6 October 2009
Productivist model in Asian countries
By Fatkhuri
This essay discusses the nature of social welfare system in Asian Countries. By analyzing the nature of social policy in East Asian countries, the discussion will focus on productivist model. Prior to discuss this argument, this essay will explain the social welfare system by critically elaborating two articles by Oyunbileg Purev and Thilak Nandana Hettiarachchi. In this paper, I would argue that determines the nature of social welfare system in Asian countries consist of distinctive feature which is signed by productivist model.
To start with, Purev argues that the nature of social welfare model relies on economic, political, and socio-cultural factors. There are several approaches that Purev concerns in order to delineate the nature of social policy. The approaches are from Hill’s point of view such as determinist approach, political approaches, cultural approaches, and institutional approaches which can contribute to development(Hill 2006, p. 26).
According to determinist approaches, an economics circumstance is becoming a factor of welfare arrangement. In addition, Political approaches through a specific ideology of countries gives influences on welfare structure development. Furthermore, cultural approaches which are heavily relied on values, ideologies and religions rather than economic characters of citizen. Finally, institutional approaches focus on the institution that shape and structure policy developments.
Apart from these four main areas, Purev considers political factor is one of pivotal aspects that form welfare system model. In the very outset, she explains some factors which trigger the social welfare system which is one of them are political and socio-cultural. According to her, political approaches are a fundamental feature which contributes to the nature of social welfare model.
Like wise, Hettiarachchi argues that politics obviously shape the social welfare model. By looking at the experience of Scandinavian countries, Hettiarachchi points out that political principle are the significant aspect which shapes the structure of the Scandinavian welfare model. In supporting his argument, he use the analysis from Anxo and Niklasson who pointed out that the state’s political will was an essential element which can support the objective of full employment and equal principles (2006, p.342). For him, the model of social welfare was a consequence of the awareness of political preferences of the Social Democratic parties which were implemented in these countries.
However, Purev and Hettiarachchi have different argument about the character of social welfare model. Purev explains that the relationship between culture and social policy as essential factors in social welfare. She mentions that culture is elements which obviously bring social welfare within society. With this in mind, she quoted Baldock’s argument in which ‘Social welfare is an expression of values in so far as it distributes resources from those it defines as capable of contributing to those it defines as in need (Baldock 1999, p.459).
Taking culture as a central point which creates social welfare, Purev sees the elements of culture which consists of values, religion, belief and ideology as the model which succeed in coining the welfare notion. In this case, she looks at evidence of religious ideology affect on a welfare system in the catholic countries which have an emphasis on traditional ties. Accordingly, these countries have a better social protection for families with children. Different from this, she shows the fact that Calvinist Protestantism in UK, USA, Switzerland lies in the opposite direction. According to her, these countries inhibited welfare state development because it emphasizes control in one’s own spheres. Considering the Scandinavian countries as a model, according to Purev, religion clearly makes a contribution to the social welfare for society. For example, Lutheran religion in Scandinavian countries had a positive impact on the introduction of welfare state. In this regard, the state has a duty to take good care of its citizens, who in turn subject themselves willfully to the state and its demand for contribution to the common good (Oorschot 2007, p.135).
In contrast, Hettiarachchi looks at a different perspective according to which the history has become a crucial factor in shaping social welfare system. In this regard, he puts forward that historical factors that were involved with the development of the state bureaucracy of Scandinavian counties were heavily significant on the nature of the welfare provision, in particular, government dominance in the field. This is of course different from Purev’s perspective since Hettiarachchi argues that religion plays a less significant role in these particular maters. Secondly, according to Hettiarachchi state plays a pivotal role through tax regulation which is the most important source of income in public sector and thus funding of welfare. Thirdly, labor market conditions were also important in shaping the nature of welfare arrangements. He mentions that cooperation between the trade unions, employers associations and government led to the creation of a most centralized labor market. Furthermore, Demography is another important factor which determines the structure of welfare arrangements. Finally, Public attitudes and norms relating to welfare policy are crucial since they affect directly on the legitimacy of the welfare policy and institutions. Public support is considered to be the foundation of the Scandinavian model.
Considering these arguments, Purev seems to be bias since she much pays attention on culture as a determinant nature of social policy. In this regard, she also does not explain in detail about how the some approaches work in relation to development.
Similarly, Hettiarachchi does not provide a detail picture in which countries do the natures of social welfare mostly work because he merely use general case (Scandinavian countries) but he does not give a specific case such as in Sweden, Denmark and so forth. This in turn leads the vague argument.
Despite these weaknesses, Purev and Hettiarachchi give the clear understanding that the nature of social welfare model does not heavily rely on single element, but it rather consists of multifaceted components and perspectives, and this is the strength of these articles. Discussing the welfare model therefore is not merely an economic matter, but based on this explanation, it needs a broader perspective which encompasses politics, culture and ideology. Among other things, these kinds of elements lead to the same goals in order to bring development through social policy as the fundamental grounds. In terms of their writing style, both authors explain the idea in good coherence and clear argument.
Considering the welfare model social, however, the argument aforementioned can not be generalized across countries and nation. Looking at the case of Asian welfare model, it obviously shows the different trait.
Asian welfare model has a different feature of social welfare system in which its objective is on productive investment both in social as well as human capital development. These two aspects are run in the same direction. Aspalter argues that social rights in these counties are characterized by economic participation through market which is signed by low tax policy, job opportunity and net income high (2006, p. 297). In addition, the welfare model is reached by region rather than state. As pointed out by Wilding (2000), the welfare model in Asian countries is achieved by the regulation of social welfare which is implemented in the region rather than the state regulation (Aspalter 2006, p. 298).
Taking the East Asian countries into accounts, there are certain aspects of East Asian Countries which create social welfare model. In this case, Esping-Andersen (1997) and Jacobs (1998) point out that Market, enterprise and the family-household are considered as the important elements (Gough 2001, p. 177).
Firstly, Market is regarded a pivotal aspect since this shapes the rapid increase of incomes and a reasonable distribution of factor earnings which offers a high saving rate and growing private funding of welfare. As a result, both of these two aspects lead to low taxes and lack of public alternatives. Secondly, enterprise is considered as aspect which is characterized by social benefits, employment protection and seniority wages which play a significant role in social welfare system. This action is redistributed within family. Thirdly, the role of the family-household has arisen which can be traced from the elderly group who live with children.
Like wise, there are some other distinctive characteristic of productivist model which consists of three important elements. These three features are facilitative, developmental universalist and developmental particularist (Holliday 2000, p. 707). It should be noted that these three elements are considered as a sign which illustrate the differences from liberal, conservative and social democratic model.
The main characteristic of social policy in productivist countries is that social policy is strictly subordinate to the superseding policy objective of economic growth. This can be searched from minimal social rights with the extensions linked to productive activity, reinforcement of the position of productive elements in society, and state-market-family relationship directed toward growth (Holliday 2000, p. 708).
In terms of facilitative, social policy is subordinated to economic policy which espouses economic growth as main concerned. In addition, both social rights and stratification effects are very limited. Furthermore, Market has become major attention in which its existence becomes priority. The best example of this model is Hongkong. As pointed out by Holliday, Hongkong can be categorized as facilitative model in which this country implements a strategy for economic growth through free-market capitalism as a fortress (Holliday 2000, p.712)
In regards to Developmental-universalist, government plays a significant role in order to create social rights for useful elements of society and this immediately result in aristocracy of employment. As pointed out by Holliday, state is a central of dominant actor which imposes economic policy other than the market as well as family. For example, Japan is a country which implements this model. According to Goodman et all (2007), today the Japanese government is active in the spheres of medical care, income maintenance, social service and housing (Holliday 2000, p. 711)
Similarly, Developmental-particularist does not have social rights as well. In this feature, productive element within society has also become major attention by which adequate level of individual welfare condition is promoted which creates the advance of society’s position. Along side the market and family, in this regard, state provides a directive social role. For instance, Singapore provides the Central Provident Fund (CPF) as well as public housing as the elements of social policy. The CPF is a compulsory saving system which enables both employers and employees giving similar contribution for the amounts. In addition, the vast of program of housing clearly shows Singapore’s development in which the percentage of home for public increased from 9 percent to more than 86 percent between 1960 and 1996 respectively (Holliday 2000, p. 712-713)
To sum up, despite the fact that politics, culture and economy have become major factors which contribute to the nature of social welfare system especially in Scandinavian welfare state, however, the case of Asian countries shows different aspects of social welfare system in which not only market and family-household which has become a major roots in order to make social policy, but also state plays a directive roles toward economic growth. This role has become the fore front in leading social welfare model in the region to support economic growth.
Productivist model in Asian countries
By Fatkhuri
This essay discusses the nature of social welfare system in Asian Countries. By analyzing the nature of social policy in East Asian countries, the discussion will focus on productivist model. Prior to discuss this argument, this essay will explain the social welfare system by critically elaborating two articles by Oyunbileg Purev and Thilak Nandana Hettiarachchi. In this paper, I would argue that determines the nature of social welfare system in Asian countries consist of distinctive feature which is signed by productivist model.
To start with, Purev argues that the nature of social welfare model relies on economic, political, and socio-cultural factors. There are several approaches that Purev concerns in order to delineate the nature of social policy. The approaches are from Hill’s point of view such as determinist approach, political approaches, cultural approaches, and institutional approaches which can contribute to development(Hill 2006, p. 26).
According to determinist approaches, an economics circumstance is becoming a factor of welfare arrangement. In addition, Political approaches through a specific ideology of countries gives influences on welfare structure development. Furthermore, cultural approaches which are heavily relied on values, ideologies and religions rather than economic characters of citizen. Finally, institutional approaches focus on the institution that shape and structure policy developments.
Apart from these four main areas, Purev considers political factor is one of pivotal aspects that form welfare system model. In the very outset, she explains some factors which trigger the social welfare system which is one of them are political and socio-cultural. According to her, political approaches are a fundamental feature which contributes to the nature of social welfare model.
Like wise, Hettiarachchi argues that politics obviously shape the social welfare model. By looking at the experience of Scandinavian countries, Hettiarachchi points out that political principle are the significant aspect which shapes the structure of the Scandinavian welfare model. In supporting his argument, he use the analysis from Anxo and Niklasson who pointed out that the state’s political will was an essential element which can support the objective of full employment and equal principles (2006, p.342). For him, the model of social welfare was a consequence of the awareness of political preferences of the Social Democratic parties which were implemented in these countries.
However, Purev and Hettiarachchi have different argument about the character of social welfare model. Purev explains that the relationship between culture and social policy as essential factors in social welfare. She mentions that culture is elements which obviously bring social welfare within society. With this in mind, she quoted Baldock’s argument in which ‘Social welfare is an expression of values in so far as it distributes resources from those it defines as capable of contributing to those it defines as in need (Baldock 1999, p.459).
Taking culture as a central point which creates social welfare, Purev sees the elements of culture which consists of values, religion, belief and ideology as the model which succeed in coining the welfare notion. In this case, she looks at evidence of religious ideology affect on a welfare system in the catholic countries which have an emphasis on traditional ties. Accordingly, these countries have a better social protection for families with children. Different from this, she shows the fact that Calvinist Protestantism in UK, USA, Switzerland lies in the opposite direction. According to her, these countries inhibited welfare state development because it emphasizes control in one’s own spheres. Considering the Scandinavian countries as a model, according to Purev, religion clearly makes a contribution to the social welfare for society. For example, Lutheran religion in Scandinavian countries had a positive impact on the introduction of welfare state. In this regard, the state has a duty to take good care of its citizens, who in turn subject themselves willfully to the state and its demand for contribution to the common good (Oorschot 2007, p.135).
In contrast, Hettiarachchi looks at a different perspective according to which the history has become a crucial factor in shaping social welfare system. In this regard, he puts forward that historical factors that were involved with the development of the state bureaucracy of Scandinavian counties were heavily significant on the nature of the welfare provision, in particular, government dominance in the field. This is of course different from Purev’s perspective since Hettiarachchi argues that religion plays a less significant role in these particular maters. Secondly, according to Hettiarachchi state plays a pivotal role through tax regulation which is the most important source of income in public sector and thus funding of welfare. Thirdly, labor market conditions were also important in shaping the nature of welfare arrangements. He mentions that cooperation between the trade unions, employers associations and government led to the creation of a most centralized labor market. Furthermore, Demography is another important factor which determines the structure of welfare arrangements. Finally, Public attitudes and norms relating to welfare policy are crucial since they affect directly on the legitimacy of the welfare policy and institutions. Public support is considered to be the foundation of the Scandinavian model.
Considering these arguments, Purev seems to be bias since she much pays attention on culture as a determinant nature of social policy. In this regard, she also does not explain in detail about how the some approaches work in relation to development.
Similarly, Hettiarachchi does not provide a detail picture in which countries do the natures of social welfare mostly work because he merely use general case (Scandinavian countries) but he does not give a specific case such as in Sweden, Denmark and so forth. This in turn leads the vague argument.
Despite these weaknesses, Purev and Hettiarachchi give the clear understanding that the nature of social welfare model does not heavily rely on single element, but it rather consists of multifaceted components and perspectives, and this is the strength of these articles. Discussing the welfare model therefore is not merely an economic matter, but based on this explanation, it needs a broader perspective which encompasses politics, culture and ideology. Among other things, these kinds of elements lead to the same goals in order to bring development through social policy as the fundamental grounds. In terms of their writing style, both authors explain the idea in good coherence and clear argument.
Considering the welfare model social, however, the argument aforementioned can not be generalized across countries and nation. Looking at the case of Asian welfare model, it obviously shows the different trait.
Asian welfare model has a different feature of social welfare system in which its objective is on productive investment both in social as well as human capital development. These two aspects are run in the same direction. Aspalter argues that social rights in these counties are characterized by economic participation through market which is signed by low tax policy, job opportunity and net income high (2006, p. 297). In addition, the welfare model is reached by region rather than state. As pointed out by Wilding (2000), the welfare model in Asian countries is achieved by the regulation of social welfare which is implemented in the region rather than the state regulation (Aspalter 2006, p. 298).
Taking the East Asian countries into accounts, there are certain aspects of East Asian Countries which create social welfare model. In this case, Esping-Andersen (1997) and Jacobs (1998) point out that Market, enterprise and the family-household are considered as the important elements (Gough 2001, p. 177).
Firstly, Market is regarded a pivotal aspect since this shapes the rapid increase of incomes and a reasonable distribution of factor earnings which offers a high saving rate and growing private funding of welfare. As a result, both of these two aspects lead to low taxes and lack of public alternatives. Secondly, enterprise is considered as aspect which is characterized by social benefits, employment protection and seniority wages which play a significant role in social welfare system. This action is redistributed within family. Thirdly, the role of the family-household has arisen which can be traced from the elderly group who live with children.
Like wise, there are some other distinctive characteristic of productivist model which consists of three important elements. These three features are facilitative, developmental universalist and developmental particularist (Holliday 2000, p. 707). It should be noted that these three elements are considered as a sign which illustrate the differences from liberal, conservative and social democratic model.
The main characteristic of social policy in productivist countries is that social policy is strictly subordinate to the superseding policy objective of economic growth. This can be searched from minimal social rights with the extensions linked to productive activity, reinforcement of the position of productive elements in society, and state-market-family relationship directed toward growth (Holliday 2000, p. 708).
In terms of facilitative, social policy is subordinated to economic policy which espouses economic growth as main concerned. In addition, both social rights and stratification effects are very limited. Furthermore, Market has become major attention in which its existence becomes priority. The best example of this model is Hongkong. As pointed out by Holliday, Hongkong can be categorized as facilitative model in which this country implements a strategy for economic growth through free-market capitalism as a fortress (Holliday 2000, p.712)
In regards to Developmental-universalist, government plays a significant role in order to create social rights for useful elements of society and this immediately result in aristocracy of employment. As pointed out by Holliday, state is a central of dominant actor which imposes economic policy other than the market as well as family. For example, Japan is a country which implements this model. According to Goodman et all (2007), today the Japanese government is active in the spheres of medical care, income maintenance, social service and housing (Holliday 2000, p. 711)
Similarly, Developmental-particularist does not have social rights as well. In this feature, productive element within society has also become major attention by which adequate level of individual welfare condition is promoted which creates the advance of society’s position. Along side the market and family, in this regard, state provides a directive social role. For instance, Singapore provides the Central Provident Fund (CPF) as well as public housing as the elements of social policy. The CPF is a compulsory saving system which enables both employers and employees giving similar contribution for the amounts. In addition, the vast of program of housing clearly shows Singapore’s development in which the percentage of home for public increased from 9 percent to more than 86 percent between 1960 and 1996 respectively (Holliday 2000, p. 712-713)
To sum up, despite the fact that politics, culture and economy have become major factors which contribute to the nature of social welfare system especially in Scandinavian welfare state, however, the case of Asian countries shows different aspects of social welfare system in which not only market and family-household which has become a major roots in order to make social policy, but also state plays a directive roles toward economic growth. This role has become the fore front in leading social welfare model in the region to support economic growth.
