『保健医療科学』 2026 Vol.75 No1 p.77-91（2026年2月）
Topics：Recent topics in public health in Japan 2026
＜ Review / 総説 ＞
The interrelationship between health policy and economic and industrial policy in Japan
TAKEMURA Shinji
Department of Public Health Policy, National Institute of Public Health
日本における健康政策と経済産業政策の相互関係
武村真治
国立保健医療科学院公衆衛生政策研究部
Abstract
In Japan, the relationship between health policy and economic and industrial policy involves both conflict and cooperation. This article explores the historical and contemporary relationship between measures related to health implemented by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which administers economic and industrial policy, and measures related to economic growth implemented by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), which is responsible for health policy, focusing on the interplay between them.
Historically, both ministries can trace their roots to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which pursued the Meiji-era goals of “Fukoku Kyouhei” (enriching the country and strengthening the military), indicating that health and industry were originally aligned toward national development. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Japan’s industrialization led to deteriorating working conditions and workers’ health. In response, the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (predecessor of the METI) enacted the Factory Act and established the health insurance system to achieve “Fukoku Kyouhei.” As ndustrialization led to environmental pollution and public health crises in the 1950s, the MHLW (formerly the Ministry of Health and Welfare) took measures to protect the health of the population from pollution, while the METI (formerly the Ministry of International Trade and Industry) implemented policies to ensure that pollution would not hinder economic and industrial development. The MHLW strongly opposed the principle of “harmonization with sound economic development,” asserting that economic development should not be pursued at the expense of health. Promoting industries aimed at improving health can serve as a driver of economic development. Representative examples include health-related products, such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices,and regenerative medicine products. Both the MHLW and METI engaged in research, development, and dissemination of these products, although their bjectives differed. It is suggested that health policy has undergone a historical transition: it was initially subsumed under economic and industrial policy, later became independent and even oppositional, and ultimately came to coexist with economic and industrial policy.
The METI undertook initiatives to develop the healthcare industry as a service sector. In recent decades, the METI has expanded its role in health through initiatives such as Health and Productivity Management,which encourages companies to invest in employees’ health to improve productivity and corporate performance. The METI supports startups, international expansion of healthcare, and utilization of personal health records. In addition, the METI addresses various diseases and health issues, including dementia,women’s health, mental health, and pollen allergies.
Although the MHLW and METI approached health-related social issues and needs in a way that appeared to be mutually competitive, they collaborated to implement legislation and institutional frameworks, such as transfer of worker protection measures, some of the measures for pollution control, evelopment of medical and welfare equipment, and establishment of medical information systems. This highlights the inherent alignment between health policy and economic and industrial policy.
Regarding health-related products, the MHLW should engage in both regulation and promotion, whereas the METI is solely responsible for promotion. The METI’s engagement in the health sector, such as developing pharmaceuticals and regenerative medicine products within the bioindustry, constitutes only a subset of its core mandate to promote economic and industrial development. Therefore, the METI is relatively unconstrained in pursuing innovative or experimental initiatives aimed at improving health. In other words,it can undertake roles that the MHLW cannot fulfill, and the two ministries are able to engage in a complementary relationship.
keywords : health policy, economic and industrial policy, worker protection, environmental pollution, bioindustry
＜抄録＞
本稿では，経済産業省の健康への取り組み，厚生労働省の経済・産業への取り組みのこれまでの動向と今後の方向性について，両省の相互作用に焦点を当てて論述する．
両省は，明治期の「富国強兵」の政策を所管する内務省を起源としている．産業化の進展に伴う労働環境と労働者の健康の悪化が経済発展に及ぼす悪影響を回避するため，経済産業省の前身である農商務省は労働者保護施策（工場法の制定，健康保険制度の創設）を実施した．1950 年代の公害に対しては，厚生省（現・厚生労働省）は国民の健康を保護するための措置を講じた一方，通商産業省（現・経済産業省）は経済・産業の発展を阻害しないような対策を実施した．厚生省は「健全な経済発展との調和」の原則に強く反対し，経済発展は健康に優先されるべきではないと主張した．一方，医薬品，医療機器，再生医療等製品などの健康の改善を目的とする産業の振興は経済発展の推進力でもあり，厚生労働省と経済産業省は，目的は異なるものの，これらの製品の研究・開発，普及に取り組んできた．このように健康政策は，当初は経済産業政策に内包され，その後独立し，時には対立し，最終的には経済産業政策とともに歩むに至っている．
経済産業省は，ヘルスケア産業をサービス産業として発展させてきた．また近年，企業が従業員の健康に投資し，生産性および業績を向上させる「健康経営」など，健康への取り組みを拡大している．さらに，認知症，女性の健康，メンタルヘルス，花粉症など，様々な疾患や健康課題にも取り組んでいる．
厚生労働省と経済産業省は，健康に関する課題やニーズに対して互いに競い合うように施策を展開してきたが，労働者保護施策の移管，一部の公害対策，医療・福祉機器の開発，医療情報システムの構築の共管など，協働した取り組みも多い．これは，健康政策と経済・産業政策の間に本質的な整合性が存在することを示唆している．また医薬品，医療機器等に関して，厚生労働省は規制と振興の両方を所管しているのに対して，経済産業省は振興のみを担当している．そのため経済産業省は，厚生労働省ではできないような革新的・実験的な取り組みを推進することが可能であり，両省は補完的な関係を形成しうると考えられる．
キーワード：健康政策，経済産業政策，労働者保護，公害，バイオインダストリー
The interrelationship between health policy and economic and industrial policy in Japan