Abstracts & Papers in Stream 2

Recently, it has become necessary to respond to 'New Social Risk' (henceforth 'NSR') which classical welfare states could not handle, as controversy on this has become a main issue in social policy. NSR is usually caused by the change in population structure, the labor markets and privatization of the social insurance. Thus, the demand has arisen to have a new version of welfare state, rather than to maintain classical welfare states (Esping-Andersen, 2002).

On the other hand, classical model welfare states under gender division which refer to 'male bread winner vs. female homemaker' cannot apply in our real life any more. One of the reasons is that the increase of working women has a great significance which converts the existing male bread winner society to a universal bread winner society. A further reason is linked closely to the demand of social caring through the decrease of childbirth by the progress of the falling birthrate and the ageing of society. As a result, the recession of the male bread winner model has caused the demand of a new role of the welfare states for work-life balance, and thereby a large range of opinion has emerged on new dimensional respond of states for 'socialization of caring'(Sona, M. & Rianne, M, 2002).

If so, what is the socialization of caring? It means the way to reallocate the responsibility about caring between state, market, and family. Traditionally the role of caring has been taken by women, but as can be seen above, various changes have become significant factors to transfer the existing hypothesis which had applied for current provision of care.

Therefore, it is very important to examine the process of socialization of caring to respond to NSR in each country after the restructuring of the welfare state. Above all, I would like to focus on the regime of the welfare state, and then to find out the reason in making different ways of socialization of caring, especially in South Korea, the UK and Sweden.

Proposed Research Aims and Questions
Therefore, my research will compare the reasons why there are different responses in making social care regimes in South Korea, the U.K, and Sweden.

In 2008, I already researched the comparison of responses in each regime produced during the restructuring process of welfare states, especially based on child care policy1. In this research, I compared the differences in responses between eight countries for socialization of caring shown during the restructuring process of welfare states with reasons in the sole field of child care policy (in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherland, Italy, France, Australia, the UK and USA).

Since then, I've realized that to focus on gender politics to find out the reasons of difference in improving care policy is required, which is one of the most representative policies in order to socialize caring labor, because it is the most momentous matter closely linked with women's participation of the labor market. Also, for restructuring of welfare states, discussion on the care policy can have a great significance for the important gender implication by comparing.

In line with these research results, I would like to highlight the gender politics in making social care policy in South Korea, the UK, and Sweden, and then to find out the reasons for different care regimes. These three countries have been classified with corporative, liberal and social democratic welfare states respectively, according to Esping-Andersen's studies (1990, 1999). What is more, we could establish welfare states follow 'path-dependency' generally through his discussion on the welfare regime. However, the types of socialization of caring during the restructuring process of welfare states have been shown in different ways between countries recently (Rianne Mahon, 2002).

Therefore, my central research question is why there are different responses in making social care regime, based upon the politics of gender, in South Korea, the U.K and Sweden. To investigate this question, the following specific research questions will be examined:

1. Why are there different responses in making social care policy in South Korea, U.K and Sweden?
- What is the difference in being socialization of caring between three countries after restructuring of welfare states?
- What are the reasons to make those differences in making social care policy?
2. Second, how different is the politics of gender in these countries in making social care policy?
- How have feminists' coalitions organized for supporting care policy in order to systematize the gender equality?
- How has the gender equality by the gender politics been extended in these countries?
Methodology and Approach

To answer these research questions, both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used.
Firstly, this research will include a literature review and case studies of three countries regarding the factors that affect the different social care policy decision based on the politics of gender. Also, the research will be built on documents including academic studies, statistics, laws, bills, white papers, green papers, newspapers, journals and information obtained from the Internet.

Secondly, secondary data will be collected from various sources both internationally and locally (e.g. publications & statistic databases from South Korea, the UK, and Sweden), while primary data will be collected by field research.


Full paper: sungheelee_2010_Comparing Social Care Policy in South Korea, the UK and Sweden.pdf

Literature on welfare expenditure in Western nations has a consolidated tradition in academic studies. Social expenditure has been analyzed both as dependent variable and as independent variable in terms of its determinants and its effects (Castles 2008); its importance as an indicator for determining welfare state typologies has been emphasized by many researchers (Arts and Gelissen 2006); finally, the wave of reforms scaling back national welfare commitments in Europe during the '90s and globalization threats have propelled a vast literature on welfare retrenchment (Korpi and Palme 2003, Castles 2007). While western scholars worry about methodological problems such as the use of different indicators and contrasting empirical results (Olaskoaga-Larrauri 2009, Kuehner 2007), related comparative research in East Asia is still lagging behind, especially due to the lack of comprehensive datasets.
This paper aims to compensate for this void by bridging the studies on comparative social expenditure with the literature on welfare regimes - specifically on the possibility of an East Asian welfare regime (Kwon 1997) - by providing empirical evidence.
Two questions are being addressed here: first, is it appropriate to speak about welfare retrenchment in East Asia? Secondly, what are the determinants of welfare expenditure in East Asia, and how well do Western theories fit for explaining it? The first issue will be addressed by comparing social expenditure trends disaggregated by function in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, to their western counterparts, relative to the welfare retrenchment literature. Theories on the determinants of welfare commitments will be checked for these countries via multiple regression, according to the welfare regime approach. Concluding remarks will speculate on what has been done and what needs to be done for both theory and data development on this important topic

Full paper: I Jin Hong_2010.pdf