Introduction

Since the 1990s, the idea of social investment, which advocates the modernisation of welfare systems for sustainable social and economic development by highlighting human capital development, has influenced European welfare states (Jenson and Saint-Martin, 2003). Demographic structural changes have created a need to harvest human resources to enhance employability, and the modernisation of social policy has focused on human capital development of the young (Esping-Andersen et al, 2002). Peng (2014), among others, has argued that the idea of social investment has expanded beyond Western countries. Both Japan and the Republic of Korea (hereafter Korea) have developed social policies to support and incentivise the productive sectors. Those previously left out of the welfare system – women, children, and the elderly – have become targets of social spending.

Although what the social investment approach actually means may vary across East Asia and Europe, just as social investment policy configurations vary, in all countries, social policy changes are significant macro-level factors with implications for changes in the gender division of labour in the private sphere, not least because the idea has been influential in policy interventions targeting the family.

The gender gap in the division of housework has narrowed in most advanced economies (Gershuny, 2000; Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Ellingsaeter and Leira, 2006; Hook, 2006), but women still do the lion's share of housework. The strongly gendered division of labour at home is even more problematic in East Asia. On average, women in East Asian societies spend three to four times more than men doing unpaid work, including household chores and care for the family. The daily proportion of time allocated by men to unpaid work was 4.7 per cent and 3.0 per cent in Japan and Korea respectively, compared to 15.3 per cent and 13.7 per cent for women (OECD, 2020a). Unfortunately, the gap continues to exist despite significant policy interventions in East Asia.

Criticisms of social investment include concerns about gender equality. For example, Jenson (2009: 446) argued that women's demands for equality and attention to their needs are sidelined in favour of the interests of young girls’ futures. Others have suggested this is a neoliberal strategy that does not fully address the right to care and maintains an ambiguous stance to the family (Bothfeld and Rouault, 2015; Saraceno, 2015).