Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia

John HUDSON, Stefan KÜHNER

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsBook ChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

John Hudson and Stefan Kühner Introduction Following the publication of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, the comparative social policy literature has been dominated by the welfare state modelling debate. One of the thorniest questions here has been how best to classify the East Asian states. Indeed, an early criticism of Esping-Andersen’s work was that it had misunderstood – and therefore misclassified – Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology (Esping-Andersen, 1997). While, as Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges, all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, several theorists – most notably Holliday (Holliday, 2000, 2005; Holliday and Wilding, 2003; Kwon and Holliday, 2007) – have argued that social policy regimes in East Asia can be seen as distinct from the three welfare regime types articulated by Esping-Andersen because of their productive – rather than protective – intent. This is a bold claim that presents a direct challenge to dominant approaches in the welfare modelling business. Those wishing to test the claim are presented with some significant challenges, however. Firstly, there are conceptual challenges. Following Esping-Andersen’s lead, the overwhelming emphasis of the welfare regimes debate has been on how nations may be classified into distinct worlds of welfare largely on the basis of the varying strength of protective social rights (see Hudson and Kühner, 2009). Indeed, Esping-Andersen’s original work (1990) focused only on traditional social protections and even his subsequent revisions (Esping-Andersen, 1999) did not add an analysis of education or labour market training policies in order lo capture the productive intent of social policy. If Holliday's (2000, 2005) claim that East Asian welfare regimes emphasize the productive dimensions of welfare is correct, then most existing classifications of welfare regimes cannot assign East Asian cases in a meaningful fashion. A rethinking of the basis of welfare regime types that combines both protective and productive elements is therefore necessary.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationNew welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring
PublisherEdward Elgar
Pages35-59
Number of pages25
ISBN (Print)9781849807524
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

welfare
ideal type
social rights
welfare state
capitalist society
typology
criticism
labor market
Japan
Social Policy
education

Keywords

  • Asian social policy
  • Asian studies
  • comparative social policy
  • social policy and sociology
  • welfare states

Cite this

HUDSON, J., & KÜHNER, S. (2011). Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia. In New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring (pp. 35-59). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849807531.00010
HUDSON, John ; KÜHNER, Stefan. / Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia. New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring. Edward Elgar, 2011. pp. 35-59
@inbook{aa3c8af211b3448b9a8086cb10e22148,
title = "Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia",
abstract = "John Hudson and Stefan K{\"u}hner Introduction Following the publication of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, the comparative social policy literature has been dominated by the welfare state modelling debate. One of the thorniest questions here has been how best to classify the East Asian states. Indeed, an early criticism of Esping-Andersen’s work was that it had misunderstood – and therefore misclassified – Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology (Esping-Andersen, 1997). While, as Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges, all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, several theorists – most notably Holliday (Holliday, 2000, 2005; Holliday and Wilding, 2003; Kwon and Holliday, 2007) – have argued that social policy regimes in East Asia can be seen as distinct from the three welfare regime types articulated by Esping-Andersen because of their productive – rather than protective – intent. This is a bold claim that presents a direct challenge to dominant approaches in the welfare modelling business. Those wishing to test the claim are presented with some significant challenges, however. Firstly, there are conceptual challenges. Following Esping-Andersen’s lead, the overwhelming emphasis of the welfare regimes debate has been on how nations may be classified into distinct worlds of welfare largely on the basis of the varying strength of protective social rights (see Hudson and K{\"u}hner, 2009). Indeed, Esping-Andersen’s original work (1990) focused only on traditional social protections and even his subsequent revisions (Esping-Andersen, 1999) did not add an analysis of education or labour market training policies in order lo capture the productive intent of social policy. If Holliday's (2000, 2005) claim that East Asian welfare regimes emphasize the productive dimensions of welfare is correct, then most existing classifications of welfare regimes cannot assign East Asian cases in a meaningful fashion. A rethinking of the basis of welfare regime types that combines both protective and productive elements is therefore necessary.",
keywords = "Asian social policy, Asian studies, comparative social policy, social policy and sociology, welfare states",
author = "John HUDSON and Stefan K{\"U}HNER",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4337/9781849807531.00010",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781849807524",
pages = "35--59",
booktitle = "New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring",
publisher = "Edward Elgar",

}

HUDSON, J & KÜHNER, S 2011, Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia. in New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring. Edward Elgar, pp. 35-59. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849807531.00010

Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia. / HUDSON, John; KÜHNER, Stefan.

New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring. Edward Elgar, 2011. p. 35-59.

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsBook ChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia

AU - HUDSON, John

AU - KÜHNER, Stefan

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - John Hudson and Stefan Kühner Introduction Following the publication of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, the comparative social policy literature has been dominated by the welfare state modelling debate. One of the thorniest questions here has been how best to classify the East Asian states. Indeed, an early criticism of Esping-Andersen’s work was that it had misunderstood – and therefore misclassified – Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology (Esping-Andersen, 1997). While, as Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges, all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, several theorists – most notably Holliday (Holliday, 2000, 2005; Holliday and Wilding, 2003; Kwon and Holliday, 2007) – have argued that social policy regimes in East Asia can be seen as distinct from the three welfare regime types articulated by Esping-Andersen because of their productive – rather than protective – intent. This is a bold claim that presents a direct challenge to dominant approaches in the welfare modelling business. Those wishing to test the claim are presented with some significant challenges, however. Firstly, there are conceptual challenges. Following Esping-Andersen’s lead, the overwhelming emphasis of the welfare regimes debate has been on how nations may be classified into distinct worlds of welfare largely on the basis of the varying strength of protective social rights (see Hudson and Kühner, 2009). Indeed, Esping-Andersen’s original work (1990) focused only on traditional social protections and even his subsequent revisions (Esping-Andersen, 1999) did not add an analysis of education or labour market training policies in order lo capture the productive intent of social policy. If Holliday's (2000, 2005) claim that East Asian welfare regimes emphasize the productive dimensions of welfare is correct, then most existing classifications of welfare regimes cannot assign East Asian cases in a meaningful fashion. A rethinking of the basis of welfare regime types that combines both protective and productive elements is therefore necessary.

AB - John Hudson and Stefan Kühner Introduction Following the publication of Esping-Andersen’s (1990) classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, the comparative social policy literature has been dominated by the welfare state modelling debate. One of the thorniest questions here has been how best to classify the East Asian states. Indeed, an early criticism of Esping-Andersen’s work was that it had misunderstood – and therefore misclassified – Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology (Esping-Andersen, 1997). While, as Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges, all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, several theorists – most notably Holliday (Holliday, 2000, 2005; Holliday and Wilding, 2003; Kwon and Holliday, 2007) – have argued that social policy regimes in East Asia can be seen as distinct from the three welfare regime types articulated by Esping-Andersen because of their productive – rather than protective – intent. This is a bold claim that presents a direct challenge to dominant approaches in the welfare modelling business. Those wishing to test the claim are presented with some significant challenges, however. Firstly, there are conceptual challenges. Following Esping-Andersen’s lead, the overwhelming emphasis of the welfare regimes debate has been on how nations may be classified into distinct worlds of welfare largely on the basis of the varying strength of protective social rights (see Hudson and Kühner, 2009). Indeed, Esping-Andersen’s original work (1990) focused only on traditional social protections and even his subsequent revisions (Esping-Andersen, 1999) did not add an analysis of education or labour market training policies in order lo capture the productive intent of social policy. If Holliday's (2000, 2005) claim that East Asian welfare regimes emphasize the productive dimensions of welfare is correct, then most existing classifications of welfare regimes cannot assign East Asian cases in a meaningful fashion. A rethinking of the basis of welfare regime types that combines both protective and productive elements is therefore necessary.

KW - Asian social policy

KW - Asian studies

KW - comparative social policy

KW - social policy and sociology

KW - welfare states

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/4785

U2 - 10.4337/9781849807531.00010

DO - 10.4337/9781849807531.00010

M3 - Book Chapter

SN - 9781849807524

SP - 35

EP - 59

BT - New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring

PB - Edward Elgar

ER -

HUDSON J, KÜHNER S. Analyzing the productive dimensions of welfare : looking beyond East Asia. In New welfare states in East Asia : global challenges and restructuring. Edward Elgar. 2011. p. 35-59 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849807531.00010