WORKING MOTHERS IN FINLAND

: A MODEL FOR JAPAN OR NOT?

HARUKA MATSUOKA

INTRODUCTION

FINLAND

‣Finland

Size of land: 338,000 ㎢

Population: 5,430,000

Capital: Helsinki

Official languages: Finnish & Swedish

Letters from Santa Claus(2013)

Fig2. Map of Finland

The current situation of working women in Japan

‣Fig1. Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate by Age Series

Source: Gender Equal Bureau Cabinet Office (2011)

‣Gender Gap Index(2013)

Source: Yomiuri shimbun (2013)

Source: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training(2009:13)

‣Fig.2 Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate in Japan and Finland

‣Fig.3 Changes of the Total Fertility Rate in Finland and Japan

Source: Takahashi, Tamminen, Watanabe(2009:46)

1.Introduction2.Defining terms3.Evidences for a model4.Evidences for not a model5.Analysis6.Conclusion

OUTLINE

Model ＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate 　　 (Oxford Dictionary:2013)

Working mothers　＝ mothers who have full-time jobs

DEFINING TERMS

⇒Is the social system of Finland an ideal one for full-time working mothers to cope with continuing their careers and bringing up their children which Japan can take for a model?

‣The question is…

1.Introduction2.Defining terms3.Evidences for a model4.Evidences for not a model5.Analysis6.Conclusion

OUTLINE

3.1 Government support

3.2 Consciousness of Finns

3.3 Short working hours

EVIDENCES FOR A MODEL

3.1 Government support

The duration The allowance

Maternity leave 105 working days →90%(The first 56 working days)

→70-75%(the rest of that)

Parental leave 158 working days 70-75%

Paternity leave 58 working days 70-75%

Source: Mikko(2013:28-30)

Table1. Finnish Leave in Relation etc.

ネウボラ

育児パッケージ

A model＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

3.2 Consciousness of Finns

The duration The allowance

The usage rate

Maternity leave

105 working days

→90%(The first 56 working days)

→70-75%(The rest of that)

All mothers

Parental leave

158 working days

70-75% Almost all mothers23% of fathers used partly(2010)

Paternity leave

58 working days

70-75% 80% of fathersSource: Mikko(2013:28-30)

Table2. Finnish Leave in Relation etc. and the Usage Rate

Fig4. Daily Housework Carried out by Men and Women in Finland

Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:55)

A model＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

3.3 Short working hours

‣The average annual working time (2012) Finland: 1672 hours (OECD 2013a)Japan: 1745 hours ＋？？？

　　　 (OECD 2013b)

A model＝ a thing used as an example to follow or imitate

1.Introduction2.Defining terms3.Evidences for a model4.Evidences for not a model5.Analysis6.Conclusion

OUTLINE

4.1 The demerit of “big government”

4.2 The high divorce rate

4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation

EVIDENCES FOR NOT A MODEL

4.1 The demerit of “big government”‣The high consumption tax A tax on value added is 23%! (Zenkoku Kanzeikai Sorengokai 2012)

‣too intrusive social security system “From cradle to grave!”

Not a model

4.2 The high divorce rate

‣Finnish divorce rate: about 50%(2012) (Statistics Finland 2013)Not a

model

4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupationFig5: The proportion of employees classified by industry groups in gender

in Finland

Source: Hashimoto(2006:43)

Fig6: Gender wage gap (2006)

Source: Gender Equal Bureau Cabinet Office(2010)

Fig7: Gender wage Gap (2000-2010)

Not a model

Source: OECD(2013c:1)

1.Introduction2.Defining terms3.Evidences for a model4.Evidences for not a model5.Analysis6.Conclusion

OUTLINE

3.1 Government support3.2 Consciousness of Finns3.3 Short working hours

4.1 The demerit of “big government”4.2 The high divorce rate4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation

ANALYSIS

3.1Government support

The duration

The allowance

Maternity leave

105 working days

→90%(The first 56 working days)

→70-75%(the rest of that)

Parental leave

158 working days

70-75%

Paternity leave

58 working days

70-75%

The duration

The allowance

Maternity leave

14 weeks 2/3

Childcare leave(for both mother and father)

1.5 years 50%

Table3. Finnish Leave in Relation etc.

Table4. Japanese Leave in Relation etc.

Not so different!!

However, there are many other services to support mothers keeping their jobs Japan don’t have.

Source: Mikko(2013:28-30)

Source: Asahi Shimbun(2013); Nikkei Shimbun(2013)

3.2 Consciousness of FinnsFig8. Worker’s Opinion about the Reaction of Workplace to Using Leaves in Finland

Source: Hashimoto(2006:40)

Fig9. Daily Housework Carried out by Men and Women in Finland

Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:55)

3.3 Short working hours

Source: 社会実情データ図録 (2013)

Fig. 10 Proportion of Long Time workers(2010)

Source: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training(2009:13)

Fig11. 継続就業のために会社に希望すること（複数回答） ( 平成１６年） (in Japan)

4.1 The demerit of “big government”

　　　　　 TAX ⇒Various social services ⇒Creating the equality

4.2 The high divorce rate

Fig.12 Type of Family in Finland

Source: Hashimoto(2006:36)

‣The values about marriage and divorce

4.3 The gender gap in the type of occupation

Table3. Number and Proportion of Director in 100 Finnish Biggest Companies

Source: 女性と仕事の未来館 (2006:54)

1.Introduction2.Defining terms3.Evidences for a model4.Evidences for not a model5.Analysis6.Conclusion

OUTLINE

A MODEL

3.1 Government support

　★★3.2 Consciousness of

Finns

★★ 　　　　　　　　　　　3.3 Short working

hours

　　　　　　　　★★★

NOT A MODEL

4.1 demerit of “big government”

　　　　　　　　　　★4.2 High divorce rate

★4.3 Gender gap in the

type of occupation

　　　　　　　★★★

CONCLUSION

Working mothers in Finland can be a model for Japan!!

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING