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?

East Asian Welfare Regimes in Comparative Context

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.

Possible Explanatory Factors

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.

Thank you for your comments.