A single mother in her 30s in the northeastern Tohoku region felt a sense of helplessness as she trudged toward her car from her home.

She was carrying her 1-year-old in one hand, a garbage bag of dirty diapers for disposal in her other hand, and two more bags filled with bedding for her children on her shoulders.

“Hold me, too,” her 3-year-old begged.

The mother of four nearly had to do this regular chore without a car.

Under what critics say is an unreasonable rule, low-income households eligible for public aid are required, in principle, to use up their “assets,” such as savings and vehicles, to receive assistance.

The only exceptions to the car rule are disable people and those who live in rural areas with scarce public transportation services. They can keep a car “for commuting and hospital visits.”

After pleading her case, explaining the necessity of her car, and consulting with a lawyer, the Tohoku woman’s local welfare office allowed her to retain the car for work and nursery school purposes.

But many women in similar circumstances across Japan have been forced to choose between welfare benefits and their cars.

In one case, a mother of four children, including a toddler, said her welfare office said it would consider her application if she left behind her car in the parking lot of the office.

The woman, a part-time employee, applied for government aid after falling behind on rent and other bills. A train runs only once every several hours at the nearest station to her home, and bus services are extremely limited.

In another case, a mother raising a sixth-grader sought welfare after becoming unable to continue her full-time work due to depression.

She and her child used the Food Bank, but that was not enough. She received 52,000 yen ($345) a month in public child support.

The mother was told to give up her car to receive welfare benefits.

VEHICLES A BASIC NECESSITY

A central government estimate for 2019 showed that only 23 percent of low-income households eligible for public aid received benefits.

Researchers say the low ratio stems from a number of factors: the stigma attached to recipients of taxpayer funds; lack of sufficient knowledge about welfare programs; the perceived reluctance of welfare offices to extend aid; and the unwillingness of impoverished households to give up their cars.

Single Mothers’ Forum, a Tokyo-based nonprofit that supports single parents, said it has received multiple grievances about the car rule from single parents in rural regions.

Chieko Akaishi, head of the Single Mothers’ Forum, said access to benefits varies significantly between large cities with well-developed transportation systems and rural regions where a car is a basic necessity.

Akaishi urges the government to include “child rearing” as a legitimate reason to allow welfare recipients to keep their vehicles.

“There are many destitute households that would have immediate access to benefits if they disowned their cars,” she said. “But they cannot let go of their cars because they do not want to disrupt their children’s daily activities.”

The Tohoku woman, who has been raising four children aged 1 through 7 on her own since her divorce early last year, said she was initially allowed to keep her car after she made her case at the welfare office.

But the office reversed its decision half a year later, last autumn, telling her she must get rid of her car if she wanted to continue receiving welfare payments.

The woman had expected to return to full-time work this spring when her maternity leave ended, but she badly needed a car to make that possible.

Her workplace is a 20-minute drive from home. By bus and train, a one-way trip would be 80 minutes.

Without a car, she would also have to walk 15 minutes to get to the nursery school, a troublesome task while carrying bulky bags and keeping watch of her children.

She presented the office the expected amounts of welfare benefits based on two scenarios: one with a car and one without.

“If I can keep my car, I will be able to make more money, which will lower the government’s payout,” she maintained.

The welfare office finally gave its approval after she gained the help of a lawyer.

MINIMUM STANDARDS

The Public Assistance Law was established under the philosophy of Article 25 of the Constitution, which states: “All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living. In all spheres of life, the state shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.”

Welfare beneficiaries are provided with cash assistance that is supposed to cover the gap between the cost for a minimum standard of living and their actual earnings.

The basic concept behind Japan’s welfare system is that recipients are allowed goods that are possessed by 70 percent of households in local communities, according to Atsushi Yoshinaga, professor of public assistance theory at Hanazono University.

Yoshinaga, a welfare expert who has decades of experience in the field, including as a case worker, noted that refrigerators and air conditioners had been denied in the past. But people died as a result of the restrictions, and the rule was overhauled.

However, for cars, the welfare ministry’s guidelines state that vehicles are banned, in principle.

The thinking behind this is that car upkeep costs could weigh on the beneficiaries’ finances.

Yoshinaga said the guidelines have not been adjusted for societal changes and continue to be based on a long-fixed image of “poverty.”

“The question here is: Is living in isolation from society, where you cannot go shopping and do the small things that you want to do, considered a minimum standard of wholesome and cultured living?” he said.

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association’s data for fiscal 2023 found that 82.3 percent of households outside the Tokyo metropolitan area own vehicles.  

STATUS QUO PREFERRED

However, a large majority of municipalities are backing the current arrangement.

The Asahi Shimbun asked 109 prefectural capitals and other major cities about whether they thought the car ownership rule should be: “eased,” “tightened” or “not changed.”

Of 106 municipalities that replied, 83 supported the current setup, while 11 favored an easing.

Five called for a tougher rule, another five replied “other,” and two did not answer.

One respondent that wrote “other” is Niigata, a city with 307 households on welfare that are permitted to own a car, the highest number among all municipalities covered by the Asahi survey.

The Niigata city government said some officials are leaning toward easing the rule on the premise that recipients can afford car upkeep.

Proponents believe an eased rule will help recipients move toward financial independence. Opponents are concerned that car costs might further strain their finances.

An official of the Matsue city government, which picked “not changed,” acknowledged that some city areas lack sufficient public transit services.

But the official said an eased rule could lead to more recipients using cars for leisurely drives, which are not approved of under the current setup.

Hachinohe in Aomori Prefecture favored an eased rule.

“The decision concerning a car should be left to local officials who are familiar with the situation of their communities, rather than applying the rule across the board,” a Hachinohe official said.

An official of the Gifu municipal government, which backed a stricter rule, said, “If recipients are permitted to use a car, they might use it for various purposes.”

(This article was written by Misato Nara and Maiko Ito.)