Following the three welfare regimes constructed by Esping-Andersen, many scholars have addressed the question of whether there may be a further type of regime, differing from the categories of liberal, conservative and social democratic, pertaining to other parts of the world. Discussion has centred largely on East Asia and, in particular, on the notion of the developmental/productivist welfare regime. Yet these discussions have been based more on conceptual classification than empirical analysis. This article attempts to fill in the gap, with reference to the developmental characteristics of Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. A set of  indicators is developed for the factor and cluster analysis of  countries, based on data from the  s and  s. The results indicate the existence of a new group, consisting of Taiwan and South Korea, which is distinct from Esping-Andersen's three regimes -unlike Japan, which remains a composite of various regime types. Regime characteristics peculiar to the cases of Taiwan and South Korea include: low/ medium social security expenditure, high social investment, more extensive gender discrimination in salary, medium/high welfare stratification, a high non-coverage rate for pensions, high individual welfare loading, and high family welfare responsibility. When compared with Esping-Andersen's three regimes, the East Asian developmental regime shows similarity with his conservative model, in respect of welfare stratification, while the non-coverage of welfare entitlements is similar to his liberal model. There is virtually no evidence of any similarity between the developmental welfare regime and Esping-Andersen's social democratic regime type.

This essay in introduction is to the field of study, rather than to the present, itself distinguished, collection of papers. As such, it opens with a series of 'flashbacks': to the ways in which social policy, and the study of social policy, developed out of the interaction between Western welfare states (in this case Britain) and Asia Pacific. The main body of the article then charts the increasing presence of East Asian modes of welfare within comparative social policy, before going on to distinguish between the different types of approach to East Asian welfare study which have so far been adopted. Two sets of three-part criteria have been adopted for the purposes of classification: focusing first on the dimensions (single case studies of specific countries; East Asia as a region; East Asia in comparison with other parts of the world) and second on the level of issues (matters of policy; of welfare system; of welfare regime) characteristic of each study in question. The article concludes with a restatement of its purpose: not to question the adequacy of hitherto Western (notably, Esping-Andersen) approaches to the study of welfare regimes, but to demonstrate the need for a substantive extension to their scope.

No abstract

Using the 2008 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, this study examined the effectiveness of social welfare programmes in Taiwan. The empirical evidence shows that most types of social welfare spending were limited in 2008. However, the social welfare programmes that were in place substantially reduced income inequality in Taiwan. Using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) poverty threshold, the results reveal that 14 per cent of the sample's families were poor in terms of market income, but this figure decreased to 7 per cent after government intervention. Income inequality in Taiwan was similar to that of other East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea, but Taiwan spent much less money on social welfare programmes than OECD countries, and therefore Taiwan's reduction of poverty was much lower as well.

Globalisation, and its possible impacts, has been widely discussed and debated in Taiwan. The economic technocracies argue for globalisation, as a triumph of the free market and minimum state intervention, through measures of tax cuts, privatisation, deregulation, and so forth, as required to secure Taiwan's economic development in the future. However, rising unemployment accompanied by the new poverty requires more state provisions of social welfare. A strange policy orientation mixing tax cuts with welfare increases is proposed that precisely demonstrates the dilemma of the state between global competition and social reform. This is now a great challenge for Taiwan to balance economic and social requirements.