Welfare Regime in TaiwanWelfare Regime in Taiwan ::International ContextInternational Context
Professor Yeun-wen KuDepartment of Social WorkNational Taiwan University
Outline
Introduction
Welfare Studies in East Asia
East Asian Welfare Regime in Comparative
Context
Possible Explanatory Factors
Concluding Remarks
Introduction The 1990s: Growing Concerns on Welfare
Development in East Asia Is there a special model in East Asian welfare? Democratization has been firmed in Taiwan. The First Time of Ruling Party Change in 2000
The DPP won again in 2004
But unemployment and poverty remain
Regulation or Deregulation?
Welfare Studies in East Asia: A Two-Dimensional Model
1. Cases: Single Case, East Asia as a
Region, and Trans-regional
Comparison
2. Issues: Policy, System and Regime
Cases
Issues
Single Case EA as a Region
Trans-regional Comparison
Policy e.g.
Goodman, White & Kwon (eds), 1998
e.g.
Tang, 2000
e.g.
Catherine Jones Finer (ed), 2001
System e.g.
Aspalter(ed), 2002
e.g.
Holliday & Wilding (eds), 2003;
Ramesh, 2004
e.g.
Esping-Andersen (ed), 1996;
Alcock & Craig (eds), 2001
Regime e.g.
Ku, 1997;
Kwon, 1999
e.g.
Jones, 1990;
Holliday, 2000;
Aspalter, 2001
e.g.
Gough & Wood (eds), 2004
Findings
1. Policy Orientation: Family-centred, Reluctant State, Traditional Charity, Oikonomic Welfare States….. 2. System Characteristic: Education Priority, Occupation-based, Means- tested Assistance….. 3. Regime Interpretation: Conservative, Productivist, Developmentalist, Confucianism, Hybrid…..
Purposes
Extending the concept of three welfare regimes: liberal, conservative, and social democracy (Esping-Andersen,1990)
Empirically analyzing the regime types in East Asian countries
With special reference to Taiwan’s case
Productivist Welfare Capitalism
Growth-oriented state Subordination of all aspects of state policy,
including social policy, to economic/industrial objectives
The importance of education and family
What Has Been Done in This Study?
20 countries included Developing a set of 15 indicators Collecting two sets of 1980s and 1990s
indicators Factor analysis Cluster analysis A new East Asian regime found
IndicatorsIndicator Definition Principal Data
Resource
Governmental social expenditure
The percentage of ‘social security & welfare’ expenditure in total public expenditure IMF
Social investment The percentage of ‘economic affairs & services’ and ‘education’, minus ‘social security & welfare’, in total public expenditure
IMF
Social consumption The percentage of ‘sickness and maternity’ , ‘unemployment’, and ‘industrial injuries’, minus ‘pension’, in total ‘social security & welfare’
ILO
Labour union movement The percentage of employees who participate in unions OECD
Economic modernisation The percentage of Non-farmers in all of the labour force OECD
Non-coverage of pensions The percentage of aged persons who are not pensioners WBILO
Gender discrimination Gender wage lag OECD
Stratification in welfare The number of pension and health insurance schemes SSA
Self-reliance in retired life The percentage of elderly incomes not from public pension OECDILO
Contribution from employees The percentage of social security contributions coming from employees ILO
Family supports Rate of aged persons living with their children ECHP
Contribution from employers The percentage of social security contributions coming from employers ILO
Scale of private pensions The scale of private pensions as a percentage of total pensions OECD
Dependency on trade Trade ratio to GDP OECD
Resource dependency The percentage of non-farm production in GDP OECD
Dimensions of Indicators Demanding for welfare: labour union movement
and modernisation . Input of governmental efforts: governmental
social expenditure, social investment, social consumption, and private pension.
Output of governmental efforts: non-coverage, self-reliance in retired life, the number of pension and health schemes and gender wage lag.
Welfare loading: contribution from employees, contribution from employers, and percentage of aged persons living with their child.
Politico-economic context for development: trade dependency and resource dependency.
Figure 1. Welfare Regimes in Hierarchical Cluster (1980s)
DenmarkSwedenFinlandNorwayUnited
KingdomAustralia
New ZealandAustriaFrance
ItalyGermany
JapanCanada
United StatesSwitzerland
BelgiumNetherlands
IrelandSouth Korea
Taiwan
Figure 2. Welfare Regimes in Hierarchical Cluster ( 1990s)
NetherlandsSwitzerland
United KingdomUnited States
AustraliaCanadaAustria
ItalyFrance
GermanyJapan
DenmarkFinlandNorwaySwedenBelgium
South KoreaTaiwanIreland
New Zealand
Country code : 1. Australia, 2. Austria, 3. Belgium, 4. Canada, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. France, 8. Germany, 9. Ireland, 10. Italy, 11. Japan, 12. South Korea, 13.Taiwan, 14. Netherlands, 15. New Zealand, 16. Norway, 17. Sweden. 18. Switzerland, 19. United Kingdom, 20. United States.In Z Scale, come from Factor Analysis and for Hierarchical Cluster (1990s)
Developmentalism
Corporatist
General Features of East Asian Welfare
Economic development is the core value in state policy and takes priority over social policy or income redistribution.
As social policy is underdeveloped, public expenditure on welfare does not take the same sort of role as in western countries; which means that low welfare expenditure should be regarded as a policy output, rather than due to any need for low welfare expenditure.
Lower welfare expenditure does not mean weak government, since state intervention is strong in the field of development. Thus East Asian countries should not be presumed to have large scale private welfare/pension markets, like the liberal welfare states.
Instead of the market, the family is required an expected to take more welfare responsibility for its individual members.
Regarding the distribution of welfare, universalism is hardly found and the effects of welfare stratification are common in East Asian countries. Welfare has been primarily distributed to governmental employees such as civil servants, teachers, and military servicemen.
Explaining Factors (5-1) Values and Cultures
‘When we look at the substance of social policy,
the difference is…that in the East Asian societies all the positions reflect a Confucian agenda, in the same way as in the West all the positions reflect an agenda informed by Judaeo-Christian values.’
Rieger and Leibfried, 2003: 334
Explaining Factors (5-2)
Nation-Building and Political Democratization
‘The experience of Korea and Taiwan have shown that democratization could be a crucial factor which influences social welfare development.’
Tang, 2000: 60
Explaining Factors (5-3) Capitalist Development and Globalization
‘The low levels of social security expenditure and provision in the tigers show the way in which economic concerns – productivism – have been given priority over public responsibility for the meeting of social needs.’
Ku, 2003: 158
Explaining Factors (5-4) Changing Social and Demographic Structure
‘…the old idea of a welfare society is becoming bankrupt…families can no longer afford to give care services to their members; the scale of the family becoming smaller and more women are increasing engaged in paid work…’
Uzuhashi, 2001: 123
Explaining Factors (5-5) Institutional Arrangement
‘Political Institutions do not predetermine any specific policy outcome; rather, they construct a strategic context in which political actors make their choices.’
Immergut, 1992: 239
Questions Ahead Main Features of Welfare Institutional
Arrangement in East Asia Major Changes since Then, and Why Political Process to Set and Modify Policy
Agenda Political and Social Coalitions for and against
Policy Innovations The Involvement of External Actors, e.g.
International Organizations
Concluding Remarks
Far Away from Conclusion Welfare in Development A More Comprehensive Framework
for Comparison New Paradigm and New Answers, e.g.
Social Quality Approach.