This article analyzes the politics of foreign care worker policies in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. In the face of socio-demographic challenges, these countries have responded differently to the increasing demand for hiring foreign care workers, creating distinct policies with respect to the origins of the foreign care workforce, the size of the foreign care workforce in the labour market, and job specifications. In this article, I argue that the interaction of female employment patterns, the public provision (or lack) of social care, and labour market policies in the care service sector determines the diverging political pathways of foreign care worker policies in these three countries over the past two decades.
This article seeks to examine the rapid rise of labor market dualism and inequality in Japan and Korea. It argues that the path‐dependent trajectories of labor market and social protection reforms biased in favor of labor market insiders explain recent institutional developments in the two countries. In Japan, political coalitions between conservative policymakers, large firms, and core regular workers in reform politics consolidated labor market dualism and inequality during its protracted recession. Meanwhile, the organizational capacity of large chaebol unions deepened the inequality and the segmentation of the dualistic labor market in Korea. By examining three key institutional domains of the labor market—labor market reform, wage bargaining, and social protection—this article analyzes the ways in which Japan and Korea have reinforced dualism and inequality over the past two decades.
Japan's labor market has been under severe strain over the past few decades, driven by its protracted economic recession, a series of labor market reforms, and changing labor management practices. Confronting these new challenges, an increasing number of young people have had extreme difficulties in searching for decent and stable jobs in the labor market, trapped in the vicious cycle of precarious employment. This paper examines the deterioration of employment and labor market conditions for Japan's youth after the collapse of the asset bubble in the early 1990s and the government's policy efforts to address these concerns, especially since the early 2000s, a period during which it has initiated a wide array of youth employment and labor market policies. In particular, it analyzes variations in policy target group and goal across different measures and evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of these programs in dealing with youth problems in the labor market. This paper argues that while the government has promoted various policy tools to help young people become economically and socially independent individuals, it has gradually shifted its policy focus toward human capital development for growth and industrial competitiveness as a way of revitalizing Japan's troubling economy.
In this article, I analyze diverging political pathways of labor market reform with an empirical focus on the cases of Japan and Korea. Despite similar trends of regulatory reform toward the increase of labor market flexibility, the patterns of labor market reform differed in the two countries. Japan adopted labor market liberalization for nonregular workers with the persistence of employment protection for regular workers. In contrast, Korea opted for regulatory reform for all workers while simultaneously strengthening workers' basic rights and improving protections for nonregular workers. I argue that the institutional features of the employment protection system determine the diverging patterns of labor market reform in Japan and Korea.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.