This paper intends to investigate the mutual benefits of examining sexual minority people’s rights in Hong Kong and Confucianism. It has four objectives. Firstly, it aims to discuss the components of Confucianism. Secondly, it seeks to explore three strategies for promoting Confucianism: ‘Ren’, ‘Li’, and ‘Ideal Society’. Thirdly, it aims to demonstrate how analysing these strategies can enhance our understanding of the relationship between sexual minority rights in Hong Kong and Confucianism. To achieve this objective, it undertakes two analytical tasks: first, to evaluate criticisms of efforts aimed at strengthening sexual minority people’s rights in Hong Kong through the lens of these three strategies; and second, to assess the potential usefulness of these strategies in exploring the compatibility between the sexual minority people’s ways of life and Confucianism. Finally, the paper aims to examine how studying sexual minority people’s rights in Hong Kong can contribute to the discussion of the Confucian welfare model.

In Turkey, Early Childcare and Education (ECCE) policy has never been prioritised in the social policy agenda and was even further pushed back with the welfare state’s weakening role in the 2000s. The private sector, inaccessible for many, particularly low-income households, has tried to fill the significant gap in the supply side of these services. Municipalities and the Presidency of Religious Affairs (PoRA) have also recently become new actors in the provision of low-cost ‘care services’. This article compares the quality of these services by examining the number of students served, regulations, infrastructure, curricula, cost, and staff. Although neoliberalism has had an impact on welfare regimes in the European Union (EU) context, more established welfare and gender equality regimes have modified those impacts, resulting in a new institutionalisation, based on non-institutionalisation, of childcare services in Turkey’s national policy frame.

As they were just coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, Southern European nations were confronted with a new shock to their economies – this time in the form of a steep rise in prices. This article describes and typifies the social policy responses and measures adopted in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain in response to rising inflation. We find that Southern European (SE) governments have put forward a substantive fiscal response – which compares well with that of its neighbours, and even with the previous crisis. The thrust of the response was targeted at limiting the pass-through of international energy prices to consumers. This was complemented, albeit to a lesser degree, with direct support to families. Nevertheless, we do find important differences concerning the weight given to (traditional) welfare transfers, and the role given to indexation mechanisms and wage increases. We also find important continuities with the model of crisis-response adopted during the pandemic.

The authors provide a scholarly conspectus of comparative studies involving Russian, EU8 and EU15 Welfare Polities. They elaborate the notion of the ‘welfare polity’ and its potential for enhancing comparative studies of welfare institutions, policies and practices. This is accompanied by an overview of trends in comparative studies involving Russian, EU8 and EU15 countries, along with a consideration of how comparative research involving these states can be strengthened. Gaps in the literature and evidence base, including systematic cross-national and temporal data on the design and implementation of social policies and social protection, are highlighted. A shared concern was found with the growth of division and exclusion exacerbated by global economic factors and by state-level policy shifts, a trend especially notable in Russian studies. Fruitful pointers for future research and international collaboration are indicated and the need for further comparative efforts emphasised at a challenging time for geopolitical relations.

This article examines whether and to what extent legalised same-sex marriage can assist lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) people to develop family life and protect them from defamilisation and familisation risks. It focuses on the provision of and gaps in welfare for LGBTQ+ people since Taiwan’s same-sex marriage legalisation in 2019. A content analysis of online community discussions since marriage equality shows that local LGBTQ+ community discussions were filled with concerns about the lack of familial status for cross-border couples, lack of legal parental status and rights for same-sex parents, and questions about heteronormative values and kinship ties. This article reveals how heteronormative assumptions embedded in the policy system and in the wider society adversely influence LGBTQ+ people’s welfare, and identifies supplementary and alternative measures. It highlights the importance of providing universal basic services free from heteronormative biases and prioritising the well-being and rights of all citizens.

This article focuses on how the policy on same-sex marriage and a person’s social locations impact upon Chinese lesbians’ life chances and welfare. Bringing the familisation and defamilisation literature, which has predominantly focused on heterosexual populations and families, into dialogue with an intersectionality perspective, we map the ways in which gender, sexuality, and class intersect in shaping lesbians’ experiences of defamilisation and familisation risks. The findings, drawn from interviews conducted in Beijing, China, reveal that the absence of legalised same-sex marriage, coupled with a lack of familial and societal recognition of same-sex relationships, exposes lesbians to both defamilisation and familisation risks, leading to difficulties in choosing whether and how to participate in the family. The intersectionality lens guides us to move beyond the heterosexual/homosexual boundary and to rethink the possibility of welfare alliances that can improve the welfare of not only lesbians but also other groups of women and minorities.

This article builds a bridge between research on the queer economy and that on the mixed economy of welfare by developing the ‘queer economy of welfare mix’ framework. While the two fields are related, there is a lack of discussion about the queer dimensions of the mixed economy of welfare or the mixed strategies employed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals to explore the benefits and limitations of the queer economy. The purpose of our framework is to show how local and transnational goods provided by the mixed economy of welfare can enable LGBTQ+ individuals to organise their welfare through the mixed strategies – citizen strategy, consumer strategy, and consumer-citizen strategy. By examining Taiwan’s legalised same-sex marriage and its impact on Hong Kong and Mainland China, we demonstrate the empirical significance of the framework, which serves as an analytical tool for examining the government’s role in promoting LGBTQ+ individuals’ welfare and the challenges involved.