The development of “Islamic welfare regime” in South East Asia

Abstract

PurposeUsing evidence from Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Indonesia, the purpose of this paper is to explore how Islamic welfare regime notion evolves in a South East Asian (SEA) context.Design/methodology/approachTo gain a broad frame of reference in discussing Islamic welfare regimes in SEA, this paper employs a combined political-economic and cultural approach to analyze how Islamic welfare ethics in Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Indonesia are developed. The specific criterion used to make a comparative analysis of these countries is an interconnection between four levels of Islamic welfare actors (state, market, community and household/relatives) in providing social welfare.FindingsMalaysia and Indonesia have demonstrated the most balanced form of “Islamic welfare diamond” in the relationship between welfare actors, even as the state-centered welfare initiative continues to be expanded, while Brunei has taken a different route. A monarchical political system underpinned by high economic growth has enabled the state to play a major role in welfare distribution, rather than other welfare actors. For this reason, Malaysia and Indonesia are described as having an “Islamic inclusive welfare regime,” while Brunei is reported to have an “Islamic welfare state regime.”Originality/valueFor the purpose of theoretical advancements, there is no doubt that this paper has proposed an alternative framework to developing an understanding of how the Islamic ethical code is articulated in a wide range of welfare configurations within the “South East Asian context.”

Reappraisal of the political approach on East Asian welfare state development: the case of childcare expansion in South Korea

“…As a result, the outcomes of the developed welfare system are unclear and vague. Drawing on the Indonesian case in the comparative perspective and cases, previous studies (Aspinall, 2013; Yuda, 2019, 2020; Hadiz and Chryssogelos, 2017; Murphy, 2019; Rodan and Jayasuriya, 2009) corroborate this argument by showing that the early emergence of the expansion of social insurance in the post-crisis period came from the encouragement by insiders who were previously involved in managing and controlling assets and social security funds during the authoritarian government. The repercussion is the social security system in Indonesia was suffering from rent-seeking and corruption (see Figure 1).…”

Layanan dan Prinsip Syariah dalam Penyelenggaraan Jaminan Sosial Ketenagakerjaan di Indonesia

“…Perlindungan sosial menurut Spicker (2000) adalah sesuatu yang dibutuhkan untuk mengamankan apa yang sudah ada, bukan sebagai pengganti atau substitusi dari kebutuhan itu sendiri. Spicker (2020) (Yuda, 2020).…”

Bringing Indonesia into the global welfare regime debate: A literature review and future research agenda

“…In Indonesia, the development of social policies is not intended to replace the family as the primary source of welfare (Tonelli et al, 2021), going in the opposite direction to the East Asian welfare development, which increasingly also supports defamilization (see, e.g., Yu et al, 2019; Kühner & Shi, 2023). Instead, Indonesia's social policies are part of efforts to prevent the familial system from the risk of disintegration posed by the market (re‐familization; Yuda, 2020b; Yuda, 2021). Nevertheless, despite the differences, Indonesia's similarities can still be compared with East Asian countries due to the central role of the family and persistent gender inequality in production and social reproduction (Papadopoulos & Roumpakis, 2019; Roumpakis, 2020a, 2020b).…”

“…Kusujiarti (2012), for example, examines Indonesian welfare systems by discussing the Islamic view-dominated principle of social provision. Yuda (2020b) expanded on her analysis and reviewed the core principle of Islamic welfare, noting that it is grounded in a belief that the right to the welfare of every individual is the responsibility of all members of society. Due to this principle, Kusujiarti (2012) has predicted, based on the data she collected, that the institutionalization of the Indonesian welfare state would not have a crowding-out effect on social cohesion.…”