Developments in East Asian Welfare Studies

This essay in introduction is to the field of study, rather than to the present, itself distinguished, collection of papers. As such, it opens with a series of ‘flashbacks’: to the ways in which social policy, and the study of social policy, developed out of the interaction between Western welfare states (in this case Britain) and Asia Pacific. The main body of the article then charts the increasing presence of East Asian modes of welfare within comparative social policy, before going on to distinguish between the different types of approach to East Asian welfare study which have so far been adopted. Two sets of three‐part criteria have been adopted for the purposes of classification: focusing first on the dimensions (single case studies of specific countries; East Asia as a region; East Asia in comparison with other parts of the world) and second on the level of issues (matters of policy; of welfare system; of welfare regime) characteristic of each study in question. The article concludes with a restatement of its purpose: not to question the adequacy of hitherto Western (notably, Esping‐Andersen) approaches to the study of welfare regimes, but to demonstrate the need for a substantive extension to their scope.     

An Audit of the Welfare Modelling Business

The ‘welfare modelling business’ has become central to comparative social policy in recent years. However, we argue that one important element in this literature, the usefulness of identifying ‘ideal types’ of welfare production that support theoretical development, has been neglected. While much effort has been devoted to the results of the number and composition of the worlds, insufficient attention has been paid to the analytical basis of welfare regimes. This article attempts an audit of the ‘welfare modelling business’, with a review and consideration of the main concepts used in the literature. Our main conclusion is that definitions, concepts and methods need to be given urgent priority for the investment in the business to produce future returns.     

Changing Welfare Regimes in East and Southeast Asia: Crisis, Change and Challenge

The Asia‐Pacific region is a latecomer to the development of the welfare state. However, in some countries, governments have implemented ambitious programmes to extend social security systems and to enlarge the institutional structure of their welfare states. Comparative study of the welfare systems in East and Southeast Asia is, however, underdeveloped and there still is a relative lack of accurate knowledge about welfare systems in the region. Since the Asian financial crisis, more attention has been paid to the social policies of the countries. This paper examines features of welfare regimes in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, and undertakes a systematic review of the development, levels and patterns of welfare regimes in the region. Two core questions are answered: can the existing welfare systems help mitigate the social impact of the financial and economic crisis? What are the needs, challenges and developmental perspectives that inform the future of welfare regimes in this region?     

Bringing Indonesia into the global welfare regime debate: A literature review and future research agenda

Studies on welfare state regimes have been dominated by consideration of rich OECD/European and increasingly East Asian countries/territories, leaving South Asian cases such as Indonesia underexplored. The few existing studies that have explicitly tried to conceptualize the Indonesian welfare regime have resulted in little consensus. To address the resulting lack of clarity, this article reviews scholarly articles relevant to bringing Indonesia into the global welfare regime debate, specifically encapsulating how the country has been classified compared with its East Asia counterparts. Accordingly, we find that existing studies have mainly concentrated on the Indonesian health care and social protection expansion, which has led authors to conclude that this evolution demonstrates Indonesia's transition away from welfare productivism. By contrast, we argue that Indonesia's productivist characteristics have largely prevailed while informal networks, clientelism, strong families, and the limited effectiveness of the civil society movement created a specific social politics in Indonesia. We thus conclude that the causal mechanisms typically attributed to welfare development in more developed welfare geographies, including East Asia, cannot fully explain the evident institutional formation in the Indonesian case. The future research agenda for studying the welfare regimes in Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries is discussed.     

The State and its Welfare State: How do Welfare State Changes Affect the Make‐up of the Nation State?

With respect to changes in the welfare states of OECD countries, scholars most of the time are looking for common trends; that is, they look for similar movements in different states, such as welfare state retrenchment, recalibration, etc. As we show in this article, data on welfare state spending and financing do not, however, support such stark tendencies like retrenchment. We therefore suggest looking for corridor effects rather than level effects, i.e. analysing changes in the dispersion of welfare state regimes rather than shifts in the mean values. Our analysis suggests that convergence, i.e. decreasing diversity among states in spending, financing and regulation patterns, may have been the most important pattern of welfare state change in the last three decades – a pattern easily overlooked in past and current research. Convergence of welfare state regimes also affects our views on the modern nation state itself since the varieties of welfare capitalism in the twentieth century are themselves an expression of the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation state. If nation states are forced to surrender national particularities, to mellow their characteristic differences and to move incrementally towards a one‐size‐fits‐all common model via ‘shrinking corridors’, such a blurring of welfare regimes, such a beclouding of difference, should also be regarded as a significant change taking place in the centre of the Western nation state's make‐up.     

The Contributions of the Health Decommodification Typologies to the Study of the East Asian Welfare Regime

Since Esping‐Andersen presented the three worlds of welfare typology thesis, the study of the classification of welfare regimes has been dominated by his work and the debates surrounding it. This article is concerned with two important responses to his work. The first response is the development of welfare typologies based on the principle of decommodification. The second response is the concern that East Asian countries are underrepresented in the 18 members of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) studied by Esping‐Andersen. As a result, there are calls for expanding the scope of the studies on the classification of welfare regimes to those in East Asia. This article makes contributions to these two responses by presenting two analytical tasks. The first task is to develop two health decommodification typologies based on two different methods (cluster analysis and Esping‐Andersen's index‐based regime construction). Both of them cover the 18 OECD members studied by Esping‐Andersen and four tiger economies (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore). The second task is to demonstrate that the two health decommodification typologies provide important information for the debate on the existence of two essential preconditions for the development of an all‐encompassing East Asian welfare regime, namely the existence of significant differences in the welfare systems between the East Asian countries and the 18 OECD countries studied by Esping‐Andersen (1990 ) and the existence of significant similarities in the welfare systems between East Asian countries.     

Neither Hybrid nor Unique: A Reinterpretation of the East Asian Welfare Regime

Some researchers have been convinced that welfare developments in East Asia, especially Japan and Korea, can be fitted into the existing three worlds of welfare model, while others have insisted that existing welfare regime theories are not able to explain East Asian welfare regimes. This article assumes that we need to go beyond both of these traditional explanations. In the welfare state research fields, welfare regime approaches tend to focus on specific contextual conditions and cross‐national differences. As a result, they tend to overemphasize history at the expense of theory. This article tries to combine deductive causal modeling with an institutional–historical context by identifying the contingent rent political game model and deducing important characteristics of East Asian welfare regime from this model. This model opens out the possibility of change in East Asian welfare regimes following the processes of democratization and globalization. Details of this are given in the conclusion.     

Worlds of Welfare Services: From Discovery to Exploration

A recent thread of debate in social policy research has been the ‘discovery’ of welfare services. Previous comparative studies in this field have been largely erratic and have led to different results. This ambiguity is mainly due to flaws inherent in the data sets. In order to overcome these problems, this article uses an alternative approach of operationalizing welfare services. Employment patterns in the welfare sector provide a holistic picture of welfare services regarding quantity, kind, and organization. Cluster analysis leads to a four‐cluster structure that bears high resemblance to the conventional welfare regime typology by Esping‐Andersen and its subsequent advancements. These findings are set in the context of the welfare regimes literature in order to enhance our understanding of the functioning of welfare regimes. The study suggests that the ideological orientation of the welfare state is a good starting point for a holistic framework of welfare regimes combining the transfer and the service component.     

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

Following the three welfare regimes constructed by Esping‐Andersen, many scholars have addressed the question of whether there may be a further type of regime, differing from the categories of liberal, conservative and social democratic, pertaining to other parts of the world. Discussion has centred largely on East Asia and, in particular, on the notion of the developmental/productivist welfare regime. Yet these discussions have been based more on conceptual classification than empirical analysis. This article attempts to fill in the gap, with reference to the developmental characteristics of Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. A set of 15 indicators is developed for the factor and cluster analysis of 20 countries, based on data from the 1980s and 1990s. The results indicate the existence of a new group, consisting of Taiwan and South Korea, which is distinct from Esping‐Andersen's three regimes – unlike Japan, which remains a composite of various regime types. Regime characteristics peculiar to the cases of Taiwan and South Korea include: low/medium social security expenditure, high social investment, more extensive gender discrimination in salary, medium/high welfare stratification, a high non‐coverage rate for pensions, high individual welfare loading, and high family welfare responsibility. When compared with Esping‐Andersen's three regimes, the East Asian developmental regime shows similarity with his conservative model, in respect of welfare stratification, while the non‐coverage of welfare entitlements is similar to his liberal model. There is virtually no evidence of any similarity between the developmental welfare regime and Esping‐Andersen's social democratic regime type.     

Financial crisis and the developmental states: A case study of Hong Kong

Studies taking a mediation perspective have highlighted how the actual impact of economic globalisation is mediated by institutions that include welfare regimes. Some have examined how the welfare systems of East Asian developmental states have changed and adapted since the Asian financial crisis of 1997/1998. Using Hong Kong as a case study, this article examines how the developmental state of Hong Kong mediated the impact of the global financial crisis of 2008, particularly on disadvantaged groups. Hong Kong's welfare regime has provided insufficient support to ‘non‐productive’ groups despite incidents of social crisis. The government's welfare responses have been characterised by long‐term strategies to improve the competitiveness of the economy, and short‐term measures to boost the spending power of the general public. Measures targeted at disadvantaged groups have been piecemeal and minimal. The government's approach towards crisis management after 2008 has been similar to that taken after the 1997/1998 financial crisis.     

Welfare state regimes and family policy: a longitudinal analysis

The primary aim of the article is to access the extent to which welfare state regimes support distinct family policies across OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) countries and over time. Focusing in particular on the work of Esping‐Andersen we address the following questions: (i) What is the relation between de‐commodification and de‐familialisation? (ii) Are there distinct welfare state regimes that support different levels of family policy? (iii) To what extent have levels of support for family policy differed over the last decades toward divergence or convergence among OECD welfare states? Using data from the OECD Social Expenditure database (1980–2001), we find that the degree of de‐familialisation through welfare state regimes parallels the de‐commodification scores. However, the findings indicate a degree of instability in the relationship between levels of support for family policy and welfare state regimes over the last decades. We conclude by discussing how the findings speak to the changing character of welfare regimes and the implications of a longitudinal perspective.     

‘Active Families’: Familization,Housing and Welfare across Generations in East Asia

Debates around welfare change have tended to concentrate on the balance between market and state provision. Although there is increasing reference to a mixed economy of welfare, this generally signifies a greater emphasis on a third sector of voluntary/community level provision. However, the family sphere has been, and still remains, an important and dynamic source of welfare provision across changing regimes and between generations. With this as background, the article addresses three particular questions. First, how has the role of families in the welfare mix changed over time? Second, how do family ‘strategies’ adapt to structural changes in order to maximize collective/individual benefits in certain areas and how do these strategies evolve over generations? Third, is such family engagement in welfare influenced by policy shifts appropriately conceptualized as ‘re‐familization’ or ‘de‐familization'? These issues are explored in the comparative socio‐economic and cultural contexts of China and Japan and draw on qualitative research with three generations of families in Shanghai and Tokyo.     

'Sifting the Wheat from the Chaff': A Two-dimensional Discriminant Analysis of Welfare State Regime Theory

Welfare state modelling has long been an important strand within comparative social policy. However, since the publication of Esping‐Andersen's ‘Worlds of Welfare’ typology, welfare state classification has become particularly prominent and a multitude of competing typologies and taxonomies have emerged. Each of these is based on different classification criteria, and each is trying to capture what a welfare state actually does. The result is that the literature is in a state of confusion and inertia as it is unclear which of these rival systems is currently the most accurate and should be taken forward, and which are not and should perhaps be left behind. This article extends Bonoli's two‐dimensional analysis of welfare state regimes by using multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis to compare and contrast the various classifications on universal criteria. It also examines the usefulness of the two‐dimensional approach itself and suggests how it can be enhanced to benefit future attempts at holistic welfare state modelling. The article concludes that there are some welfare state classifications that are more useful than others, especially in terms of reflecting a two‐dimensional analysis: it thereby ‘sifts the wheat from the chaff’ in terms of welfare state regime theory.     

Foundations of the Workfare State – Reflections on the Political Transformation of the Welfare State in Britain

The British ‘welfare state’ has been transformed. ‘Welfare’ has been replaced by a new ‘workfare’ regime (the ‘Work Programme’) defined by tougher state regulatory practices for those receiving out‐of‐work benefits. US‐style mandatory community work programmes are being revived and expanded. This article, therefore, considers shifting public attitudes to work and welfare in Britain and changing attitudes to working‐age welfare and out‐of‐work benefits in particular. It also considers the extent to which recent transformations of the state may be explained by declines in traditional labourist politics and class‐based solidarity. Thus, we attempt to develop a richer understanding of changing public attitudes towards welfare and the punitive regulatory ‘workfare’ practices engaged by the modern state in the liberal market economy; reflecting on the nature of the relations between ideology, party policies, popular attitudes and their political impact.     

The Middle‐class in the German Welfare State: Beneficial Involvement at Stake?

The working‐class is typically regarded as the driving force of welfare state development. Yet, some argue that the middle‐classes' beneficial involvement in the welfare state is crucial for its financial sustainability and popular legitimacy. Against this backdrop, we investigate how recent welfare state reforms in Germany which affect the status of the middle‐class are viewed and discussed by this group. Germany is a particularly interesting case because its welfare state is seen to be centred on the desires of the middle‐class, especially through its focus on status maintenance and horizontal redistribution over the life‐course. However, the move from status maintenance to minimum income support in unemployment provision and the strengthening of private old age provision challenge this assumption. Thus, we ask how the German middle‐class views the emerging abandonment of the principle of status maintenance and the shift from collective to individual responsibility. Based on qualitative material from focus groups, we find that individual responsibility is generally supported, but that the state is still assigned responsibility for providing basic levels of social security. Furthermore, for those groups seen as less capable of acting individually responsible (e.g. the poor or long‐term unemployed) the ‘inducement’ of – or assistance for – individually responsible behaviour by the state is demanded. Overall, while the principle of ‘individual responsibility’ seems to find some resonance among the middle‐class members interviewed, they still try to balance individual and collective responsibility.     

Straddling Two Continents: Social Policy and Welfare Politics in Turkey

There has been an increasing academic interest in understanding the dynamics of social policy in the Middle East and developing a conceptual ‘model’ to account for the particular characteristics of welfare arrangements in the countries of the region. While part of this framework, Turkey represents an exceptional case due to the Europeanization processes the country is undergoing in various policy areas, including social policy. The influence of the European Union on the shape of Turkish social policy, as illustrated by the government's recent reforms in the labour market and social security domains, is hereby used to outline the position of Turkey vis‐à‐vis both the Southern European welfare regime and the Middle Eastern pattern. This article seeks to assess the dynamics of Turkish social policy in light of the country's political, and socio‐economic dynamics, as well as the external influence exerted by the EU and international financial institutions. The aim is to examine Turkish welfare arrangements in a comparative manner and consider its suitability with reference to either of the two models. Looking at major trends in social security and the labour market, the article argues for a Turkish ‘hybrid’ model embodying the characteristics of both. Subject to EU explicit pressures for reform absent elsewhere in the Middle East, the data nevertheless show that Turkey has yet to make the qualitative leap forward that could place it firmly within the Southern European welfare group.     

‘Best of Both Worlds’? A Comparison of Third Sector Providers in Health Care and Welfare‐to‐Work Markets in Britain

This article compares the welfare markets in primary health care and ‘welfare‐to‐work’ in the UK since the late 1990s. A longitudinal comparison of two different policy areas enables us to study the context in which marketization and the resulting shift of welfare provision takes place. We outline the general background of the market‐based reforms and highlight in what way policymakers have ascribed third sector organizations (TSOs) a number of positive characteristics, particularly the ability to address concerns about well‐known market failures. While consecutive governments promoted these organizations as welfare providers, case studies of two illustrative provider organizations in each policy area reveal a number of problems regarding their distinctiveness in increasingly competitive welfare markets. We conclude that the crisp distinction made by policymakers between the third and other sectors as well as the alleged advantages of the former present a rather naïve picture of a complex reality and argue for a more critical view of third sector characteristics and performance. The third sector is not only characterized by a high degree of fuzziness at the boundaries to other sectors, but even within single organizations, which often undergo significant transformations over time. As a result, policy intentions and practical outcomes are contradictory with TSOs losing their alleged distinctiveness as players in increasingly competitive markets. Furthermore, we contend that detailed longitudinal studies of organizations are essential in the advancement of the discussion of the third sector concept as they provide conceptual insights into organizational change and behaviour.     

Targets and Taxes: Explaining the Welfare Orientations of the Australian Public

Australia's welfare model – targeted payments alongside low but progressive taxation – exemplifies the targeted approach, prioritizing the needs of poorer citizens within the constraints of low taxation. But does this approach match the welfare orientations of Australia's voters? Does the public hold other views about welfare, emerging out of competing interests in welfare debates? We consider results of two questions included in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2005. The first question asks respondents about four welfare goals that outline competing welfare orientations: targeting poverty, expanding health and education, enforcing the welfare rules and reducing welfare. The second question asks about four taxation goals drawing on similar orientations as established for welfare: targeting tax cuts, taxing for welfare, enforcing tax rules and reducing overall tax. Asking about both enables us to tell whether voters approach tax and welfare ‘consistently’ and to see whether, in Australia's case, there is a preference for Australia's targeting model. We reach three conclusions: (1) voters hold diverse preferences about welfare and taxes, but the targeted model has a relatively strong voter base; (2) voters hold ‘pro‐welfare’ orientations, choosing poverty reduction and expanding public services over both paternalism and cutting welfare, and (3) multivariate analysis indicates a level of consistency in welfare and tax orientations among voters.     

Comparing Formal Unemployment Compensation Systems in 15 OECD Countries

This study contributes to the welfare regime literature by analyzing unemployment compensation programmes – unemployment insurance (UI)/assistance (UA) programmes and redundancy pay schemes – of welfare state/occupational welfare regimes. It covers 15 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) selected from Southern European, Liberal, Continental‐corporatist and Social Democratic country clusters. In contrast to the common argument that Southern European countries have underdeveloped formal unemployment compensation systems, this study argues that they (especially in Spain, Portugal, and to some extent Italy) are comparable in strength to those in Continental‐corporatist countries if occupational welfare programmes – notably redundancy pay – are considered alongside welfare state programmes for unemployment protection. The study also outlines the characteristics of redundancy pay schemes in the four country clusters and shows how different redundancy pay schemes are linked to UI/UA schemes in these clusters.     

From the Cradle to the Grave: Funeral Welfare from an International Perspective

This article reports on a pilot study examining funeral welfare for citizens from low income backgrounds. Through a review of funeral welfare provision in 12 capitalist democratic countries it seeks to inform the current system of state support in Britain, arguing that insufficient attention has been given to funeral costs as a policy issue. Mindful of the British welfare state's original ‘cradle to grave’ ethos, such attention is ever more pressing in light of rising funeral costs, an ageing population and projected increases in the death rate. Arguing that funeral costs are an issue of income support, the article draws on Esping‐Andersen's threefold welfare‐regime typology to situate the British system within a comparative study of funeral welfare that identifies similarities and differences both within and between the three welfare‐regime types. On the basis of an empirical example, the article further argues that systems of funeral welfare reflect the relationship between culture, politics and local practice. The findings indicate that the British system is hampered by a discourse of welfare dependency rather than entitlement, which stigmatises those who need support with funeral costs at a time when they are under pressure to ensure that the deceased person receives a ‘dignified’ send‐off.