Compensation for Public Assistance Recipients: Bring Steady Relief to Households Affected by Welfare Benefit Cuts

Editorial

14:56 JST, December 11, 2025

Following the Supreme Court ruling in June this year that the significant reduction in welfare benefits over three years starting in 2013 was illegal, the government has finalized relief measures.

According to the measures, the reduction rate of 4.78% that was applied at the time to reflect price decreases will be revised downward to 2.49%. The difference, about ¥100,000, will be compensated to all of the about 3 million households affected by the benefit cuts.

In addition, in consideration of the burden of their lawsuit, the about 700 plaintiffs involved in the case will receive an additional ¥100,000 as a “special benefit.”

The government has allocated ¥147.5 billion in the fiscal 2025 supplementary budget proposal to implement these relief measures.

The current structure of the public assistance system was adopted in 1984 to reflect consumption trends and other factors. Although there have been examples since then in which welfare benefits were reduced, the 4.78% reduction rate contested in this lawsuit significantly exceeded past cases.

Anyone can find themselves unable to work due to illness, injury or other reasons and face financial hardship. Considering that public assistance serves as the “last line of defense” to support people’s livelihoods, the government should be cautious about implementing a large reduction of the benefits.

The government must thoroughly explain the details of the relief measures to obtain understanding among recipients at the time. It should also strive to steadily provide the benefits.

The reductions from 2013 to 2015 occurred under the second administration of then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It is believed the administration’s decision was influenced by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s pledge in the 2012 House of Representatives election campaign to “cut welfare benefits by 10% in principle.”

At the time, the effects of the collapse of the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake were persisting, and the employment situation had deteriorated. In areas such as Hokkaido and Tokyo, the monthly earnings of those who worked at minimum wages fell below the monthly welfare benefits. This could have undermined the incentive to work.

Criticism of public assistance was also intense. There were many cases of people fraudulently receiving welfare benefits even though they had sufficient economic means, as well as problems in which people who instructed street-dwelling homeless people to apply for public assistance exploited some of their benefits.

In its June ruling, the Supreme Court did not deem the reduction of welfare benefits at the time itself to have been illegal.

However, the court determined that the government had failed to consult experts when setting the reduction rate and had not provided reasonable grounds for the benefit cuts, ruling that the spate of procedures violated the Public Assistance Law.

If the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, being influenced by the prevailing mood at the time, decided on the reduction without sufficient scrutiny, then doing so was improper. It is necessary to verify whether the response at that time was appropriate.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 11, 2025)