This Special Issue takes on a new cross-regional comparison between Southern Europe and East Asia in an attempt to identify 'new politics' of welfare state adjustments. Departing from the previous literature that overemphasized regional peculiarities of East Asian and Southern European welfare states, our Special Issue highlights family resemblances-among Italy, Japan, Korea and Spain. We argue that these four welfare states-often labelled as 'familialist'-share key common characteristics, which in turn experienced very similar policy problems in recent years. Interestingly, despite their initial similarities, these four countries have been trying to cope with new policy problems in different ways. In this process, some are clearly becoming less familialist. The main aim of this introductory article is to demonstrate the theoretical advantages based on the new cross-regional comparison. This article proceeds in three steps. First, it establishes the usefulness of the concept of family resemblances in our cross-regional comparison. Second, it presents a brief historical account of recent policy differences across the four countries going beyond familialism and shows that the existing theories fail to account for the new divergences. Third, it provides the overview of the Special Issue by explaining the research puzzles each paper tackles. We argue that these four welfare states, which are moving beyond familialism to varying degrees, represent heuristically helpful cases to explore the effects of both domestic and international political factors.

Outsourcing has been a key policy tool for delivering a range of social services, and regarded as more effective than insourcing or direct government provision. At the same time, it has also caused many delivery issues such as principal‐agent problems, a lack of policy coordination, and poor‐quality welfare services. While the pendulum continues to swing between insourcing and outsourcing, we aim to propose a new public–private partnership model called the “hybrid insourcing model” and examine which factors influence the performance of the model. In South Korea, around 2010, the local government in Namyangju City was the first to implement the “Hope Care Center model,” a kind of hybrid insourcing model, which has been praised for its innovation and widely emulated by central and local governments. Our analysis utilizes data collected between December 2017 and January 2018 from public sector employees and civilian staff in Namyangju and a comparable city, A. From this, we draw a number of implications, both for theory and for policy. We argue that, for public–private partnerships, active cooperation and equality are the biggest factors in contributing to positive performance. These work alongside leaders with a clear vision and with employees' positive attitude.

Revisiting the seminal study of March and Olson (1983), this article aimed to empirically test whether or not government reorganizations at the ministerial level can be better explained by political factors than administrative and functional rhetoric. Government reorganizations have often been understood as functional adaptations to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness, but little empirical research has been conducted on their political context. By analyzing pooled‐time series data from 30 OECD countries from 1980–2014 taken from the Statesman's Yearbook, this article sought to examine whether changes in political power are associated with government reorganizations and whether their intensity is affected by the country's political system (parliamentarism or presidentialism), transitions of administrative power, and political cycles of the top executive's tenure. The results suggested that government reorganizations are more likely to occur in parliamentary systems, after transitions of political power, and at the beginning of the top executive's tenure.

This study aims to understand the nature of workfare, a keyword in recent debates on social welfare reform. Workfare, ore a work requirement for receiving public assistance benefit, is understood as a concept containing neoliberal ideas in the restructuring of the welfare state. However, different people interpret the concept diferently. Liberal or leftwing intellectuals regard it as a means to empower the poor (i.e. rehabilitative-empowering workfare). As the political right surge in the political society, the nature of workfare programs tend to slip into deterrent workfare in the US, culminating in the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. This study assesses the new law and seeks to understand the Korean public assistance program(i.e. the National Basic Livelihood Security Scheme, NBLSS) in light of the US experience. It argues that the workfare element of the NBLSS is less deterrent than the US PRWORA, and thus that empowering workfare is a viable option in the development of the Korean public assistance programs.