The Welfare State: East Asia in Global Conversation

This year, the Global Asia Research Center invited Professor Joseph Wong from the University of Toronto to give the mini-course “Welfare States: East Asia in Global Dialogue.” In this mini-course, he compares the evolution of welfare policies and socio-economic developments in East Asia, examining their similarities and differences with Western experiences and theories to facilitate cross-regional and cross-cultural global dialogue. The course consists of four main topics: The Developmental State and Social Policy, Democracy and Welfare, Challenges to the Welfare State, and Reaching the Hard to Reach.

The mini-course began with an exploration and comparison of the development of economic and social policies in major economies and East Asia after WWII. Long-term changes in the proportion of social spending to GDP across various countries indicate the steady expansion of global social policies. Professor Wong pointed out that this expansion stemmed from the central role of social welfare in economic redistribution, particularly in addressing inequality and relative deprivation in post-war industrialized capitalist countries.

Based on Western experiences, Gøsta Esping-Andersen classified welfare states into three types: liberal, conservative, and social democratic. However, East Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea do not fit neatly into these categories. Instead, their economic development follows the developmental state model, characterized by strategies like land reform and import substitution policies to drive economic growth while implementing welfare policies based on social insurance. Ian Holliday refers to this as the “productivist welfare state.” Professor Wong emphasized that in these states the mindset of the political elites should be considered. In democracies like Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party’s social policies aim to expand voter support, whereas in authoritarian regimes like Taiwan and South Korea, social policies were used to legitimize their rule. These political logics have created opportunities for social welfare policies to develop in East Asia’s economies.

Building on the discussion of East Asian welfare state classifications from the first session, the second session focused on how democratization has influenced the expansion of social policies in East Asia, with case studies of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Professor Wong highlighted how the unique trajectory of East Asian welfare states challenged the Power Resources Theory, which posits that welfare state development depends on union mobilization and the presence of left-wing social democratic parties. While strong left-wing parties are seen as critical for promoting universal social policies, their long absence in East Asia has not hindered welfare expansion. Instead, right-wing conservative ruling parties have led the expansion. Professor Wong attributed this to factors such as competitive elections, advocacy by experts, equitable economic growth, the formation of cross-class coalitions, and windows of opportunity.

As the course progressed, discussions shifted from the origins and expansion of East Asian welfare states in the 20th century to their development in the 21st century. During the turn of the century, East Asia’s simultaneous democratic and welfare state expansion stood in stark contrast to global trends, as many traditional welfare systems faced challenges. East Asian democracies appeared poised to enter a “golden age” of welfare, transitioning from limited, stratified protection to more inclusive frameworks. However, these optimistic expectations were soon met with the harsh realities of globalization and the post-industrial era, causing East Asian welfare states to follow a trajectory similar to traditional welfare states. Professor Wong identified factors such as economic globalization, declining state capacity, labor market dualization, and demographic shifts as key reasons for the stagnation of welfare expansion. He also highlighted the pressing issue of wealth inequality, pointing out that while past welfare states were founded on “fair growth,” rising gray incomes from real estate and offshore investments exacerbate inequality, potentially fueling political discontent. The class engaged in lively discussions on the impact of rising populism in East Asia on welfare policy development.

Differing from earlier sessions that focused on historical experiences, the final session explored the challenges welfare states might face in the future and the role of academia in addressing real-world problems. Through real-life examples, Professor Wong demonstrated that even when governments aimed to provide universal social policies, failing to identify and reach those in need could leave some marginalized groups excluded. How can states effectively provide social protection to the “hard to reach,” ensuring they don’t fall through the cracks of the social safety net? This issue aligns with the United Nations’ shift in development goals, from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of eliminating all forms of poverty everywhere. Professor Wong drew on The Reach Project at the University of Toronto and a blue carbon trading initiative in Kenya to illustrate how academia can collaborate with the private and third sectors to assist marginalized groups and adapt successful local solutions into scalable cross-regional strategies.

Reflecting on the week-long course, Professor Wong not only provided a theoretical framework for analyzing East Asian welfare states but also illuminated the intricate relationships between political and economic development and social welfare. He inspired students to think critically about the challenges facing welfare states today and encouraged them to transform academic research findings into actionable solutions to address real-world inequalities. Participants gained valuable insights and expanded their academic perspectives on East Asia’s political, economic, and social dynamics.

Note taken by Guan-Jie Chen, edited by Wei-Yun Chung