Why the Social Investment Approach is Not Enough - The Female Labour Market and Family Policy in the Republic of Korea

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 686-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Seung-yoon Lee ◽  
Seung-ho Baek
Author(s):  
I. Korgun ◽  
S. Sutyrin

This article discusses the measures of the government of the Republic of Korea to overcome the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. It shows what programs are being adopted to stabilize the social situation, normalize business activity and create conditions for the development of new sectors of the economy. An attempt is also made to suggest how relations with foreign economic partners may change in the post-tandem period.


Author(s):  
Silja Häusermann ◽  
Bruno Palier

Recent research on the development of social investment has demonstrated reform progress not only in different regions of Europe, but also in Latin America and South-East Asia. However, the specific substance of the social investment agendas varies strongly between these regions. Why have social investment ideas and policies been more developed in some regions and countries than in others? Building on the theoretical framework of this volume, our chapter suggests that the content of regional social investment agendas depends on policy legacies in terms of investment vs consumption-oriented policies and their interaction with structural pressures. In a second step, we argue that the chances of social investment agendas to be implemented depend on the availability of political support coalitions between organizational representatives of the educated middle classes and either business or working-class actors. We illustrate our claims with reference to family policy developments in France, Germany, and Switzerland.


Author(s):  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Traditionally Germany has been categorized as the archetypical conservative welfare state, a categorization not systematically questioned in much of the comparative welfare state regime literature. For many scholars Germany was largely stuck and unable to reform its coordinated market economy and welfare state arrangements at the turn of the twenty-first century, due to a large number of veto points and players and the dominance of two ‘welfare state parties’. More recent research has highlighted a widening and deepening of the historically institutionalized social protection dualism, whilst at the same time significant family policy transformations, which can be considered as partially in line with the social investment paradigm, have been emphasized. This chapter sets out to sketch the main policy developments and aims to identify political determinants of social policy change in Germany.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-267
Author(s):  
Sonja Blum ◽  
Tatjana Rakar ◽  
Karin Wall

The focus of this article is on family policy reforms in four European countries – Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Slovenia – between 2008 and 2015. These years were marked by the ‘Great Recession’, and by the rise of the social-investment perspective. Social investment is an umbrella concept, though, and it is also somewhat ambiguous. This article distinguishes between different social-investment variants, which emerge from a focus on its interaction with alternative social-policy perspectives, namely social protection and austerity. We identify different variants along the degree of social-investment: from comprehensive, over crowding out, towards lean forms. While the empirical analysis highlights variation, it also shows how there is a specific crisis context, which may lead to ‘crowding out’ of other policy approaches and ‘leaner’ forms of social investment. This has led to strong cutbacks in family cash benefits, while public childcare and parental leaves have proved more resilient in the investigated countries. Those findings are revelatory in the current Covid-19 pandemic, where countries are entering a next, possibly larger economic crisis. Key words: family policy; crisis; social investment; austerity; case studies denoted as the end of the ‘golden age’ of the welfare state, putting a halt to its expansion in post-war prosperity. Faced with low growth rates and rising unemployment, the recipe chosen by many countries was to ‘relieve’ labour markets. Alongside such measures as early retirement schemes, family policy was a key part of the reform programme and recourse to parental leave


2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 43-48
Author(s):  
Ivett Szombati

Introduction and aim: In my study, analysing the data available from the change of the regime to the present day, from among the social services, I examine the changes of the financial support relating to children and its parts which are currently financed from the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary, with special emphasis on the Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Allowance and their modifications. Data and methods: Within the framework of our research, we analyze – through data from the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Hungarian State Treasury as well as on the basis of literature review – the social financial support and its changes, within the family policy system. Results: Hungarian family policy is still driven by the attitude of staying at home for three years with the child. The long period spent at home with the children fundamentally affects the adjustment of mothers to the labour market which has a direct effect on the economic productivity. Even though according to the current regulations, mothers are allowed to work full-time besides receiving child care allowance after their child fills 6 months, part-time employment and telework is still in its infancy compared to the Western-European countries. Based on our research, high percentage of families go for the child care benefit directly after the birth of the child thus not participating in the labour market processes. Besides if they do participate, the percentage of employment on minimal wage is still very high which means that in 2016–2017 36% of families with two breadwinners and two children were forced to survive on subsistence income. Conclusion: In the examined period, we found that social and family policy changes unfortunately were not able to react sufficiently to the demographic challenges despite Hungary spending significantly more on family policy than other European and OECD countries. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(Suppl 1): 43–48.


Author(s):  
Vanessa L. Fong

Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have focused on diversity, inequality, and historical transformations in childhood and education in East Asian societies, while psychologists have focused on how the cultures, policies, and practices of East Asian societies have resulted in educational outcomes and patterns of child development that differ from those of societies outside East Asia, especially the United States. Prior to the 1980s, scholarship about childhood and education in East Asian societies was sparse, as social science scholarship infrastructures in East Asian societies were weak owing to political and economic limitations that resulted from the chaos left by the wars and revolutions that ravaged East Asian societies during the first half of the 20th century. In addition, the social sciences were dominated by Anglophone scholars whose interest in East Asian societies focused mostly on non–child-related aspects of those societies’ cultures, social structures, histories, politics, and literatures, while Anglophone psychologists and education researchers concentrated primarily on childhood and education in their own societies, paying little attention to these issues in East Asia. Scholarly interest in childhood and education in East Asia flourished after the 1980s, though,as a result of the increasing cultural, political, and economic power of East Asian societies; their tendency to do as well as, or even better than, Anglophone societies in international academic competitions; the rising numbers of emigrants from East Asia who brought interest and expertise in their home societies to the Anglophone societies to which they migrated; and globalizing forces that made East Asian societies more interesting to Anglophone social scientists, including psychologists and education researchers who had previously paid little attention to international comparisons. The amount of scholarly attention each country has attracted has been proportionate to its population, emigration patterns, and cultural, political, and economic influence on the rest of the world; thus, mainland China has attracted the bulk of scholarly attention paid to East Asian societies, with Japan coming in second, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) coming in third, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) not represented at all because it has been inaccessible to social scientists outside its borders.


2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-362
Author(s):  
René Lehwess Litzmann

AbstractFrom a perspective of social investment, this article analyses monetary efforts made by European countries in terms of active and passive labour market policy (LMP) between 2006 and 2015. How did spending evolve under the double impression of the social investment discourse and the crisis after 2008? How does LMP now differ from what it was before the crisis? We find that there is no real trend towards social investment in the field of LMP in recent years. This shows both in the relationship between passive and active spending and in the composition of active spending. In particular, training – crucial to a social investment approach – is further weakened in most countries’ policy arrangements. Concerning levels of spending, it is shown that labour market policy gets fiscally more demanding on aggregate, while the amount of resources made available to the average individual job seeker shrinks. Spending on LMP also remains very unequal between European countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document