What Kind of Welfare State Is Emerging in China?

Ringen, Stein; Ngok, Kinglun

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-53377-7_8

Cited by 43 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…see Li ; Gao et al . ; Ringen and Ngok ) . Here, it is typically argued that the marketization of social welfare services and the privatization of social policy provision in China during the 1990s resulted in a host of negative consequences (Mok and Ku ; Leung and Xu ), which were addressed under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership (2003–13, henceforth: Hu‐Wen leadership) by implementing various social policy programmes in an attempt to facilitate social harmony and enhance its political legitimacy (Ngok ; Ngok and Chan ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Productivist Construction of Selective Welfare Pragmatism in China

Mok¹,

Kühner²,

Huang

2017

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses whether Mainland China under the Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership has developed a new welfare settlement, the emphasis of which is to shift away from a 'productivist' focus on education and healthcare investment towards a more 'protective' approach, characterized by investing into social protection and establishing a minimum living guarantee for both the urban and rural poor. In so doing, this article reviews the conceptual debate on Chinese social policy development and explores whether there is any evidence to substantiate a gradual decrease of fragmentation in social provision among the Chinese provinces. With regard to the former question, the article finds that the various social policy initiatives have yet to amount to a qualitative shift in the core foundation of the human capital-focused welfare production logic in China. With regard to the latter question, we argue that considerable fragmentation of social provision at the Chinese provincial level continues to hamper attempts to define a coherent Chinese social model. Indeed, we find considerable diversity in terms of the co-operative state-local interactions within China leading to varying trajectories of social decentralization. Unlike much of the current research in comparative social policy analysis, which continues to treat Mainland China as a single case, this article provides a strong account of a productivist construction of selective welfare pragmatism, which reproduces social policy gaps for different groups of the Chinese population, and suggests that determining multiple 'welfare types' within China might be the most fruitful path for future academic inquiry.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Productivist Construction of Selective Welfare Pragmatism in China

Mok¹,

Kühner²,

Huang

2017

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Insofar as the productive welfare state proactively pursues welfare reform and expanded coverage for economic ends, this does not characterize either the Korean or the Chinese post‐reform era. In reality, welfare reform in these periods occurred only when politically necessary and when investment in welfare schemes was seen to be affordable (Ringen, ). Additionally, the ability to use social policy as an effective tool for pursuing economic growth was progressively weakened as democratization occurred in Korea.…”

Section: Comparison Of Case Study Results With the East Asian Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike the majority of previous research, this study uses an institutional approach to examine pension reform in both China and Korea. The institutional (or historical–institutional) approach focuses on the constrained powers of different policy‐making institutions along the historical path of welfare state development, emphasizing the dynamics of both institutional legacies (path dependence) and institutional change (critical junctures and political contestation) (Pierson, ; Heo, ). “Path dependence” here means that policy decisions made in earlier times influence those in later times, limiting policy options available to policy makers in the present (Katzenlson, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergent Paths, Incomplete Models: Chinese and Korean Pension Development in Comparative Context

Xia

2015

Asian Soc Wrk & Pol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to investigate whether or not the East Asian welfare model (EAWM) can adequately represent China and Korea by examining the historical development of their pension systems. Since Esping-Andersen introduced his classic three-world classification of liberal, conservative and democratic welfare types, a wave of comparative social policy analysis in East Asia has emerged. Two distinct perspectives have prevailed within this field of research. First, a number of scholars have elaborated and validated Esping-Andersen's three-world classification by claiming East Asian nations are on a developmental trajectory that make them comparable to the Western cases upon which his study was based. The second perspective claims that unlike advanced capitalist states in the West, East Asian countries have constituted a distinctive welfare state model -the so-called "East Asian welfare model." This study argues that the development of welfare systems in both China and Korea makes apparent the weaknesses of the EAWM.

show abstract

“…Different from the socialist tradition of state's direct provision, the roles of the state in these new social programmes are as purchaser, regulator and enabler. This illustrates that, given the unful filled promises of neoliberalism, a form of hybrid regime w ith neoliberal (e.g., marketisation of social welfare) and conservative (e.g., social insurance) prac tices for social goals has emerged in China's social policy sector (Ringen and Ngok, 2013). TOWARDS SOLIDARITY AND RECOGNITION?…”

Section: The Crisis Of Neoliberalism and Social Policy Development Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Solidarity and Recognition?

Wen

2015

Asian J Soc Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the rhetoric of the post-war welfare state, citizens should have equal access to social benefits and protection based on human needs, rather than place of residence (Wincott, 2006). But under China’s socialist system and neoliberal reform, Chinese social citizenship has been eroded for various political and economic goals. Are there positive changes in Chinese social citizenship after a decade of social policy development? By interviewing 24 migrant college graduates working in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, the current study confirms institutional progress in social policy for people’s social protection. But these post-neoliberal social programmes are far from enough to help migrant graduates perform full social citizenship in urban regions. By studying social inclusion of educated but disadvantaged youth under neoliberal and post-neoliberal reforms, the study contributes to a growing body of literature analysing social citizenship and social policy in China.

show abstract

What Kind of Welfare State Is Emerging in China?

Cited by 43 publications

References 16 publications

The Productivist Construction of Selective Welfare Pragmatism in China

The Productivist Construction of Selective Welfare Pragmatism in China

Divergent Paths, Incomplete Models: Chinese and Korean Pension Development in Comparative Context

Towards Solidarity and Recognition?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About