Who Pays the Cost and Who Receives the Benefit? Comparing Migration Policies for Care Workers in Japan and Taiwan

  • Kunio Tsubota
Part of the Series in Asian Labor and Welfare Policies book series (Series in Asian Labor and Welfare Policies)


Facing a shortage of care workers, industrial countries have resorted to migrant care workers (MCWs) for a quick fix. They have applied different regulatory measures, which generate different patterns of costs/benefits among stakeholders. This chapter compares the costs/benefits between Taiwan and Japan, which accepted MCWs from the same sending countries. Taiwan’s indirect and tactical control allowed all stakeholders to tap considerable benefits from the massive influx of MCWs. Japan’s tight migration policies enabled a few select candidates to enjoy handsome benefits while forcing employers and the government to bear high costs for investment. Both regimes, however, would be unsustainable. With the low fertility rates, only a half of Taiwan’s working-class parents will be supported under this regime. Japan’s snowballing financial burdens would choke the Long-Term Care Insurance without drastic changes. In the super-aging society, everybody will have to pay the costs.



This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 15 K03844 and 26293113.


  1. Asato, W. 2004. “Taiwan niokeru Gaikokujin Kaji/kaigo Roudoushano Shoguu nitsuite.” Keizaigaku Ronshuu 43 (5): 1–28.Google Scholar
  2. BIMA CONC. 2014. Report on the 4th Survey of EPA Nurse and Caregiver Candidates. Retrieved from
  3. Colombo, F. et al. 2011. Help Wanted?: Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DGBAS. 2013. Household Income and Expenditure Survey, 2012. Taipei: DGBASGoogle Scholar
  5. DGBAS. 2016. Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, December 2015. Taipei: DGBAS.Google Scholar
  6. ESF. 2013. Financial Statement FY 2012. Taipei: Employment Security Fund Management Commission.Google Scholar
  7. ESF. 2013. Financial Statement FY 2012. Taipei: Employment Security Fund Management Commission.Google Scholar
  8. Ford, M., and K. Kawashima. 2013. “Temporary Labor Migration and Care Work: The Japanese experience.” Journal of Industrial Relations 55 (3): 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. JICWELS. 2013. Gaikokujin Kaigofukushishsi-kouho Ukeireshisetsu Jyunkaishidou-kekka Houkoku.” Retrieved from
  10. JICWELS. 2014. Gaikokujin Kaigofukushishsi-kouho Ukeireshisetsu Jyunkaishidou-kekka Houkoku. Retrieved from
  11. JICWELS (ed.). 2015. Gaikokujin Kaigoroudousha ni kakaru Jittaichousa Houkokusho. Tokyo: JICWELSGoogle Scholar
  12. Massey, D.S., J. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouci, A. Pellegrino, and J.E. Taylor. 1993. “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19 (3): 431–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. METI. 2013. Gyousei Jigyou Review Sheet No. 233. Retrieved from
  14. MHLW. 2012. Wage Structure Survey, 2012. Tokyo: MHLW.Google Scholar
  15. MHLW. 2014. Kaigohoken Shisetsu Jyoukyou Chousa (Survey on care institutions). Retrieved from
  16. MHLW. 2015b. Kouteki Kaigohoken Seido no Genjyou to Kongono Yakuwari. Retrieved from
  17. MHLW. 2016a. 8th Gaikokujin Kaigojinzai no Ukeire nikansuru Kentoukai Sankoushiryou. Retrieved from
  18. MHLW. 2016b. Kaigo Jinzai no Kakuho nitsuite. Retrieved from
  19. MHLW. 2016c. Kaigojinzai no Kakuho (sankousiryou). 59th Sub-comitte on LTCI. Retrieved from
  20. Miyamato, Y. 2015. “Study on Foreign Home-care Givers in Taiwan.” Bulletin of Doshisha Joshi Daigaku Sougoubunka Kenkyusho 32: 55–70.Google Scholar
  21. MOFA. 2014. Gyousei Jigyou Review Sheet FY 2013, Program No. 011. Retrieved from
  22. MOGA. 2012. Household Expenditure Survey 2012. Tokyo: MOGA.Google Scholar
  23. MOHW. 2014. Senior Citizen Condition Survey 2013 Annual Report. Taipei: MOHW.Google Scholar
  24. MOHW. 2016. Elderly Long-term Care, Nursing and Caring Institutions. Elderly Welfare Statistical Tables. Retrieved from
  25. MOL. 2012. Survey on Foreign Worker Utilization and Management. Taipei: MOL.Google Scholar
  26. MOL. 2014a. Training before First Arrival—Survey on Foreign Worker Utilization and Management (no. 92). Taipei: MOL.Google Scholar
  27. MOL. 2014b. Recruitment through Brokers—Survey on Foreign Worker Utilization and Management (no. 82). Taipei: MOL.Google Scholar
  28. Ogawa, R. 2012. “Globalization of Care and the Context of Reception of Southeast Asian Caregivers in Japan.” Southeast Asia Studies 49 (4): 570–593.Google Scholar
  29. Ohno, S. 2011. “Taiwan’s Acceptance of Foreign Caretakers at a Crossroads: Between Marketization and Protection of Their Human Rights.” Bulletin of Kyushu Daigaku Asia Center 4: 69–83.Google Scholar
  30. Son, J. 2015. “Labour Markets, Care Regimes and Foreign Caregiver Policies in East Asia.” Social Policy and Administration 49 (3): 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tseng, Y.-f., and H.-z. Wang. 2013. “Governing Migrant Workers at a Distance: Managing the Temporary Status of Guest Workers in Taiwan.” International Migration 51 (4): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsubota, K., R. Ogawa, S. Ohno, and Y. Ohara-Hirano. 2015. “A study on the cost and willingness to recruit EPA foreign nurses and care workers in Japan: from the angle of hospitals and care facilities.” Health Science Research 27: 45–53.Google Scholar
  33. Yong, V., and Y. Saito. 2011. “National Long-term Care Insurance in Japan, A decade after Implementation: Some Lessons for Aging Countries.” Aging International 37: 272–284.Google Scholar
  34. Yuriarto, R.P. 2015. “Indonesian Migration Industry in Taiwan: Some Socio-economic Implications and Improvement Challenges.” Jurnal Kajian Wilayah 6 (1):17–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kunio Tsubota
    • 1
  1. 1.Meiji-universityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations