<POINTS>

• The quality of our housing environment (such as the presence of insulation or barrier-free designs) significantly impacts our health, and housing is the foundation for in-home medical and long-term care. Housing should be positioned as part of public health and healthcare policies.
• Japan’s existing housing policy is characterized by a dependence on preferential programs for home ownership (i.e., tax deductions for mortgages) or benefits derived from corporate housing. Such factors widen disparities among households. Compared to other major developed countries, the supply of public housing in Japan is insufficient.
• Japan should create housing policy that can serve as a form of social security. In the short term, such efforts should include expanding rent subsidies and emergency housing support. Medium-term actions should include expanding public housing and redesigning systems that prioritize home ownership. In the long term, the Basic Act for Housing should be revised to make clear mention of concepts related to healthcare or health.

The HGP Policy Column was launched in July 2019 as part of the Dementia Project and now includes over 60 installments. The column has since expanded beyond the Dementia Project to become a forum for dissemination for various HGPI projects, and there is no particular limitation that restricts these themes to existing HGPI initiatives. As such, this installment will focus on housing policy, which is a theme that HGPI has not handled in the past.

Only discussing housing policy within the frameworks of industry promotion or asset creation leaves me with a sense of discomfort. This is because in addition to a private asset, housing is a public infrastructure with deep links to health, employment, and social involvement. Therefore, in this column, I would like to outline the importance of housing from a health policy perspective, highlight problems with the structure of existing policy (namely, preferential treatment for home ownership, dependence on corporate welfare, and an insufficient supply of public housing), and recommend a shift for housing to be treated as a right within social security. Of course, academic discussions on these aspects of policy have already been taking place. For example, Professor Yasushi Sukenari, a sociologist, has examined the importance of housing as a social institution that ensures continuity in daily life by providing people with spaces to live instead of housing as a good, where the housing supply is the only concern.

First is the importance of housing from the perspective of health policy. In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its “Housing and health guidelines,” providing evidence related to housing and health. The quality of the housing environment (in terms of insulation, ventilation, mold and mildew prevention, barrier-free design, or internal safety features) can affect respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, falls and fractures, and even mental health. Lower indoor temperatures in winter can elevate risk for cardiovascular events and thermal shock, while overcrowding and mold can aggravate asthma symptoms or allergies. Housing also provides the basis for in-home medical services like visiting care and in-home long-term care, so the Integrated Community Care System cannot function when housing is unstable. The residence is also the foundation that supports involvement in local communities, and it contributes to measures for loneliness and isolation as well as the creation of social capital. Given all this, it is clear that housing is not something that only addresses the need for shelter; it is also a part of public health and health policy.

Regarding this last point, there has been a visible shift in government discussions. The “Headquarters for Social Security System Oriented to All Generations Report” presented in December 2024 included “Secure housing” in its list of items to address for the successful creation of a community-based inclusive society. In the context of that report, the intended subjects of such efforts were people experiencing issues related to housing, but the inclusion of such a target allows us to conclude that within the government, there is now a certain degree of understanding that housing instability hinders access to other social services. However, there is still uncertainty as to whether that recognition is being sufficiently reflected in actual political issues. While many parties campaigned on measures for the economy or high prices as key issues during the last House of Councillors election in 2025, discussions were limited to reducing consumption taxes or providing cash handouts. There were almost no broader discussions on stabilizing housing, ensuring healthy housing, expanding public housing, or other policies related to housing, which is something that underpins the daily lives of citizens. Campaign pledges related to housing were only made by some political parties and were limited to the establishment of housing allowances. I think that in these discussions on economic safety nets, more energy should have been devoted to the need to secure housing and other foundations for daily life.

Next, I would like to outline current circumstances surrounding domestic housing policy. In Japan, housing policy is characterized by tax deductions for mortgage holders. While policies that incentivize home ownership do encourage people to acquire housing, they tend to favor households with taxable incomes, causing a distribution problem in which it is difficult to reach households who rent or have lower incomes. On top of this, the supply ratio of public or social housing is lower in Japan than other major developed countries, limiting the ability of such housing to serve as a public safety net. This structure has fostered attitudes that housing is primarily to be left to the market or is a personal asset, resulting in a disconnect from the societal goal of stable housing.

Another factor that lies in the background and must not go overlooked is the current state of housing policy in which companies take on the role of welfare. This system first took shape during Japan’s period of rapid economic growth following World War II. Many companies have been providing company housing or housing allowances as part of their benefits packages, which has partially supported housing for workers and their families. When coupled with long-term employment, this company-centered model created a certain degree of stability, but stagnant economic growth after the collapse of the asset price bubble in the early 1990s and increased job mobility have led to growing recognition that it requires review. Despite these changes, a large proportion of major corporations still provide their employees with housing allowances or company housing. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s (MHLW) “General Survey on Working Conditions,” the percentage of employees who receive housing allowances and the relative amounts of those allowances increase in proportion to the number of workers employed by each company. Conversely, it is more difficult to reach people serving at small and medium enterprises or in informal employment with safety nets provided by companies, and it could be argued that structuring benefits in a manner that is dependent on companies increases the risk of exacerbating imbalances among households or age groups. Additionally, housing benefits can create a “lock-in effect” that hinders job mobility, regional mobility, or reskilling, all of which are contradictory to policy goals of today.

Given these issues, I propose we shift to a framework of social security in which housing is treated as a right. Steps to be taken in the short term should include expanding rent subsidies and emergency housing support for households who rent while advancing efforts to utilize vacant houses in communities to create housing that comes with counseling support. Over the medium term, actions should include redesigning systems that prioritize home ownership (including tax deductions for mortgage holders) and shifting emphasis to younger people, members of lower income groups, and investments in renovation; strategically expanding the supply of public and social housing; and advancing efforts to support renovations of existing housing, such as to improve insulation or create barrier-free homes. I believe that in the long term, it will be necessary to incorporate elements related to healthcare and welfare into housing policy. For example, as the Basic Act for Housing enacted in 2006 does not include any mention of healthcare or health, one option may be to include these concepts through a legal revision.

I also venture to suggest that instead of unilaterally discouraging the housing benefits that have been provided by employers, it will be more realistic to adopt a design that recognizes their advantages (such as for recruitment and retention) while gradually correcting dependence on the private sector by strengthening efforts to secure public housing based on modern trends in employment and workers’ needs. I hope that a perspective in which housing is positioned as the pillar of daily living and a form of health infrastructure features more prominently during elections or forums for political debate, and moving forward, I would like to consider what actions can be taken through initiatives from HGPI.

Column author

Shunichiro Kurita (Senior Manager, HGPI)