Previous studies of East Asian welfare regimes focus on similarities between social security schemes. In contrast, this paper explores cross-national variations in public–private pension mixes in six welfare states: China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Our research echoes the pension policy analysis of international organisations but takes a step forward with emphasis on the historical and institutional characteristics of the respective pension systems. The analysis identifies three institutional patterns. First, the statist pension system (Taiwan and China) primarily relies on public pensions to provide old-age security, with private pensions playing a rather minor role. Second, in the dualist pension system (Japan and Korea) both public and private pensions work in parallel to ensure retirement income, though a clear security gap exists between workers in the formal and informal economies. Finally, the individualist pension system (Hong Kong and Singapore) is characterised by genuine fully funded individual accounts, emphasising citizens’ own responsibilities for ensuring old-age security. These three types of pension systems demonstrate distinct institutional characteristics and policy outcomes, illustrated by the juxtaposition of their institutional structures as well as by the comparison of key indicators collected from government reports and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics. The paper concludes with a theoretical reflection of East Asian pension policies and a diagnosis of the distinct challenges confronted by each of the various pension patterns.

This study explores the recent features of China's economic coercion against Taiwan by offering an up‐to‐date and in‐depth analysis of China's targeted sanctions on Taishang in Tsai Ing‐wen's first term. The paper elaborates on China's specific reasons and means for imposing informal targeted sanctions, as well as their newly observed features in comparison with the past. Heavy dependence on the Chinese economy by certain enterprises of the island has made them vulnerable to sanction targeting. Compared to the past, nationalist boycotts by Chinese consumers and online activities have had a greater influence as part of China's informal targeted sanctions. Beijing's demands for supporting the “one China” policy and the “1992 Consensus” have also become more obvious. These findings suggest that the impetus for developing the cross‐Strait economic exchanges has become more susceptible to the effects of non‐economic factors. Although Beijing's sanctions on Taishang have not yet changed Taipei's policy, they cannot be said to be ineffective. Through the tactics, Beijing definitely sends clear signals of what it wants as it advances their strategy on cross‐Strait relations to the outside world. The case studies on Taiwan provide important implications for other economies as a barometer of China's increasing economic sanction practices.

This research aims to critically review the development process and connotation of neoliberal reform in Mongolia, which has been implemented since 1991 under the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) program. This paper outlines the historical context of the transition, the so-called shock therapy, and analyzes Mongolia’s economic performance and socioeconomic changes after neoliberal reform, particularly focusing on the free market monetary policy. The policy was a crucial turning point for Mongolia, in which neoliberalism almost eliminated the former socialist planned economy and took a dominant position in the Mongolian political economy. Over the past three decades, successive administrations have implemented various measures based on a free monetary policy promoted by the IMF to obtain foreign loans and aid. However, despite the long-term reforms, thorny issues, such as a sharp currency depreciation, soaring debts, unemployment, inflation, budget deficits, poverty, crime, and corruption, still remain unresolved. In short, Mongolia’s shock therapy transition appears to be inefficacious. The nation may need to develop policies that take into account the characteristics of their economy and are able to stabilize people’s livelihoods.