Abstract
Women, Welfare and Productivism in East Asia and Europe brings us an overview of welfare reforms in the context of individuals’ diverse and autonomous life-mix preferences. Using the life-mix framework as an analytical lens, the book furnishes theoretical discussions as well as empirical analysis across four policy domains: namely, childcare leave measures, early childhood education and care (ECEC), pensions and active labour market policies (ALMPs). A comparative perspective between countries and territories in East Asia and Europe (namely, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, South Korea, Sweden and the UK) is undertaken in order to explore the dissimilar life-mix tactics for forming different types of policy strategies on productivism and thus, the policy improvement for the near future.
In the chapter on ‘The Theoretical foundation of the life-mix framework’, the authors draw insights from the wide range of existing literature, including social exclusion, gender division of labour, de/commodification, de/familiarisation risks, social investment, and inclusive growth. However, the new dimension of the life-mix framework is more weighted on the core ideas of the capability approach (p. 32), which emphasises why individuals’ freedom needs to be enhanced and valued, and thus, how the welfare policies could respond to the issues concerning people's diverse life-mix preferences.
Given the remarkable expansion of welfare reforms, especially in East Asian countries (e.g., South Korea and Japan), where the fertility rates are dramatically falling and/or the female labour market participation is relatively lower and the gender wage gap higher compared to Western welfare states, the authors consider how the social policies have been shaped. Regarding which, the cultural characteristic of East Asian welfare regime, that is Confucianism, may explain the uniqueness of East Asian welfare regime. However, the authors are more focused on the productivist perspective in East Asian countries and territories, which suggests that ‘East Asian welfare capitalism has two features – it attaches huge importance to economic growth, and it stresses the subordination of social policy to economic and industrial policy’ (p. 53). Coordinating the productivist welfare regime with the male breadwinner (originating from the cultural idea of Confucianism) and two supported adult models (pro-work and pro-care), the book demonstrates why the life-mix framework is needed for reforming the current welfare provision not only for ‘pro-work’, but also, for ‘pro-care’.
The chapters on the policy case studies between the seven countries and territories take us to the policy implications, such as how the two supported adult models should be coordinated and/or what causes the weak coordination between these two models. For example, with regard to childcare leave measures and ECEC, a strong coordination between the measures in the two policy domains can create a ‘measure overlapping period’, which gives more autonomous decision making among women compared to when the policy domains create a ‘childcare gap period’ (p. 86).
In the chapter on ‘Women's life-mixes: Insights from two qualitative studies in Hong Kong’, the voices are powerful for understanding how working women in Hong Kong manage their life-mix preferences and deal with the challenges arising as well as what their expectations of the government are, in particular, in the context of young women reporting their experience in accumulating their pension income under the Mandatory Pension Fund. This demand/policy-user side approach involves probing existing policy and practice, thus informing effective future policy direction towards diverse life-mix preferences.
Perhaps there could also be more discussion on how the welfare resources should be redistributed in a ‘mixed economy of welfare’, especially where there is a strong influence of neo liberalism towards the marketisation of care. This is because the marketisation may overshadow caregivers’ (and the receivers’) autonomous preferences over work and/or care. For instance, we have observed extending publicly funded universal free childcare may not necessarily increase women's autonomous preferences, especially when the service quality does not specifically meet the parents’ satisfaction (see, for example, Ball and Vincent, 2005; Blomqvist, 2004; Lee, 2022; Morel, 2007; Williams, 2010). Taking this into consideration, the analysis of outsourcing care and the state's role could be further clarified in terms of redistributing the responsibility for it.
Nonetheless, Women, Welfare and Productivism in East Asia and Europe remains a hugely impressive work by recognising individuals’ autonomous preferences and thus, the possible impact of social policy interventions on women's decision between working and caring lives. It also should not be denied that the authors have contributed not only a remarkable theoretical framework, but also, exposed the actually emerging social policy challenges and the dilemmas faced in East Asia and Europe. Undoubtedly, the book has provided us with an effective policy compass at this challenging time for the social welfare systems in East Asia as well as the West.