Cultural Convergence or Political-economic Institutional Divergence? A Comparative Study of Welfare Reforms in Greater China [Review Article]
Abstract
In East Asian welfare studies, prevalent culturalist and the developmental state accounts pose the view that East Asia features a homogenous welfare landscape. One could infer that Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong should develop similar welfare institutions and reforms patterns. This paper focuses on the divergent developments of political-economic institutions in Greater China to illustrate how and why these countries step into diverse paths of modernization, and it explores the different configurations of welfare institutions. By charting the institutional changes of post-socialism, post-developmentalism, and post-colonialism, this study elucidates the mechanisms and reasons why social security systems in Mainland China gradually develop alongside occupational divide and regional inequality, while Taiwan is becoming a hybrid welfare system characterized by universalistic and occupational welfare policies, and Hong Kong still features a distinct residualist welfare system. Focusing on political-economic circumstances and social security institutions, the resulting historical analyses highlight the theoretical weaknesses of culturalism and developmentalism and offer a fresh perspective by including China, thus broadening the scope of comparative East Asian welfare studies.
Keywords: China, East Asian Welfare Regime, Hong Kong, Political Economy of Comparative Welfare States, Taiwan
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aspalter, C. (2002), Democratization and Welfare State Development in Taiwan. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Besharov, D. J. and Baehler, K. (eds.)(2013), Chinese Social Policy in a Time of Transition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chan, C. K. (2011), Social Security Policy in Hong Kong: From British Colony to China’s Special Administrative Region. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Chan, C. L. W. and Chow, N. W. S. (1992), More Welfare after Economic Reform? Welfare Development in the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Chan, R. K. H., and Chan, C. K. C. (2013), “The Shifting Boudary between Work and Welfare- A Review of Active Labour Market Policies in Hong Kong,” Journal of Asian Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 26-41.
Chang, K.-S. (1993), “The Confucian Family Instead of the Welfare State? Reform and Peasant Welfare in Post-Mao China,” Asian Perspective, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 169-200.
Chen, S. (1996), Social Policy of the Economic State and Community Care in Chinese Culture. Aldershot: Avebury.
Cheng, T. and Selden, M. (1994), “The Origins and Social Consequences of China´s Hukou System,” China Quarterly, Vol. 154, pp. 644-668.
Choi, Y. J. (2013), “Developmentalism and Productivism in East Asian Welfare Regimes,” in M. Izuhara (ed.), Handbook on East Asian Social Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp 207-225.
Chow, N. (1998), “The Making og Social Policy in Hong Kong: Social Welfare Development in the 1980s and 1990s,” in R. Goodman, G. White and H. J. Kwon (eds.), The East Asian Welfare Model: Welfare Orientalism and the State. London: Routledge, pp. 159-174.
Croissant, A. (2004), “Changing welfare regimes in East and Southeast Asia: Crisis, change and challenge,” Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 38, No.5, pp. 504-524.
Dillon, N. (2015), Radical Inequalities. China’s Revolutionary Welfare State in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dixon, J. E. (1981), The Chinese Welfare System 1949-1979. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fleckenstein, T., and Lee, S.-H. C. (2017), “Democratization, post-industrialization, and East Asian welfare capitalism: the politics of welfare state reform in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 36-54.
Frazier, M. W. (2010), Socialist Insecurity: Pensions and the Politics of Uneven Development in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fu, T.-H. (2008). The Refom of Old-age Income Security System: Taiwan and Hong Kong Compared. Working Paper. Social Welfare Practice and Research Centre, Department of Social Work. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Gallagher, M.E. (2005), Contagious Capitalism: Globalization and the Politics of Labor in China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gao, Q. (2010), “Redistributive Nature of the Chinese Social Benefit System: Progressive or Regressive?,” The China Quarterly, Vol. 201, pp. 1-19.
Goodman, R., White, G. and Kwon, H.-J. (eds.)(1998), The East Asian Welfare Model - Welfare Orientalism and the State. London: Routledge.
Goodstadt, L. F. (2014), Poverty in the Midst of Affluence: How Hong Kong Mismanages Its Prosperity (Revised Edition ed.). Hong-Kong: Hong-Kong University Press.
Gough, I. (2004), “East Asia: the Limits of Productivist Regimes,” in I. Gough and G. Wood (eds.), Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social Policy in Development Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-201.
Haggard, S. (1990), Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ho, M.-S. (2014), Working Class Formation in Taiwan: Fractured Solidarity in State-Owned Enterprises, 1945-2012. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Holliday, I. (2000), “Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia,” Political Studies, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 706-723.
Hsu, J. Y. (2015), “China’s “Developmental Model”— A “Model” of Inclusion?,” in R. Hasmath (ed.), Inclusive Growth, Development and Welfare Policy: A Critical Assessment. London: Routledge, pp. 66-80.
Huang, Y. (2008), Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C. (1990), “Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan: Oikonomic Welfare States,” Government and Opposition, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 447-462.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
