• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.87-108
• /
• 2002

According to Neo-liberalism, the privatization of social security systems is pivotal for a country's economic growth and the wellbeing of its people, because such systems hinder the full operation of the market, eventually leading the national economy to collapse. The Chilean case of pension privatization is often cited as a good evidence for the Neo-liberal argument. Neo-liberalists say that Chile has experienced a rapid economic growth and retirees have enjoyed a much more pension payment since the national pension system was successfully privatized in 1981. The primary purpose of this article is to provide a critical review on the results of the Chilean pension privatization reform implemented in 1981. This study is intended to give an objective understanding of the reform because the existing evaluations, particularly those from the neo-liberalism, over-emphasize the bright sides of the reform. for this purpose, this article will pay a particular attention to the change in the level of pension payment after the reform. The conclusion of this study is that, contrary to the argument of Neo-liberalism, the pension reform has lowered the level of pension payment and, compared to the old public pension, has made the lives of ordinary retirees less secure. Reorganization of the social security system is more desirable than privatization as a remedy for the current problems of the welfare state.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.165-184
• /
• 2005

Japan has remained a welfare laggard among advanced industrial democracies. Therefore, the introduction of the public long-term care insurance(koteki kaigo hoken in Japanese) in April of 2000 looks very unique in terms of the Japanese social security tradition, because it can be interpreted as the expansion of social security system and the weakening of the market power over the livelihood of the ordinary people. In the era of globalization, in which even the highly developed welfare states are forced to shrink their social security systems, Japan, a welfare laggard, looks like being headed to the opposite direction. This article aims to define the character of the public long-term care insurance, and thereby, to evaluate the recent social policy of the Japanese government. This study follows the social democratic model in the study of the welfare state development, which assumes that, under the condition of a weak social democratic party and a fragmented labor movement, the introduction of the long-term care insurance is not equal to the improvement of the Japanese social security system. The main argument of this article is that the long-term care insurance, notwithstanding its appearance as an expansion of public sphere, is part of market-oriented neo-liberal social reforms, which have remained the main feature of the Japanese social policies since the mid-1970's. For this, this study will do a longitudinal analysis on the social consequences of the long-term care insurance incurred to the Japanese social security system for the long-term care, focusing on the income redistribution, the marketization of long-term care sector and the changes in the financial burden of the government, social insurers and general citizens.

• 한국사회복지학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.06a
• /
• pp.3-50
• /
• 2004

${\cdot}$ Recent social policy and labour markets debates in Europe, responding to the difficulties faced by the traditional neo-Keynesian welfare state settlement, stress the value of positive investment alongside de-regulation and greater flexibility as a way of achieving both economic and social goals. ${\cdot}$ Patterns of policy reform are complex and reflect differing national circumstances. A general move towards deregulation, constraints on entitlement to passive benefits, programmes to enhance employment, particularly among high-risk groups such as single parents and young people, targeted subsidies for low earners and casemanagement may be identified. ${\cdot}$ In relation to investment in education, research and development and combined training and benefit programmes to enhance mobility between jobs the picture is less clear. Education standards continue to rise, but research and development spending stagnates and few countries have developed substantial ‘flexi-curity’ programmes to support job mobility. ${\cdot}$ The labour market tradition in much of Europe has been one of conflict between labour and employers. As labour grows weaker, new approaches develop. These tend to stress productivity agreements and greater flexibility in work practices within firms and reforms to passive social security systems more broadly, but movement to support the more challenging investment and flexi-curity policies is slow. ${\cdot}$ In general, social and labour market policies in Europe stress deregulation and negative activation more strongly than social investment and ‘flexi-curity’. The countries with high growth and employment achieve that goal by different routes: Sweden has a closely integrated social democratic corporatism with high spending on benefits and training programmes and the UK a more liberal market-oriented system, with lower spending, highly targeted benefits and less mobility support. ${\cdot}$ Europe has something to learn from Korea in achieving high investment in human capital and R and D, while Korea may have something to learn from Europe in social investment, particularly flexi-curity and equal opportunity policies.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.28
• /
• pp.447-476
• /
• 2010

In the 1990s the intellectuals in China were transferred into global capitalism, and faced with the changes of society deepened by capitalism, and were forced to sign on it. The New-left proposed a question to the society of modern China being accelerated in the capitalism. The controversy with the Neo-liberal became the top issue of the 1990s' world of thought. According to the New-left, 'reform' should be attained not by capitalism of laissez-faire bringing up for wealth concentration, but by extending the democracy of political affairs and economy along with fairness guarantee of social distribution and avoiding widening the gap between rich and poor. Additionally, 'opening' should be reevaluated as a problem of considering difference and polyphyletic matter. Opening is not the meaning of accepting capitalism unconditionally and transferring into global capitalism. Based on these beliefs, the New-left criticize the socialism after reform and opening. In addition, the New-left discuss how enlightenment and modernity were understood and how they should be understood. The New-left reflect that the enlightenment in China was considered as the same as one in the western societies and emphasize the efforts of having been overcoming the contradiction of modernity through the Chinese history. As a result, the New-left seek out a new perspective and an alternative proposal beyond the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, western countries and China, and tradition and modern.