Search

Previous studies of East Asian welfare regimes focus on similarities between social security schemes. In contrast, this paper explores cross-national variations in public–private pension mixes in six welfare states: China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Our research echoes the pension policy analysis of international organisations but takes a step forward with emphasis on the historical and institutional characteristics of the respective pension systems. The analysis identifies three institutional patterns. First, the statist pension system (Taiwan and China) primarily relies on public pensions to provide old-age security, with private pensions playing a rather minor role. Second, in the dualist pension system (Japan and Korea) both public and private pensions work in parallel to ensure retirement income, though a clear security gap exists between workers in the formal and informal economies. Finally, the individualist pension system (Hong Kong and Singapore) is characterised by genuine fully funded individual accounts, emphasising citizens' own responsibilities for ensuring old-age security. These three types of pension systems demonstrate distinct institutional characteristics and policy outcomes, illustrated by the juxtaposition of their institutional structures as well as by the comparison of key indicators collected from government reports and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics. The paper concludes with a theoretical reflection of East Asian pension policies and a diagnosis of the distinct challenges confronted by each of the various pension patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study of recent pension reforms in Hong Kong and urban China particularly addressed three questions. What are the causes of the pension reforms in these two economies? What are their key features? What difficulties have been faced by the Hong Kong and Beijing governments during their implementation? As well as enhancing our understanding of the pension schemes in these two countries, the paper makes a contribution to the debate on whether government welfare reforms in responses to economic globalisation are converging on one pattern, an ideal mix of pension schemes. This paper shows that both convergent and path-dependent processes explain the forms of the measures introduced by the Hong Kong and Beijing governments. They have responded not only to the challenges brought by economic globalisation but also to the legacy of previous policies. Moreover, the welfare effectiveness of the new schemes has been undermined both by the two governments' non-welfare policies, particularly to promote economic growth, and by the constraints created by the previous welfare measures. The paper also argues that to develop only a non-contributory comprehensive pension scheme is not the solution to the problem of how best to provide old-age income security, but that this welfare goal principle should be more strongly upheld in pensions reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]