Defamilisation And East Asian Welfare Regimes

Following Esping-Andersen’s famous three welfare regimes, heated debates continueuntil today, one of which is the existence of a particular East Asian welfare regime. Scholarssupporting and objecting to its existence are in diametrical opposition to each other andadopt distinct research approaches. To solve the limitations of existing research concerningon the ignorance of China and the problem of measures to East Asia, the paper constructs aset of variables with three dimensions (the female, the senior, the child) and two levels(family and state) to measure defamilisation. Cluster analysis and case study are adopted toexplore the existence of East Asian welfare regime, and the former are based on the levels ofdefamilisation of17OECD countries and5East Asian areas: Mainland China, Hong Kong,Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Four conclusions are made in the paper: Firstly, there existsan East Asian welfare regime and Esping-Andersen’s original three categories needmodifications. Secondly, it is inappropriate to apply the concept of family generated in aWestern context to East Asian society directly, as seniority lays the foundation for the EastAsian welfare regime. Thirdly, the East Asian welfare regime features high levels offamilisation and Japan and Hong Kong belong to positive familisation, while the other threenegative familisation. Fourthly, strong defamilisation on national level doesn’t lead to thesame thing on familial level but more chances for the elder. The emotional things contributemuch to whether the elder choose to live independently.