Introduction

Comparative theory has evolved from convergence or modernisation perspectives in which either economic growth (Rimlinger, 1971; Wilensky, 1975) or the evolution of capitalism (O’Connor, 1973; Gough, 1979) were seen as inevitably leading to growth in state expenditure on welfare to a situation in which ‘regime’ analyses are dominant. Esping-Andersen (1990) has been the main influence on regime theory, replacing a rather functionalist sociology by an approach in which systems are analysed according to the extent to which they enhance ‘decommodification’ or social solidarity and political processes are seen as offering explanations of these differences. Esping-Andersen identifies what he describes as three regime types – in short, liberal, corporatist and social democratic. Inevitably, Esping-Andersen's work has spawned critiques, most of which offer additional types to his original three. Castles and Mitchell (1991) have suggested the existence of an Australasian model in which the maintenance of relatively wellpaid full employment has been the dominant concern of political strategists on the Left. Ferrara (1996) has indicated ways in which southern European developments do not fit the models. Sainsbury and her collaborators (1994) have indicated that variations in family policy and female labour market participation make it necessary to modify Esping-Andersen's regime types, with Siaroff (1994) in particular adding ‘late female mobilisation welfare states’. Above all, of importance for this discussion has been work that either attempts to delineate alternative East Asian models (Jones, 1993) or at least suggests limitations to the application of western models to East Asia (Goodman and Peng, 1995; Walker and Wong, 1996; Kwon, 1997; Shin, 2003).

In exploring, in this chapter, the application of the various theoretical perspectives or typologies to Taiwan, it will be suggested that many of the ideas that feature in the debate about welfare regimes have resonances – from the early convergence theorists’ concerns with the concomitants of modernisation, through the issues about corporatist welfare states identified by Esping-Andersen, to the points highlighted about both employment and family life in the critiques of the latter. Support will be found too for the more agnostic perspectives of those who see differences in East Asian patterns, but do not feel able to accept Jones’ (1993) emphasis on the influence of Confucianism.