To Be or Not to Be Part of Greater China: Social Development in the Post‐Ma Taiwan

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Taiwan has transitioned towards democratization. In 2000, the young opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), defeated and replaced the authoritarian ruling party, the Kuomintang (KMT), for the first time. However, this critical political change failed to meet the social reform expectations of the people, which resulted in the triumph of the KMT in the presidential election in 2008. The same story was repeated in 2016 when the KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou lost their legitimacy to the public, and they were replaced by the current President Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP leader. This article interprets the extremely difficult policy choice of Taiwan towards China and how its relationship with China shapes social development issues behind these political changes. Democratization has long been regarded as the main driving force for East Asian welfare development, especially with the cases of Taiwan and Korea. However, in conclusion, this article argues the importance of globalization in shaping domestic politics and managing welfare expectations.

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).…”

Understanding Social Security Development: Lessons From the Chinese Case

“…Although affluent democracies have experienced economic stagnation, increasing unemployment, and rising deficits associated with population aging following the retrenchment of social security programs, these countries introduced compensation for these retrenchments. Consequently, scholars have recognized these changes as the restructuring of social security to accommodate changing social needs rather than its demise (Ku & Chang, 2017; Quadagno, 1988).…”

East Asian approaches of activation: the politics of labor market policies in South Korea and Taiwan

“…During his presidential terms from 2008-2016, Ma endeavored to build closer ties to the Chinese economy. This strategy yielded political gains for those Taiwanese individuals working and residing in China, who typically voted for the KMT (Ku & Chang, 2017). Out of the neoliberal ideology, the government further deregulated the labor market, which allowed for an increase in irregular employment.…”