Is the East Asian Welfare Model still productive?

This paper seeks to answer two questions: (1) Is it still useful to think in terms of an East Asian Welfare Model (EAWM)? (2) Is it still helpful to characterize East Asian social policy as 'productive'? In relation to (1) the paper explores the value of the EAWM concept and why the idea has gained wide currency. It looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the concept. In relation to (2) the paper analyses the notion of 'productivism' as set out by Holliday. It then reviews recent developments in social policy in Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan to assess the significance of those changes. It argues that Korea is the test case for the productivist thesis. The paper's conclusion is that it may be more useful now to see these four societies as making up two clusters. Hong Kong and Singapore are still essentially productivist in their orientation. In contrast, there has been more change in Taiwan and even more change in Korea. Korea now seems more of a welfare hybrid than a clear example of productivism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]