬ǃˍ˓ˌ‫ݳ‬ǃˎˌˌ‫ݳ‬йњḷ߶Ǆ䈅㹼1ᒤˈ1зཊӪӛਇᴽ࣑ˈ᭟Ԉ1ӯཊ˗५⯇ᇊ⛩ᵪᶴӾ
134ਁኅ㠣379ᇦˈާ༷५ᣔ䍴䍘Ⲵޫ㘱ᵪᶴӾ20໎࣐㠣40ᇦᙓ㘹φᵠᶛ᭵ㆌ䎦ੇϋ୶ъ‫؍‬䲙 or ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙 ४ฏ࠶ࢢ or ‫ޘ‬ഭ㔏а ෾ґ࠶ࢢ or ‫ޘ‬ഭ㔏а ५‫؍‬䱴࣐ or ⤜・䲙⿽ ᕪࡦ or 㠚ᝯᙓ㘹φ࠰ਦᰬᵰ


ᴹ࡙ᰦᵪ




ॱ‫ޛ‬ቺйѝ‫ޘ‬ՊǉߣᇊǊ˖䘲ᰦ䘲ᖃ䱽վ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙䍩⦷䱽վ⽮Պ‫؍‬䲙䍩⦷Ⲵオ䰤ሿ㔃ѝഭ䴰㾱ᔪ・䮯ᵏᣔ⨶‫؍‬䲙ࡦᓖ ѝഭᆈ൘ᔪ・ࡦᓖⲴᴹ࡙ᰦᵪ ާփⲴࡦᓖ䇮䇑䘈䴰㾱䘋а↕⹄ウ䉒 䉒ʽ