Reform and Stability – The Russian and the Chinese Welfare Systems Compared

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Russian Politics Pub Date : 2019-09-27 DOI:10.1163/2451-8921-00403007
Markus Kainu, Markku Kivinen, S. Kuhnle, Chunling Li
{"title":"Reform and Stability – The Russian and the Chinese Welfare Systems Compared","authors":"Markus Kainu, Markku Kivinen, S. Kuhnle, Chunling Li","doi":"10.1163/2451-8921-00403007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Systematic theoretical work on Russian and Chinese social policy seems to be lacking. While previous research establishes how democratic systems produce welfare, it is unclear what kind of welfare such transitional systems provide. Our analysis adheres to structuration based theoretical explanations, taking into account both agency and structure as factors needed to explain these regimes’ welfare policy. Hybrid regimes are eager to adopt global liberally oriented welfare policies, which tend to ignore popular demands. Western analysis of Russian and Chinese social policy emphasizes the dualistic influence of liberal versus statist social policy. This dualistic conceptualization fails to take into account the contradictions between ideological frames and hybrid regimes’ vulnerability to popular pressures. Widespread corruption undermines formal procedures and underlies growth of informal practices. Both Russia and China have considerable welfare achievements and vast problems. In conditions of economic growth, both have experienced huge increases in inequality and individualization of risk.","PeriodicalId":37176,"journal":{"name":"Russian Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/2451-8921-00403007","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2451-8921-00403007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic theoretical work on Russian and Chinese social policy seems to be lacking. While previous research establishes how democratic systems produce welfare, it is unclear what kind of welfare such transitional systems provide. Our analysis adheres to structuration based theoretical explanations, taking into account both agency and structure as factors needed to explain these regimes’ welfare policy. Hybrid regimes are eager to adopt global liberally oriented welfare policies, which tend to ignore popular demands. Western analysis of Russian and Chinese social policy emphasizes the dualistic influence of liberal versus statist social policy. This dualistic conceptualization fails to take into account the contradictions between ideological frames and hybrid regimes’ vulnerability to popular pressures. Widespread corruption undermines formal procedures and underlies growth of informal practices. Both Russia and China have considerable welfare achievements and vast problems. In conditions of economic growth, both have experienced huge increases in inequality and individualization of risk.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改革与稳定——俄罗斯与中国福利制度比较
对俄罗斯和中国社会政策的系统理论研究似乎缺乏。虽然先前的研究确定了民主制度如何产生福利,但尚不清楚这种过渡制度提供什么样的福利。我们的分析坚持基于结构的理论解释,考虑到代理和结构作为解释这些政权福利政策所需的因素。混合型政权急于采取以全球自由主义为导向的福利政策,而这些政策往往无视民众的要求。西方对俄罗斯和中国社会政策的分析强调了自由主义与中央集权社会政策的二元影响。这种二元论的概念化没有考虑到意识形态框架和混合型政权对民众压力的脆弱性之间的矛盾。普遍的腐败破坏了正式程序,助长了非正式行为的增长。俄罗斯和中国都有相当大的福利成就和巨大的问题。在经济增长的条件下,两者都经历了不平等和风险个性化的大幅增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Russian Politics
Russian Politics Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Non-execution of Strasbourg Judgments against Russia: the Case for a Trust Fund Resisting Strasbourg to Reassure Moscow: the Recent Story of the Russian Constitutional Court Pushback or Backlash against the European Court of Human Rights? Authoritarian Sovereignization: Russia’s Way out of the Council of Europe Conservative Jurisprudence and Russia’s Response to ECtHR Judgements on Cases of Domestic Violence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1