Search results

This paper aims to present an introduction to the special issue titled “Old and New Challenges for Welfare Regimes: A Global Perspective.”

The authors of the special issue combine case studies and comparative analysis across America, Asia, Africa and Europe. The authors were invited to develop the authors'ir studies with a focus on one or more of three axes: (1) institutional and governance challenges surrounding the implementation and expansion of social welfare programs,; (2) state of the art and diversity across emerging welfare states and; (3) challenges associated with migration and demographic pressures.

Articles in this special issue contribute to the authors' understanding of recent challenges and transformations of welfare regimes, with special attention to the following policy areas: youth emancipation, the reduction of poverty and income inequality, social protection and taxation, the role of historical institutionalism to better understand social policy implementation and expansion, the lack of transformative social protection in “’New Right’” governments, determinants of social equality and the transformative effect of migration into welfare states.

To the authors' knowledge, the existing publications on transformations and challenges of welfare regimes are still very much centered on a Western European context. The global perspective and diversity of policy areas covered aims to shed light on the important lessons and policy implications from less traditional welfare states.

This article examines the determinants of social equality in the education and healthcare sectors in the 15 post-Soviet states. Focussing on regime type and civil society organisations (CSOs), it argues that countries where liberal principles of democracy are achieved or have a stronger civil society deliver a more equitable social policy.

The empirical analysis rests upon a time-series cross-sectional (TSCS) analysis from 1992 to 2019. Data are collected from the Quality of Government (QoG) Dataset 2020 and the Variates of Democracy (V-DEM) Dataset 2020.

The findings demonstrate that while regime type only partially accounts for social equality, as electoral autocracies do not have more equitable social policy than close regime types and democracy weakly explains equality levels, the strength of CSOs is associated with more equality.

The article challenges dominant approaches that consider electoral democracy to be related to more equal social policy and demonstrates that de-facto free and fair elections do not impinge on social equality, while the strength of liberal and civil liberties and CSOs correlate with more equitable social policy.

This article analyzes recent Japanese efforts to recruit care labor from seven Asian countries to identify the relative contributions to migrants and their respective countries' health systems. Besides considering the factors affecting migration from, and benefits to, sending countries, it asks how differences in the role of public and private actors may matter.

The study uses two stages of analysis. The first uses quantitative and qualitative data for seven countries that send care labor migrants to Japan to identify differences in benefits for individual migrants and health care systems in the sending countries. The second stage examines recent initiatives for funding care worker training in Japan to assess the relative impacts of different public-private cooperative arrangements, especially in terms of Vietnam.

In addition to general migration policy mechanisms provided by the destination country, bilateral relationships and foreign assistance, along with economic, demographic and health care conditions in the origin countries, contribute to the relative benefits of migration. Among countries supplying care labor to Japan, Vietnam is obtaining the most benefits for its health care system in return.

Responding to central concerns surrounding care labor migration, the article compares across countries sending care workers to a single country. The comparison highlights a constellation of factors that contribute the greatest benefits. The article identifies how different types of public and private relationships can influence this process. The study provides observations applicable to other welfare states developing care labor migration relationships.

This paper examines India’s tryst with welfare/dis-fare with a specific focus on Modi Sarkar's (2014–2019) dirigiste style reforms. In the welfare regime research, Esping-Andersen (1990) classified advanced economies into three ideal-types of liberal, conservative-corporatist and social-democratic welfare states by government-led welfare provisions and levels of decommodification. The classical typology discussions include countries such as India which is classified as informal-insecurity regime due to a large informal economy with no social security for workers. Based on theoretical standpoints of the political economy of welfare states, comparative historical institutionalism and critical junctures this article examines Modifare has expanded formal welfare to its citizens.

The article uses crisp-set analysis to examine the social policy developments under Modi's regime in India.

This paper examines if the centre-right Modi government did bring about a radical departure from UPA I and II lacklustre welfare approach to the more strategic use of welfare reforms as a political weapon on a national scale. It concludes that Modi-fare falls short in being transformatory.

The article is an original contribution to the field of comparative welfare regimes.