Narrow Results

Since Esping-Andersen [(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. New York: Wiley] classified 18 capitalist countries into "three worlds of welfare capitalism", comparative studies of welfare have been dominated by his work and the responses to it. This paper focuses on two important responses. Firstly, there is a criticism that East Asian welfare regimes have not been given sufficient attention in the study by Esping-Andersen (1990). Secondly, analysts have doubts about the assumption that welfare regimes have a high degree of internal policy cohesion. To make contributions to these two responses, two analytical tasks are conducted. Firstly, new health care, education and leave benefits policy domains covering 16 East Asian and European capitalist countries/territories are built. Secondly, evidence generated from these policy domains is used to inform the discussion of two arguments: (i) there is a lack of essential conditions for East Asian countries/territories to form their own unique category of welfare regime in the areas of education, health care and leave benefits; and (ii) welfare regimes have a high degree of internal policy cohesion.