The productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism in China

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

1 Scopus Citations

Abstract

This article discusses whether Mainland China under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership (2003–13) has developed a new welfare settlement, the emphasis of which is to shift away from a ‘productivist’ focus on education and healthcare investment towards a more ‘protective’ approach, characterized by investing into social protection and establishing a minimum living guarantee for both the urban and rural poor. In so doing, this article reviews the conceptual debate on Chinese social policy development and explores whether there is any evidence to substantiate a gradual decrease of fragmentation in social provision among the Chinese provinces. With regard to the former question, the article finds that the various social policy initiatives have yet to amount to a qualitative shift in the core foundation of the human capital-focused welfare production logic in China. With regard to the latter question, we argue that considerable fragmentation of social provision at the Chinese provincial level continues to hamper attempts to define a coherent Chinese social model. Indeed, we find considerable diversity in terms of the co-operative state-local interactions within China leading to varying trajectories of social decentralization. Unlike much of the current research in comparative social policy analysis, which continues to treat Mainland China as a single case, this article provides a strong account of a productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism, which reproduces social policy gaps for different groups of the Chinese population, and suggests that determining multiple ‘welfare types’ within China might be the most fruitful path for future academic inquiry.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)876-897
Number of pages22
JournalSocial Policy and Administration
Volume51
Issue number6
Early online date2 Oct 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2017

Fingerprint

social policy
pragmatism
welfare
China
fragmentation
policy analysis
human capital
decentralization
policy development
leadership
health care
trajectory
education
guarantee
Social Policy
interaction
evidence
Group

Keywords

  • Chinese welfare transition
  • Chinese social model
  • Chinese social policy fragmentation
  • Welfare productivism
  • Welfare modelling business

Cite this

@article{0dd5a22741d24c3c9cfe1394636686d8,
title = "The productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism in China",
abstract = "This article discusses whether Mainland China under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership (2003–13) has developed a new welfare settlement, the emphasis of which is to shift away from a ‘productivist’ focus on education and healthcare investment towards a more ‘protective’ approach, characterized by investing into social protection and establishing a minimum living guarantee for both the urban and rural poor. In so doing, this article reviews the conceptual debate on Chinese social policy development and explores whether there is any evidence to substantiate a gradual decrease of fragmentation in social provision among the Chinese provinces. With regard to the former question, the article finds that the various social policy initiatives have yet to amount to a qualitative shift in the core foundation of the human capital-focused welfare production logic in China. With regard to the latter question, we argue that considerable fragmentation of social provision at the Chinese provincial level continues to hamper attempts to define a coherent Chinese social model. Indeed, we find considerable diversity in terms of the co-operative state-local interactions within China leading to varying trajectories of social decentralization. Unlike much of the current research in comparative social policy analysis, which continues to treat Mainland China as a single case, this article provides a strong account of a productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism, which reproduces social policy gaps for different groups of the Chinese population, and suggests that determining multiple ‘welfare types’ within China might be the most fruitful path for future academic inquiry.",
keywords = "Chinese welfare transition, Chinese social model, Chinese social policy fragmentation, Welfare productivism, Welfare modelling business",
author = "MOK, {Ka Ho, Joshua} and Stefan K{\"U}HNER and Genghua HUANG",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/spol.12337",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "876--897",
journal = "Social Policy and Administration",
issn = "0144-5596",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "6",

}

The productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism in China. / MOK, Ka Ho, Joshua; KÜHNER, Stefan; HUANG, Genghua.

In: Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 51, No. 6, 11.2017, p. 876-897.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism in China

AU - MOK, Ka Ho, Joshua

AU - KÜHNER, Stefan

AU - HUANG, Genghua

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - This article discusses whether Mainland China under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership (2003–13) has developed a new welfare settlement, the emphasis of which is to shift away from a ‘productivist’ focus on education and healthcare investment towards a more ‘protective’ approach, characterized by investing into social protection and establishing a minimum living guarantee for both the urban and rural poor. In so doing, this article reviews the conceptual debate on Chinese social policy development and explores whether there is any evidence to substantiate a gradual decrease of fragmentation in social provision among the Chinese provinces. With regard to the former question, the article finds that the various social policy initiatives have yet to amount to a qualitative shift in the core foundation of the human capital-focused welfare production logic in China. With regard to the latter question, we argue that considerable fragmentation of social provision at the Chinese provincial level continues to hamper attempts to define a coherent Chinese social model. Indeed, we find considerable diversity in terms of the co-operative state-local interactions within China leading to varying trajectories of social decentralization. Unlike much of the current research in comparative social policy analysis, which continues to treat Mainland China as a single case, this article provides a strong account of a productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism, which reproduces social policy gaps for different groups of the Chinese population, and suggests that determining multiple ‘welfare types’ within China might be the most fruitful path for future academic inquiry.

AB - This article discusses whether Mainland China under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership (2003–13) has developed a new welfare settlement, the emphasis of which is to shift away from a ‘productivist’ focus on education and healthcare investment towards a more ‘protective’ approach, characterized by investing into social protection and establishing a minimum living guarantee for both the urban and rural poor. In so doing, this article reviews the conceptual debate on Chinese social policy development and explores whether there is any evidence to substantiate a gradual decrease of fragmentation in social provision among the Chinese provinces. With regard to the former question, the article finds that the various social policy initiatives have yet to amount to a qualitative shift in the core foundation of the human capital-focused welfare production logic in China. With regard to the latter question, we argue that considerable fragmentation of social provision at the Chinese provincial level continues to hamper attempts to define a coherent Chinese social model. Indeed, we find considerable diversity in terms of the co-operative state-local interactions within China leading to varying trajectories of social decentralization. Unlike much of the current research in comparative social policy analysis, which continues to treat Mainland China as a single case, this article provides a strong account of a productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism, which reproduces social policy gaps for different groups of the Chinese population, and suggests that determining multiple ‘welfare types’ within China might be the most fruitful path for future academic inquiry.

KW - Chinese welfare transition

KW - Chinese social model

KW - Chinese social policy fragmentation

KW - Welfare productivism

KW - Welfare modelling business

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/6158

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85030262442&doi=10.1111%2fspol.12337&partnerID=40&md5=ec0c9e197545901e786649eaff2e77cf

U2 - 10.1111/spol.12337

DO - 10.1111/spol.12337

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 51

SP - 876

EP - 897

JO - Social Policy and Administration

JF - Social Policy and Administration

SN - 0144-5596

IS - 6

ER -