Introduction – Managing Welfare Expectations and Social Change: Policy Responses in Asia

Abstract

The question whether Asian welfare types can be classified as distinctly 'productivist' has remained subject to lively debates: in East Asia, the recent implementation of social rights-based public policy innovations -including working family support -as a response to rising inequalities, welfare expectations and accelerating social change has been well documented; similarly, South East Asian and South Asian economies have featured much more frequently in comparative social policy analysis as policymakers have sought to address persisting chronic poverty, a diminishing demographic dividend and burdensome epidemiological transitions via integrating human capital formation with social protection measures. Yet, far from a unifying convergence of these social policy trends in the post-Millennium Development Goals era, the global perspective we take in this article suggests continued variation and difference, with a multiplicity of forms of globalizations encountered and/or engendered in diverse contexts. As a consequence, variegated and path-dependent patterns of social development continue to persist across Asian economies. These findings, in turn, address major issues of our time, for they speak to the broader question of what analytical bases and research strategies can best reveal the complexities of (and interactions between) national, extra-national and transnational drivers of welfare formation and development under contemporary but diverse conditions.

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and changing welfare regimes

“…To diversify sources of support for maintaining a highly sustainable welfare society, the discussions on the welfare regimes in East Asia have integrated 'community' as the fourth actor or sector in addition to the state, market and family (Sumarto, 2017). To fill this gap, scholars have examined the impacts of broader issues, such as the changing political economy, democratization and welfare values/ expectations of citizens and the governability/legitimacy of governments in formulating welfare models/approaches that are adaptive to rapid social, economic, political and global changes (Kim, 2019;Ku & Chang, 2017;Mok, 2011;Mok, Kuhner, Yeates 2017;Papadopoulos & Roumpakis, 2013). A critical contextual analysis has resulted in the creation of different models that account for diverse pathways of welfare state development in Asia (Hwang, 2011), including productivist (Holliday, 2000), developmental (Kwon, 2001), redistributive (Lin & Wong, 2013), inclusive (Lin & Wong, 2013), protective (Kuhner, 2015), informal-liberal (Sumarto, 2017) and informal-inclusive pathways (Sumarto, 2017).…”

The cycle of commodification: migrant labour, welfare, and the market in global China and Vietnam

“…First, the open and competitive bidding mechanisms for social service contracts are considered an "efficient" market solution for dealing with the welfare of a massive migrant labour population with minimum welfare burdens for the employers and governments. Second, and more important than cost-efficiency, by allowing party-organized NGOs (Thornton, 2013) or social enterprises (Mok et al, 2017(Mok et al, , 2020 to engage in education, emergency relief and even police services, the state frees up its resources for more supervisory and regulatory role to guarantee stability (Teets, 2012). Cho (2017)'s study focused on the Foxconn town in Shenzhen where superficial social services (such as sporting events and blind dates) for migrant workers were contracted out to numerous forprofit social enterprises and placed under the state inspections, with social stability being a top priority.…”

“…In China and Vietnam, the changeover from state socialist regimes to market-Leninist political economies, “market socialism” in the party state’s language, has shaped the new social policies governing labour welfare and social stratification (London, 2014 ). While the Chinese government has increased welfare expenditure and expanded provision coverage, the welfare regime is considered more productive than protective (Rudra, 2007 ; Tillin & Duckett, 2017 ), as local governments prioritize economic growth and political stability (Leung & Xu, 2015 ; Mok et al, 2017 ), diverging from global norms or even national policy goals. Social welfare in China, for some, has enlarged the income gap (Gao & Ruskin, 2013 ) while basic social programs, such as the Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (MLG) programs, mostly serve to prevent social instability (Solinger, 2017 ).…”

Connecting beyond ‘Community’: Recasting the Power of Social Capital on Collective Action in Indonesian MSMEs

“…The state has regulated the MSMEs sector in Indonesia, which is an institution for the growth of community-based capitalism. The significance of community in the social and economic sectors is emphasized, particularly in light of the changing dynamics of the global economy, which requires governments to adapt to rising welfare expectations (Mok, Kühner, & Yeates, 2017). This is primarily due to the emergence of new risks posed by unanticipated variables, as economic and social problems become increasingly complex.…”