social science japan journal 2012 izuhara 53 74

8/13/2019 Social Science Japan Journal 2012 IZUHARA 53 74

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-science-japan-journal-2012-izuhara-53-74 1/22

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

Social Science Japan Journal Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 53–74 2012 doi:10.1093/ssjj/jyr016

Published online June 9, 2011

Housing Histories and Intergenerational Dynamicsin TokyoMisa IZUHARA and Ray FORREST*

The housing landscape of Tokyo has shifted dramatically from a housing shortage immediately after World War II,

to an urban sprawl driven by the ‘salar ied men’s dream’ of a single-family home, to the more recent popularity of

high-rise living. Tokyo as a global megacity provides a distinctive picture given its density, culture and changing

economic fortunes in the postwar period. This article draws on qualitative research conducted in Tokyo among

home-owning families over three generations, exploring the links between housing and family relations in the

context of changing housing and labour markets. The article provides two housing ‘narratives’ highlighting

different experiences and strategies of families over generations. These narratives not only capture key elements

of socio-economic change in Japan since the end of the War, but also illustrate the contrasting experiences of

different families, particularly in relation to the interaction between housing and employment.

Keywords: housing; three generations; housing history; family strategies; Tokyo.

1. Introduction

Tokyo has experienced dramatic changes in the postwar period as the powerhouse of a dynamic

Japanese economy which, until the re-emergence of China, dominated the East Asian region. The

ingredients of, and explanations for, the postwar Japanese miracle are well documented (see Johnson

1982; Ohmae 1982), as are the distinctive features of its particular form of ‘welfare capitalism’ (Dore

2000). Until the bursting of the bubble economy in the early 1990s, sustained economic growth

combined with a regime of secure employment allowed the typical Tokyo household to experiencea long and benign social and financial environment. The older generation, emerging from the disrup-

tions and deprivations of the World War II, had witnessed the rapid recovery of the Japanese economy

and social framework with expanding job opportunities. Their children, the baby boomers of the late

1940s, were the main beneficiaries of state-directed ‘developmentalism’ and the rise of the Japanese

corporate giants. Against this background, and until the economic crises of the 1990s, rapidly

rising land values meant that those able to purchase real estate were likely to accumulate substantial

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

Misa IZUHARA is Reader at the School for Policy Studies, the University of Bristol, UK. Her research interests include hous-ing and social change, ageing and intergenerational relations, and comparative social policy. Her recent publications includeHousing, Care and Inheritance (Routledge, 2009) and Ageing and Intergenerational Relations: Family Reciprocity from a Global Perspective (The Policy Press, 2010). She can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] FORREST is Chair Professor of Housing and Urban Studies at City University of Hong Kong and Professor of Urban Studiesat the University of Bristol. His research interests include social change in the contemporary city, social policy and urbanisation inEast Asia and housing policy. His most recent publication (with Yip Ngai-ming) is Housing Markets and the Global Financial Crisis: The Uneven Impact on Households (Edward Elgar, 2011). He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

*This article draws on a research project ‘Housing assets and intergenerational dynamics in East Asian societies’.

ª The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press in conjunction with the University of Tokyo. All rights reserved.



assets—facilitated by cheap financing available from corporate and government sources. At the same

time, younger households faced increasing problems of affordability (Hirayama and Ronald 2008).

After 1990, however, the situation changed markedly with a long and traumatic period of recession

and economic restructuring with job losses, reduced incomes and a crisis in the residential property

sector which saw many households fall into negative equity (Forrest, Kennett and Izuhara 2003).

Whilst this eased the affordability problems for households wishing to purchase, home ownershipbecame inevitably a less attractive investment, as neoliberal policy prescriptions reduced employment

security, particularly for the younger generation (Osawa 2001; Forrest and Hirayama 2009).

Over the last half-century, therefore, different generations in Tokyo have experienced major trans-

formations in living standards and lifestyles. At the same time, compared to western societies, tradi-

tional attitudes towards the family and intergenerational responsibilities have been slower to change.

This relationship between ‘the family’ and ‘the economy’ is the focal point of this research, with res-

idential property ownership as our specific concern given its centrality in household and family finan-

ces and aspirations (Forrest and Murie 1995). Our aim is to view individual and household

circumstances intergenerationally rather than atomistically, and to explore how patterns of advantage

and disadvantage are played out dynamically over families as a whole.

This article focuses on two contrasting housing histories to show how a relatively common back-

cloth of social and economic transformation interacts with more specific household behaviours and

attitudes with varying outcomes across generations. Before we discuss the specific family narratives

and the conceptual implications, the article provides some additional context in relation to Tokyo,

some comment on housing histories as methodology, and further detail about our overall research

project.

2. Tokyo Context

In the literature on contemporary urbanism, Tokyo is both a global city and a megacity (Taylor,

Catalano and Walker 2002). It is a key node of the global economy, and in terms of population sizeGreater Tokyo represents the largest city in the world. Over a quarter of the Japanese population live

in the Tokyo Metropolitan region, and between 1950 and 2000, its population grew by around

400,000 persons per year (Satterthwaite 2005). It is a prime example of ‘metropolitan dominance’

(Rohlen 2002). The postwar development of Japan is therefore, to a significant extent, about the

development of Tokyo, given its economic and demographic weight. In that sense, an exploration of

intergenerational change of ‘Tokyo-embedded’ families is an appropriate lens through which to capture

broader processes of social and economic change in Japanese urban society in the postwar period.

With more specific reference to housing, Tokyo is a predominantly rented city and its housing stock

has expanded continuously to meet the demands of urban migration and new household divisions. In

prewar Tokyo, some 70% of all dwellings were rented and 42% of all rental units were single-family

dwellings (Waswo 2002). Only a quarter of households were owner-occupiers in 1941 (Hayakawaand Ohmoto 1988). Immediately after the War, house sharing was common and some 40% of house-

holds were lodging or co-residing with other households in 1948 (Uchida 2002). Since 1950, insti-

tutional mechanisms have been in place to promote both the quantity and quality of housing [housing

policy included long-term, low-interest loans by the Government Housing Loan Corporation

(GHLC)]. At the same time, the family and the company represented important components of

the postwar housing system, filling a gap in state housing policy and provision.

However, as with most major cities, Tokyo does not necessarily represent the national housing

scene. In many ways, Tokyo is peculiar in terms of its tenure patterns, available housing stock and

54 Misa IZUHARA and Ray FORREST



dramatic price volatility. In response to postwar economic growth, Tokyo has constantly attracted

a flow of domestic migration which resulted in a continuous expansion of the urban rental market.

Since the early 1960s, while the rates of home ownership have fluctuated around 60% for Japan as

a whole, the rates in Greater Tokyo have been around 10% lower. And, as Table 1 shows, if the neigh-

bouring ‘commuter’ prefectures of Saitama, Chiba and Kanagawa are excluded, the home ownership

rate for Tokyo Metropolis itself has been considerably lower. While some people made a positivechoice to rent, for others, there was simply no viable alternative financially due to the high price of

properties (Waswo 2002). Another key factor is that Tokyo, like many capital cities, has a relatively

high proportion of single-person households. According to the Census, in 2000, approximately

40% of households in Tokyo were single person, compared with the national average of 25%. A strong

correlation between marriage and home ownership is still Japan’s dominant tenure characteristic

(Hirayama and Izuhara 2008), and past policies (e.g. GHLC loan restrictions applied to single people)

have reflected and reinforced such practices.

In the 1960s/1970s, central Tokyo was dominated by low-rise wooden-built apartments in a poor

state of repair (Hirayama 2006). After the first Oil Crisis in 1973, housing construction and home

ownership were particularly encouraged in order to revitalise the economy. An example of this is

the development of ‘small, standardised built-for-sale single-family homes’ in the suburbs to satisfy

the ‘salaried man’s dream’. The supply of plots for housing in an already overcrowded city inevitably

produced urban sprawl, and condominiums have become increasingly popular in urban areas. In

1970, the GHLC started offering loans to purchase condominiums, which helped shift the profile

of home ownership away from the dominance of single-family homes, especially in Tokyo (Ronald

and Hirayama 2006).

By the end of the 1980s, land in central Tokyo was among the most expensive in the world and

a disproportionate amount of investment had flowed into the real estate sector. The bursting of

the bubble economy in the early 1990s saw land and property prices in Tokyo plummet with values

halved in some cases (Forrest, Kennett and Izuhara 2003). The steep decline in residential property

values was followed by an equally steep decline in the major metropolitan areas, most notably inTokyo and Osaka (see Figure 1). The effects of this rapid asset deflation rippled through the entire

economy generating numerous institutional and household casualties, with the younger generation

being particularly badly hit in terms of employment opportunities and general life chances (Genda

2007). The confidence and optimism of the previous generation was replaced by a more pessimistic

and cautious view of the future.

It was not until well into the 2000s that the economy began to show signs of a revival. Mega urban

regeneration projects took off and new tower-type, multiple-use condominiums created ‘hot spots’ in

Tokyo’s skyline (Hirayama 2006). This is part of a strategy to revitalise the economy and reposition

Tokyo as a global city, backed up by deregulatory, neoliberal policies. The landscape of Tokyo

Table 1. Percentage of Privately Owned Dwellings.

Year 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003

Japan (%) 58 64 59 62 60 61

Tokyo Prefecture (%) 60 45 39 43 40 45

Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau: Historical Statistics of Japan.

Housing Histories and Generations in Tokyo 55



continues, however, to show a dichotomy between ‘old’ and ‘new’ (rather than new features replacing

the older structures)—increasing low-rise, urban sprawl co-existing with the mid- to high-rise me-

tropolis (Waswo 2002). There is also increasingly evident social dichotomy, between rich and poor,

in the visible misery of homeless people which persists in central Tokyo (Iwata 2007). This is partly an

indication that the housing sub-systems (the family and the labour market), which used to meet

young people’s housing needs, are breaking down (Iwata 2008).

3. Housing Histories, Housing and Family Dynamics

The exploration of housing histories has its roots in studies of residential mobility and residential pref-

erences, in particular the way in which housing choices have been formed and exercised in more market-

oriented systems. Most of this work has been undertaken in a western context. The seminal work by

Rossi (1955), Why Families Move , was concerned with patterns of residential mobility in the US and

what was perceived at the time as a nomadic threat to social cohesion and community building.

Much of the research on residential movement, particularly in the US, came to be dominated by

neoclassical approaches and the modelling of the key variables which would affect mobility and immo-

bility at key points in the life course and in relation to variations in housing supply (see Strassman

2001). In contrast to this literature, which essentially modelled the mobility of utility-maximisingindividuals in a supposedly free market, a related parallel literature developed which was concerned

with the distinctiveness of group experiences in housing systems; the choices and constraints which

shaped housing movements at key points in the life course; and the processes of negotiation and adap-

tion in relation to housing decisions. For example, there has been research on the housing experiences

of ethnic minorities (Murdie 2002), on routes into and out of homelessness (May 2000), on the tran-

sition from parental homes to independent living (Jones 1995), and on the factors which shape the

housing histories of particular social classes (Forrest and Murie 1987; Watt 2005). These approaches

emphasised greater complexity in the decisions which shape housing trajectories (Murie 1997), the

Figure 1. Land Price Changes in Tokyo’s Central Wards and Central Osaka City. Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: White Paper on Land and Real Property, 2007 .




importance of cultural specificity and institutional context, and the use of housing history narratives as

a means to explore the interactions between agency and structure (Gutting 1996).

For the purposes of this article, the key point is that housing histories have evolved into a more gen-

eral method through which to explore processes of social change in particular cultural and institu-

tional contexts and at the level of the individual or household. Rather than being merely a means

through which to explore and understand the operation of housing systems or the impact of specifichousing policies, the construction of housing histories provides a framework for wider ranging narra-

tives encompassing changing social norms, the interactions between residential, employment and

educational factors, and a way of exploring broader family dynamics. The use of the word ‘history’

is also intentionally neutral and used in preference to alternative conceptions such as housing ‘career’

(Kendig 1984), ‘strategy’ or ‘pathway’ (Payne and Payne 1977). The idea of a housing career has

tended to be associated with home ownership and the ascendance of rungs on a housing ladder. Sim-

ilarly, housing histories may well be shaped by conscious strategies—for example a strong investment

orientation—but in other cases or at other times ‘muddling through’ may be a more apt description.

The use of the term history thus leaves open the question of whether there is an upward trajectory

(measured in whatever terms) or whether there are evident strategies to cope with choices or con-

straints, offers more space to explore interactions between various social domains, and is more appro-

priate when, as in this study, the narratives stretch over more than one generation. To our knowledge,

there are no studies which have constructed housing histories over three generations through face-to-

face interviews with connected family members, and few studies—if any—of housing histories in the

Japanese context. There are studies of intergenerational relationships, but they have tended to focus

on the older generation (Izuhara 2000). There have also been studies of the significance of land and

housing in family wealth in Japan (Hirayama and Hayakawa 1995), and of the significance of the ex-

tended family in housing in contemporary Japanese society (see Morgan and Hirosima 1983). Such

studies are, however, more narrowly focused and some are becoming rather dated. There are few, if

any, studies in the Japanese or other contexts which use housing biographies over three generations as

vehicles for a broader narrative of social change and family interaction. A key dimension of contemporary housing histories is that people are living longer and having fewer

children in the global North. Japan is an extreme example of this demographic trend with a particularly

low fertility rate and one of the most rapidly ageing societies in the world. These developments have

created novel family structures with a shift from a horizontal to a more vertical one, which Bengtson

and Harootyan (1994) call the ‘beanpole family’. There are fewer family members in each generation

but there are more generations living at the same time (Bengtson, Rosenthal and Burton 1996). In

Japan and across a wide number of societies, changes in employment patterns, shifts in the nature

of housing provision, processes of privatisation and marketisation, and other socio-economic changes

have combined to transform generational circumstances and relationships in a variety of ways (Izuhara

2009, 2010).

In particular, both material and non-material resources are potentially cascading down the family tree to the smaller, younger cohort at the bottom. In a low-fertility society, children are in theory

more likely to receive a larger share of such resources from their parents and grandparents. Real estate

would appear to occupy a central position in these relationships. This is partly because, as Spilerman

(2000) argues, asset holdings have increasingly become a more important determinant of social

wealth inequalities among families than earned incomes. In the Japanese context, older and middle

generations may have acquired considerable asset wealth during the postwar period of rapid economic

growth and high price inflation in the residential sector. Equally, younger cohorts have faced afford-

ability problems evidenced by dramatic falls in their home ownership rates. During the post-bubble




period, many families saw their residential assets seriously eroded. There have thus been sharp con-

trasts in the fortunes of different groups and different generations (Forrest and Lee 2004; Ronald

and Hirayama 2006; Forrest 2008; Forrest and Izuhara 2009). It remains the case, however, that

for the average family, real estate represents their most valuable asset and greatest investment. More-

over, how and when assets were acquired over generations is particularly important in the Tokyo con-

text where, despite the bursting of the bubble, real estate remains notoriously expensive.

4. Research Methods and Family Profile

Empirical data were collected using a qualitative approach. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were

conducted using purposive sampling with adult members of three generations—one member each

from grandparents, parents, and adult children (grandchildren)—from 12 interconnected families

in Tokyo. As a sampling strategy, the age band of the pivot generation was set at 50–59 years old.

The sampling frame for the pivot generation included both men and women, as long as they were

homeowners. Only nine out of 35 respondents were male. We sampled informants with housing assets

falling in different price ranges (from different neighbourhoods/new towns and different housing

types such as single-family homes and condominiums) to differentiate their asset levels. Only families

where three generations agreed to participate were interviewed. Family members were interviewed on

their own without the presence of other members using a topic guide. Families were recruited

through a variety of means including advertising locally, personal contacts, and contacting employers

and resident committees. Interviews took 90 minutes on average. Interviews were recorded with the

informants’ consent, transcribed fully in Japanese and then translated into English.

Table 1 provides a summary profile of our three generations. The older generation were aged be-

tween 77 and 89, with the majority in their early to mid-80s at the time of interview. At the end of

World War II, they were of marriageable age and many came to Tokyo from neighbouring prefectures

and beyond in the process of urbanisation. They typically started off lodging or renting a unit in

a wooden-built apartment. Some of our sample owned small businesses, such as a furniture maker,a wholesale business and a newspaper agency, tied to their housing. This cohort was often the first

generation of homeowners in Tokyo who were able to take advantage of rising real incomes and gov-

ernment land sales in the suburbs. Some acquired considerable wealth during the period of rapid eco-

nomic growth and high price inflation in the residential sector. The middle generation were in their

50s (born between 1948 and 1957), which included the baby boomers. This generation was the ben-

eficiary of improved postwar public policy and socio-economic systems, including established occupa-

tional welfare. The majority have climbed up the housing ladder, typically from renting a wooden

private apartment, through small 2DK (two rooms with a dining kitchen) Housing Corporation

housing, to owning a single-family home or a condominium unit. Condominium ownership gained

popularity after the GHLC began offering loans to purchase such properties in the 1970s. This gen-

eration took advantage of company housing schemes as well as the low-interest loans provided by theGHLC. This cohort, however, included both winners and losers of the property bubble in the 1980s

(Hirayama 2006). Due to the extreme property inflation experienced in Tokyo, some families com-

bined their resources between two adult generations to achieve shared housing arrangements.

The ages of our younger group range from 21 to 34—five were in their late 20s and four in their

early 30s. They were well educated and often had siblings. Although they have received generous

financial support from their parents, the younger generation came of age during the prolonged eco-

nomic recession which has persisted since the economic bubble burst in the early 1990s. The changed

economic context produced more diversified paths for this cohort compared with the more linear,




upward social mobility of their parents’ generation. The increased dependence of adult children on

their parents is also evident in declining marriage rates and high rates of adult, co-resident children.

Some double-income couples have, however, managed to achieve home ownership in their late 20s/

early 30s due to falling prices and financial deregulation.

We can now turn to our intergenerational histories to begin to explore the issues outlined above. As

stated earlier, most studies in this area have been limited to examining the linkages between two gen-erations or have focused only on the housing experiences and circumstances of nuclear families. Face-

to-face interviews with members of three interconnected generations, however, offer greater scope for

understanding intergenerational dynamics and changing attitudes and behaviour in relation to the

shaping of housing assets and housing opportunities in the contemporary world. In more affluent so-

cieties, the experience of individual home ownership is increasingly spread across at least three gener-

ations of living, adult members and our research thus provides a longer term perspective and context

within which to situate the housing circumstances of individual households.

5. Property-shaped NarrativesLand and real estate were more central to the shaping of the housing histories of the Kondo Family

(Family 1 in Table 2) than to most of the other families we interviewed. There was a strong sense of

continuity between old and middle generations in relation to their attitudes towards property invest-

ment, astute and cautious planning, and in their strong attachment to the family home and

neighbourhood:

My husband was a real cautious man. When he wanted to get married (in 1948), he thought he needed

a foundation. So he had already bought this (the plot of land) and asked me to marry him. He was that kind

of man! (‘Older Kondo’, Female aged 87).

The house he built was large enough to run their separate businesses (barber and wholesaler) and

provide accommodation for the family. Over the years, it was extended and improved. The early tim-ing of entry to land purchase was crucial in providing an advantage over other families; and a combi-

nation of subsequent low mobility, based on a stable occupation, and active investment attitudes led

to a substantial accumulation of housing wealth. In this family, the original plot of land was cleared to

make way for a three-storey building to provide rental income from residential and retail lettings, as

well as an apartment for the older widow.

Financial support from the parental generation also played a significant role. Middle Kondo’s father

made an early start in developing his property portfolio—immediately after World War II, before he

got married. More recently, Middle Kondo decided to rent out (instead of selling) two separate units

of the new residential building in which his mother (Older Kondo) lived, to provide a steady income

in their old age. The father’s strong investment orientation had been passed onto his son. Middle

Kondo’s father gave him a third of the funds needed to purchase his first property in the late1970s. Middle Kondo had inherited additional older rental properties and had also pursued a con-

scious strategy to acquire some of his own. He regarded land as an asset in which to invest and, rather

exceptionally among our informants, linked real estate assets with social status. He outlined his search

and investment strategy in the context of rising land values:

It is important to have perfect criteria (e.g. location and building conditions) to invest in apartments or in-

vestment properties. For example, it should be close to a station. If I want to build apartments or rental

buildings, I need to work with these limited conditions. I tried to find good investment properties but good




ones started going up in price. Trading companies and developers started buying properties and were push-

ing the price up. That is why it was more expensive than I thought it would be. I was looking for something

in West Tokyo, such as Hachioji and Kunitachi—and somewhere near my daughter’s university. There are

nice areas. I thought it was more effective to turn cash assets (savings) into real estate assets. But I gave up. In

the mean time, there were a few old, rented properties which I inherited from my father—I put my capital

into those and had them rebuilt. I am renting those out now—condominium units near the station.

This family had benefited substantially from rising land values in Tokyo in the period prior to the

economic collapse in the early 1990s. Middle Kondo recognised that he had been in a relatively priv-

ileged position given the assets he had inherited and his relatively high salary. The younger generation

of the Kondo Family were in a different situation given the greater affordability problems they faced

compared to the previous generations. Young Kondo (F 22) had a more ambivalent attitude to prop-

erty ownership:

My boyfriend lives in an ordinary studio flat. Having lived with him, I realised that it was not a problem to

live in a studio flat! It’s totally OK . . . I used to think this (the detached house) was the standard size and

wanted to have a house at the same level. Whoever my future husband would be, I thought I could earn

enough to have such a house. But looking at his room, I actually think now that ‘this is OK’ as it is adequatefor a normal life.

On the other hand, the property asset advantages passed on from the older to middle generation

were already taking shape for the younger generation. For example, there were nascent plans to create

two dwellings from the five-bedroom detached house currently occupied by Middle Kondo, and two

other properties were also available. Middle Kondo observed: ‘I have prepared enough houses, includ-

ing this one, for when our three children get married and want to live here’. He acknowledged that in

contemporary Japanese society, some parents thought that their children should make it on their own,

after their education had been provided for [following the Japanese saying ‘do not leave beautiful rice

fields’ (shison ni biden o nokosazu )]. His own attitudes had clearly been influenced by the way he had

been helped to get on the property ladder:

Some people are like that—those who built their own assets. When I listen to their stories, they are often the

ones who came from other regions; bought their own house with their own income from employment; and

brought up their children without parental support. That is why they have this mentality that ‘I did it myself

so you should as well’.

A family ethos of seeing land and property as an investment, however, was woven around this

strong attachment to place and neighbourhood. In that sense, the property-shaped narrative was

multi-dimensional, emotional as well as material. Middle Kondo had always wanted a detached pri-

vate family house due to the way in which work and home had been so closely intertwined in his

childhood. In his childhood home, there had been little to separate the (semi) public workspace,

the dining area with constant guests and lodgers, and a more private sleeping quarter. Middle

Okamoto (Family 5) was brought up in a similar work–family combined household and had equally longed for a private ‘salaried man’ household. Such work–family dwellings also typically involved

low mobility. For Young Kondo, however, this did not appear to have created a strong sense of local

attachment. She recalled some frustration in her youth that the family had always lived in one place

and that she had ‘longed’ to move.

Some family generations pooled their resources and maximised their potential to achieve higher

housing standards and quality of life—for the younger, growing family to obtain more space and

for the older members to feel a sense of security to be with their adult children. The co-residency

found in four of our families (#2, 7, 8 and 9) took different forms and had different motives, but were




Table 2. Profile of Tokyo Families.

Older Generation Middle Generation Younger Generation

1 F (87); widow (2); retired

from own barber business;

multiple HO three-storey

building

M (58); married (3);

commercial pilot; multiple

HO large SFH; low mobility

F (23); single; university

student; living with parents

2 F (85); married (husband

bedridden) (3); both

retired; living with son

(ownership transferred to

son); low mobility

M (57); divorced (2); early

retirement from department

store; HO suburban SFH;

no move since marriage

M (27); single;

postgraduate student;

private rental (one room)

in central Tokyo

3 F (80); widowed (2);

worked for financial sector;

husband civil servant;

condominium owner living

next to son’s unit; low

mobility

F (57); married (2);

housewife/husband

accountant; HO

condominium; low mobility

F (25); single; office clerk;

living with parents

4 M (79); married (2); retired

from small retail shop; HO;

move to condo from SFH

after retirement


housewife/husband civil

servant; HO condominium

unit; frequent mover

F (25); single; support

staff in foreign investment

bank; private rental in

central Tokyo


from family business; own

house with shop front (risk

of eviction due to

redevelopment); low

mobility


housewife/husband retired

from family business; HO

SFH; no move since

marriage

F (27); single; contract-

based despatch worker:

living with parents


news agents; HO co-owned

five-storey building; living with unmarried son; low

mobility

F (55); married (2); yoga

instructor/husband salaried

worker; HO own unit in thefamily-owned building; no

move since HO

F (27); single; student;

living with parents


from trading company; HO

two-household housing;

high job-related mobility

F (53); married (4); part-

time/husband construction

company, HO two-HH

housing; low mobility (local

only)

F (21); single; university

student; living with

parents




all practical and necessary ways to overcome the housing affordability challenges of Tokyo, and were

also a very emotional practice of traditional family interdependency (Brown 2003). The particular

forms of, and negotiations around, co-residency capture the tension between continuity and change

regarding housing and family in contemporary Japan.

Geographic stability can be as important a factor for co-residency as children’s willingness to live

with older parents. Compared to her brother who experienced a series of job-related transfers, includ-

ing overseas, Middle Fukuzawa (Family #7, F 53) received more housing support from her parents

over her married life. She benefited on three occasions: while house-sitting rent free when her parents

were posted overseas (she used what she saved to purchase land); through borrowing from her father’s

retirement allowances to purchase land; and eventually by being able to build two-household housing

on the land owned by her parents. On the other hand, Older Fukuzawa’s (M 81) attitudes towards his

son, who ‘did not fulfil the traditional son’s duty’, were rather negative. ‘I did not give him any

Table 2. Continued


8 F (81); widow (3); two-

household housing (failedco-residency) living alone in

a Tokyo central ward; no

move since HO


housewife/husbandinsurance; HO

condominium unit;

frequent mover

M (31); married without

children; HO condominiumunit in Saitama


retailer; HO SFH in Chiba

city

F (56); married (3); HO

secondhand SFH; failed co-

residency with son; low

mobility

M (34); married (1); dual

income (construction);

bought own SFH

10 N/A F (56); married (2);

housewife/husbandpersonnel in electronic

company); HO new condo;

frequent mover

F (32); divorced without

children; administrativestaff; HO secondhand

condominium

11 F (81); widow (3);

housewife; HO SFH living

with married son (no kids)

in Chiba


household/husband retired

pharmaceutical company;

HO condo in a new town;

low mobility

F (31); married (1); nurse;

double income; HO

secondhand condo in the

same new town

12 M (86); widower (2);retiredacademic; HO small SFH

F (54); married (2); NPO worker; HO new condo in

a new town; low mobility

F (21); single; university student; living with parents

Note: Gender (age); marital status (number of children); occupation/partner’s occupation; tenure and housing type; HO,

home ownership; SFH, single-family home; HH, household; N/A, not applicable; NPO, non-profit organisation.




money. It was fine that he bought his condominium himself. He had no intention of building two-

household housing but rather bought something himself’.

Even with such a traditional living arrangement, the family adopted more contemporary ways of

sharing their accommodations. They had a plot of land large enough to build a two-storey, two-

household house to accommodate the older couple on the ground floor and the daughter’s family

on the first floor. Middle Fukuzawa commented that ‘my father wanted to do all shared living, but

I said it was impossible!’ In terms of family relations, untraditionally, it was the daughter who co-

resided with her parents. In terms of physical arrangements, the house had two separate entrances

which led to two separate dwellings with complete facilities similar to a duplex with full privacy—the

only difference was the internal connecting door. The spacious plot of land had enabled them to

achieve this high level of privacy compared to some failed co-residency cases such as Middle Ishii

(F 56 Family #8), where the building was only designed for ‘partial’ privacy. For example, although

the Ishiis had separate kitchens, toilets and sinks on both floors, a bathroom and an entrance were

shared in order to maximise the already-small living space:

When my husband came home, I still had to go down and open the door for him. We had to negotiate who

would take a bath first. We could not take a bath whenever we wanted. It was OK if there were only me andmy children (when husband was posted away), but I was very conscious when my husband was around.

When Middle Ishii accepted the offer to live with her parents, she had regarded it as a convenient

and temporary arrangement while her husband was posted around with his job. It provided a conve-

nient opportunity for her children to have a base in Tokyo for their schooling. She financed it exclu-

sively and thus decided the design and layout of the new home. Her husband’s early return from his

posting, however, upset the arrangement. It proved very difficult for two generations to share the

intimate space, especially when it involved in-laws. The arrangement eventually affected her husband’s

mental health. In comparison, the Fukuzawas’ modernised version of multi-generational living

seemed to work.

Although affordability difficulties (and the availability of special intergenerational loans) bringmulti-generational families together in Tokyo, some face space constraints and there are tensions be-

tween traditional and new lifestyles. Moreover, for the owners of two-generation, two-household

housing, future property values and use can be rather uncertain. For empty nesters, owning/

inheriting two-household housing can prove rather inflexible and impractical for other uses. If it is

a condominium, however (some families, such as Family #3, opted to live next to each other in

separate units in the same condominium complex), it is easy to sell or rent out the parent’s unit when

they pass away. Due to the structural semi-intimacy created for co-residency, two-household housing

is difficult to convert to an income stream by selling or renting out. The Fukuzawa residence also had

too many small rooms. Moreover, given the expected lifespan of Japanese houses, they are likely to

require substantial repair or need to be rebuilt in later life. The Fukuzawas had already taken out a sec-ond mortgage in their early 40s, and financing this third transaction could prove very difficult. These

considerations had changed Middle Fukuzawa’s attitudes towards the convention of home

ownership, single-family homes and the accumulation of housing assets:

Renting offers more freedom. It is easier to move when lifestyles change. It is such a waste once all our chil-

dren move out. I am not planning to open a lodging house! (They have four small rooms for four children).

I hear that some older people sell their single-family home and move to a condominium, which is not a bad

idea. I know a friend whose father, and mother-in-law, and the couple themselves live in three separate units

in the same condominium building.




There was also recognition of the changing attitudes towards family support across the genera-

tions. As Middle Fukuzawa observed ‘I do not think my children want our house as they do not

want to look after us parents . . . I am also tired of bringing up four children, so I do not want to

look after grandchildren’. Compared to the reciprocity and dependence experienced between the

older and middle generations in this family, the prospect was of a very different relationship between

the next pair of generations, given the more individualistic attitudes towards family support and

housing.

As soon as I get my first job, I want to live on my own. I want to be independent from my parents. It may be

good to have a single family home when I have children, but while I am single or it’s just two of us, it is better

to live in a condominium—in order to fit changing life-styles, renting will be the best. I do not link housing

with social status as my parents’ generation might have done (Young Fukuzawa F 21).

6. Employment-shaped Narrative

For some families such as the Hayashi Family (Family #10) and the Yamashita Family (Family #4),

the housing histories of the middle generation reflected Japan’s postwar corporate housing system.

And such employment-shaped housing histories often involved frequent moves between regions

and high residential mobility. As has been previously stressed, the family and the corporation

formed the key housing sub-systems in the postwar welfare regime (Takegawa 1999; Izuhara

2000). During periods of economic growth, the larger corporations constructed apartments and

dormitories to accommodate their employees with heavily subsidised rents. Others leased accom-

modation from either the private sector or relocated employees. Some also offered saving schemes,

low-interest loans or rent subsidies. Because of her husband’s job, Middle Hayashi (56) ‘moved be-

tween Tokyo and Osaka three times, moved houses nine times and bought four different houses in

the process’. They made full use of the company housing schemes for renting, letting, purchasing

and selling. As Hayashi’s case highlights, such corporate initiatives were a reflection of the need forgreater geographic mobility among employees in the high growth period as much as the high cost

and shortage of housing in many of the metropolitan core areas. They also had the effect and the

purpose of tying workers to a particular company (Kamata 1984). But company housing filled

the gap between public and private housing provision and was used by many workers as a stepping

stone to home ownership (Fujita and Shionoya 1997; Sato 2007). Such housing occupational wel-

fare is now, however, in decline.

‘Corporate families’ like Middle Hayashi fully benefited from, but were also exploited by, the com-

pany system. Middle Hayashi experienced a number of moves and lived in a variety of housing types,

locations and tenures in two regions which shaped their housing choices, attitudes and destinations.

Interestingly, such frequent moves tend to produce very mixed and polarised attitudes and aspirationstowards housing among corporate families. Our research found that frequent moves sometimes pro-

duced a strong attachment to owning a ‘life-long home’, while others became much more pragmatic

and flexible about housing choices according to their life course needs. Middle Yamashita (Family #4,

F 51), for example, after two decades of moves, had now settled in her own condominium unit and

offered the following reflection:

I don’t think home ownership gives us social status, but despite how much we’d wanted it, we could not

have owned housing because of my husband’s postings. If we had not moved so much, we could have

had enough savings to buy a single-family home . . . I am not planning to move again. I made friends and




got used to the neighbourhood. I am not going to follow my husband again to his posts—I am not going to

lose my ‘home’.

Her daughter (25) echoed the importance of preserving her parents’ assets in the form of housing in

the future, although her job or lifestyle may not ‘allow’ her to live in the particular unit: ‘To me, that is

the house my parents so longed to own. They have a strong attachment to it. Considering mother’s

feelings, I cannot sell it’.

Young Ishii’s (Family #8 aged 32) parents were also frequent movers, and his attitudes

towards work, family and housing were shaped by his childhood experiences: ‘Perhaps I deliberately

chose a job which did not involve transfers. I moved around a lot due to my father’s occupation.

So I wanted to have my own house, or at least wanted to stay put’. He purchased a condominium

when he got married at the age of 26, and both his and his wife’s parents helped with their

deposit, providing a third of the total cost. Middle Hayashi (F 56) [and Middle Ishii (Family

#8)], however, displayed a much more pragmatic attitude and seemed to have little attachment

to housing:

It is fine to live in a house which suits your current lifestyle. Compared to some people, I am surprisingly not

at all bothered about it. I went out one morning and came back that night with a (single-family) house I had

purchased. My son could not believe it. He asked, ‘Is it OK to be so casual?’

In this family, housing seemed to be regarded in a more ‘commodified’ way (Forrest and Williams

1984; Yamada 1999; Ronald and Hirayama 2006), as assets to be bought and sold as circumstances

changed with apparently limited emotional attachment. Their employment circumstances did, how-

ever, mean that they had little control over their residential choices and they were also constrained by

lack of funds. Their attitudes had been shaped by frequent moves, and were also a result of an inter-

generational transmission of such values. They also ran counter to the common belief that the ‘family

home’ (‘housing is a family’s asset’) retains an important material and symbolic place in contemporary

Japanese society. Both of Older Hayashi’s housing purchases have been for practical rather than investment purposes.

Despite owning a family home, Older Hayashi purchased another single-family home to ease her com-

mute and later bought another condominium to use as storage space while the family residence was

being demolished. Although Middle Hayashi eventually fulfilled the ‘salaryman’s dream’ by building

a new single-family home on the outskirts of Tokyo, the couple ultimately moved back to central Tokyo

for a more ‘practical’ condominium option which offered easier commuting and convenience in old age.

In their last transaction, they lostU15,000,000 (£100,000) (£15 U150). Again for Middle Hayashi, it

was more important to live in a house which suited their needs at each point in their life course rather

than be driven by social status or asset-building considerations.

The housing, work and family trajectories of the three generations were very different in the Hay-

ashi family. The elderly mother was, unlike most women of her generation, a career woman who had

accumulated her own housing assets through paid employment. The middle generation followed the

employment-led, male breadwinner path which was a distinctive but rather conventional family-

housing model in the 1970s and 1980s. There was no strong sense of housing asset accumulation

on her part. Instead, she made rational choices in relation to her changing life course needs. Being

the only child may have given her a sense of security:

We lost a lot financially (on housing) but we never regretted it . . . Since I was asked to manage my parents’

finances from early on, I knew how much they owned. That is partly why I did not worry too much about




losing on houses. We were able to be adventurous. Even if we lose now, there is always something to make up

the loss.

The trajectory for Younger Hayashi, however, appeared to be rather different since she now lives

in the deregulated, high-risk post-bubble society amidst changing social norms and expectations.

She had married but was already divorced. She was a frequent job mover, but she had already

purchased a secondhand condominium unit on her own. Compared with Middle Hayashi, she

had received no company assistance for housing but substantial financial help from her parents

towards the deposit (U5,000,000: £33,333). While her family and employment trajectories may

be more diverse and fragmented, she appeared to place some weight on housing to provide stability

and security:

(Housing provides) a sense of security. [Does that outweigh the fact that you own a large mortgage/debt?]

Probably. I am on my own but do not know what will happen in the future. My parents will pass away before

me. Although I have a brother, I will be alone. Where do I see a sense of security?—owning housing provides

a great source of security.

7. Discussion and Conclusion

These housing narratives provide a relatively intimate window on changes in Japanese society high-

lighting commonalities of experience as well as significant differences. The narratives enable us to

see how employment, housing and family factors interconnect in complex ways to produce different

patterns of asset accumulation in the context of a rising but increasingly volatile property market.

The narratives indicate the ways in which attitudes and behaviours are intergenerationally shaped,

both positively and negatively, in relation to housing choices as well as provoking more general

conceptual and methodological observations. It should be noted, however, that interviews with

subjects concerning events and choices made some time in the past often and perhaps inevitably in-

volve a tidiness and apparent clarity of purpose. Pasts are more typically strewn with accidental andunforeseen circumstances and a neutral term such as ‘intergenerational histories’ may underplay the

way in which choices are structured or constrained by the different kinds of priorities clearly evident

in our narratives.

A study spanning three generations generates a substantial amount of material of intrinsic interest.

This relates, for example, to how employment patterns have shifted from the early postwar period, in

which an older generation was involved in small family businesses and there was an intimate relation-

ship between place of work and place of residence, through the jobs for life and salaryman regime of

the economic growth period, to the post-bubble period of greater risk and flexibility in the labour

market. The contemporary period is also an era where there is a need for much higher investment

in educational capital in a more individualised, competitive world. Although much of the detail cannot

be reported here, these intergenerational family histories provide a lens through which to view Tokyo’s emergence from a devastating war into a period of growing affluence to the more recent pe-

riod in which the economic prescriptions and institutional models which had previously been seen as

central to economic growth have been called into question.

Against this shared backcloth, however, the narratives illustrate the particularities of life paths and the

ways in which the opportunities taken and choices made by one generation help shape the trajectories of

subsequent (or previous) generations. Thus, in relation to the core interest of this research, housing as an

asset has varying prominence. The housing experiences of each generation are also distinctive and vary

across generations. Unless coming from a farming family, for example, the older generation was the first




Table 3. Housing Choices and Attitudes.


1 Own house rebuilt to three-storey building in their late

70s containing six rental

units to generate rent

income: ‘I just left

everything to my husband

and son to decide’.

‘Father encouraged me tobuild SFH on his land

based on the assumption

that I would later marry

and have children’.

‘Contrary to what I said

(children should be

independent) I own three

properties now large

enough for each of

my children to live in

after their marriage if necessary’.

‘My boyfriend lives ina studio flat, and I realised

that it was possible or rather

comfortable to live in one

room! Our house is spacious

for five of us living. I used to

think that SFH was the

standard housing type but

not anymore’.

2 ‘I’ve never lived in a rented

house and cannot imagine

paying monthly rent. We

wanted to have our own

house no matter how small

or like a barrack it was’. ‘We

bought this house to live

together but our grandsonshave now left and we do not

need so much space’.

‘Parents were getting

older and expected to buy

a house and live together.

That was the plan. But

there were lots of trouble

living together and

eventually my wife left us’.

‘(As the oldest son)I had a duty to look

after my parents and

thought that the earlier

the better (to start co-

residency)’.

‘Housing choice depends

on a job. My job may

require high mobility and

owning a house would

restrict such mobility’.

‘Scary. Housing will be the

most expensive commodity

to buy in life. I wouldhesitate if that increases risks

in the volatile economy’.

3 ‘It was naturally expected

for me to move in with my

husband’s family when I got

married’. ‘I have no desire

to move—never wanted togo anywhere else. I’ve

never moved since I first

came here. Only moved

from the first floor unit to

upstairs’.

‘I do not want to buy

a house in Japan again!

After 20 years, it gets shabby

and out of fashion. My

husband still has anattachment to land so wants

to buy SFH. But I do not

want a huge mortgage for

such inconvenient and

unhealthy housing! It is

better to stay put and

spend money on other

activities’

‘Definitely condominium

and renting! I do not want

to be tied to one place by

buying a house. My future is

uncertain . . . Also SFHappears to be hard to

maintain so risk factors of

owning SFH are too great

for my lifestyle’.




Table 3. Continued


4 ‘SFHs are only available in

the suburbs and you needa car to live there, while

everything is at a walking

distance for this condo. My

wife used to talk about her

regret at not buying a SFH

with a garden but she has

gradually changed her

mind—in our age, location is

important’.

‘We could not own a house

no matter how much we wanted it. If we had not

moved so much, We could

have saved enough for SFH’.

‘(A condominium) is just

right for us. It was the first

time we owned our own

house. We can use it as we

wish. It is not big

or luxurious but we like the

condo and its location’.

‘I was desperate to be

independent despite theexpenses’. ‘What I could

not compromise (for my

flat) were location, a usable

kitchen and good security’.

‘My parents finally

managed to own their

condo. Thinking about

their attachment, I would

not be able to let it go’.

5 ‘I came to this house at

marriage. It had a furniture

workshop downstairs. I

lived with my in-laws . . .

wherever you looked, there

was always someone there.

No time to be alone’. ‘I did

not want my sons to go

through the same hardship

(of co-residency) so we builta house for 1st son’.

‘I longed for a nuclear

family and SFH without

a business!!’ ‘My mother did

not let me marry someone

without a house so my

husband’s family built this

house before we got

married . . . but we could

have started in an

apartment. All I wanted was a (nuclear) family life

not a house’.

‘I have not thought about

housing. But I want to be

independent by 30 . . . I

want to leave this

(parental) home since I

have never lived anywhere

else’. She has no clear

plans.

6 ‘My parents bought this

place for us to carry on the

newspaper delivery business.

It was a shabby, old one-

storey house. I married into

a family with properties and

land was given to us. We

saved so that we did notneed to use a loan’.

‘Co-residency is getting

popular here. Land is

expensive along the Chuo

line so many of my

classmates came back to

rebuild their house and live

with parents’. ‘In the bubble

period, it was impossible tobuild our own house so

we agreed with my

parents to make the most of

the land to build a five-

storey building—to live in

separate units in the same

building’.

‘(Having lived in

downtown) I want to live

in the countryside . . .. I do

not like the condo. It is too

close to neighbours to hear

all sorts of noises. I cannot

even open the window’.

‘Owning a house gives youidentity and emotional

security. It is good for

children to have somewhere

which never goes away’.

‘In Tokyo, a particular

‘‘address’’ rather than

housing type gives you

social status!’




Table 3. Continued


7 Bought SFH in suburb in

1968 ‘to acquire morespace, freedom and

a garden’; later rebuilt it to

live with daughter’s family

‘natural expectation to live

with child—did not matter

son or daughter in the end’

Housing need driven by

growing family. Fourchildren each wanted

a room. ‘My brother asked

me to ask father if it was OK

for him to buy

a condominium (intention

not to live with parents).

Then father said ‘shall we

live with you then’ . . . we

wanted a bigger house and

they wanted co-residency so

it worked out for both of

us’.

‘I would live in my

parental home until I geta job. And then I want to

live in a rented condo near

my work. Renting is better

while young—gives more

flexibility according to

changes in the life course’.

8 ‘We used our network to

buy the land in 1964 and

built a small house with a tin

roof. We tried to spend as

little as possible’. ‘(When we

re-built the house) I did not

think that we needed two of

everything (to livetogether). We are the same

family, aren’t we? But we

were too optimistic. I

thought that my daughter

would be here to help me’.

‘Children’s schooling was

the main reason why we

decided to ‘‘come home’’

(after several postings) . . .

we should have thought

more carefully what it was

like to live together’. ‘I do

not have any attachment tohousing. We browsed the

internet and checked the

price and location—near

a station, shops and library.

We did not look around

a lot to decide’.

‘I was conscious to choose

a job without any transfers.

We moved a lot so I

wanted to have my own

home—wanted to stay put’.

‘Rented housing would

not become yours. So in

total it would be more cost-effective to own from the

start. Some of my married

friends also own condos.

We decided to buy

somewhere in between my

and wife’s parents’.

9 ‘My husband is an only child

and worked hard to build

the house and shop. We

were lucky to get the ex-prefecture land which our

relative originally won in the

draw. He built the house

anyway without an intention

to live in it—it was left

vacant for a long time’.

‘Owning a house is not

raising social status but

fulfilling my own wish. My

house mirrors my own life. We bought this second-

hand SFH five years ago and

I love it’. ‘I was so

disappointed when our son

changed his mind. We had

a plan to rebuild it to two-

household housing . . . now

it is OK. This is not too bad’.

‘It was cheaper to buy

a house than renting in this

suburb and I would not

have any job-relatedmobility in the future. I

had a strong interest in

housing due to my

profession in the industry.

That could be another

reason for me to build this

house so early’.




Table 3. Continued


10 N/A ‘We started off with

a modest house but eachone was a step to the next

house whether it was good

or bad’. ‘I have no

attachment to a house. Our

SFH purchase was also very

casual—went out one

morning and came home

with the purchase at night’.

‘I divorced in the process of

condo purchase. I wasdetermined to complete the

purchase even on my own

. . . the idea of ‘‘not having

anywhere to live’’ was more

scary than the large loan. I

am young enough to pay

off and own this place

eventually. It depends

where you seek your

security’.

11 ‘We bought a second-hand

SFH near the coast. My

son’s asthma was the reason

why we wanted to move out

of the centre. We rebuilt the

house in situ later on’.

‘We won a draw for a newly-

built rented apartment in

new town’. ‘Growing family

and a plan to live with

mother-in-law. The New

Town was expanding with

more and larger complexes,

some of which were built to

sell. That was the time when

everybody wanted a condo. A large deposit was required

so we started to save towards

it’.

‘I wanted to come back to

New Town to have a baby.

New Town was built for

young families—spacious

and lots of trees . . . We

looked around. We looked

at 3 new condos and 30

old ones. We were not

planning to buy it so soon;

wanted to save more fora deposit but we came

across the one we really

liked!’ ‘My younger sister

owns a condo too. My

parents recommended it’.

12 ‘I received a large sum of

money when I left my first

workplace so used the

money to buy a built-for-sale

SFH . . . I was happy to ownmy own home’. ‘Now I’m

looking to move to purpose-

built housing for older

people. It would be easier for

meals and security—and

have people to talk to!’

‘After our first baby was

born, we bought this condo

in New Town. One of my

colleagues was living in this

area. But chances of winninga draw were slim. It was one

in five chances. We spent

many weekends looking

around different places’. ‘It

is secure and warm

compared to SFH’.

‘I have never given

a thought to housing. I

have never moved, for

example. I just take it for

granted’. ‘Probably a condo or apartment if I

were to live on my own.

SFH is too big and I would

not feel safe—there are lots

of areas to get broken into’.

SFH, single-family home.




generation of homeowners in postwar Tokyo and often built their housing assets entirely on their own

through small businesses or through participation in the expanding postwar labour market. This was the

period when land in Tokyo was sold in plots for house building by the government, and the start of

a trickle down of assets over generations when the middle generation gained access to home ownership.

The Kondos conform most closely to this model of housing asset accumulation, gaining entry to the

housing market at the right time, taking advantage of Japan’s rising prosperity and appreciating land val-ues, and adopting a conscious financial ‘strategy’ to generate rental income and a wealth portfolio of land

and dwellings. In contrast, the Hayashis’ housing histories were shaped by the imperatives of job mobil-

ity. On the one hand, there was a less traditional attachment to notions of the family home. On the other

hand, use value generally trumped exchange value in their housing history. For them, lifestyle and life

course needs were more prominent concerns than accumulating property-related wealth. Much of their

housing experiences were structured around the company, in contrast to the Kondos in which the private

money market was the more dominant source of finance. We have also referred to the Fukuzawas’

narrative as another property-led history, in the sense that pooling resources, co-residency, and the com-

promises required to achieve this were important influences—as were the ways in which family relations

were affected by the different attitudes of the middle generation Fukuzawas towards this housing history.

Moreover, Older Fukuzawa made housing choices at various points to facilitate the housing needs of his

offspring.

We have also provided some additional indication of some of the common and differentiating

factors at play in shaping housing choices within and between generations. Given the confines of this

paper, it is not possible to provide lengthy verbatim material but Table 3 conveys some of the key

factors at work within the families. Risk, affordability, the family home, renting or owning, and issues

of co-residency are all evident in relation to the housing choices made by the families. In our typifi-

cations of the intergenerational narratives, we have intentionally highlighted the differences and ap-

parently dominant features. But the summary quotes illustrate that there are also important areas

where influences overlap and interconnect. In all our histories, housing, work and family factors in-

teract with a distinctive Japanese dimension. Consistent with commentaries such as Clammer(1995, 1997), in the sphere of housing, there is certainly not a simple process of individualisation oc-

curring but a more subtle interplay between tradition and social change, and between the family as an

institution and its individual members. There is an evident tension in all the narratives (as indicated in

Table 3) between tradition and change, as the discontinuities generated by rapid economic develop-

ment and shifting employment patterns place stress on past practices in terms of family relations,

duties and responsibilities. But it is evident that the family (not the nuclear household but the ex-

tended family) continues to play a key role in many aspects of housing—financing housing purchase

and providing accommodation. This ‘self-help’ role of the family is also being re-emphasised today, in

an era in which the roles of the state and companies have shrunk significantly. Although the housing

trajectories of the younger generation are difficult to discern at this early stage, their experiences are

likely to be more polarised than the conventional path of j utaku sugoroku (climbing up the housingladder) that was available for their parents’ generation. On the one hand, housing has become more

‘affordable’ for younger people. In the more deregulated market, there are more opportunities for

‘double-income’ younger couples to gain earlier access to home ownership, particularly condomin-

ium units. On the other hand, for those outside ‘secure employment’, the family may be a critical

safety net for accommodation and other assistance. Also, in a low-fertility society, children will have

more opportunities to benefit from parental assets.

One of the primary purposes of this research was to provide a less atomised and individualised

perspective with particular reference to housing. From some viewpoints, we have a rather stark picture




of an increasingly privatised and commodified world in which individual households confront an

anonymous market with varying levels of resources. These varying resources, both material and

non-material, are, however, better seen in terms of portfolios accumulated and structured over gen-

erations. Among other things, this exposes the path-dependent nature of advantage and disadvantage

and the need to take greater account of factors beyond earned income and occupational position of

single individuals and households in the shaping of opportunities and constraints.

Funding

UK Economic and Social Research Council in 2007–2008 (RES-062-23-0187).

References

Bengtson, Vern L. and Robert A. Harootyan. 1994. Intergenerational Linkages: Hidden Connections in American Society .New York: Springer.

Bengtson, Vern L, Carolyn J. Rosenthal, and Linda M. Burton. 1996. ‘Paradoxes of Families and Aging’. In Handbook of

Aging and the Social Sciences , 4th ed., eds. Robert H. Binstock and Linda K. George. San Diego, CA: Academic Press:

pp. 253–282.

Brown, Naomi. 2003. ‘Under One Roof: The Evolving Story of Three Generation Housing in Japan’. In Demographic Change

and the Family in Japan’s Aging Society , eds. John W. Traphagan and John Knight. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press: pp. 53–71.

Clammer, John. 1995. Difference and Modernity: Social Theory and Contemporary Japanese Society . London: KPI.

——. 1997. Contemporary Urban Japan: A Sociology of Consumption . Oxford: Blackwell.

Dore, Ronald. 2000. Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons . Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Forrest, Ray. 2008. ‘Globalisation and the Housing Asset Rich: Geographies, Demographies and Policy Convoys’. Global

Social Policy 8(2): 167–187.

Forrest, Ray and Alan Murie. 1987. ‘The Affluent Home Owner: Labour Market Position and the Shaping of Housing

Histories’. Sociological Review 35(2): 370–403.

Forrest, Ray and Alan Murie. eds. 1995. Housing and Family Wealth: Comparative International Perspectives . London:Routledge.

Forrest, Ray and James Lee. 2004. ‘Cohort Effects, Differential Accumulation and Hong Kong’s Volatile Housing Market’.Urban Studies 41(11): 2181–2196.

Forrest, Ray and Misa Izuhara. 2009. ‘Exploring the Demographic Location of Housing Wealth in East Asia’. Journal of

Asian Public Policy 2(2): 209–221.

Forrest, Ray and Peter Williams. 1984. ‘The Commodification of Housing: Emerging Issues and Contradictions’.Environment and Planning A, 16, 1163–1189.

Forrest, Ray and Yosuke Hirayama. 2009. ‘The Uneven Impact of Neo-liberalism on Housing Opportunities’. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(4): 998–1013.

Forrest, Ray, Patricia Kennett, and Misa Izuhara. 2003. ‘Home Ownership and Economic Change in Japan’. Housing

Studies 18(3): 277–293.

Fujita, Goichi and Yuichi Shionoya. eds. 1997. Kigy o-nai Fukushi to Shakai Hosh o (Occupational Benefits and Social

Security). Tokyo: Toky o Daigaku Shuppankai.

Genda, Yuji. 2007. ‘Jobless Youths and the NEET Problem in Japan’. Social Science Japan Journal 10(1): 23–40.

Gutting, Daniel. 1996. ‘Narrative Identity and Residential History’. Area 28(4): 482–490.

Hayakawa, Kazuo and Keino Ohmoto. 1988. ‘Toshi J utaku Mondai-shi Gaisetsu’ (Review of Urban Housing Issues). In Toshi

Mondai no Kiseki to Tenb o (Trajectory and View of Urban Issues, ed.) Tokyo Shisei Chosa-Kai. Tokyo: Gy osei: pp. 233–276.

Hirayama, Yosuke. 2006. T oky o no Hate ni (Beyond Tokyo). Tokyo: NTT Shuppan.

Hirayama, Yosuke and Kazuo Hayakawa. 1995. ‘Home Ownership and Family Wealth in Japan’. In Housing and Family

Wealth , eds. Ray Forrest and Alan Murie. London and New York: Routledge: pp. 215–230.




Hirayama, Yosuke and Misa Izuhara. 2008. ‘Women and Housing Assets in the Context of Japan’s Home-Owning

Democracy’. Journal of Social Policy 37(4): 641–660.

Hirayama, Yosuke and Richard Ronald. 2008. ‘Baby-Boomers, Baby-Busters and the Lost Generation: Generational

Fractures in Japan’s Homeowner Society’. Urban Policy and Research 26(3): 325–342.

Iwata, Masami. 2007. Gendai no Hinkon: Working Poor, Homeless, Seikatsu Hogo (Contemporary Poverty: Working Poor,

Homeless and Social Assistance). Tokyo: Chikuma Shinsho.———. 2008. Shakai Teki Haijo: Sanka no Ketsujo, Futashika na Kizoku (Social Exclusion: Lack of Participation, Uncertain

Belongingness). Tokyo: Y uhikaku.

Izuhara, Misa. 2000. Family Change and Housing in Post-War Japanese Society: The Experiences of Older Women . Aldershot:

Ashgate.

———. 2009. Housing, Care and Inheritance . London: Routledge.

———, ed. 2010. Ageing and Intergenerational Relations: Family Reciprocity from a Global Perspective . Bristol: The Policy

Press.

Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975 . Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Jones, Gill. 1995. Leaving Home . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Kamata, Satoshi. 1984. Japan in the Passing Lane . London: Unwin.

Kendig, Hal. 1984. ‘Housing Careers, Life Cycle and Residential Mobility: Implications for the Housing Market’. Urban

Studies 21(3): 271–283.

May, Jon. 2000. ‘Housing Histories and Homeless Careers: A Biographical Approach’. Housing Studies 15(4): 613–638.

Morgan, S. Philip. and Kiyoshi Hirosima. 1983. ‘The Persistence of Extended Family Residence in Japan: Alternative

Strategy or Anachronism?’ American Sociological Review 48(2): 269–281.

Murdie, Robert A. 2002. ‘The Housing Careers of Polish and Somali Newcomers in Toronto’s Rental Market’. Housing

Studies 17(3): 423–443.

Murie, Alan. 1997. ‘Placing Housing in its Social Context’. In Housing in Europe , ed. H. Vestergaard. Horsholm: StatensByggeforskningsinsitut.

Ohmae, Kenichi. 1982. The Mind of the Strategist: Art of Japanese Business . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osawa, Mari. 2001. ‘People in Irregular Modes of Employment: Are They Really not Subject to Discrimination?’ Social Science

Japan Journal 4(2): 183–199.Payne, Judy and Geoff Payne. 1977. ‘Housing Pathways and Stratification: A Study of Life Chances in the Housing Market’.

Journal of Social Policy 6: 129–156.

Rohlen, Thomas P. 2002. Cosmopolitan Cities and Nation States: Open Economies, Urban Dynamics and Government in East

Asia . Stanford: Asia/Pacific Research Center.

Ronald, Richard and Yosuke Hirayama. 2006. ‘Housing Commodities, Context and Meaning: Transformations in Japan’s

Urban Condominium Sector’. Urban Studies 43(13): 2467–2483.

Rossi, Peter. 1955. Why Families Move . Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Sato, Iwao. 2007. ‘Welfare Regime Theories and the Japanese Housing System’. In Housing and Social Transition in Japan ,

eds. Hirayama Yosuke and Ronald Richard. London: Routledge: pp. 73–93.

Satterthwaite, David. 2005. The Scale of Urban Change Worldwide 1950-2000 and Its Underpinnings . London: InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development.

Spilerman, Seymour. 2000. ‘Wealth and Stratification Processes’. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 497–524.

Strassman, W. Paul. 2001. ‘Residential Mobility: Contrasting Approaches in Europe and the United States’. Housing Studies

16(1): 7–20.

Takegawa, Shogo. 1999. Shakai Seisaku no naka no Gendai (Welfare State and Welfare Society: Challenges for Social Policy).

Tokyo: Toky o Daigaku Shuppankai.

Taylor, Peter J, Gilda Catalano, and David R. F. Walker. 2002. ‘Measurement of the World City Network’. Urban Studies

39: 2367–2376.




Uchida, Seizo. 2002. ‘Shakuya kara Mochiya e: Shoyu Keitai kara Mita Senzen/Sengo no Sumai no Henyo’ (From Renting to

Owning: Shift in Living from the Tenure Perspective between the Pre-War and Post-War Periods). In Sumai no 100 Nen

(100 Years of Housing), ed. Nihon Seikatsu Gakkai. Tokyo: Domesu Shuppan: pp. 37–61.

Waswo, Ann. 2002. Housing in Postwar Japan: A Social History . London: Routledge Curzon.

Watt, Paul. 2005. ‘Housing Histories and Fragmented Middle-class Careers: The Case of Marginal Professionals in London

Council Housing’. Housing Studies 20(3): 359–381. Yamada, Yoshiharu. 1999. ‘Affordability Crisis in Housing in Britain and Japan’. Housing Studies 14(1): 99–110.


social science japan journal 2012 izuhara 53 74

Documents