Social Investment Policies in Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea

Ito Peng

doi:10.1007/2288-6729-5-1-41

Abstract

Abstract This paper compares the social investment policy reforms that have been introduced by the two Anglo-Saxon liberal welfare regimes of Canada and Australia and the two East Asian welfare regimes of Japan and South Korea since the 1990s. The paper examines the causes of these social policy changes, and asks why these seemingly different contexts produce such similar policy idea. While all four countries share similar broad ideational template and language of social investment, they differ in terms of their target groups and policy instruments. Whereas Canada and Australia have focused their social investment policies on children through ECEC (what I call an “invest in the future” model); Japan and South Korea have approached social investment from a more general human capital and economic activation perspective (what I call a “human capital activation” model). As a result, social investment policies in these countries have targeted more broadly on children, women, and the elderly. I argue that these differences in social investment approaches stem from the differences in their social, political and economic contexts, and the political economic legacies.

Highlights

Since 1990, a number of welfare regimes in remarkably different parts of the world have developed surprisingly similar policy reforms
As an indication of how much policy thinking has changed, in all these countries governments are claiming that investing in children, women, and family is socially important, but that it is good for the country and the economy
There appears to be two distinct approaches to social investment: an “invest in the future” approach commonly used in Canada and Australia, and a “human capital activation and mobilization” approach more commonly found in Japan and South Korea

Summary

Introduction

Since 1990, a number of welfare regimes in remarkably different parts of the world have developed surprisingly similar policy reforms. Through tax incentives and tax subsidies for child care, social investment policies in both countries aim to reinforce parental economic responsibility, and at the same time, support human capital investment in children through primarily market-based ECEC services.

Results

Conclusion