The coming of East and South-East Asian welfare states

Abstract

It has long been assumed among Western commentators that rapid economic growth in East and South-east Asia has been achieved without the development of social policies. It has often been inferred that growth without social welfare is not only possible, but beneficial to further strong economic growth. The article questions these perceptions and beliefs. First, to what extent did East and South-east Asian countries delay the introduction of social insurance schemes compared to European pioneering countries, in the sense of introducing them only at a much higher level of 'modernization'? Second, to what extent was the economic miracle achieved by some of these countries based on (or accompanied by) attempts to forestall or retrench welfare state schemes? Third, to what extent has the recent financial crisis led to attempts at lowering or changing standards of social protection? The study shows that the Asian countries generally introduced social security programmes at a lower level of 'modernization' than Western European countries; that rapid and strong economic growth in the decade 1985–95 has in general been accompanied by welfare expansion; and that even after the financial crisis of 1997, expansion of state welfare responsibility is more evident than efforts to reduce or dismantle state welfare responsibility]

Review Essay: Prospects for Old-Age Income Security in Hong Kong and Singapore

“…11 Jones (1993) directly compares East Asia to Esping-Andersen's three worlds of welfare in her description of the Confucianist welfare state as: "Conservative corporatism without (Western-style) worker participation; subsidiarity without the Church; solidarity without equality; laissez-faire without libertarianism: an alternative expression of all this might be 'household economy' welfare states-run in the style of a would-be traditional, Confucian, extended family" (p.214).The productivist welfare regime-a reference to the political economy literature on productivism-is based on the observation that East Asian governments prioritise economic development above all else. Scholars have argued that East Asian governments do not subjugate social welfare to economic development, but rather pursue a programme of shared growth that seeks to raise social standards through rapid economic development (Birdsall and Haggard 2000;Hort and Kuhnle 2000). Furthermore, the criterion of prioritising economic growth is difficult to demonstrate and not clearly falsifiable.…”

Industrial welfare and the state: nation and city reconsidered

“…2 However, "lateness" generates a diversity of institutional responses to economic backwardness and a greater state role (Gerschenkron 1962). LIs have adopted statutory welfare at earlier stages of economic development relative to Europe (e.g., Hort and Kuhnle 2000) but relegated this to a thin sliver of occupations and benefits. National programs have rarely arisen by fiat but through a messy institutional consolidation of local programs that rest in other risk institutions such as family, caste, and religion.…”

Historicization of Homeless Spaces: The Seoul Train Station Square and the House of Freedom

“…Primarily concerned with the maximization of economic growth, Korean developmental state entrusted family and big business as the two pillars of welfare governance. South Korea's successive authoritarian military regimes have used and reproduced a familial and paternalistic social order to prioritize economic development (Han and Ling 1998, Hort and Kuhnle 2000, Moon 1998) and to minimize costs of social policies (Kwon 1999, Tang 2000, Wong 2004. The presumption that families should tend to all familial and personal needs of all family members and ensure their social and individual well-being has been central to the operation of the welfare state in South Korea (Kim, Hahm, andYoon 1999, Stevens 1998, for Italy and Southern Europe, see Trifiletti 1999).…”