So-net無料ブログ作成

税と社会保障の一体改革の実情 [Social Policy]

現在,通常国会開会中で,政府は「税と社会保障の一体改革」に不退転の覚悟で臨むといっています.

私は,この「税と社会保障の一体改革」は,本来なら,「財政改革=税制改革}ないし「消費税引き上げ」というべきところを,何か「社会保障」も内容改善するかのようなポーズを付けているだけだと思うのです.

昨年11月の主要先進20カ国首脳会議に,実は,IMF がJapan Sastainability(存続可能性) Report を提出していたのですが,そこに,かなりハッキリと消費税の15%への引き上げのみならず,社会保障支出の削減も必要になるだろうと書かれているのです.

EUでもアメリカでも,今や厳しい財政規律が求められていますが,その点では先進20カ国中,日本は最悪の状態にあるのです.
国債発行残高が,日本は,なんと対GDP比で200%にも達しているのです.これは先進20カ国中最悪,EUで問題になっているギリシャに次ぐモノなのです.下に Sustainability Report を報じたWall Street Journal の記事と 本体のExecutive Summery を順に掲載しましたが,そのWSJの記事のグラフをご参照下さい.

日本の国債は,その95%が国内で購入されているから,それが売りたたかれることはないと関係者はいい続けていますが,問題は95%の中身で,これまでは個人の貯蓄に依存していたのですが,個人消費の低迷,人口高齢化の伸展があって,近年は金余りの銀行の保有が増えているのです.

そうなると,国際金融市場はたいへん無責任に動きますから,ちょっとしたキッカケで日本の国債がターゲットになって,国債金利が高騰する危険にさらされており,そうすると国債価格は暴落しますから,日本の金融機関は一挙にその財務体質を悪化させる危険があるのです.
"Should JGB(国債) yields rise from current levels, Japanese debt could quickly become unsustainable," the IMF said in the report.

ですから,日本は可及的速やかに財政規律を回復する必要に迫られているのですが,その方法は2つしかありません.
1.歳出抑制,
2.歳入拡大ー消費税引き上げ
そして,IMF Report はその両方とも必要だが,社会保障以外ではもうかなり抑制してきているから,社会保障の削減に頼るしかないだろうといっているのです
Fiscal adjustment will need to rely on a combination of revenue-raising measures,
such as a higher consumption tax, and
limits on spending, including through
pension reform.

The IMF indicated a preference to see the tax rate raised to 15% "over several years." There is "little room" to cut spending outside social security programs after years of belt-tightening, it said.

あとは,どうぞご自由に,原文をご渉猟下さい.

 

 

  • NOVEMBER 25, 2011
  • IMF Warns Japan on Threat of Debt

    Market Concerns About Fiscal Sustainability Could Trigger a Jump in Bond Yields

    TOKYO—The International Monetary Fund warned in a new report that market concerns over fiscal sustainability could trigger a "sudden spike" in Japanese government bond yields that could quickly render the nation's debt unsustainable as well as shake the global economy.

    The fund's Japan Sustainability Report, released on Wednesday, was a signal to Tokyo policy makers that the international community is already worried about fallouts from Japan's potential fiscal problems, after debt problems in some European economies evolved into a Continent-wide crisis.

    Japanese CPI fell for the first time in four months confirming that the economy is stuck in a deflationary trend and the IMF is concerned that its public debt is becoming unsustainable. Japan is back in the spotlight.

    Japan's public liabilities amount to roughly twice annual economic output—a ratio worse than that of any other industrialized economy, including turmoil-hit Spain and Italy. The Japanese government has been slow to move amid political reluctance to lift taxes, particularly after the March 11 earthquake.

    [IMFJAPAN]

    "Should JGB yields rise from current levels, Japanese debt could quickly become unsustainable," the IMF said in the report.

    "Recent events in other advanced economies have underscored how quickly market sentiment toward sovereigns with unsustainable fiscal imbalances can shift," the fund said.

    Higher government bond yields "could result in a withdrawal of liquidity from global capital markets, disrupt external positions and, through contagion, put upward pressure on sovereign-bond yields elsewhere," the fund said.

    Senior Vice Finance Minister Yukihisa Fujita, who oversees budget making with Finance Minister Jun Azumi, said at a news conference on Thursday that he hadn't read the IMF report, and declined to assess what he referred to as a "hypothesis" about Japan's finances.

    The paper was prepared by the IMF upon the request of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations so the members could use it for their debate over the issue of global imbalances.

    Japan's private net international investment amounts to $1.5 trillion, which mostly consists of investment by Japanese banks, life insurers and corporate pension funds, the fund said.

    "Capital losses following a spike in JGB yields could trigger rapid deleveraging from positions abroad" by those players, it said.

    If Japanese banks cut their foreign credit lines, G-20 economies, "notably the U.K. and Korea, would be among the most exposed to the loss in funding," the IMF said.

    "Given evidence from past bouts of global turmoil, abrupt adjustments in exchange rates of major economies are likely to follow," it added.

    In contrast to some European countries, Japan's sovereign debt is 95%-owned by domestic investors. That has helped Japan keep its bonds stable and rates low despite the nation's deteriorating fiscal condition.

    Japan's debt market has even been bullish recently as European debt woes and a cloudy global economic outlook drives investors to buy Japanese government bonds.

    But the IMF said, "Market concerns about fiscal sustainability could result in a sudden spike in the risk premiums on JGBs, without a contemporaneous increase in private demand."

    "Once confidence in sustainability erodes," it said, "authorities could face an adverse feedback loop between rising yields, falling market confidence, a more vulnerable financial system, diminishing fiscal policy space and a contracting real economy."

    In 2010, the Japanese government's interest payments were as large as 2% of gross domestic product, the IMF estimated. A one-percentage-point increase in average yields could boost the interest bill by an additional 2% or more of GDP, the IMF said.

    For now, Japan plans to double its 5% sales tax by the middle of this decade and halve its main budget deficit by March 2016. But the government has no detailed plans beyond that time, such as steps to lower the debt-GDP ratio, the fund said.

    A "more ambitious strategy is required to maintain confidence in public finances," it added.

    The IMF indicated a preference to see the tax rate raised to 15% "over several years." There is "little room" to cut spending outside social security programs after years of belt-tightening, it said.

     

     

    IMF Japan Sastainability Report 

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    G-20 indicative guidelines identified Japan as experiencing “moderate” or “large” fiscal and private saving imbalances. Fiscal imbalances have risen steadily over the past two decades, to unsustainable levels. Thus far, the government has been able to finance its debt at low cost because private savings has remained high. But to reduce the risks to domestic stability and the global economy, growth-enhancing structural reforms and fiscal consolidation are urgently needed.

    The root cause of Japan’s fiscal imbalances lies in its “lost decades” of low growth.

    Since the asset price collapse of the early 1990s, potential growth has slowed sharply, because of a shrinking labor force, weak investment and a trend decline in total factor productivity.

    Slow growth amidst an aging population has perpetuated a cycle of adverse debt
    dynamics. It has depressed government revenue, while swelling social security
    payments and encouraging stimulus spending to revive demand. As a result,
    fiscal deficits have been large, pushing the public debt ratio to unsustainably high
    levels.

    Policy missteps—including the absence of any major revenue-raising reforms in over twenty years—have also played a part in the rapid rise in public debt.
    Abundant private saving embeds a deeper imbalance, namely a high corporate saving rate and a very low household saving rate.

    High corporate saving reflects a sustained drive toward deleveraging, facilitated by
    wage moderation and favorable financial conditions.

    At the same time, household saving has fallen to less than 3 percent of GDP, owing
    to life cycle implications of a rapidly aging population and stagnating wages among
    younger households.

    Public debt is on an unsustainable path, carrying risks to domestic and global tability.

    As evident from recent developments, market sentiment toward sovereigns with
    unsustainably large fiscal imbalances can shift abruptly, with adverse effects on debt dynamics. Should JGB yields increase, they could  initiate an adverse feedback loop from rising yields to deteriorating confidence, diminishing policy space, and a contracting real economy.

    Higher yields could result in a withdrawal of liquidity from global capital markets, disrupt external positions and, through contagion, put upward pressure on sovereign bond yields elsewhere.

    To address imbalances and anchor strong, sustainable and balanced growth, Japan
    needs to needs to undertake growth-enhancing structural reforms and fiscally consolidate.

    Structural reforms, including improving competition in services and raising labor
    force participation, will help boost productivity and potential growth. Such reforms will also help minimize the negative demand effects of fiscal consolidation over
    the medium term.

    Fiscal adjustment will need to rely on a combination of revenue-raising measures,
    such as a higher consumption tax, and limits on spending, including through
    pension reform.


    nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
    共通テーマ:学問

    UK: National Health & Social Care 改革 [Social Policy]

    England の保健医療研究機関の1つに The Kings Fund があります.そこがEngland の保健医療の第2次大戦後の歴史をたいへん要領良く要約していましたので,そのKey Points を上げておきます.

    端的にいいますと,医療はNational Health Service (国営医療サービス)で,そのアクセスは無料(at the point of entry)です.
    それに対して,Social Care はLocal Council(地方自治体)のサービスで,Means Test を伴った有料サービスになっていました.しかもLocal Council によって財政力に差がありますし,政策の優先順位にも差があって,地域間格差が拡大して問題になっていました.

    1990年代に Social Care Insurance は取らないことに決定しましたが,Social Care はいわば放置されてきたのです,

    それをHealth and Social Care を統合的にPatient 中心に解決する方向が打ち出されて,その体制整備が急務となっていました.older people, disabled people, those with mental health problems and carers will, for the first time, be clear about their legal rights to care and support services. Local councils across England and Wales will have clear and concise rules to govern when they must provide services.

    そこで,政府は Health and Social Care Bill 2011を議会に提案したのですが,さまざまな法律上の疑義が生じて,成立が遅れています.
    そのKey pointsは,
    The Bill proposes to create an independent NHS Board, promote patient choice, and to reduce NHS administration costs.

    Key areas

  • establishes an independent NHS Board to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidance
  • increases GPs’ powers to commission services on behalf of their patients
  • strengthens the role of the Care Quality Commission
  • develops Monitor, the body that currently regulates NHS foundation trusts, into an economic regulator to oversee aspects of access and competition in the NHS
  • cuts the number of health bodies to help meet the Government's commitment to cut NHS administration costs by a third, including abolishing Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities. 
     
    というものです.

  • また,Staff のEducation & training について,新年早早にDepartment of Health が提案を出していますが,.依然として,国と地方で横割りになっています.

    New approach to education and training published


    The policy framework for a new approach to workforce planning and the education and training of the health workforce is published today.

    It puts employers and professionals in the driving seat and gives them the national support they need to identify and anticipate the key workforce challenges, and to be flexible and responsive in planning and developing their workforce. The Department of Health believes these provider-led arrangements offer the best assurance for future-proofing the way the health and public health workforce is developed.

    Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce builds on responses to earlier public consultations and the advice of the NHS Future Forum.

    There are two central planks to the new system – Health Education England (HEE) and the Local Education and Training Boards (LETBs).

    HEE will provide national leadership and oversight on strategic planning and development of the health and public health workforce, and allocate education and training resources. HEE will promote high quality education and training that is responsive to the changing needs of patients and local communities – including responsibility for ensuring the effective delivery of important national functions, such as medical trainee recruitment. Once the new education and training system is fully established, HEE will be able to consider to what extent they can be devolved.

    The LETBs will be the vehicle for providers and professionals to work with HEE to improve the quality of education and training outcomes so that they meet the needs of service providers, patients and the public.

    The Department will set the education and training outcomes for the system as a whole, securing the resources necessary and continuing to set the regulatory, policy and legal framework. It will hold the HEE Board to account for delivery of its strategic objectives.

    最後になりましたが,The Kings Fund のhistorical review と  Health and Social Care Bill 2011 提案の背景を掲載しておきます.

    Kings Fund のshort history

    Key points

    • England has an ageing population with increasing levels of disability and need – by 2026 the number of people aged over 85 is expected to have doubled; adults with a learning disability will increase by 30% over the next 20 years, and dementia numbers will double over the next 30 years (Securing good care for more people). The ratio of working-age people to retired people will fall from 4:1 to 3:1 by 2029.
    • Social care funding has increased in real terms for the past decade, but has not kept pace with demographic trends. Over the last five years for example public spending on social care for older people has barely increased, yet the number of over 85s has risen by a quarter.
    • There are wide geographical variations in funding – in part because spending on social care is handled by local councils, whose circumstances vary. Local social care services are funded in an entirely different and much more localised way than the NHS. This reflects the continuing legacy of the settlement after the second world war in which the NHS was established as a centrally directed service, largely free at the point of use, while personal social services were the responsibility of local councils and subject to means-testing. Some of the resulting variations in local services has given rise to concern about a ‘postcode lottery’ in care.
    • Some of these differences in cost and performance across a number of measures – for example, emergency hospital admissions, delayed transfers – reflect different relationships between health and social care (Social care funding and the NHS: an impending crisis?) The government has pledged to facilitate closer integration so that people can receive a more joined-up service and proposes to give local councils the lead role in promoting integration through new Health and Wellbeing Boards.
    • The widening gap between needs and resources has seen councils tighten their eligibility criteria so that over three-quarters restrict help to those with substantial or critical needs only. One estimate suggests that 800,000 people receive no formal support from public or private agencies (Age UK – Crisis in Care). The CQC has warned that access to publicly-funded care will become further restricted as a result of funding and demographic pressures. The growth of property ownership and pensions over the last 60 years has seen more people required to pay the full costs of their own residential care because their assets exceed the current limit of £23,250. This is has fuelled dissatisfaction with the current funding system and exposed how poorly it is understood (Caring Choices).
    • There is universal agreement that along with rising expectations and wider social changes, the current means-tested system of social care is not sustainable. Previous attempts at reform have included the 1999 Royal Commission With Respect to Old Age and the 2009 White Paper Building the National Care Service.
    • In response to growing concerns, the coalition government identified additional resources in 2010 – including £1b from the NHs budget – and to commission an independent Commission on the Funding of Care and Support led by Andrew Dilnot to report by the end of July 2011. The report will make recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support, for all adults in England, both in the home and other settings.
    • Following a major review the Law Commission has recommended radical reform of adult social care law which dates back to 1948 and consists of a complex and confusing patchwork of legislation. This would be replaced by a single, clearer, modern statute and code of practice that would pave the way for a coherent social care system. Under the reforms proposed in our report, older people, disabled people, those with mental health problems and carers will, for the first time, be clear about their legal rights to care and support services. Local councils across England and Wales will have clear and concise rules to govern when they must provide services.
    • The coalition government has pledged to consider the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Dilnot Commission, alongside its previously published Vision for Adult Social Care. It intends to publish a White Paper on social care reform in December 2011 followed by legislation in the next parliamentary session.

     


    nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
    共通テーマ:学問

    UK;Universal Credit (Time Schedule) [Social Policy]

    たいへん議論が長引きましたが,ようやく,Universal Credit のTime Schedule が公表されました.これがまた,順を追って慎重にやるSchedule です.

    イギリスの議会は,日本のいい加減な審議と違って,きちんと順序を踏んで,上下両院で第1~第3読会をやり,修正の可否を議論して,クイーンのRoyal Assent を経て,Bill → Act になるのです.それで,1月11日に上院の第3読会が終われば,ほぼ法案の成立は確実になります.

    それを見越して,政府が 法律施行のSchedule を発表したのです.

    なお,念のため,Universal Credit は次のようにイメージされています.
    1.a 'Universal Credit' to replace a range of existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for people of working age,つまり勤労者世代,すなわち日本のハローワークにあたる Job centre で社会扶助給付金を受け取っている人たちが対象です.

    2.set out the Coalition Government’s proposals for reforming welfare to improve work incentives, simplify the benefits system and tackle administrative complexity. すなわち,勤労意欲の改善給付システムの簡素化,行政の複雑化の解消が目標とされています.

    3.Key areas      
    別に,重要な項目として,

  • introduces Personal Independence Payments to replace the current Disability Living Allowance
  • restricts Housing Benefit entitlement for social housing tenants whose accommodation is larger than they need
  • up-rates Local Housing Allowance rates by the Consumer Price Index
  • amends the forthcoming statutory child maintenance scheme
  • limits the payment of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to a 12-month period
  • caps the total amount of benefit that can be claimed.

  • が列記されています.

    そこでスケジュールですが,かなり慎重にやるようで,

    March 2013Universal Credit pilot scheme will start.
    October 2013New applicants for out-of-work benefits will be taken on to Universal Credit.
    April 2014New applicants for Tax Credits will claim Universal Credit instead.
    2014-2017Existing claimants will be taken over to Universal Credit in tranches during        this period.
    October 2017By this date, the introduction of the Universal Credit may be complete.

    と,2013年3月から試行に入り,同10月から新規申請は総てUniversal Credit に移行させ,現在の受給者総てを2014~2017年にかけて,総てUniversal Credit に順次移行させ,2017年10月までにUniversal Credit 導入を完了させる,というスケジュールです.

     

     

     

    Welfare Reform Bill 2010-11

    Latest Bill
    Explanatory Notes
    All Bill documents

    Type of Bill:
    Government Bill
    Sponsors:
    Iain Duncan Smith
    Department for Work and Pensions
    Lord Freud
    Department for Work and Pensions

    Progress of the Bill

     

    Bill started in the House of Commons

    1. House of Commons
      1. 1st reading
      2. 2nd reading
      3. Committee stage
      4. Report stage
      5. 3rd reading
    2. House of Lords
      1. 1st reading
      2. 2nd reading
      3. Committee stage
      4. Report stage
      5. 3rd reading
    3. Consideration of Amendments
    4. Royal Assent

    Last event

    Next event

    • Report stage: House of Lords
      Report stage: House of Lords | 11.01.2012

     

    All previous stages of the Bill

    Latest news on the Bill

    Line by line examination of the Bill took place during the second day of report stage on 14 December. Amendments discussed covered clauses 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26 and 27 of the Bill.

    A third day of report stage is scheduled for 11 January.

     

    Summary of the Bill

    The Bill provides for the introduction of a 'Universal Credit' to replace a range of existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for people of working age, starting from 2013. The Bill follows the November 2010 White Paper, 'Universal Credit: welfare that works', which set out the Coalition Government’s proposals for reforming welfare to improve work incentives, simplify the benefits system and tackle administrative complexity.

    Besides introducing Universal Credit and related measures, the Bill makes other significant changes to the benefits system.

    Key areas

    • introduces Personal Independence Payments to replace the current Disability Living Allowance
    • restricts Housing Benefit entitlement for social housing tenants whose accommodation is larger than they need
    • up-rates Local Housing Allowance rates by the Consumer Price Index
    • amends the forthcoming statutory child maintenance scheme
    • limits the payment of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to a 12-month period
    • caps the total amount of benefit that can be claimed.

    During the Committee Stage, the Government amended the Bill to provide for the establishment of a Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

     


    nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
    共通テーマ:学問

    虚構の社会福祉士・介護福祉士制度を廃止すべき. [Social Policy]

    私はこれまでにも社会福祉士国家試験制度は,マルコス独裁政権下に制度化されたフイリピンくらいにしか見られない制度だと繰り返し主張して来ました.

    最近になって,文部科学省の認可を受けた大学が,社会福祉士国家試験受験資格取得コースの認可を厚生労働省から受けなければならない,いわば大学の自治に対する国家統制に矛盾を感じ始め,この認可を返上してしまおうとする動きが,出始めています.
    これは少し常識ある教授陣を擁する大学なら,至極当然の動きだと考えます.
    私などには,あのレベルの低い社会福祉士試験受験者向けの,内容重複だらけのテキストを見ますと,どう見ても専門学校生ないしそれ以下レベルにしか思えないのです.

    社会福祉士は、昭和62年5月の第108回国会において制定された 「社会福祉士及び介護福祉士法」で位置づけられた、社会福祉業務に携わる人の国家資格です.
    「社会福祉士及び介護福祉士法」には、社会福祉士とは「専門的知識及び技術をもって、身体上もしくは精神上の障害があること、または環境上の理由により日常生活を営むのに支障がある者の福祉に関する相談に応じ、助言、指導、福祉サービスを提供する者又たは 医師その他の保健医療サービスを提供する者その他の関係者との連携及び調整その他の援助を行うことを業とする者」とされています.

    しかし,この社会福祉士資格は、国家資格ではありますが医師や弁護士のように「業務独占」の資格でなく、「名称独占」の資格に過ぎないのです.
    「名称独占」とは、資格を持たない者が、「社会福祉士」という名称を使用してはならないということだけで、社会福祉士資格をもっていなければ、上記業務につけないという制約など全くないのです.

    実際問題として,社会福祉士資格は,公立の児童相談所や福祉事務所等の地方自治体相談機関には当てはまりませんから,もっぱら,民間社会福祉事業にしか意味をなさないといえます.しかし,そこは社会福祉法人という形式に守られた家族経営が圧倒的大多数ですから,就職先としての魅力には乏しい所ばかりといって過言ではありません.

    そもそも世界に例をみない「国家資格制度」が,何をキッカケにどうして作られてしまったかといえば,法成立前年の1986年に東京で国際社会福祉協議会総会(The International Council of Social Welfare)が開催された機会に,当時の厚生省社会局庶務課に社会事業大学から出向していた京極高宣専門官が,課長をラポーターに押し立てながら,その分科会議長をやっていた私の右側ラポーター席に,自分を含めて4人も並ぶという異常さのなかで,何とか社会福祉職の専門職化を報告に盛り込ませようとしたことに端を発しています.
    京極氏の頭の中には,単科大学の社会事業大学の志願者数増大が至上命題としてあったに違いないでしょう.

    しかし,実際にはそんな専門職化の議論には強い反対論があって直ぐ消えましたから,私の議長報告では,社会福祉職の専門職化論に触れる余地はなかったのです.
    私自身,社会福祉の行政職内部における専門職化を前向きに検討したことがありましたが,イギリスに留学してCommunity Care の方向性について学んだ際,Community Careに必要なことは,「社会福祉の専門職化(professionalization)ではなく,社会福祉(知識)の社会化(socialization)」だという方向性を学んで,考え方が変わっていたのです.

    にもかかわらず,京極専門官は,大阪セミナーに参加したイギリス人から専門職化の必要性が指摘されたという虚構(そんな筈がないことは,私の直前の「イギリス最悪の児童虐待死事件」のブログをご覧いただければ一目瞭然です)を作り上げて,上述の「社会福祉士及び介護福祉士法」の成立を図ったのです.
    その
    意図は「業務独占」にあったのでしょうが,省内や他省庁,とくに内閣法制局との折衝課程で,「名称独占」に後退してしまったのです.それでは立法の意味がほとんど失われたと思いますが,1度走り出したことを止めてしまうのは,厚生省としては許されなかったのでしょう.

    そんな法律が出来たことで,しかしながら,厚生省は社会福祉専攻課程を持つ大学の統制にかかったのです.そして,国家資格試験制度が作られたことで,資格指向の学生志願者はそれにつられて増大しましたから,雨後の竹の子のようにいわば貧困ビジネスとしての社会福祉系大学, 学部,学科が作られ,大学数は増大し,それに反比例して,水膨れした専攻課程や,その教育スタッフのレベルは低下しました.

    このように社会福祉士国家試験受験資格コースの国家統制は,現実には,社会福祉系大学のレベルを低下させ,結果的に,かえって日本のソーシャル・ワーク水準を決定的に低下させたというべきでしょう.それは日本の児童福祉の現状が端的に立証しています.

    また,国家試験合格者のなかで,家族経営レベルの実習先が学生の就職に結びつく比率はほとんど高まりませんでしたから,上述の通り,まともな教授のいる大学では,社会福祉系コースの国家統制による画一化に反対し,国家試験受験資格コース,さらには社会福祉学専攻そのモノごと返上してしまおうという声がくすぶり始めているのです.

    同じ法律で定められた介護福祉士についても,大きな問題が現実化しています.
    介護の分野では人口の高齢化と共に,人手不足が叫ばれていますが,欧米諸国が広く受け入れている保健医療職への移民を,日本では保健から介護に分離したsocial care への移民希望者にも「日本語の国家資格試験」の受験を要求して,事実上移民をシャットアウトしているのです.
    どう考えても出身国の資格や来日後の3年間の実習で十二分に足りるはずですが...まるで,「介護福祉士」が単なる名称独占に過ぎないことを忘却した暴挙です.

    そもそも日本は先進諸国の中では,極端に移民受け入れの少ない国なのです,この状況では,日本の大学で学ぼうとする外国人学生も初めから他国へ行ってしまうでしょう.

    他方で,日本は,社会福祉士資格などにまで手を伸ばさせたバブル経済が崩壊後,20年以上にわたって「失われた20年」を経験し,経済成長率ゼロないしマイナスの状態が続き,今や2流国に転落していますが,その最大の原因は,イノベーションの力が不足してきたからです.

    それは,福島第1原子力発電所の原子炉が,あれだけの大地震,大津波にも Fail Safe で作られていたのに,東京電力の職員の誰もが原子炉のシステム構造をきちんと理解していなかったために,次々と最悪のメルトダウンに至った,いくら悔やんでも悔やみきれないわが国技術力の大失態が,世界に向かって日本人の技術知識水準の低さを広く証明してしまったのです.

    この失われた革新性喪失の20年を,30年,40年と続かせないためには,日本は世界中からイノベーションの力を持った頭脳を,大量移民受け入れのなかから見いだすしかないでしょう.

    そう考えますと,無用の国家試験受験資格制度などはすべからく廃止すべきで,今,国家試験受験資格制度に惹かれている若者のなかからも,無用な制度がなくなれば,思わぬ所で,イノベーションの頭脳を発揮するかも知れないではありませんか.

    文部科学省が,最近,新設学部申請を不認可にした大学がありましたが,この大学については,厚生労働省も,本来なら文部科学省の処分以前に,この大学を社会福祉士国家試験受験資格認定コースから外すべきではなかったのでしょうか.
    この大学は,群馬県から大学用地の提供を受けながら,大学名を「東京~~」とした不道理な大学ですし,旧学長が性的スキャンダルで逮捕されたことから辞任しながら,国家試験合格率日本一を(虚偽誇大)に歌って,東京,名古屋にキャンパスを拡大した,その質的レベルに大いに疑問のある大学です.
    そもそも,モラルを見失った教育者に育成された社会福祉専門職など考えようがないではありませんか.

    厚生労働省がその辺から決断できないようならば,社会福祉士国家試験受験資格認定コースをいよいよ多くの大学が認定返上に向かうべきでしょう.

    そもそも「社会福祉士及び介護福祉士法」の生みの親自身が,昨年,別種のスキャンダルから厚生労働省の研究所長職の辞任に追い込まれたことも,彼が,虚構をでっち上げて作った「社会福祉士及び介護福祉士法」の存続意義をさらにいっそう失わせたのではないでしょうか.

     


    nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
    共通テーマ:学問