Ageing, Demography, and Welfare States in China and India: Familial and Social Transitions

全球化是近十年來在社會發展與學術研究中最重要的現象與議題之一，也是當前比較社會政策中的一個重要研究領域。但這些研究仍集中在以西方福利國家為範圍。雖有部分研究將東亞國家納入，但束亞國家並未被置於重要的位置。 本文以東亞的日本、韓國與台灣為範圍，並集中於九○年代的社會政策變遷與發展，進行三國有關全球化與社會政策變遷的討論。本文的研究目的有三：(l)探析日、韓、台三國的經濟全球化程度。 (2)討論日、韓、台三國在九○年代的社會政策變遷。(3)探析日、韓、台三國在經濟全球化與社會政策變遷的關連。 本文發現：(1)日韓台三國均有勞動市場彈性化與去管制化的變化，即反應了全球化增加勞動市場的風險。(2)在福利擴張／縮減上，日本有福利縮減與擴張的現象，台灣和韓國則是福利擴張的。(3)在束亞三國的經驗中，國家既有的福利水準以及合債規模，限制／開放國家在面對全球化壓力中的社會政策選擇，而成為影響政策變遷的重要可能因素。最後研究者建議以國家既有的福利水準以及公債規模為控制變項，再進行跨國的研究。

Since the foundation of the Dutch welfare state in the nineteenth century, the distinction between government and market has been object of discussion. In the first welfare arrangements, the role of the government was subsidiary to that of private initiatives. The churches looked after the poor and the employers and employees developed funds to cover employment related risks. The main idea was that state regulation should not stand in the way of these private initiatives. During the twentieth century the government increased its role in the provision of welfare. The public welfare state reached its peak at the end of the twentieth century. Currently, the Dutch welfare state is confronted with a process of privatisation. We witness the development of a regulatory welfare state.Discussions regarding the optimal mix between public and private elements in the welfare state have played an important role in the design of the Dutch welfare state up until today. Although nowadays the government is the most important provider of social security benefits, private elements are introduced by the privatisation of, for example, the reintegration market and employment related risks. The idea behind this process of privatisation is that it makes private actors more aware of the costs involved with illness and inactivity, which induces them to take preventive measures. In other words, the introduction of private elements in the welfare state is believed to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. The shift in balance from government to market does, however, raise questions with regard to the extent to which other public interests are secured. For example, to what extent is the solidarity between employees with a high and low risk of getting ill guaranteed?The consequences of the development of the regulatory welfare state for the securing of public interests are the object of this research. We investigated the development of the Dutch welfare sector into a regulatory welfare state and the public interests that justified the intervention of the government. The question we want to answer is whether or not the regulatory welfare state is capable of securing these public interests.One of the results of our research is that the development of the welfare state is based on conflicting public interests. The public interest that dominates the debate, changes over the years. In the early years of the welfare state, the realisation of income protection was an important public interest. Nowadays the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenses, combined with a high value that is attached to labour participation, dominate government regulation.The development of the regulatory welfare state can be regarded as a response to this shift in public interests. Although in theory, the introduction of private elements in a formerly public welfare system does not have to impair the securing of a wide range of public interests, we show that that the regulatory welfare state is not fully capable of correcting the perverse effects of the private market.

The article studies the development and performance of the Japanese welfare state to analyse the successes and failures of Japanese decisions in the field of social policy. The study covers emergence and change of pension and health insurance programs, social support measures, demographic programs and the long-term care insurance. The education system in Japan is assessed. The administrative architecture of the welfare state is studied. Political bargaining over the rules of the welfare state is considered, from the creation of the system to its optimisation because of the population aging and the slowdown of the economy. The study compares effectiveness of social programs in Japan and in other countries. The culture-specific features of the Japanese social policy are assessed to explain the limits for possible implementation of the Japanese decisions in other countries. The effectiveness of social programs is studied on the basis of quantitative indicators reflecting their functioning, such as the level of health of the population and health care costs, incomes of elderly citizens, student achievements in comparison with other countries. The welfare state in Japan followed the example of Germany. Social policy in Japan does not fall behind the European systems. The health care system in Japan is one of the best in the world. Insurance mechanisms work effectively, the share of direct payments is small and lower than the average among developed countries. The education system also shows good results. The pension system lags behind in terms of the expected level of income replacement, and also faces problems due to the aging population. The welfare state in Japan effectively supports citizens, but faces serious pressure from economic and demographic factors, which leads to tightening of rules to maintain the sustainability of the system.

This article addresses the question of how unexpected national and international emergencies — the ‘black swans’ of war, economic depression, hyperinflation and, more prospectively and topically, terrorist incidents and environmental catastrophes — affect the character of welfare state interventions and welfare state development. We do have clear evidence of such effects in the past: hyperinflation in Germany made that country particularly inflation averse; the Great Depression was a stimulus to welfare state development in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand; and the Second World War was a key factor in the subsequent development of the post-war British welfare state. However, the impact of emergencies is, at best, a very minor theme of welfare state analysis and one largely left to historians of the welfare state, suggesting that such effects are no longer considered to be a major factor shaping welfare state development and that welfare states are like ‘elephants on the move’, rarely significantly thrown off course by particular events. The article speculates on why that might be, noting the importance of the timing of the emergency, its type, size, and the extent and character of prior welfare provisions. The article concludes by examining the implications of this analysis for our understanding of the likely impact of possible future emergencies of a terrorist or environmental character and of the proper political response to such emergencies.

This article discusses relationship between welfare state and cohesion of national society comparing France, Sweden and Italy. Two main types of are identified in long term development of European welfare states: solidarity and solidarity. The first type is more congruent with occupational or welfare state grounded on the principle of work (and on system of insurances); second one is more congruent with welfare state and principle of social citizenship . Moreover, two recent trends of restructuring welfare state are recalled: decentralization of welfare institutions to regional and local levels and growing role of European Union in this field. Both these trends favour growth of citizens solidariety and of principle of citizenship. France and Sweden are examined as two cases of strong cohesion of national society, although grounded on different types of and welfare state. In Sweden, which developed early a universalistic welfare state, recent trends of restructuring welfare state reinforce already strong cohesion of national society. In France, on other side, this cohesion rests upon a corporatist welfare state and a persistent workers solidarity: in this case recent trends seem to involve only functional adjustments of system. Compared to France and Sweden, Italy has a mixed and less inclusive welfare state, along with a much weaker cohesion of its national society: in this case question is whether recent trends of restructuring welfare state will help (or not) to develop a more organic welfare system and a stronger cohesion of society.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Assessing Welfare Reform, Over a Decade Later

The cultural foundations of welfare state policies and their contribution to the development of welfare states are gaining increasing attention in comparative welfare state research. The article introduces reflections on how the impact of cultural factors on the development of welfare state policies can be analysed. Three different levels be distinguished with regard to the relationship between welfare culture and welfare state policies: 1) values and models on which welfare state policies are based; 2) values and models for the welfare state that are dominant in the population; 3) discourses of social actors in relation to such values and models. Cultural change can contribute to change in welfare state policies according to two different types of processes. Moreover, when analysing the influence of globalisation on the development of welfare states it is important to analyse the controversial influence of neo-liberal values on welfare culture and the discourses established by political elites to propagate such values.

Introduction

To what extent is globalization given an institutionally elaborated definition in studies on its welfare, welfare state and/or social policy impacts published since 1995? And, is it seen to inhibit or stimulate welfare (state) development? These questions are addressed through a study sample ( N = 161) from the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, subjected to combinatory analysis similar to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) using a pre-typological classification of definition components. Disaggregated definitions oriented to relations and actors (most often trade and/or competition as well as international organizations) coincide with polarized welfare (state) impacts, envisioned or real, of globalization. Positive overall globalization impacts are rare in this literature. Mixed or zero impacts claims are more common in studies including an arena-related component (often global market integration) in defining globalization, possibly indicating less determinism in views thereof, but also conventionalism in perspectives on markets. Future research needs more methodological rigour and scepticism of overgeneralized assertions on globalization's impacts.

I develop here an analysis of the contemporary welfare state in advanced industrial democracies. The central thesis is that mature welfare states have their structures and benefits woven into social structures that they themselves have reshaped. This makes it difficult to dismantle or roll back welfare states even when governments of the ideological persuasion of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan attain office. Welfare states, whatever their institutional differences, are deeply integrated into the social and political structure of contemporary industrial societies. In an important sense, the analysis implies that the form or character of these contemporary industrial democracies has been transformed significantly by the development of welfare states, that is, substantial state intervention into the political economy and social structures. Allowing for some variation among countries, the division between state and economy is much less clearcut than in the nineteenth century or in the pre-1945 period. However, welfare states do not constitute simply a further stage of capitalist development and level of state intervention but a more fundamental restructuring of these countries. Through an examination of the contemporary form of welfare states and social structures greater purchase upon recent political developments, including the advent of ideologically conservative governments, can be attained. Indeed, without analyzing the form of the welfare state and its integration into advanced industrial democracies it is difficult to explain, for example, why the Thatcher and Reagan administrations have been less effective than they desired in retrenching welfare state expenditures and commitments. It is because the latter are an integral part of society (both culturally and structurally) that such attacks are unlikely to succeed.

One of the sharpest criticisms of welfare state research is insufficient attention to factors relating to gender relations and inequalities. Recent scholarship has begun to address welfare state effects on gender-related outcomes, but the evaluation of theories of welfare development with respect to gender factors is somewhat less developed, leaving open a number of important questions regarding gender as a mechanism behind welfare state development. Using established theoretical perspectives as a baseline model, this study evaluates the effects of women's political power on welfare state effort within 12 capitalist democracies. Cross-sectional time-series analyses of OECD data provide evidence for the impact of women's political representation on levels of social expenditure. Further, women's political representation mediates a portion of the effects of women in the labor force. We discuss implications for extending welfare state theory and for refining the role of gender-related mechanisms in welfare state development.

Countries cumulate very different experiences on welfare state development and change and the process dominant in one context may not be consistent over time. How welfare states develop and change has partly to do with changes in the need and demand for social protections as well as those in political attitudes and preferences that dictate policy actions and decisions. An integral component of how welfare states change can also be ethnic heterogeneity as it can affect both the economic contexts of needs and demands and the political contexts of attitudes and preferences. Yet, while the existing theories of the welfare state underscore these political and economic contexts of social protection, they fail to adequately link welfare state developments and changes with the changes in ethnic heterogeneity. Given the major changes in welfare state policy provisions and practices, coupled by a landscape of growing ethnic heterogeneity in high-income countries, it is important to examine if this form of social heterogeneity can be a significant factor in thinking about the needs and demands as well as the political attitudes and preferences, which help shape and reshape welfare state policies.

Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world in area and the fifth most populous. The Brazilian voluntary Bone Marrow Donor Registry is the third largest in terms of number of donors in the world, being a valuable source of HLA genetics to characterize the donor population of Brazil as well. The genetic background of the Brazilian population is quite heterogeneous, resulting from 5 centuries of admixture among Native Americans, Europeans and Africans, making the Brazilian population unique in terms of genetic ancestry. The unique characteristics of populations in different Brazilian regions make them an exciting focus for genetic diversity studies. Studies on HLA genetic diversity of Brazilian populations have been conducted since the late 1980s and, in this review, we highlight the main findings from studies carried out in Brazil based on classical HLA. In addition, we calculated the genetic distance from the molecular data of the studies included in this review in order to have a broader view of the HLA diversity in Brazilian populations. We emphasize that characterization of HLA diversity is not only important for transplantation programs, but can shed a light on ancestry, history and other demographic patterns with or without association with autoimmune disease.

Solidarity without the State? Business and the Shaping of the Swiss Welfare State1890–2000Leimgruber, MatthieuCambridge, Cambridge University Press (2008), 330p., ISBN 9780521875400 (hardback) and ISBN 9781107405448 (paperback)

Introduction Looking back at history, we have a tendency to impute values to welfare state arrangements that were not necessarily part of the motivation of political actors when they designed and implemented social policy. For instance, for many people the first and foremost association with the welfare state concerns values such as equality, solidarity, and social justice. And surely, socialists used to underpin their reform proposals with references to these values. For others, however, the welfare state is primarily about collective solutions to social needs and misery, and about social order. And indeed, many of the liberal, conservative, and Christian social reformers saw themselves as pragmatic politicians experimenting with social laws that would substitute for charity and other traditional forms of social security. Still others tend to stress the social control and discipline that are exerted through social legislation. And yes, the rich did see poverty and deficient urban sanitation as threats to their own safety and health, and they did fear the revolting masses and hoped to quiet them down with social policy. Such considerations can be seen as social actors’ motivations or as important effects and forms of modern social policy in the welfare state. With the benefit of hindsight and with better theoretical understanding of developments in various nations, we may be able to capture what we propose to call the rationales or logics of the welfare state: a conscious reconstruction by us as researchers of what we consider to be the main motivations, driving forces, considerations, values, and causal mechanisms behind welfare state development. With the idea of a rationale or logic, we do not claim any historical specificity or possibility of social scientific generalization. Rather, we introduce a heuristic device that can help us reveal and stylize analytically the complex political interconnections between the motivations of social and political actors (ideas, interests, power, etc.), driving forces (demographics, democratization, globalization, etc.), public policy considerations (security, health, efficiency, affluence, etc.), values (equality, solidarity, freedom, autonomy, etc.), and causal mechanisms (power mobilization, elections, policy learning, etc.). With these logics, we can sketch the broader context of the political opportunities and constraints of welfare state reform and answer the first big question: why did we need a welfare state in the first place and how did we get it?