A Welfare Reform in the United States : Legal Implications for Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution

Abstract

This article analyzes the impact of welfare reform and discusses the jurisprudence of welfare rights in the United States. A close analysis of welfare reform in the United States allows us to explore the possibility of adopting similar types of welfare reform with the exception of time-limited assistance in Japan. However, this article acknowledges that welfare reform in Japan must be drafted within the constraints of Article 25 of the Japanese Constitution. In light of this constraint, it is argued that a factor as important as independence should be included in the interpretation of Article 25, in order to clarify the meaning of "the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living" in the Article. Further, the public assistance system in Japan should be improved to encourage welfare recipients to work to the greatest extent possible. This interpretation allows the State to legislate welfare reform without infringing upon an individual's constitutional right to receive State welfare. "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" (PRWORA) became a law in the United States in the same year. This comprehensive legislation changed the nation's welfare system into one requiring work in exchange for time-limited assistance. It led to the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. According to the literal interpretation of 42 U.S.C § 601 (b), the law marked the end of Federal entitlement assistance. The law provides States the flexibility to design individual TANF programs. As, a result of these programs, the number of recipients of funds from the TANF decreased considerably. The Supreme Court of the United States has regarded welfare entitlements as like property since Goldberg v. Kelly (1970). However, as a result of the Court's application of the rationality review because of the character of like property, it was held that the maximum-grant regulation was not in violation of the equal protection clause in Dandridge v. Williams (1970). In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court reaffirmed Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), though on new grounds, and invalidated a California statute. This indicates that the Court has maintained its view on welfare entitlements despite 42 U.S.C. § 60l(b). This also indicates that similar welfare reform is possible within the confines of the rights based on the Constitution of Japan by maintaining a balance between the rights of welfare recipients and the State's interests in implementing the welfare policy. In conclusion, this article notes a factor as important as independence should be added to Article 25 in order to clarify its meaning. Further, the public assistance system should improve the job assistance program for welfare recipients in Japan.