Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region

John HUDSON, Stefan KÜHNER

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsForeword / PostscriptResearch

Abstract

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 Hast Asian states (an early criticism of Esping- Andersen's work was that it had misunderstood and so misclassified Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology - see Esping-Andersen, 1997) but as the welfare regimes debate has expanded to encompass a much wider geographic area the debate has become more complex still, with a wide range of rival typologies having developed (Abrahamson, 1999, 2011) and debates continued over the most appropriate indicators (Clasen and Sigel, 2007; Kühner, 2007) and methods (Hudson and Kühner, 2010) for welfare regime analysis. While Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges that all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, some have questioned their utility even as a broad heuristic device (Baldwin, 1996). The present chapter critically examines the productivist dimensions of welfare beyond the experience in the Greater China region by looking into other European countries' welfare development.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationManaging social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition
PublisherAbingdon
Pages217-238
Number of pages22
ISBN (Print)9780415706346
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

welfare
China
typology
ideal type
welfare state
capitalist society
heuristics
criticism
Japan
present
experience

Cite this

HUDSON, J., & KÜHNER, S. (2012). Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region. In Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition (pp. 217-238). Abingdon.
HUDSON, John ; KÜHNER, Stefan. / Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region. Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition. Abingdon, 2012. pp. 217-238
@inbook{ed08b567d5b24c3aaa1099f1234bea2d,
title = "Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region",
abstract = "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 Hast Asian states (an early criticism of Esping- Andersen's work was that it had misunderstood and so misclassified Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology - see Esping-Andersen, 1997) but as the welfare regimes debate has expanded to encompass a much wider geographic area the debate has become more complex still, with a wide range of rival typologies having developed (Abrahamson, 1999, 2011) and debates continued over the most appropriate indicators (Clasen and Sigel, 2007; K{\"u}hner, 2007) and methods (Hudson and K{\"u}hner, 2010) for welfare regime analysis. While Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges that all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, some have questioned their utility even as a broad heuristic device (Baldwin, 1996). The present chapter critically examines the productivist dimensions of welfare beyond the experience in the Greater China region by looking into other European countries' welfare development.",
author = "John HUDSON and Stefan K{\"U}HNER",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780415706346",
pages = "217--238",
booktitle = "Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition",
publisher = "Abingdon",

}

HUDSON, J & KÜHNER, S 2012, Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region. in Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition. Abingdon, pp. 217-238.

Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region. / HUDSON, John; KÜHNER, Stefan.

Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition. Abingdon, 2012. p. 217-238.

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsForeword / PostscriptResearch

TY - CHAP

T1 - Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region

AU - HUDSON, John

AU - KÜHNER, Stefan

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - 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 Hast Asian states (an early criticism of Esping- Andersen's work was that it had misunderstood and so misclassified Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology - see Esping-Andersen, 1997) but as the welfare regimes debate has expanded to encompass a much wider geographic area the debate has become more complex still, with a wide range of rival typologies having developed (Abrahamson, 1999, 2011) and debates continued over the most appropriate indicators (Clasen and Sigel, 2007; Kühner, 2007) and methods (Hudson and Kühner, 2010) for welfare regime analysis. While Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges that all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, some have questioned their utility even as a broad heuristic device (Baldwin, 1996). The present chapter critically examines the productivist dimensions of welfare beyond the experience in the Greater China region by looking into other European countries' welfare development.

AB - 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 Hast Asian states (an early criticism of Esping- Andersen's work was that it had misunderstood and so misclassified Japan, the only East Asian nation included in his typology - see Esping-Andersen, 1997) but as the welfare regimes debate has expanded to encompass a much wider geographic area the debate has become more complex still, with a wide range of rival typologies having developed (Abrahamson, 1999, 2011) and debates continued over the most appropriate indicators (Clasen and Sigel, 2007; Kühner, 2007) and methods (Hudson and Kühner, 2010) for welfare regime analysis. While Esping-Andersen (1999) acknowledges that all classifications rely on simplified ideal types that cannot fully capture the complex reality of actual welfare regimes, some have questioned their utility even as a broad heuristic device (Baldwin, 1996). The present chapter critically examines the productivist dimensions of welfare beyond the experience in the Greater China region by looking into other European countries' welfare development.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/4781

M3 - Foreword / Postscript

SN - 9780415706346

SP - 217

EP - 238

BT - Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition

PB - Abingdon

ER -

HUDSON J, KÜHNER S. Conclusion : analyzing the productivist dimensions of welfare : looking beyond the Greater China region. In Managing social change and social policy in Greater China : welfare regimes in transition. Abingdon. 2012. p. 217-238