Dear Young-Jun,
Regarding 2, try the following site (only in Japanese, I'm afraid).
It is a homepage of Pension Fund Association.
http://www.pfa.or.jp/index.htm
They also publish annual reports which contains detailed statistics on
occupational pensions.
Kika
-----Original Message-----
From: Young Jun Choi [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tue 08/02/2005 16:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Helps and interesting article
Dear all,
Before I forget, 'HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!'
I'd like to ask your helps regarding the following two information. Many
thanks in advance.
1. Any material containing information on taxation on Labour Insurance or
Labour Pension, and personal private pension in Taiwan (in either English
(preferable) or Chinese). For your information, the taxation on public
pension in Japan and Korea is EEpT and TEE (contribution-funding-benefit),
respectively, and private pensions are both EET. (if my information is not
wrong, please correct it)
2. Any material containing occupational retirement benefits including
retirement allowance, corporate pension schemes, and employment insurance
fund, in Japan in English (preferable) or Japanese.
I'd like to also let you know one interesting, helpful, and debatable
article from the journal, 'Policy and Politics' (January 2005, vol. 33, no.
1, pp. 145-162(18)). 'East Asian social policy in the wake of the financial
crisis: farewell to productivism?' by Ian Holliday.
As the sequel of his article on 'Productivist welfare capitalism (PWC)' in
2000, this article investigates the relevance of the PWC concept in Hong
Kong, Singapore, Korea and Taiwan, after the financial crisis.
Particularly, he pays more attention on the recent welfare development in
Korea and Taiwan. In the end, he argues "it is not yet time to discard
productivism, which remains plausible and useful in analysing social policy
systems in the region".
For me, the PWC's main characteristics, 'social policy is an extension of
economic policy, and is subordinated to and defined by economic objectives'
is not clear that much in post-crisis East Asia, particularly as a mutually
exclusive fourth WC model in addition to three WCs by Esping-Andersen. He
argues Taiwan and Korea is still better placed in the PWC than the
conservative welfare regimes. And then, how about the liberal regimes such
as the US? I assume many recent welfare reforms in western countries have
been implemented largely by 'productivist' considerations. How are they
different from the behind considerations of recent welfare developments in
Taiwan and Korea?
It would be great if I can hear your opinion on this.
Best Regards,
Young-Jun
|