How Japan Stacks Up and What It Can Learn
Japan is not singular in experiencing a gender wage gap, but it takes a different approach and is progressing differently from others. Pitting Japan's situation against several others – Sweden, Norway, and South Korea – is instructive because they are at various points on the continuum of gender equality and because there are lessons about policy efficacy to be drawn.
Nordic Countries (Sweden and Norway): The Nordic countries are usually employed as benchmarks of gender balance in the labour market. Sweden and Norway both have relatively modest gender pay differentials (around 5–10%) and consistently rank highly on international lists of gender balance. Partly responsible is rich policy support to working parents and gender balance. For example, Sweden gives generous shared parental leave to mothers and fathers, including a quota specifically for fathers (the "daddy quota"). This has led to the proportion of fathers taking leave rising dramatically (the same policy in Iceland raised fathers' share of parental leave from 3% to ~45%) and has made men's participation in childcare normal. As a result, Swedish women are less likely to leave the workforce after having children, lowering the motherhood penalty on wages. Cheap childcare is another pillar – Sweden and Norway subsidize child care centers highly, making motherhood not an option for having to leave career. Moreover, they prefer flexible work patterns and balanced working hours (a deviation from Japan's famously demanding work ethic), enabling enhanced work-life balance. Both countries also have shifted to correcting representation: Norway rightly introduced a 40% quota of women on board company boards, and Sweden has made determined attempts to appoint women as leaders in industries. While even the Nordics have not reached 0% wage gap, their approach has kept gaps small and women's participation high. What this does is get women's skills more fully into the economy – Swedish women's employment rate is equal to men's, and part-time work, while common, is often by choice with pro-rated benefits. Japan could take lessons from the Nordics' aggressive approach: implement work-life balance (e.g., get fathers to take childcare leave – at present, only ~5% of Japanese fathers take any leave, although the last few years reflect a modest increase from the 2% a few years back), promote child care infrastructure, and push women into leadership positions. Most important here is Sweden and Norway showing how cultural norms can shift (it's now the done thing in Sweden for fathers to take parental leave, for example) with the help of supportive policy.
South Korea: South Korea is a case very similar to Japan in so many respects. It has the OECD's largest gender pay gap (31% in 2022), even wider than Japan's ~22%. Korea's issues are identical to those of Japan: well-educated females, but a conservative corporate culture that forces them out of the workforce on marriage/childbirth, and an economy based on long working hours and seniority pay. There are few female Korean managers, and women are disproportionately in non-regular employment. South Korea too has taken steps, particularly in recent years, to address this – including making childcare more accessible and promoting work flexibility – but slowly. Korea's pay gap increased hardly at all from 31.1% to 31.2% between 2021 and 2022, showing structural inertia. One reason is that, as in Japan, there is a gradual shift in social expectations regarding gender roles. Korea has started to compel large companies to disclose gender pay gaps (likewise, Japan in 2022), with the hope of shaming or enticing companies to reform. Korea and Japan have both recognized that prioritizing women's contribution to the workforce and compensation is central to their economic prosperity (especially with low birth rates and an increasing aging population). They even have policy ambitions – for instance, Korea has also discussed women managers' targets and initiatives to get men to do more childcare. The Korea comparison is a warning to Japan: without sustained and concerted effort, the gap can stubbornly persist at high levels. It also introduces a bit of competition – as neighboring East Asian economies, there's frequently a sense of rivalry. If Korea were to pioneer in, say, legalizing paternal leave or reducing its gap by a significant margin, it could lead Japan to follow suit (and vice versa). So far, both countries are inching along gingerly instead of sprinting, unlike the splashy leaps in some Western and Nordic nations decades earlier. Learning from the Korean experience, Japan can acknowledge the value in stricter enforcement of equality law and perhaps more assertive action (e.g., interim quotas or affirmative action for women in the management) in order to drive change.
Other international examples are also worthy of mention: Iceland (often No.1 in gender equality league tables) successfully closed its unadjusted gender pay gap through the use of policies similar to those of Nordic neighbors and a cultural belief in equality. The United Kingdom began the requirement for pay gap reporting in medium and big businesses in 2017 and this brought very rapid transparency with it, with many companies already being pressured into better practices since; Japan's new legislation takes this forward a step. Both Germany and France have legislated their own equal pay transparency measures to begin nibbling away at gaps of roughly 15% and 10% respectively. In developing Asia, countries like the Philippines have fairly narrow wage differentials with Japan (mainly due to other economic arrangements and high rates of women in professional occupations, for instance, nursing and overseas work). Each country's situation is different, but one thing that goes through success stories is that there is big government policy and corporate responsibility involved in bridging the gap – it rarely happens by accident. Japan’s policy approach, often dubbed “Womenomics” (since the Abe Japan is not alone in facing a gender wage gap, but its approach and progress differ from other countries. Comparing Japan’s situation with a few others – Sweden, Norway, and South Korea – is instructive, as they represent different points on the spectrum of gender equality and offer lessons on policy effectiveness.
Nordic Countries (Sweden and Norway): Both countries are regularly invoked as exemplars of gender equality in the workforce. Sweden and Norway have relatively low gender pay gaps (5–10%) and consistently rank highly on global gender equality league tables. Part of the significant reason is a high degree of policy support for working parents and gender equality. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave for mothers and fathers, including a special "daddy quota" for fathers. This led to a massive increase in fathers taking leave (in Iceland, a similar policy boosted fathers' use of parental leave from 3% to ~45%) and helped make men's involvement in childcare more mainstream. As a result, Swedish women are less likely to quit the workforce after having had a child, which cuts down on the motherhood penalty on pay. Affordable childcare is a second pillar – Sweden and Norway heavily subsidize child care centers, so that women aren't forced to opt between career and motherhood. Moreover, these societies also adopt a culture of flexible work and reasonable working hours (as opposed to Japan's often pathological work culture), making it easier to have a work-life balance. Both countries have also taken steps toward representation: Norway notoriously passed a law that included a 40% quota of women on company boards, and Sweden has worked diligently to place women in top positions in industry. While even the Nordics are not quite at 0% wage gap, their policies kept gaps low and female employment high. The result is that women's talent is better integrated into the economy – the Swedish labor market participation rate for women is on par with men, and part-time work, while common, is often by choice with pro-rated benefits. Japan has a great deal to learn from the Nordics' proactive stance: enforce work-life balance (e.g., compel fathers to go on childcare leave – currently only ~5% of Japanese fathers take any leave, although the past few years do show marginal increase from the 2% level just a few years ago), invest in childcare infrastructure, and provide a push for women into decision-making roles. Perhaps most importantly, Sweden and Norway show that cultural norms can shift (it's currently socially acceptable in Sweden for fathers to take parental leave, e.g.) when supported by positive policy.
South Korea: South Korea is an example very similar to Japan in so many respects. It has the widest gender pay gap in the OECD (31% in 2022), even higher than Japan's ~22%. Korea's problems are the same as Japan's: well-educated women, but a conservative work culture that puts pressure on them to quit work after marriage/childbirth, and an economy that is highly dependent on long working hours and seniority-based pay. Few Korean managers are women, and women are disproportionately in non-regular employment. South Korea also has made efforts, especially in recent years, to do something about this – such as expanding childcare access and encouraging work flexibility – but the rate of change has been gradual. Korea's gender pay gap shifted barely at all from 31.1% to 31.2% between 2021 and 2022, indicating structural inertia. In part, it is because, as in Japan, social presumptions about gender roles change only slowly. Korea has started to require large companies to disclose gender pay gaps (as Japan did in 2022), hoping to embarrass or pressure companies into action. Japan and Korea have both understood that improving women's participation in the labor market and their wages is key to their economies (with low birth rates and an aging population). They even have policy goals – Korea, for instance, also discussed women in management goals and attempting to get men to accomplish more care. The Korean comparison is a cautionary tale to Japan: without continued and comprehensive action, the gap can be stuck high. It also gives a splash of competition – as close neighbors in the East Asian economies, there's typically a sense of competition. If Korea leapfrogged forward, for example, to normalizing paternal leave or reducing its gap by a large margin, it could push Japan to follow suit (and vice versa). Currently, both are going ahead in a hesitant manner slowly rather than leapfrogging forward as in some grand leaps made in some Western and Nordic nations some decades ago. Drawing a lesson from Korea, Japan would also welcome better enforcement of equality laws and even stronger measures (e.g., interim quotas or affirmative action at the top for women) to bring about change.
It is also instructive to examine some other international models: Iceland (often No.1 in gender equality league tables) all but eliminated its unadjusted gender pay gap through policies similar to those of Nordic neighbors and a national emphasis on equality. The United Kingdom introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting for medium and large enterprises in 2017, which quickly introduced transparency and compelled many businesses to improve; Japan's new legislation is further down this road. Germany and France have also introduced their own pay transparency and equality legislation to close gaps of about 15% and 10% respectively. In developing Asia, countries like the Philippines comparatively have very small wage gaps against Japan (among other reasons, because they utilize different economic systems and have significant percentages of females in professional lines of work like nursing and jobs abroad). There is no typical country's condition, but part of what makes most success stories possible is the fact that business and government responsibility contribute significantly toward filling the gap – it normally doesn't by accident. Japan's policy agenda, popularly known as "Womenomics" (since the Abe administration), has had mixed results: it did increase women's employment, but still hasn't had the mirrored success in pay equality or leadership positions. The international consensus advises doubling down on evidence-based policies like pay transparency, shared parental leave, subsidised day care, tough anti-discrimination enforcement, and perhaps gender quotas where there are blatant underrepresentations. These policies have served other countries well and can be applied to Japan's situation.administration), has yielded mixed results: it did lift women's jobs, but it hasn't yet returned commensurate improvements in earnings equality or leadership representation. The global benchmark is that Japan double down on evidence-based solutions such as pay transparency, equality of parental leave, subsidised childcare, enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and even gender quotas where there are extreme underrepresentations. These have assisted other countries to progress and may be applied to the case of Japan.