Abstract
The paper asks if East Asian welfare regimes are still productivist
and Confucian? And, have they developed public care policies?
The literature is split on the first question but (mostly) confirmative
on the second. Care has to a large, but insufficient extent,
been rolled out in the region. Political science studies tend to
conclude that the region has left the old legacies behind and are
now welfare states comparable to European states including them
either in the conservative type (e.g. Japan), the liberal type (e.g.
Korea) or even as a tendency in the Nordic type (e.g. China), while
studies focusing on outcomes or causal links tend to suggest that
legacies prevail, but there is (nearly) consensus that Confucianism
exercises great influence in the whole region.
and Confucian? And, have they developed public care policies?
The literature is split on the first question but (mostly) confirmative
on the second. Care has to a large, but insufficient extent,
been rolled out in the region. Political science studies tend to
conclude that the region has left the old legacies behind and are
now welfare states comparable to European states including them
either in the conservative type (e.g. Japan), the liberal type (e.g.
Korea) or even as a tendency in the Nordic type (e.g. China), while
studies focusing on outcomes or causal links tend to suggest that
legacies prevail, but there is (nearly) consensus that Confucianism
exercises great influence in the whole region.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Journal of Asian Public Policy |
| Vol/bind | 10 |
| Udgave nummer | 1 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 90-103 |
| ISSN | 1751-6234 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 2 jan. 2017 |
Emneord
- Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet
- East Asia; welfare regime;