Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Acknowledgements
- Glossary of Japanese terms
- Notes on contributors
- Introduction
- one Issues and theories of social policy in Britain: past, present and future
- two Development of social policy in Japan
- three Ageing and intergenerational relations in Britain
- four Ageing and intergenerational relations in Japan
- five Domestic violence, research and social policy in Britain
- six Domestic violence in Japan: perceptions and legislation
- seven Housing and social inequality in Britain
- eight Housing policy and social inequality in Japan
- nine The production of homelessness in Britain: policies and processes
- ten Homelessness in contemporary Japan
- eleven Women’s health politics in Japan and Britain: comparative perspectives
- twelve Women and health in Japan: sexuality after breast cancer
- Index
- Also available from The Policy Press
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Acknowledgements
- Glossary of Japanese terms
- Notes on contributors
- Introduction
- one Issues and theories of social policy in Britain: past, present and future
- two Development of social policy in Japan
- three Ageing and intergenerational relations in Britain
- four Ageing and intergenerational relations in Japan
- five Domestic violence, research and social policy in Britain
- six Domestic violence in Japan: perceptions and legislation
- seven Housing and social inequality in Britain
- eight Housing policy and social inequality in Japan
- nine The production of homelessness in Britain: policies and processes
- ten Homelessness in contemporary Japan
- eleven Women’s health politics in Japan and Britain: comparative perspectives
- twelve Women and health in Japan: sexuality after breast cancer
- Index
- Also available from The Policy Press
Summary
Comparing Britain and Japan
This volume aims to provide a new perspective on social policy in Britain and Japan, by comparing policies shared between the two countries. Existing comparative research on welfare, welfare states and social policy tends to focus on European and/or English-speaking countries, such as the US and Australia, reflecting the dominance of a ‘western paradigm’ in academic and popular discourses (see Walker and Wong, 1996). However, Japan has an established but somewhat different welfare system from Britain, with well-practised occupational, family and community welfare. Therefore, interesting contrasts can be drawn with East Asia by comparing such dissimilar cultures and socioeconomic situations, despite work on East Asian welfare systems being still at a relatively early stage, since some characteristics regarding policy developments between East and West are common to both.
It has been more than a decade since Esping-Andersen's The three worlds of welfare capitalism (1990) first provoked academic debate on comparative welfare systems. Although this volume does not intend to expand debate on welfare typologies, it is worthwhile looking briefly at where each of the two countries stand. According to his regime typologies – using decommodification (the degree to which the welfare state can help individuals achieve independence from the market and strengthen their citizenship rights) and social stratification and solidarity (the degree to which the welfare state can help build solidarity among citizens) as the main criteria for evaluation – Esping-Andersen classified Britain and Japan in different regime models. Britain was described, along with the US, as being close to the ‘liberal’ regime (characterised by means-tested assistance, limited universal transfers and social insurance schemes). Japan was closer to the ‘conservative–corporatist’ regime model along with Germany and other Continental European countries in which social rights are based on employment and contributions and the responsibility for welfare is placed on families rather than the state.
In most cases, analysis has sought to place Japan into one of a variety of existing welfare regime models conceptualised from a Western framework rather than examining it in its own terms (Goodman and Peng, 1996). Since it does not often sit comfortably in such regime models, a compromise results whereby the Japanese welfare system is described as ‘unique’ or ‘exceptional’. Responding to many critiques, Esping-Andersen (1997) later re-examined the Japanese regime. By highlighting some similarities with familialistic welfare societies of Southern European countries, he suggested that Japan might be a ‘hybrid’ of the liberal–residual and the conservative–corporatist models.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Comparing Social PoliciesExploring New Perspectives in Britain and Japan, pp. 1 - 16Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2003