scholarly journals East Asian Welfare Regimes: Testing the Hypothesis of the Developmental Welfare State

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yih-Jiunn Lee ◽  
Yeun-wen Ku
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Welfare Regimes

End of the Era of Productivist Welfare Capitalism? Diverging Welfare Regimes in East Asia

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Jun Choi
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Welfare Capitalism ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
State Regime ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Welfare Politics

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of recent transformations in East Asian welfare regimes, applying a ‘real-typical’ perspective, based on the ‘productivist welfare capitalism’ thesis of Ian Holliday (2000). Unlike Western welfare-state regimes in which the politics of austerity has dominated, the politics of welfare expansion has been noticeable in East Asian welfare regimes. This paper will analyse whether these changes have fundamentally dismantled the productivist feature where social policy is subordinate to economic objectives. While the trajectories are different depending on different political institutional contexts, this study shows that there are two strong signs that these states are moving out of their productivist nature and also that they are in the process of establishing their own welfare states. Japan seems to still be a productivist welfare-state regime struggling to accommodate rapid socio-economic changes, whereas Korea is a welfare state regime with strong liberal characteristics via modern welfare politics. Since the needs for social policy expansion in China correspond to economic and political needs, the productivist feature has been significantly weakened. However, this study argues that these transitory welfare regimes are in critical stages of formulating their new welfare regimes and that welfare politics based on contingent events could affect the future trajectories of these regimes.

scholarly journals The Less-Known History of the Voluntary Sector in an East Asian Welfare Regime: A South Korean Case

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suyoung Kim
Keyword(s):  
East Asian ◽  
Voluntary Sector ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Voluntary Organizations ◽  
Welfare Regime ◽  
Family Interactions ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Welfare Mix

AbstractAlthough the voluntary sector is internationally valued as an integral component of the welfare mix, studies on East Asian welfare regimes have primarily focused on state-market-family interactions, paying scant attention to the long-standing and pivotal role of voluntary agencies in their construction. This case study illuminates this less-known aspect of modern welfare history in the context of South Korea, with a particular focus on the activities of voluntary organizations. The study categorizes South Korean voluntary associations into four types and examines their different contributions in shaping South Korea’s welfare regime, by applying Young’s framework on government–voluntary organizations relations. This historical exploration on the South Korean voluntary sector aims to deepen understanding of an East Asian welfare state regime. It further suggests that current welfare mix debates, focusing on the service delivery role of voluntary organizations within Western European welfare states, should be broadened.

scholarly journals Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies, 1975–2001

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 921-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brady ◽  
Jason Beckfield ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
State Expansion ◽  
State Variation ◽  
State Models ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Previous Scholarship ◽  
The Welfare State

Previous scholarship is sharply divided over how or if globalization influences welfare states. The effects of globalization may be positive causing expansion, negative triggering crisis and reduction, curvilinear contributing to convergence, or insignificant. We bring new evidence to bear on this debate with an analysis of three welfare state measures and a comprehensive array of economic globalization indicators for 17 affluent democracies from 1975 to 2001. The analysis suggests several conclusions. First, state-of-the-art welfare state models warrant revision in the globalization era. Second, most indicators of economic globalization do not have significant effects, but a few affect the welfare state and improve models of welfare state variation. Third, the few significant globalization effects are in differing directions and often inconsistent with extant theories. Fourth, the globalization effects are far smaller than the effects of domestic political and economic factors. Fifth, the effects of globalization are not systematically different between European and non-European countries, or liberal and non-liberal welfare regimes. Increased globalization and a modest convergence of the welfare state have occurred, but globalization does not clearly cause welfare state expansion, crisis, and reduction or convergence. Ultimately, this study suggests skepticism toward bold claims about globalization's effect on the welfare state.

scholarly journals Invited Commentary: Social Cohesion, Depression, and the Role of Welfare States

2019 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-357
Author(s):  
Mikael Rostila
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
State Theory ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neighborhood Disorder ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract In this issue of the Journal, Baranyi et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;000(00):000–000) examine the longitudinal associations of perceived neighborhood disorder and social cohesion with depressive symptoms among persons aged 50 years or more in 16 different countries. An important contribution of their article is that they study how neighborhood-level social capital relates to depression in different welfare-state contexts. Although the authors provide empirical evidence for some significant differences between welfare states in the relationship between social capital and depression, they say little about potential explanations. In this commentary, I draw attention to welfare-state theory and how it could provide us with a greater understanding of Baranyi et al.’s findings. I also discuss the potential downsides of grouping countries into welfare regimes. I primarily focus on the associations between social cohesion and depression, as these associations were generally stronger than those for neighborhood disorder and depression. Finally, I provide some suggestions for future research within the field and discuss whether the findings could be used to guide policies aimed at increasing social cohesion and health.

Reappraisal of the political approach on East Asian welfare state development: the case of childcare expansion in South Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 677-693
Author(s):  
Tauchid Komara Yuda
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
South Korea ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Driving Factors ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Policy Studies ◽  
Power Resource ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Welfare State Development

PurposePolitical analyses of the East Asian welfare state development often stress the importance of the power resource model, in which vibrant coalitions between the leftist party, interest groups, civil society and working-class unions have become driving factors in producing generous welfare outcomes. Challenging such analyses, this article discusses the convergence of the political attitude between political actors who are increasingly homogeneous (supportive) when it comes to the universal welfare state notion by focussing on childcare in South Korea.Design/methodology/approachBy using desk review of the peer-reviewed literature and reports, this article investigates the causation for why political parties with different political ideologies were keen on extending childcare programs and its outcome in addressing the existing demographic problems in Korea.FindingsAlthough the collective movement, especially in the 1990s and 2000s, had given important contributions to the early development of childcare in South Korea, more breakthroughs in childcare features were precisely and rapidly developed after politicians from different spectrums of political affiliations converged in their supportive attitude of the universal welfare. The driving factors of political convergence itself are not merely due to electoral competition or political activism; furthermore, it can be linked to the increased global institution involvement in domestic policy with extensive permeability, which, have ruined domestic policy development maintained for ideological reasoning and bring in more popular policy setting.Originality/valueThis article contributes to the growing literature on the political aspect of East Asian social policy studies, which goes beyond the traditional power resource analysis and makes a novel contribution to the childcare policy studies.

Productive Welfare, the East Asian ‘Model’ and Beyond: Placing Welfare Types in Greater China into Context

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hudson ◽  
Stefan Kühner ◽  
Nan Yang
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
East Asia ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Single Model ◽  
Welfare Provision ◽  
Greater China ◽  
Welfare Systems ◽  
Key Drivers ◽  
Welfare Model ◽  
Productive Model

This article rounds off the themed section by reviewing broader debates within welfare state modelling relevant to Greater China. More specifically, it examines the now well-established literature around the East Asian ‘model’ of welfare, and related debates on the notion of a ‘productive welfare’ model. In so doing, it challenges simplistic classifications that present the region as representing a single model of welfare and, instead, highlights the diversity of welfare provision found within both Greater China and East Asia more generally. Building on the authors’ earlier published work comparing East Asian welfare systems with those found across the OECD, it also challenges claims that the region is home to a distinct ‘productive’ model of welfare. The article ends by highlighting some key drivers that will shape future debates.

8 Welfare state transformation in small open economies

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (S1) ◽  
pp. 161-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
HERBERT OBINGER ◽  
STEPHAN LEIBFRIED ◽  
CLAUDIA BOGEDAN ◽  
EDITH GINDULIS ◽  
JULIA MOSER ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
State Transformation ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
Spending Patterns ◽  
Downward Spiral

We examine whether a fundamental change in the core dimension of modern 20th century statehood, the welfare state, has become evident in response to changed exogenous and endogenous challenges. By combining quantitative and qualitative approaches we take stock of social policy development in four advanced welfare states – Austria, Denmark, New Zealand and Switzerland – over the last 30 years. Neither spending patterns nor structural changes support a ‘race to the bottom thesis’, according to which the changed environment of welfare state policies has led to a downward spiral in benefit provision. On the contrary, we show that social spending levels have risen, mainly due to a catch-up of former welfare state laggards. In structural terms, a blurring of welfare regimes can be observed. This twofold process can be described as dual convergence.

Rethinking the Western Construction of the Welfare State

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Walker ◽  
Chack-Kie Wong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Asian Pacific ◽  
Welfare State Regimes ◽  
Populous Country ◽  
Pacific Area ◽  
The Welfare State

This article employs case studies of China and Hong Kong to question the western ethnocentric construction of the welfare state that predominates in comparative social policy research. The authors argue that welfare regimes, and particularly the “welfare state,” have been constructed as capitalist-democratic projects and that this has the damaging effect of excluding from analyses not only several advanced capitalist societies in the Asian-Pacific area but also the world's most populous country. If welfare state regimes can only coexist with western political democracies, then China and Hong Kong are excluded automatically. A similar result occurs if the traditional social administration approach is adopted whereby a “welfare state” is defined in terms only of direct state provision. The authors argue that such assumptions are untenable if state welfare is to be analyzed as a universal phenomenon. Instead of being trapped within an ethnocentric welfare statism, what social policy requires is a global political economy perspective that facilitates comparisons of the meaning of welfare and the state's role in producing it north, south, east and west.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document