Final Version
The East Asian Welfare Regime:
A Political-Cultural Perspective
Christian Aspalter
(The University of Hong Kong)
1. Introduction
In recent years the study of East Asian welfare state systems succeeded in making the transition
from a pioneering to a maturing field of study. Not only have local researchers increased the
level of research activity, with regard to width and depth of study topics, but also international
studies achieved great progress, most of all the comparative country studies.
This brief study has two objectives. One to bring a bit closer the wonderful world of welfare
state theories to our current mind, underlining its structural composition, similarities and
differences of theories, to give an overall view of the situation. It is important for research
studies and researchers alike to angle themselves in the different dimensions of theoretical
thought, to connect to further similar studies, as well as to discover new, not yet familiar
studies, and to bring them all again closer to one’s own findings.
The many theoretical streams that have been developed show that today we are in a lucky
position of not having merely a mainstream of thought with some minor approaches to welfare
being neglected on its side. But rather, we may enjoy the plurality of theories, which as a whole
gained momentum in the mid-1990s, with an exceptional growth in e.g. gender-based theories.
Comparative social welfare theories, too, have had the chance to grow and prosper. Hence, it
may be time, in the first part of this study, to shortly recapture the overall state of affairs, in
major parts of the theoretical field, paying special attention to developments with regard to
comparative theories.
The second part of this study sets out to connect the overall theoretical picture with new
developments of the welfare state in East Asian countries – the second objective of this study.
After briefly describing the overall development of welfare state systems in East Asia taking the
cases of Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong, the paper will draw several conclusions noting that
both politics and macro-cultural determinants are vital in determining the historical path of
welfare state systems in the long run. Rather than concentrating exclusively on the direct causal
relationship between political and institutional determinants and welfare state development, the
author identifies in this study cultural determinants as the key, macro-level factor determining
these very socio-political and institutional determinants.
2. The World of Welfare State Theories
In comparative social policy, welfare state systems in East Asia take on a particular interesting
role, as they may serve as a testing ground for many theories, be they (a) descriptive, or
representational, (b) explanatory, or analytical, or (c) normative theories (Table 1). Both
descriptive and explanatory theories are used for classifications of welfare state systems,
whereas the latter clearly exhibit, by their very nature, more explanatory capacity, hence being
more salient to the study of welfare state comparison.
Each explanatory theory may be grouped into either (i) actor-based (conflict) theories, or (ii)
structural (functional) theories (Table 2). Actor-based theories rest on the firm prediction that
different actors will achieve different results in social welfare policy, and hence, that it is the
actors, their very nature, their power, their programs, and connections that matter. These actors
usually include the State, corporatist institutions, political parties, ruling elites, governing
administrators, labor unions, social movements, interest groups and organizations, social
advocates and activists, but also international organizations, such as the IMF and the World
Bank.
As to structural theories, they in general predict a convergence of social welfare policies based
on common structural determinants such as e.g. the degree of economic development,
urbanization, modernization, the advance of capitalism, and even evolutionary theories, such as
that of T.H. Marshall (1950, 1964) or that of Collier and Messick (1975).
Table 1: Brief Overview of Social Policy Theories:
With special emphasis on comparative theories
Descriptive Theories
Explanatory Theories
Normative Theories
· historical analyses
· describing particular welfare
states systems, or families of
welfare state systems
· identifying welfare state clusters
· comparing welfare state systems
and social policies
· setting up classifications of
welfare state systems and social
policies
· explaining determinants of the
welfare state in general and social
policies in particular
· explaining past and current
developments
· explaining comparative
differences and similarities,
deviations in social welfare policy
· projecting past trends and
developments into the future
· evaluating and criticizing
welfare state systems and social
policies
· identifying problems,
shortcomings, and needs
· identifying particular failures
and successes in social policy
· proposing new social policies, or
new directions/ key solutions in
social welfare policy
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
Titmuss (1958, 1974)
Kersbergen & Becker (1988)
Esping-Andersen (1987a, 1990, 1998)
Castles & Mitchell (1991)
Leibfried (1992)
Deacon (1992)
C. Jones (1985, 1990)
Ostner & Lewis (1995)
Palier & Bonoli (1995)
Ferrera (1996, 1998)
Taylor-Gooby (1996, 1998)
Kaufmann (1997)
Sainsbury (1999)
O’Connor et al. (1999)
Holliday (2000)
Gough (2000)
K.L. Tang (2000)
Ferrera & Rhodes (2000)
Olsson Hort (2000)
Ramesh (2000, 2003)
Huber & Stephens (1999, 2001)
Aspalter (2004)
Abrahamson (2003)
Ferrera & Hemerijk (2003)
Clasen & Oorschot (2003)
Mesa-Lago (2003)
Haggard & Kaufmann (2004)
Holliday & Wilding (2004)
Gough et al. (2004)
Lewis & Surender (2004)
Wilensky & Lebeaux (1965, [1958])
Kerr et al. (1960)
M. Olson (1965, 1982)
Collier & Messick (1975)
Hewitt (1977)
Castles (1982, 1985)
Korpi (1983)
Shalev (1983a,b)
Esping-Andersen (1985, 1987b)
Pascall (1986)
Skocpol (1987, 1992)
Weir, Orloff, Skocpol (1988)
Baldwin (1990)
Budge & Keman (1990)
Immergut (1992, 1998)
C. Jones (1993)
George & Wilding (1994)
Kersbergen (1994, 1995)
P. Pierson (1995)
Y. Ku (1997)
Gauthier (1996)
Midgley & Hughes (1997)
Woldendorp et al. (1998)
Mishra (1981, 1984, 1999)
H. Kwon (1998, 1999)
Lavallette & Mooney (1999)
O’Brian (2000)
Swank (2001, 2002)
Aspalter (2001a,b, 2002a,b)
Saint-Martin (2002)
Rieger & Leibfried (2003)
Ahn & Olsson Hort (2003)
Kim & Ahn (2003)
Allan & Scruggs (2004)
Gilbert & Gilbert (1989)
Sherraden & Gilbert (1991)
Orloff (1993)
Sainsbury (1994)
Van Parijs (1994, 1998)
George & Miller (1994)
Midgley (1995, 2001, 2003)
Gilbert (1995)
Taylor-Gooby & George (1996)
O’Connor (1996)
Beverly & Sherraden (1997)
Midgley & Sherraden (1997)
Korpi & Palme (1998)
Giddens (1998, 2001)
Fitzpatrick (1999)
Hantrais (2000)
Shapiro & Wolff (2001)
Morrow-Howell et al. (2001)
Skocpol & Leone (2001)
Esping-Andersen (2002)
Walker (2002)
Lister (2002, 2003, 2004a,b)
Beck et al. (2003)
Body-Gendrot & Gittell (2003)
Table 2: A Focus on Explanatory Theories:
The Basic Distinction between Actor-based and Structural Theories
Actor-based (conflict) theories
Structural (functional) theories
Examples:
Examples:
M. Olson (1965, 1982)
Downs (1968)
Piven & Cloward (1971)
Rimlinger (1971)
George (1973)
Janowitz (1978)
Stephens (1979)
Castles (1982, 1985)
Korpi (1983)
Ferrera (1984, 1993)
Esping-Andersen (1985, 1990)
Baldwin (1990)
Budge & Keman (1990)
Immergut (1992, 1998)
Skocpol (1992)
Kerbergen (1994, 1995)
P. Pierson (1995)
Wolderndorp et al. (1998)
Lavallette & Mooney (1999)
O’Brian (2000)
Taylor-Gooby (2001)
Aspalter (2001a,b, 2002a,b)
Kim & Ahn (2003)
Ahn & Olsson Hort (2003)
Allen & Scruggs (2004)
Heiman (1980, [1929])
T.H. Marshall (1950, 1964)
Polanyi (1957)
Wilensky & Lebeaux (1965, [1958])
Kerr et al. (1960)
Miliband (1969, 1991)
O’Connor (1973)
Wilensky (1975)
Collier & Messick (1975)
Ginsburgh (1979)
Gough (1979)
Mishra (1981, 1984, 1999)
Offe (1972, 1984)
Dahrendorf (1985)
Habermas (1989)
C. Jones (1990, 1993)
Rieger & Leibfried (2003)
In comparative social policy, there are several approaches and perspectives that may be
distinguished from each other. The range of theories is wide, integrating economic, political,
cultural, and gender-based theories of classification.
Why is it so important to identify and classify welfare regimes? For one, it facilitates the
business of theorizing (explaining) welfare developments, be they in the past, in the present, or
the near future. It proofs be a vital ground for testing general welfare state theories. Besides the
identification of underlying factors and determinants, international comparative studies serve as
a tool to also understand domestic developments and issues from a different, more objective –
and hence scientific – angle.
In the face of the numerous possible determinants and impact factors that have been identified
in the past, the business of welfare state comparison is vital to sort out the more important from
the a bit less important factors, to sort out short-term from long-term determinants, to establish a
hierarchy/a structure of causal relationships, and to identify the permanent interplay of different
causes and underlying or side factors.
In Table 3, four possible approaches in the tradition of “explanatory” comparative welfare
theory have been depicted. Among them are three more familiar ones, focusing on the cultural
argument, the political economy argument, and the socio-political/institutional argument.
Table 3: Explanatory theories in Comparative Social Policy:
A focus on cultural, political and economic approaches
Structural theories
Actor-based theories
Theories that focus on
economic and political determinants
Theories with a focus on
socio-political & institutional determinants
representatives:
Wilensky & Lebeaux (1965, [1958]), Wilensky (1975),
Wilensky & Turner (1987), Deyo (1989, 1992),
Mishra (1990), Gough (2000), Holliday (2000),
Ebbinghaus & Manow (2001)
Haggard & Kaufmann (2004)
representatives:
Esping-Andersen (1987a, 1990, 1998), Kersbergen &
Becker (1988), Mishra (1990), Immergut (1992, 1998),
Kersbergen (1994, 1995), Palier & Bonoli (1995),
Huber & Stephens (2001), Aspalter (2001a,b, 2002a,b)
Theories with a focus on
cultural determinants
Theories that focus on both political
and cultural determinants
representatives:
Catherine Jones (1990, 1993, 1999),
Rieger & Leibfried, (2003)
first theories by:
Max Weber (1991, 1994),1 Almond & Verba (1963),
Verba et al. (1987), Ellis et al. (1990),
Rueschemeyer et al. (1998)*
Notes: * These theorists did not conduct comparative social policy – yet, their theoretical approach and comparative
analyses may provide vital impetus for current research in comparative social welfare policy.
The fourth group represents an amalgam of both the socio-political/institutional and the cultural
argument. This group integrates these two streams to the same extent, hence putting forward a
new independent, and yet again more sophisticated, theoretical argument that may explain more
case studies in greater depth, more historic and current developments, and more deviations – in
particular with regard to welfare regimes.
The usefulness of this new argument has been, in brief, confirmed (cf below) in the case of:
(a) the similarity of France in comparison to its immediate Continental European
neighbors,
(b) the similarity of Canada in comparison to other Anglo-Saxon countries in the
Commonwealth that have a strong Labour Party, and
(c) the differences between the conservative-led welfare regimes of East Asia and that of
the United States.
1
Cf also Beetham (1985) and Randall (1986).
3. Country Studies
3.1. Sketching Welfare Development in Taiwan
The starting point for and the logic behind the construction of the Taiwanese social security
system again sets the case of Taiwan, to some extent, apart from its Northeast Asian neighbors.
In Taiwan, the slow process of implementing labor insurance set off in 1950 was prompted by
the defeat of the Kuomintang on the Mainland by the Communists, and the launching of a labor
insurance program as early as in 1948 in, at that time, Communist-controlled Manchuria and,
then, in all of Mainland China (Chow and Aspalter, 2003).
Legitimacy problems and the continuous attempt to pacify labor unions stood at the center of
the government’s motivation to introduce new welfare programs, and to extend coverage of the
existing labor insurance. There were no Communists – or left-wing parties – in Taiwan during
the authoritarian rule of the Kuomintang, from 1945 to 1987. However, there were significant
oppositional forces from the very beginning, as independent candidates were allowed to join
local government elections as early as 1951.
Most locals regarded the Kuomintang regime to be alien to Taiwanese soil, as almost all
government officials and high-ranking military officers, at that time, were born in Mainland
China. The rise of powerful political forces in the mid-1970s that later culminated in the
formation of the Democratic Progressive Party pushed the Kuomintang regime, to speed up
social reform and further extend the coverage of social security systems.
In doing so, the KMT had to incorporate workers and farmers in what was, in fact, a
comfortable welfare state system, which however until the mid-1980s only catered to certain
privileged groups that were needed to support the Kuomintang regime – above all government
employees, military personnel, and private school teachers and employees (Aspalter, 2002b; Ku,
1997; H. Chan, 1985).
Beginning with the year 1980, the government started to address social welfare problems more
seriously, at it enacted a series of new welfare laws and programs, starting with the introduction
of a new social assistance scheme of that year.
With the lift of Martial Law and the onset of democracy, the conservative Kuomintang regime
needed, for the first time, to compete for votes on national, provincial, county and city level. It
is largely for this reason that in 1987 Premier Yu Kuo-Hua announced the plan to introduce a
national health insurance system by the year 2000. Due to heightened political pressure – with
the rise of powerful social welfare movements and opposition parties – a national health
insurance was enacted much earlier, in 1994, and went into operation in March of the following
year. The Farmers Health Insurance Law was set up in 1989, and in 1990 and 1991 special
health insurance schemes were established to cater to low-income families and the handicapped
(Chan and Yang, 2001).
In the present day, the Taiwanese welfare state is in effect, to a great extent, universal – with
regard to National Health Insurance (introduced in 1995), and universal old-age allowances for
all citizens aged 65 and above. In recent years, the government repeatedly promised and, then
again, delayed the introduction of a national pension scheme. Decision makers tend, for the time
being, to favor a balance between a funded and a non-funded scheme in setting up the design for
a national pension scheme, the timing of its introduction and the institutional design are still
uncertain.
3.2. Sketching Welfare Development in Korea
The development of the welfare state in South Korea only took off in the early 1960s, and was
continued to be rather incremental for another two and a half decades. The first social security
schemes that have been implemented were the Civil Service Pension of 1960 and the Military
Personnel Pension Scheme of 1962, followed by the introduction of the Industrial Accident
Compensation Insurance in 1964, and the beginning of the Livelihood Assistance Scheme and
experimental health insurance schemes in 1965. The timing of this new wave of social security
programs was not accidental.
A military coup d’état put an abrupt end to the first democratic government that lasted less than
a year, from August 1960 to May 1961. For two and a half years, the country was ruled by a
military junta, only to be replaced by another authoritarian regime, under the President Park
Chung-Hee. The lack of legitimacy and support for the new governing elite represented the key
motive behind the formation and extension of social security and welfare programs in the long
period of authoritarian rule from 1961 to 1987 (H. Kwon, 1998; Aspalter, 2001a).
Only with the onset of formal democracy, welfare state development shifted gear and a series of
vital extensions of the social security system took place. The logic of the formation of Korea’s
welfare state system may resemble a great deal that of its neighbors Japan and Taiwan, yet
when looking closer, apparent differences become visible – one point in concern is company
welfare provision.
The industrial landscape of both Japan and Korea is dominated by large corporations – in
Taiwan small companies are dominant – while industrial relations are largely communitarian
(based on harmony and integration) in Japan, they are relatively patriarchal and authoritarian in
Korea (cf S. Chan, 2002), which is reflected in the great level of industrial strikes and the
outbursts of violence in industrial disputes in Korea.
Korean Labor unions are strong, but their activities do not yet have a decisive effect on
employment security, wages, working hours, and welfare provision of ordinary workers and
employees. Therefore the institutional set-up of the Korean welfare state differs significantly
from that of Japan, with regard to the importance of company welfare in particular, and public
welfare provision in general. Public and private sectors in Korea spend 10 and 1 percent of GDP
respectively on social welfare (cf Holliday, 2000).
Korea’s welfare state system has been universalized to some extent in the last one and a half
decades, but is far from being a universal welfare state that grants social rights based on
citizenships. Public assistance continues to be means-tested and highly stigmatized.
The pensions system is not unified yet, since there are still four different schemes existing: (1)
for government employees, (2) military personnel, (3) private school teachers and employees,
and (4) the rest of the population. In addition, up to one third of the urban workforce is not
covered or evade the coverage of the system.
Although universal coverage was introduced for the National Health Insurance, it still does not
provide adequate protection against income loss from illness. As of today, the health service
system, in essence, constitutes a “market-oriented, private-sector dominated, fee-for-service
payment system” (Kim and Lee, 2004; S. Kwon, 2003; Yang, 2002: 64).
3.3. Sketching Welfare Development in Hong Kong
Hong Kong certainly stands out a bit from the other two East Asian welfare state systems
examined above. From 1945 to 1997, Hong Kong was under British Colonial rule – hence,
some features of the welfare state system we find in Hong Kong resemble quite a bit that of its
former mother country, the United Kingdom. An obvious point in concern is the emphasis on –
rather redistributive and, hence, expenditure heavy – means-tested, and quite generous, social
assistance schemes, which still form a core column of the Hong Kong welfare state system.
In addition, health care is funded to a large extent out of government revenue, providing each
citizen with a comfortable safety net. Health care in Hong Kong is very affordable, as fees for
services provided are kept very low. In terms of safety provided, the health care system in Hong
Kong matches to a large extent the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.
A key factor for development of a welfare state in Hong Kong was waves of massive migration
from Mainland China into Hong Kong after World War II, and this by the millions. The
desperate situation of new arrivals led to the engagement of foreign charities and NGOs in
Hong Kong, which led to the development of a strong local NGO sector by the end of the 1960s.
Another important factor was the fear of the government, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that
the Cultural Revolution could sweep into Hong Kong, and that Communist forces would gain
considerable strength in the territory. As a result, in 1971, the government of Hong Kong started
to act and, subsequently, launched a series of new social welfare policies, putting social welfare
provision high up on its agenda (Chow, 1980).
Rather than providing social services itself, which would have been much more costly, the
government decided to set up a long-term partnership with the new local NGO sector – which
then took over the main responsibility of providing of social services, while receiving most of
its funding from the government. Today, nearly 90 percent of voluntary welfare agencies are
completely dependent on governmental financial support from the government. The special
partnership between the NGO sector and the government in social service provision has become
a particular feature of the Hong Kong welfare state. The new social service system was
designed “to prevent social tensions from building up” (Aspalter, 2002c; R. Chan, 2002: 88).
Two other major columns of the newly erected welfare state system were public housing and
public funding of educational institutions. Public housing programs formed the mainstay for
social integration of new arrivals from Mainland, as well as poor segments of society. The
government of Hong Kong was very active in social investment as it was seen to be
economically productive. Social investment aimed at supporting economic development by
increasing the human capital of the workforce, as well as avoiding social tension and friction, or
worse. Hence, seen from this perspective, social development was also an integral part of
economic strategy of the state, rather than a subordinate, second-rank objective that stood for
itself.
The introduction of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) in December 2000 brought Hong
Kong, again closer to the East Asian welfare regime, as social security is upgraded to serve the
majority of the population while, from now on, being tightly connected to employment and
income of the workforce. The MPF is not administered by the state, the state merely supervises
and regulates investment funds of the MPF scheme.
3.4. Overview of Country Developments and Determinants
Both Korea and Taiwan are relatively young democracies, both having introduced formal
democracy in the same year, 1987. Hong Kong only partly introduced democracy, as its
executive branch of government is not yet elected by the people at large. The level of economic
development in all three cases match each other. Korea and Hong Kong have strong socioeconomic division, i.e. a strong class-divided society. Taiwan on the other hand has a more even
income distribution and ownership structure (with regard to both housing and enterprise
ownership).
Public housing caters to about half of the population in Hong Kong, whereas in Taiwan and
Korea housing is largely provided and financed privately. The education system is largely
provided by the state in Hong Kong (especially tertiary education), while both in Korea and
Taiwan, education is largely provided by private institutions, but nevertheless heavily controlled
by the state. Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan have different forms of universal health care
systems. The state invests greatly in, and/or regulates heavily social investment – that is,
particularly education, health care, and – in the case of Hong Kong also – housing.
Past studies have shown that increased activity and success in social welfare policy is clearly
associated with a strong degree of party competition in democratic elections (cf Aspalter,
2001c, 2002b), as well as pressure stemming from increasingly active social movements and
pressure groups (H. Kwon, 1999; Hsiao, 1991, 2001; R. Chan, 1996; Chow, 1980; Aspalter,
2002c; Peng, 2002).
Kim and Ahn (2003), examining the case of Korea, also pointed to the crucial importance of
welfare-political alliances in the making and shaping of social welfare policies. Ku Yeun-Wen
summarized the common trend of democratization across East Asia and its effect on the welfare
state, in his study on Taiwan (2002: 165):
“we find a very significant expansion of state welfare along with democratization in the
1990s, which has totally changed the state structure in favor of social policy making.”
It is for these reasons that political determinants form the so-called driving motor in welfare
state construction and development. Yet, other additional forces are to be reckoned with –
namely the overall cultural variables that influence the process, the extent, and the functioning
of democracy itself. Such cultural macro factors include e.g. a common preference of hierarchy,
rule of law, believe in and submission to public order, adherence to traditionalism and family
values, and so on.
4. Bringing Welfare State Theories Back In
4.1. From the Political Argument to the Political-Cultural Argument
The main argument of the political/institutional school may be summarized with the words of
Peter Taylor-Gooby (2001: 3) as follows:
“alongside the external and internal pressures, and the different opportunities and obstacles
provided by the various welfare state regimes, the institutional and constitutional apparatus
within which policy-making takes place varies between countries and these differences must
also be taken into account. Welfare state policies, are in the first2 instance, the direct result of
decisions made by political actors. Political decisions can only be understood as the result of
political processes. Those political processes are currently becoming more complex and less
transparent, as governments and political parties face the task of restructuring welfare
provision to meet altered circumstances and the seek to escape blame for retrenchment.”
Researchers in Europe and the United States have shown in their quantitative studies (Budge
and Keman, 1990; Woldendorp et al., 1998; Allan, 2002; Allan and Scruggs, 2004) that the
length of party rule and the nature of political parties in government – as exemplified in their
party programs – are vital for the overall conception and design of the welfare state as a whole
and social welfare policies in particular.
Woldendorp et al. (1998) found that conservative parties are least likely to set up, and to invest
in, welfare state programs, followed by parties of the liberal political family. Christian
Democratic parties are in fact strong promoters of social welfare policies – Edmund Stoiber e.g.
of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria even represents himself as the defender of the welfare
state against the social democratic government of Gerhard Schröder (cf also Kersbergen, 1994,
1995, Aspalter 2001b). Social democratic governments are the ones that bring about extensive
welfare state systems, with generally large levels of redistribution and a solid network of social
security.
In a comparison of developed industrial countries in the East and the West, it becomes clear that
why different welfare regimes are ruled predominantly by different political parties. In Table 4,
we see that conservative political parties rule in East Asia, ever since 1945 (with the exception
of China, of course).
In Continental Europe, it are primarily Christian democratic parties that have ruled countries
like Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria, and Italy – but here also a strong
social democratic component has been crucial in pushing up social standards and in
guaranteeing the successive extension of social rights over the postwar years. France is an
exceptional case, with the rule of De Gaulle who heavily drew on the Beveridgean model of
social policy, the model which he studied in detail while being in exile in London. De Gaulle
also drew the support of leftist political groups and a very own labor union wing – which
explains France’s exceptionalism – that is, its closeness to other neighboring countries under
Christian democratic rule.
In Scandinavia, it were predominantly social democratic parties that ruled since 1945, who to a
large extent cooperated with liberal (agrarian) parties, particularly in Sweden up to the late
1950s.
The liberal welfare regime, as it is dubbed, is found in Anglo-Saxon countries, with a distinct
differentiation among members of this group. The US is the most conservatively ruled country,
and Canada the most liberal-ruled country. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia
stand out and form a distinct Labourite subgroup (Castles and Mitchell 1991; Castles and
Pierson, 1996). These three countries had strong labor parties, which changed the course of
welfare state developments respectively.
2
Emphasis by the author.
Table 4: Political Rule and Welfare Regimes (Years of rule of political parties from July 1, 1945 to June 30, 2005)
Conservative
Liberal
Christian
Social
Democratic
Democratic
East Asia
(Conservative Regime)
Japan
Korea (South)*
China (mainland)**
Hong Kong
Taiwan*
Thailand
Malaysia
Singapore
Continental Europe
(Christian Democratic Regime)
Austria
Belgium
France***
Germany
Italy
Luxemburg
The Netherlands
Scandinavia
(Social Democratic Regime)
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Anglo Saxon Countries
(Liberal Regime)
48.5
52.5
20
60
54.5
60
60
60
0
7.5
0
0
5.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
30
45
8
36
38
55
37
30
15
25
20
14
0
33
8
6
4
22
6
5
0
8
0
29
40
51
40
38
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
22
25
16
32
44
28
0
0
0
0
with Labour Participation
Australia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
without Labour Participation
Canada
United States
Notes: Dates for Prime Ministers holding office were used in all countries, except the US where the Presidency was
used; * The governance periods of President Kim Dae-Jung and President Roh Moo-Hyun in Korea and that of
President Chen Shui-Bian in Taiwan may be classified arguably both as “moderate conservative” or “liberal”. Here
we have adapted the latter classification, as social welfare is indeed becoming more and more important in their
overall political agenda. ** roughly since 1985, when the new reform and open policies were put into place (cf Chow
and Aspalter, 2003); *** General De Gaulle was heavily influenced by the Beveridge model during his time in exile
in London (Revauger, 2003), he also managed to gather substantial support from leftist groups and labor unions –
hence, the French welfare model, as Palier and Bonoli (1995) have found, indeed represents some sort of mix
between Bismarckian and Beveridgean welfare politics.
Sources: Aspalter (2001a,b, 2003a-c, 2005a,b), Kersbergen (1994, 1995), Woldendorp et al. (1998); Castles and
Mitchell (1991); Castles and Pierson (1996).
Here, cultural determinants come into play, as we see that East Asian countries show marked
differences to the conservative welfare arena of the United States. In East Asia, as in the United
States, primacy in the developmental strategy of the country is given to economic development.
But yet in East Asia, the state is very active, intervening heavily into the market (also in Hong
Kong). In the United States the government and the ruling elites believe in and follow the
doctrine of the invisible hand in economics. In East Asia, the governments, across the board,
believe in a strong visible hand – that is, in control, regulation and market intervention, even
full-fledged market protectionism (as in the case of Korea).
Cultural determinants also work in favor of a certain degree of proximity of welfare state
institutions in different countries. This is the case in Anglo-Saxon Commonweatlh countries,
particularly the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. These three countries have in the past
installed rather generous poverty reduction schemes. Their prime logic of social policy is
poverty reduction and needs-based social policies, favoring both flat-rate universal and meanstested/targeted schemes (cf Mitchell, 1997a,b; Aspalter 2003d). Also the case of France
supports the importance of culture as a secondary, but yet crucial, factor in welfare politics. The
similarity of France’s welfare regime with that of its Continental neighbors cannot be explained
with politics alone, but rather in addition with the strong influence of Catholicism and Christian
social values, as expressed in the form of Christian democracy in its southern and eastern
neighbors (cf Aspalter, 2001b; Kersbergen, 1994, 1995).
To be sure, cultural determinants influence social policies, but his in the second instance (on the
macro level). When looking at the great picture, it becomes clear that “policy structures operate
within cultural frameworks which associate particular values with state, market, occupational
and family welfare” (Taylor-Gooby, 2001: 13).
Figure 1: Basic Theoretical Construct Integrating both
Political and Cultural Determinants
Cultural Traditions
Political Ideology
Political, Democratic &
Corporatist Institutions
Party, Election and
Policy Programs
Social and
Economic Factors
Social Welfare Policy
Democratic
Participation
Note: Arrows indicate a principal causal relationship, pointing from independent to dependant variable.
4.2. The Discussion of the East Asian Welfare Regime
The study of welfare state comparison in East Asia took off in the year 2000, when a number of
studies surfaced at the same time promoting new theories, as well as new classifications.
Kwong-Leung Tang (2000: 10) concentrated his analytical efforts on the important aspect of
social development in the comparative theory of welfare state research. He revealed the
importance of particular common traits of East Asian welfare state systems, focusing on the
nature of developmental states and their particular ideologies.
While taking the examples of the four Asian Tiger states, Tang (2000: 137) notes that these
developmental states have all extensively applied government intervention and policies to
promote industrialization – and that it is for this reason why these countries opted for
considerable investment in social development. The various governments of these
developmental states applied social policies that (a) promoted the legitimacy of the government
and labor stabilization, and (b) invested a great deal in the education and the health of the
workforce.
Tang – though not explicitly referring to the existence of an East Asian welfare model, or
welfare regime – indicated that the common ideology of these countries is their strong believe
in trickle-down theory of development (i.e., economic growth will eventually benefit all of the
population) and that these countries are all marked by small governmental spending, relative
flexible labor markets, and the application of social security as an instrument to target
politically important interest groups (2000: 139).
In the same year, Ian Holliday (2000) proposed the existence of a “productivist” welfare regime
in the mature economies of East Asia (especially Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Singapore), where social policies are subordinated to economic policy making – that is, social
policies are supported on the condition that they help to generate social peace, stability, and
economic growth.
Ian Holliday, thus, supported the idea of a unique welfare regime in East Asia, which is
characterized by the underlying political rationale and the economic function of social policies,
rather than the institutional setup of welfare programs or their welfare outcomes. Ian Holliday’s
argument has been supported and extended by Ian Gough (2000, 2002), who in a slightly
different manner emphasized the focusing of social policy on education and health – “as part of
a strategy of nation-building, legitimization, and productive investment.”
Following the tradition of Esping-Andersen (1985, 1990, 1997) in Europe and Theda Skocpol
(1987, 1992) in the United States, Aspalter (2001a) focused on the importance of politics and
state institutions. For both Tang (2000) and Aspalter (2001a, 2002a,b) the state – its political
process and institutions – is considered to be the main causal explanatory dimension for welfare
state development. Focusing on dominant political parties and their doctrines, state structures,
and social movements – Aspalter (2001a) found that a distinct type of conservative social policy
is prevalent in the East Asian region, including six countries in his historical, political study –
namely Japan, China, and the four Tiger states.
For Europe, the watershed period, in comparative welfare state analysis may be from 1987 to
1990, at the time when Gosta Esping-Andersen (1987a,b, 1990) and others (e.g. Kersbergen and
Becker 1988) began to take the findings of their historical analyses and transferred that
particular knowledge into the realm of regime theory. Classifications of welfare state systems
before had been largely descriptive, but with the connection to historical and sociopolitical
studies the transition to explanatory welfare state theory and a more sophisticated work on
classification of welfare state systems became possible.
Richard Titmuss (1958, 1974) set up three types of social policy – (a) the residual model, (b) the
achievement/performance model, and (c) the institutional/redistributional model. These three
models however were not yet integrated into the explanatory framework of welfare state theory.
It may be worth to note that explanatory welfare state theories usually support either functional
or evolutional3 approaches, or structural (conflict-based) approaches. But with the studies of
Esping-Andersen (1987a, 1990, 1998), the transition to explanatory comparative welfare state
analysis was completed.
Ian Holliday and Ian Gough, have put developmental, economic determinants at the fore of their
theoretical undertaking – thus, continuing the long tradition set up by Wilensky, but also
integrating more political economy factors (the developmental strategy of governments).
Both Tang (2000) and Ramesh (2000) tested several arguments arriving at different
conclusions. While Tang concludes that the theories tested all carry strong explanatory value, he
however found none of these to play a dominant role in causing and determining welfare state
development in East Asia. Ramesh (2000), on the other hand, tested both domestic and
international factors (such as the influence of IMF and World Bank), and concluded that both
political and economic determinants are, by and large, responsible for developments and
changes in the welfare state. Ramesh and Tang fall short of identifying an over-arching East
Asian model, with Ramesh pointing at the fundamental differences in the institutional setup of
welfare state system that there are in East Asia.
Aspalter (2005b) affirms the position of Catherine Jones, as well as Ian Gough and Ian
Holliday,4 pertaining to their supporting the existence of a unique East Asian welfare model.
While Jones (1993) puts forward the cultural argument, Gough (2000, 2002) and Holliday
(2000) are developing the argument of the political-economy approach.
Here the author continues to support his former quantitative (2002b) and qualitative findings
(2001a, 2002a) that suggest that political-institutional determinants carry most explanatory
capacity in explaining past, present, and future welfare state developments. He, however,
acknowledges fully the importance of developmental, economic, and needs-based determinants
as a secondary explanatory set of determinants that help to explain smaller deviations especially
in the short run, such as:
(a) the developmental status and strategy, the stage, or state of economic development, and
(b) demand-related determinants, such as the degree of aging, the health status of the
population, the degree of poverty and unemployment.
Yet the author would also, and here particularly, stress the importance of culture on politics and
institutions, but also on prevalent ideologies, and political as well as independent social and
economic actors in determining the need for (work ethic, family ethic, neighborhood support,
mutual aid, etc.) for and the supply (strategy, method, and extent) of social welfare policies and
programs. The behavior of parties (cf Allan, 2002; Berchtold, 1967; Mommsen, 1964) is
3
4
Cf e.g. T.H. Marshall (1950, 1964).
Cf also Wilding (2000).
dependent on their party programs, which again reflect, to a large extent, common welfare
ideologies (cf George and Wilding, 1994).
On top, the form and the degree of democratic participation, which build a further cornerstone
of the political-cultural argument, has been identified to be the outcome of cultural parameters,
beyond the impact of democratic or corporatist institutions (cf Almond and Verba, 1963; Verba
et al., 1987; Ellis et al., 1990; Rueschemeyer et al., 1998).
The developmental logic of East Asian elites in fact differs a great deal from that of e.g. Europe.
Like in the United States, the concept of a social market economy is not preeminent, and so are
strong socialist or social democratic, or Christian democratic ideas and programs. The overall
leadership of the United States yet differs from that of East Asian economies, in that the State is
seen as a negative, and, apart from national defense and trade protection, should not interfere in
public policy making.
In East Asia, this is a completely different story. The State here was responsible for positive
economic development and social progress, and in the end – but this is not true for all countries
in East Asia – the peaceful introduction of formal democracy.
The State in East Asia is expected to intervene, and people are expected to obey the state, as
they see the state a natural, and necessary leader – a relationship that by and large resembles
that of a child to its parents; compare e.g. the Thai people who adore and truly worship their
Kings, but also the respect of the common people on the street for their local and national
authorities, to be seen through all parts of East Asia.
5. Concluding Part: Quo Vadis East Asia?
When looking at the international context and the theoretical insights that have been dealt with
in this study, it becomes clear that East Asia will continue to walk down its own path of
development.
In fact, the increasing share and importance of universal welfare programs in East Asian
countries, especially in Taiwan, Korea, but also (in different form) in Hong Kong, point at a
positive future, with regard to welfare politics, the increase of solidarity and citizenship rights.
In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that the economy cannot work without the proper
foundations of a well-functioning society – especially healthy families, a positive gender
relationship, investment in a social safety net, and last but not least investment in human
resources (education, health care, social services, etc.).
The ongoing rise of democratic values and the strengthening belief in citizen power through
democratic participation, participation in public discourse, lobbying and protests, will continue
to spur positive developments in the realm of social welfare policy, such as the introduction of
more universal programs (Aspalter, 2005b) and the rise of more anti-poverty programs and
policies – such as in the case of Singapore and other countries in the region (Tang and Wong,
2003; Lee, 2004).
Bibliography
Abrahamson, Peter (2003), The End of the Scandinavian Model? Welfare Reform in the Nordic
Countries, Journal of Societal and Social Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 19-36.
Ahn, Sang-Hoon and Olsson-Hort, Sven E. (2003), The Welfare State in Sweden, in C. Aspalter (ed.),
Welfare Capitalism Around the World, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Allan, James P. (2002), Partisan Politics and Welfare State Outcomes: A comparative study of 18
advanced industrial democracies, 1979-1997, working paper, No. 12, Keele European Parties
Research Unit, Keele University.
Allan, James P. and Scruggs, Lyle (2004), Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced
Industrial Societies, sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/AJPS03.pdf.
Almond, Gabriel; Verba, Sidney (1963), Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Aspalter, Christian (2001a), Conservative Welfare State Systems in East Asia, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Aspalter, Christian (2001b), Importance of Christian and Social Democratic Movements in Welfare
Politics: With Special Reference to Germany, Austria, and Sweden, Nova Science: New York.
Aspalter, Christian (2001c), On the Road to a Taiwanese Welfare State: Political Parties Capitalizing on
the Issue of Social Welfare, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Understanding Modern Taiwan: Essays in
Economics, Politics, and Social Policy, Ashgate: Aldershot, UK.
Aspalter, Christian (2002a), Exploring Old and New Shores in Welfare State Theory, in C. Aspalter (ed.),
Discovering the Welfare State in East Asia, Praeger: Westport, CT.
Aspalter, Christian (2002b), Democratization and Welfare State Development in Taiwan, Ashgate:
Aldershot, UK.
Aspalter, Christian (2002c), The Hong Kong Way of Social Welfare: An NGO-Based Welfare System, in
C. Aspalter (ed.), Discovering the Welfare State in East Asia, Praeger: Westport, CT.
Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2003a), Welfare Capitalism Around the World, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2003b), The Welfare State in Emerging-Market Economies: With Case Studies
from Latin America, Eastern-Central Europe, and Asia, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2003c), Neoliberalism and the Australian Welfare State, Casa Verde: Hong
Kong.
Aspalter, Christian (2003d), Welfare Capitalism in Australia: From Gender-Discriminating to GenderSensitive Social Policies?, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Neoliberalism and the Australian Welfare State,
Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Aspalter, Christian (2004), Worldwide Welfare Regimes and Globalization, in N.T. Tan and A. Rowlands
(eds.), Social Work Around the World, International Federation of Social Workers: Geneva,
Switzerland.
Aspalter, Christian (2005a), Welfare State Systems in Japan and China, in B. Vivekanandan and N.
Kurian (eds.), Welfare States and the Future, Palgrave Macmillan: London.
Aspalter, Christian (2005b), Social Welfare in East Asia, in N.T. Tan (ed.), The Challenge of Social Care
in Asia, Marshall Cavendish: New York.
Baldwin, Peter (1990), The Politics of Social Solidarity: The Class Bases of the European Welfare State,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Beck, Wolfgang; Van Der Maesen, Laurent; Thomèse, Fleur, and Walker, Alan (eds.) (2001), Social
Quality: A Vision for Europe, Kluwer Law International: London.
Beetham, David (1985), Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics, Polity Press: Cambridge, MA.
Berchtold, Klaus (1967), Österreichische Parteiprogramme, Oldenbourg, Germany.
Beverly, Sondra and Sherraden, Michael (1997), Human Capital and Social Work, Center for Social
Development, Washington University in St. Louis, CSD working paper, No. 2.
Body-Gendrot, Sophie and Gittell, Marilyn (2003), Introduction: Empowering Citizens: From Social
Citizenship to Social Capital, in S. Body-Gendrot and M. Gittell (eds.), Social Capital and Social
Citizenship, Lexington: Lanham, MD.
Bonoli, Giuliano (2000), The Politics of Pension Reform, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Budge, Ian and Keman, Hans (1990), Parties and Democracies: Coalition Formation and Government
Functioning in Twenty States, Oxford University Press: London.
Castles, Francis G. (1982), The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditure, in F.G. Castles (ed.), The Impact
of Parties: Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States, Sage: London.
Castles, Francis G. (1985), The Working Class and Welfare, Allen & Unwin: Wellington, New Zealand.
Castles, Francis G. and Mitchell, Deborah (1991), Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or Four?,
Discussion Paper No. 21, Public Policy Program, ANU: Canberra.
Castles, Francis G. and Pierson, Christopher (1996), A New Convergence? Recent Policy Developments
in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Policy & Politics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp 233-44.
Chan, Hou-Sheng (1985), Taiwan, in J. Dixon and H.S. Kim (eds.), Social Welfare in Asia, Croom Helm:
Beckenham, UK.
Chan, Hou-Sheng and Yang, Ying (2001), The Development of Social Welfare in Taiwan, in C. Aspalter
(ed.), Understanding Modern Taiwan: Essays in Economics, Politics, and Social Policy, Ashgate:
Aldershot, UK.
Chan, Raymond K.H. (1996), Welfare in Newly-industrialised Society: The Construction of the Welfare
State in Hong Kong, Avebury: Aldershot, UK.
Chen, Sheying (1996), Social Policy of the Economic State and Community Care in Chinese Culture,
Aging, Family, Urban Change, and the Socialist Welfare Pluralism, Avebury: Aldershot.
Chow, Nelson (1980), The Development of Social Welfare Policy in Hong Kong, The Hong Kong
University Press: Hong Kong.
Chow, Nelson W.S. and Aspalter, Christian (2003), The Welfare State System in China, in C. Aspalter
(ed.), Welfare States in Emerging-Market Economies: Case Studies from Latin America, Central
Europe and Asia, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Clasen, Jochen and Oorschot, Wim van (2003), Classic Principles and Designs in European Social
Security, in D. Pieters (ed.), European Social Security and Global Politics, Kluwer Law
International: London.
Collier, David and Messick, Richard E. (1975), Prerequisites Versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative
Explanations of Social Security Adaption, American Political Science Review, Vol. 69, pp. 12991315.
Dahrendorf, Ralf (1985), Law and Order, Perseus: London.
Deacon, Bob (1992), The Future of Social Policy in Eastern Europe, in B. Deacon et al. (eds.), The New
Eastern Europe: Social Policy Past, Present, and Future, Sage: London.
Deyo, Frederic C. (1989), Beneath the Miracle: Labor Subordination in the New Asian Industrialism,
University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
Deyo, Frederic C. (1992), The Political Economy of Social Policy Formation: East Asia’s Newly
Industrialized Countries, in R.P. Appelbaum and J. Henderson (eds.), States and Development in
the Asia Pacific Region, Sage: London.
Downs, Anthony (1968), Ökonomische Theorie der Demokratie, Mohr: Tübingen, Germany.
Ebbinghaus, Bernhard and Manow, Philip (2001), Introduction: Studying Varieties of Welfare
Capitalism, in B. Ebbinghaus and P. Manov (eds.), Comparing Welfare Capitalism, Social Policy
and Political Economy in Europe, Japan, and the USA, Routledge: London.
Ellis, Richard; Wildavsky, Aaron, and Thompson, Michael (1990), Cultural Theory: Political Cultures,
Westview: Boulder, CO.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1985), Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power,
Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1987a), The Comparison of Policy Regimes, in M. Rein, G. Esping-Andersen,
and L. Rainwater (eds.), Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy, M.E. Sharpe: New York.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1987b), Citizenship and Socialism: De-Commodification and Solidarity in the
Welfare State, in M. Rein, G. Esping-Andersen, and L. Rainwater (eds.), Stagnation and Renewal
in Social Policy, M.E. Sharpe: New York.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990), Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press: Cambridge.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1997), Hybrid or Unique? The Japanese Welfare State Between Europe and
America, European Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 179-89.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1998), The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State, in J. O’Connor and
G.M. Olsen (eds.), Power Resources Theory and the Welfare State: A Critical Approach,
University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Canada.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (2002), Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta and Korpi, Walter (1987), From Poor Relief to Institutional Welfare States: The
Development of Scandinavian Social Policy, in R. Erikson, E.J. Hansen, S. Ringen, H. Uusitalo
(eds.), The Scandinavian Model, M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.
Ferrera, Maurizio (1984), Il Welfare State in Italia: Sviluppo e crisi in prospettiva comparata, Il Mulino:
Bologna, Italy.
Ferrera, Maurizio (1993), Modelli di Solidarietà: Politica e riforme sociali nelle democrazie, Il Mulino:
Bologna, Italy.
Ferrera, Maurizio (1996), The Southern Model of Welfare in Social Europe, Journal of European Social
Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Ferrera, Maurizio (1998), The Four “Social Europes,” Between Universalism and Selectivity, in M.
Rhodes and Y. Meny (eds.) The Future of European Welfare, A New Social Contract?, Macmillan:
London.
Ferrera, Maurizio and Hemerijk, Anton (2003), Recalibrating Europe’s Welfare Regimes, in J. Zeitlin and
D.B. Trubek (eds.), Governing Work and Welfare in the New Economy: European and American
Experiments, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Ferrerra, Maurizio and Rhodes, Martin (eds.) (2000), Recasting European Welfare States, Frank Cass:
London.
Fitzpatrick, Tony (1999), Freedom and Security: An Introduction to the Basic Income Debate, Palgrave
Macmillan: London.
Gauthier, Anne H. (1996), The State and the Family: A Comparative Analysis of Family Policies in
Industrialized Countries, Clarendon: Oxford, UK.
George, Vic (1973), Social Security and Society, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.
George, Vic and Miller, Stewart (ed.) (1994), Social Policy Towards 2000, Squaring the Welfare Circle,
Routledge: London.
George, Vic and Wilding, Paul (1994), Welfare and Ideology, Wheatsheaf: Brighton.
Giddens, Anthony (1998), The Third Way, Polity: Cambridge, UK.
Giddens, Anthony (2001), Introduction, in A. Giddens (ed.), The Global Third Way Debate, Polity:
Cambrigde, UK.
Gilbert, Neil (ed.) (1995), Welfare Justice: Restoring Social Equity, Yale University Press: New Haven,
CT.
Gilbert, Neil and Gilbert, Barbara (1989), The Enabling State: Modern Welfare Capitalism in America,
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Ginsburgh, Norman (1979), Class, Capital and Social Policy, Macmillan: London.
Gough, Ian (1979), The Political Economy of the Welfare State, Macmillan: London.
Gough, Ian (2000), Welfare Regimes in East Asia and Europe, paper delivered at the Annual World Bank
Conference on Development Economics Europe 2000, Paris, June 27.
Gough, Ian (2002), Globalization and National Welfare Regimes: The East Asian Case, in R. Sigg and C.
Behrendt (eds.), Social Security in the Global Village, Transaction: New York.
Gough, Ian et al. (eds.) (2004), Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America:
Social Policy in Development Contexts, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Habermas, Jürgen (1989), Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt, Germany.
Haggard, Stephan and Kaufmann, Robert (2004), Revising Social Contracts: Social Spending in Latin
America, East Asia, and the Former Socialist Countries, paper presented at International
Symposium on Comparative Social Policy, National Chi Nan University, Puli, Taiwan, May 31.
Hantrais, Linda (2000), From Equal Pay to Reconciliation of Employment and Family Life, in L. Hantrais
(ed.), Gendered Policies in Europe: Reconciling Employment and Family Life, Macmillan: London.
Heiman, Eduard (1980), Soziale Theorie des Kapitalismus, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., Germany.
Hewitt, Christopher (1977), The Effect of Political Democracy and Social Democracy on Equality in
Industrial Societies, American Sociological Review, Vol. 42, pp. 450-64.
Holliday, Ian (2000), Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia, Political Studies, Vol.
48, No. 4, pp. 706-723.
Holliday, Ian and Wilding, Paul (2004), Welfare Capitalism in the Tiger Economies of East and
Southeast Asia, in I. Holliday and P. Wilding (eds.), Welfare Capitalism in East Asia: Social
Policy in the Tiger Economies, Palgrave: London.
Hsiao, Michael H.H. (1991), The Changing State-Society Relation in the ROC: Economic Change, the
Transformation of the Class Structure, and the Rise of Social Movements, in R.H. Myers (ed.),
Two Societies in Opposition, Hoover Institution Press: Stanford, CA.
Hsiao, Michael H.H. (2001), Taiwan’s Social Welfare Movement since the 1980s, in C. Aspalter (ed.),
Understanding Modern Taiwan: Essays in Economics, Politics, and Social Policy, Ashgate:
Aldershot, UK.
Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John D. (1999), Welfare State and Production Regimes in the Era of
Retrenchment, United States.
Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John D. (2001), Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and
Policies in Global Markets, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Immergut, Ellen (1992), Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Immergut, Ellen (1998), The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism, Politics and Society, Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Janowitz, Morris (1978), The Last Half-century, Societal Change and Politics in America, University of
Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Jones, Catherine (1985), Patterns of Social Policy: An Introduction to Comparative Analysis, Tavistock:
London.
Jones, Catherine (1990), Promoting Prosperity: The Hong Kong Way of Social Policy, Chinese
University Press: Hong Kong.
Jones, Catherine (1993), The Pacific Challenge: Confucian Welfare States, in C. Jones (ed.), New
Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe, Routledge: London.
Jones, Catherine (1999), Trends and Developments in Welfare States, in J. Clasen (ed.), Comparative
Social Policy, Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
Kaufman, Franz-Xaver (1997), European Welfare States in Their Relations to the Family, in J.
Commaille and F. de Singly (eds.), The European Family: The Family Question in the European
Community, Kluwer Academic: Boston, MA.
Kerr, Clark, et al. (1960), Industrialism and Industrial Man, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kersbergen, Kees v. (1994), The Distinctiveness of Christian Democracy, in D. Hanley (ed.), Christian
Democracy in Europe, Pinter: London.
Kersbergen, Kees v. (1995), Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State,
Routledge: London.
Kersbergen, Kees v. and Becker U. (1988), The Netherlands: A Passive Social Democratic Welfare State
in a Christian Democratic Ruled Society, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 17, No.4.
Kim, Sang-Kyun and Ahn, Sang-Hoon (2003), The South Korean Welfare State: The Impact of Political
Alliances on Welfare Politics, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Welfare Capitalism Around the World, Casa
Verde: Hong Kong.
Kim, Sang-Kyun and Lee, Eu-Na (2004), The Korean Pension Reform: Struggle Between Restructuring
and Renovation, Journal of Societal and Social Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Korpi, Walter (1983), The Democratic Class Struggle, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.
Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim (1998), The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality:
Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in Western Countries, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 63, pp. 661-687.
Ku, Yeun-Wen (1997), Welfare Capitalism in Taiwan: State, Economy and Social Policy, Macmillan:
London.
Ku, Yeun-Wen (2002), Towards a Taiwanese Welfare State: Demographic Chance, Politics, and Social
Policy, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Discovering the Welfare State in East Asia, Praeger: Westport, CT.
Kwon, Huck-Ju (1998), Democracy and Politics of Social Welfare: A Comparative Analysis of Welfare
Systems in East Asia, in R. Goodman, G. White, and H.J. Kwon (eds.), The East Asian Welfare
Model, Routledge: London.
Kwon, Huck-Ju (1999), The Welfare State in Korea: The Politics of Legitimization, Macmillan: London.
Kwon, Soonman (2003), The Welfare State in South Korea: Implications of the Economic Crisis, in C.
Aspalter (ed.), The Welfare State in Emerging-Market Economies: With Case Studies from Latin
America, Eastern-Central Europe, and Asia, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Lavalette, Michael and Mooney, Gary (eds.) (1999), Class Struggle and Social Welfare, Routledge:
London.
Lee, Hye-Kyung (2004), Labor Market Policies and Programs for Pro-Poor Growth in the Republic of
Korea, in I. Ortiz (ed.), Defining an Agenda for Poverty Reduction, volume ii, Asia Development
Bank: Manila.
Leibfried, Stephan (1992), Towards a European Welfare State?, in Z. Ferge and J.E. Kolberg (eds.),
Social Policy in Changing Europe, Campus: Frankfurt a.M.
Lewis, Jane (ed.) (1998), Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe, Ashgate:
Aldershot, UK.
Lewis, Jane and Surender, Rebecca (eds.) (2004), Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way?, Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK.
Lister, Ruth (2002), Towards a New Welfare Settlement?, in C. Hay (ed.), British Politics Today, Polity:
Cambridge, UK.
Lister, Ruth (2003), Investing in Citizen Workers of the Future: Transformation of Citizenship and the
State under New Labour, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 427-43.
Lister, Ruth (2004a), The Third Way’s Social Investment State, in J. Lewis and R. Surender (eds.),
Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way?, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Lister, Ruth (2004b), Creating Responsible Citizens of the Future in the Social Investment State, paper
presented at ESPAnet 2004 Conference, Oxford, UK, September 10.
Marshall, T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Marshall, T.H. (1964), Class, Citizenship and Social Development, University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL.
Mesa-Lago, Carmelo (2003), The Welfare State in Eight Latin American Countries, in C. Aspalter (ed.),
Welfare Capitalism Around the World, Casa Verde Publishing: Hong Kong.
Midgley, J. and Sherraden, M. (eds.) (1997), Alternatives to Social Security: An International Inquiry,
Auburn House: Westport, CT.
Midgley, James (1995), Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare, Sage:
London.
Midgley, James (2001), Growth, Redistribution, and Welfare: Toward Social Investment, in A. Giddens
(ed.), The Global Third Way Debate, Polity: Cambridge, UK.
Midgley, James (2003), Poverty and the Social Development Approach, in K.L. Tang and C.K. Wong
(eds.), Poverty Monitoring and Alleviation in East Asia, Nova Science: New York.
Midgley, Mary and Hughes, Judith (1997), Are Families Out of Date?, in H. Lindemann Nelson (ed.),
Feminism and Families, Routledge: London.
Miliband, Ralf (1969), The State in Capitalist Society, Basic Books: New York.
Miliband, Ralf (1991), Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism, Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK.
Mishra, Ramesh (1981), Society and Social Policy, Macmillan: London.
Mishra, Ramesh (1984), The Welfare State in Crisis, Social Thought and Social Change, Wheatsheaf:
Brighton, UK.
Mishra, Ramesh (1990), The Welfare State in Capitalist Society, Policies of Retrenchment and
Maintenance in Europe, North America and Australia, Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hartfordshire, UK.
Mishra, Ramesh (1999), Globalization and the Welfare State, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.
Mitchell, Deborah (1997a), Family Policy in Australia: A Review of Recent Developments, Research
School of Social Sciences, Discussion Paper, No. 50, Australian National University, Canberra,
April.
Mitchell, Deborah (1997b), Reshaping Australian Social Policy: Alternatives to the Breadwinner Welfare
State, Research School of Social Sciences, Discussion Paper, No. 55, Australian National
University, Canberra, December.
Mommsen, Wilhelm (1964), Deutsche Parteiprogramme, Olzog: Munich, Germany.
Morrow-Howell, Nancy; Hinterlong, James, and Sherraden, Michael (2001), Productive Aging: Concepts
and Challenges, Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
O’Brian, Marc (2000), Class Struggle and the English Poor Laws, in G. Mooney and M. Lavalette (eds.),
Class Struggle and Social Welfare, Routledge: London.
O’Connor, James (1973), The Fiscal Crisis of the State, St. Martin’s Press: New York.
O’Connor, Julia S. (1996), Trend Reports: From Women in the Welfare State to Gendering Welfare
States, Current Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1.
O’Connor, Julia S.; Orloff, Ann Shola, and Shaver, Sheila (1999), States, Markets, Families: Gender,
Liberalism, and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
O’Connor, Julia S.; Orloff, Ann Shola, and Shaver, Sheila (1999), States, Markets, Families: Gender,
Liberalism, and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Offe, Claus (1972), Advanced Capitalism and the Welfare State, Politics and Society, Vol. 4.
Offe, Claus (1984), Contradictions of the Welfare State (ed. by J. Keane), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Olsen, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Olsen, Mancur (1982), The Rise and Decline of Nations, Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Olsson Hort, Sven E. (2000), From a Generous to a Stingy Welfare State? Sweden’s Approach to
Targeting, in N. Gilbert (ed.), Targeting in Social Welfare, Transactions: New Brunswick, NJ.
Orloff, Ann Shola (1993), Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 58.
Ostner, Ilona and Lewis, Jane (1995), Gender and the Evolution of European Social Policies, in S.
Leibfried and P. Pierson (eds.), European Social Policy, Brookings Institutions: Washington D.C.
Palier, Bruno and Bonoli, Giuliano (1995), Entre Bismarck et Beveridge, Crises de la sécurité sociale and
politique(s), Revue Française de Sciences Politiques, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 668-98.
Pascall, Gillian (1986), Social Policy: A Feminist Analysis, Tavistock: London.
Peng, Ito (2002), Gender and Welfare State Restructuring in Japan, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Discovering the
Welfare State in East Asia, Praeger: Westport, CT.
Pierson, Paul (1995), Dismantling the Welfare State?, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Piven, Francis F. and Cloward, Richard A. (1971), Regulating the Poor, Pantheon: New York.
Polanyi, Karl (1957), The Great Transformation, Beacon: Boston, MA.
Ramesh, Mishra (2000), Welfare Capitalism in Southeast Asia, Palgrave: Basingstoke, UK.
Ramesh, Mishra (2003), Globalization and Social Security Expansion in East Asia, in L. Weiss (ed.),
States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK.
Randall, Collin (1986), Weberian Sociological Theory, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Revauger, Jean-Paul (2003), The Welfare State in France, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Welfare Capitalism
Around the World, Casa Verde: Hong Kong.
Rieger, Elmar and Leibfried, Stephan (2003), Limits to Globalization, Welfare States and the World
Economy, Polity: Cambridge, UK.
Rimlinger, Gaston V. (1971), Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America, and Russia,
Wiley: New York.
Rueschemeyer, Dietriech; Rueschemeyer, Marilyn, and Wittock, Björn (1998), Participation and
Democracy, M.E. Sharpe: New York.
Sainsbury, Diane (1999), Gender, Policy Regimes, and Politics, in D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gender and
Welfare State Regimes, Sage: London.
Sainsbury, Diane (ed.) (1994), Gendering the Welfare State, Sage: London.
Saint-Martin, Denis (2002), Apprentissage Social et Changement Institutionnel: La Politique de
l’Investissement dans l’Enfance au Canada et en Grande-Bretagne, Politique et Sociétés, Vol. 21,
No. 3, pp. 41-67.
Shalev, Michael (1983a), Class Politics and the Western Welfare State, in S.E. Spiro (ed.), Evaluating the
Welfare State, Academic Press: New York.
Shalev, Michael (1983b), The Social Democratic Model and Beyond: Two ‘Generations’ of Comparative
Research on the Welfare State, Comparative Social Research, Vol. 6, pp. 315-51.
Shapiro, Thomas and Wolff, Edward (eds.) (2001), Assets for the Poor, Russell Sage Foundation.
Sherraden, Michael and Gilbert, Neil (1991), Assets for the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy, M.E.
Sharpe: New York.
Skocpol, Theda (1987), America’s Incomplete Welfare State, in M. Rein, G. Esping-Andersen and L.
Rainwater (eds.), Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy, M.E. Sharpe: New York.
Skocpol, Theda (1992), Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the
United States, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Skocpol, Theda and Leone, Richard (2001), The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of
American Social Policy, W.W. Norton: New York.
Stephens, John D. (1979), The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism: Macmillan: London.
Swank, Duane (2001), Political Institutions and Welfare State Restructuring: The Impact of Institutions
on Social Policy Change in Developed Democracies, in P. Pierson (ed.), The New Politics of the
Welfare State, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Swank, Duane (2002), Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare
States, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Tang, Kwong-Leung (2000), Social Development in East Asia, Palgrave: Basingstoke, UK.
Tang, Kwong-Leung and Wong, Chack-kie (eds.) (2003), Poverty Monitoring and Alleviation in East
Asia, Nova Science: New York.
Taylor-Gooby, Peter (1996), Eurosclerosis in European Welfare States: Regime Theory and the
Dynamics of Change, Policy and Politics, Vol. 24, No. 2.
Taylor-Gooby, Peter (1998), When Is Innovation? Recent Pension Reform in France, Germany, Italy, and
the UK, Center for Comparative Welfare Studies, CCWS Working Papers, No. 6.
Taylor-Gooby, Peter (2001), The Politics of Welfare in Europe, in P. Taylor-Gooby (ed.), Welfare States
Under Pressure, Sage: London.
Taylor-Gooby, Peter and George, Vic (eds.) (1996), European Welfare Policy: Squaring the Welfare
Circle, Palgrave Macmillan: London.
Titmuss, Richard M. (1958), Essays on the Welfare State, Allen & Unwin: London.
Titmuss, Richard M. (1974), Social Policy, Allen & Unwin: London.
Van Parijs, Philippe (1994), The Second Marriage of Justice and Efficiency, in P. Van Parijs (ed.),
Arguing for Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical Reform, W.W. Norton: New York.
Van Parijs, Philippe (1998), Real Freedom for All, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Verba, Sidney; Nie, Norman H., and Kim, Jae-on (1987), Participation and Political Equality: A Seven
Nation Comparison, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Walker, Alan (2002), A Strategy for Active Ageing, International Social Security Review, Vol. 55, No. 1,
pp. 121-39.
Weber, Max (1991), Class, Status, Party, in H. Gerth et al. (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,
Routledge: London.
Weber, Max (1994), Parliament and Government in Germany, in P. Lassman and R. Speirs (eds.), Weber,
Political Writings, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Weir, Margaret; Orloff, Ann Shola; and Skocpol, Theda (1988), Introduction: Understanding American
Social Politics, in M. Weir, A.S. Orloff, and T. Skocpol (eds.), The Politics of Social Policy in the
United States, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Wilding, Paul (2000), Exploring the East Asian Welfare Model, Public Administration and Policy, Vol.
9, No. 2, pp 71-82.
Wilensky, Harold L. (1975), The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public
Expenditures, University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
Wilensky, Harold L. and Lebeaux, Charles N. (1965), Industrial Society and Social Welfare, Russell Sage
Foundation: New York.
Wilensky, Harold L. and Turner, L. (1987), Democratic Corporatism and Policy Linkages, Institute of
International Studies, University of California: Berkeley, CA.
Woldendorp, Jaap; Keman, Hans, and Budge, Ian (1998), Party Government in 20 Democracies,
European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 33.
Yang, Bong-Min (2002), Health Insurance Reform in Korea: Consolidation of Funds, in T.W. Hu and
C.R. Hsieh (eds.), The Economics of Health Care in Asia-Pacific Countries, Edward Elgar:
Cheltenham, UK.