| Summary: | 博士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 社會政策與社會工作學系 === 91 === Abstract
Based on the conceptual framework of the welfare regimes stated in Esping-Andersen’s work The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, this study explores the substantial characters of the Developmental Welfare Regime presented by Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
As a comparative social policy study, both quantitative data and qualitative documents are employed. By historical analysis of East Asian societies and welfare development, the developmental/accumulative social structure was found. Indicators like the share of social security expenditure in GDP are used for cluster analysis. Data came from the relevant government and international organization documents, like OECD reports. The databases, including 15 variables and 20 countries, are organized and used for cluster analysis. A new cluster which differs form original three regimes proposed by Esping-Andersen is constructed. We name East Asian countries welfare regime as the Developmental Welfare Regime. To further explain development of East Asian welfare regime, a historical comparative method is ensued to show the characters of Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.
The main findings of this study are stated below. First, the Developmental Welfare Regime signifies a different regime from the three ones noticed by Esping-Andersen. Second, the core element of the Developmental Regime is named as economical factor. Third, there are four characters of the Developmental Welfare Regime: ‘social policy submits to economic development’, ‘development as a mechanism in redistributing wealth and reducing welfare need’, ‘discrimination comes from the different function and contribution for development’, ‘high level in individual, family and community welfare provision’.
There are two parts in comparing the Development Welfare Regime with other regimes. Firstly, from the core element perspective, the Developmental Welfare regime is characterized as low level in de-commodification, small scale in market, and medium level in welfare stratification. Secondly, we construct all four regimes to a model in two dimensions are ‘strength of public welfare intervention’ and ‘level of provision in public welfare’. Finally, we suggest some further research topics.
|
|---|
