Introduction

Since the late 1980s, there has been a growth of academic interest in social policy in the East Asian tiger economies – Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Four main factors account for this. First, social policy analysts from western societies looked with envious fascination at the high rates of economic growth sustained by these four societies over many years down to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. Second, once the economic growth records of the East Asian tigers were subjected to detailed scrutiny, it became clear that these societies combined significant degrees of economic freedom and a wealth of economic dynamism with quite a broad range of social policies. Third, it was also increasingly apparent from comparative statistical data that low levels of public expenditure nevertheless generated good social outcomes on a range of key indicators. Finally, a developing interest in comparative study raised concerns as to whether and how these systems might fit into emerging classifications of welfare regimes. In this analysis of the past, present and future of social policy in the East Asian tiger economies, we do four things. We introduce the four societies and present an overview of their social policies. We draw out similarities and differences in their social policy approaches. We evaluate their social provision; and we explore the sustainability of their approaches to social welfare.

Tiger societies and tiger social policy

One important question hanging over tiger social policy is whether it forms a distinct cluster, an East Asian welfare model or regime (Goodman et al, 1998). We will address that question here. However, before doing so we need to provide thumbnail sketches of the social policy systems of our four societies set in the context of their wider economic and political systems.

Hong Kong

The crucial moment in Hong Kong's dramatic economic development was a ban on trade with China, imposed at the start of the Korean War in 1950. The ban forced the colony to turn to export-oriented industrialisation, producing textiles, plastics and consumer electronics. By the end of the 1950s, domestically produced exports were of greater value to Hong Kong than re-exports.