Risk and Public Policy in East Asia

Mutsuko Takahashi, Raymond K.H. Chan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781138267978
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317062882
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Contemporary Asian society is marked by social processes associated with the loss of stable economic growth and high employment; family structures capable of caring for family members in need; and governmental economic and political competence. Post-financial crisis job uncertainty and income and labor market polarization have become important issue in Asian societies. Family structures are viewed as have been weakened, with a corresponding rise in divorce and domestic violence. Trust in the government is in decline. Against this backdrop it is timely to review three critical issues: 1) policies addressing work-related risks and socio-economic security; 2) changes regarding the structure and stability of families; and 3) issues concerning governance in times of weakened state capacity, declining trust, and the emergence of new politics. Containing chapters written by international scholars, this book introduces the concepts and theoretical approaches of risk and risk and governance and places them within the context of Asian societies.

Chapter 1
Introduction: Risk and Public Policy in East Asia

Raymond K.H. Chan, Mutsuko Takahashi and Lillian Lih-rong Wang

Risk

Risk is not a new concept: it was widely applied in the fields of finance, security analysis, and environmental and health hazards before it entered the domain of social and public policy. Its origin is not certain, but there is evidence of its use in the Middle Ages, and by the end of the 17th century, it was generally used, usually in reference to the practice of insurance by maritime businesses (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn 2006, Zinn 2008).

In everyday usage, ‘risk’ refers to loss, injury, destruction, hazard, vulnerability and danger; however, risk-taking behaviour is often voluntarily adopted in the pursuit of challenging and fulfilling experiences. Garland has argued that there is a difference between risk and danger: danger is the harm, injury and adversity inherent in a situation or event, whereas risk is the probability of such harm and injury (2003: 50). This probability cannot be determined with absolute confidence; therefore, risk is associated with uncertainty. Lupton suggests that to identify something as a risk is to recognize its importance to our well-being: risks must ‘have an important ontological status in our understandings of selfhood and the social and material worlds’ (1999: 14). To declare that something is a risk also reflects the desire to manage it instead of accepting it with a fatalistic attitude. These observations suggest that the nature of risk can be subjective, interactive, intuitive or pre-rational – not merely objective or capable of scientific measurement (Garland 2003: 49–52, Zinn 2008).

The concept of risk has become an important means of understanding contemporary society. Managing risk, through regulations, law, standards and services, is a crucial task of the government. The welfare state is one of the important components of the government’s risk-management strategy: it ‘insures its citizens, indemnifies them against losses, regulates economic risks and environmental dangers, protects individuals from social harm and economic disaster’ (Garland 2003: 61).

Understanding Risk

Early risk analyses assumed the factual reality of risk and adopted a technical approach: risk referred to an event that could be approached objectively, and studied by scientific and managerial experts capable of identifying, measuring, and managing the tasks necessary to control it. More recently, however, it has been argued that individuals’ risk perception is learned through their interactions with the objective environment and can be socially constructed; therefore, the perception of risk can be subjectively biased, selective and organized according to context and past experiences. This view has given rise to new approaches to risk.

The popular psychometric approaches (e.g., Slovic 1992) assume that risk is subjectively defined and influenced by a wide range of factors, such as perceived sense of control, value systems, the prevalence of the incident (known or unknown risks) and the potential outcomes of the incident (e.g., traumatic, fatal). The sociological approach maintains that risk is shaped by an array of institutional and cultural factors. For example, the cultural theorists (e.g., Douglas and Wildavsky 1982) claim that there is a cultural explanation for the marked differences in people’s perception of, and reaction to, risk. According to the risk society thesis, risk is an important factor in the constitution of our society and our way of life. The term ‘risk society’ is used to describe a society with a specific set of social, economic, political and cultural conditions that are transformed by manufactured uncertainty (Beck 1992, 1999).

Risk society is characterized by three interconnected features: reflexivity, individualization and subpolitics. Beck has identified the current era as ‘reflexive modernity’ or the ‘second modernity’, to distinguish it from industrial modernity, which was the ‘first modernity’ (1999). In the second modernity, individuals are more reflexively aware of what is happening and the impacts of these events on themselves. The increase in reflexive individuals is the result of the spread of knowledge through media technology and improvements in education. Reflexivity is an act of reflection and re-examination whose outcome will, in turn, affect the initiator of this process and lead inescapably to ‘self-confrontation’ (Beck et al. 1994). Increasing skepticism towards the existing social orders and values reinforces the process of individualization and encourages the emergence of subpolitics.

Beck and Beck-Gernsheim describe ‘individualization’ as a loss of certainty, followed by the disintegration and reintegration of our societal roles. This has led to the emergence of new risks associated with the family: ‘individualization means that men and women are released from the gender roles prescribed by industrial society for life in the nuclear family … they find themselves forced, under pain of material disadvantage, to build up a life of their own by way of the labour market, training and mobility, and if need be to pursue this life at the cost of their commitments to family, relations and friends’ (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995: 6). Individualization results in the ‘de-standardization’ of one’s life course, the ‘de-traditionalization’ of family and the ‘desegregation’ of family functions from the family (Beck 1992).

Subpolitics shapes society from below: it ‘is distinguished from politics first, in that, agents outside the political or corporatist system are allowed to appear on the stage of social design … and second, in that not only social and collective agents but individuals as well compete with the latter and each other for the emerging shaping power of the political’ (Beck et al. 1994: 22). The new political arena is based on the ‘de-monopolization of expertise’ and ‘informalization of jurisdiction’, which require a more participatory political system: decision-making and negotiation processes must be open to public dialogue and debate (Beck et al. 1994: 29). Trust in the government has been undermined; individuals have been forced to become more proactive and assume greater responsibility for managing their own risks (Taylor-Gooby 2004).

Whether we are in a risk society or not is open to question. Matten suggests that Beck’s thesis is ‘more of a provocative and conceptual nature rather than a minute empirical proof of certain social changes’ (2004: 372). Objectively, we might argue that we are living in a more secure world. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that we deal with more uncertainty, an increasing awareness of potential risks, and a growing lack of tolerance for even a small amount of risk (Adams 2002: 183).

Risk Governance and Regulation in Industrialized Societies

Though proponents of the risk society theory argue that risk may be beyond our control, that attempts to manage it may paradoxically create new risks, and that people in risk society question the promise of security that is the basis of modern welfare states, this does not mean that we should simply abandon all efforts to manage risk. With our greater awareness of potential risks, lower capacity to tolerate risk, and growing confidence of our knowledge in assessing and managing risk, it is not surprising that systematic and rational attempts to manage risk have become increasingly pervasive elements of modern society. We now have a long and respectable list of risk professionals (including scientists, engineers, health specialists, doctors and actuaries) and risk scholars representing different disciplines. More sophisticated and complicated technologies to address risk are emerging. Hutter suggests that while the language of risk may be relatively new, regulations to manage risk are not; however, risk management has received greater recognition in recent decades (2006).

Scholars in the field of social policy see welfare regimes as the means of risk management. The term ‘new social risks’ has been used to describe the challenges facing contemporary society; these risks are distinguished from the ‘old risks’ of industrial society that were tackled with ‘old’ welfare strategies. The new risks are a result of the rapid economic and social changes in our globalized post-industrial society, and are associated with the loss of ‘the golden days’, characterized by stable economic growth that enabled high employment, secure family structures capable of caring for family members in need, and confidence in the competence of the state. The old welfare system has been criticized for catering to the ‘male breadwinner’ who enjoyed full-time permanent employment and, as a result, was in a position to protect his family in the event of ‘old’ social risks such as sickness, disability, unemployment and ageing. However, people are now facing problems (such as unemployment and ‘atypical’ employment; single parenthood; and inadequate care for family members who are old, disabled, or sick) that the old system did not adequately address (Bonoli 2004, Chan 2009, Taylor-Gooby 1999).

The welfare state has been challenged by new risk management policies, which reflect the growing dominance of neo-liberal values and are often based on a critique of old strategies that emphasized collectivity, solidarity and public schemes. The old strategies operated mainly by means of redistribution (intergenerational support and public redistribution schemes) motivated by personal morality, social solidarity, equality and justice. The new strategies are concerned primarily with encouraging individuals to be more responsible for themselves and competitive in the market, revealing a weakened belief in a universalist approach based on social solidarity and the efficacy of the public sector (Chan 2009: 27). Kemshall observes several key trends in new welfare policies: residualism, targeting, selectivity, mixed provision, employment promotion and work-first responsibilization (2002: 129–30).

The social risk management framework proposed by Holzmann and Jorgensen (2001) emphasizes three strategies – prevention, mitigation and coping – and the increased necessity of involvement on the part of informal, market-based and public sectors. Risk management is now the subject of broader public policies and the combined efforts of the state and other sectors. Hutter argues that regulation is no longer the exclusive domain of the state: other sectors play an increasingly important role, due to democratization and a growing demand for openness, accountability and transparency. She describes the current situation as the decentring of the state – a move from government to governance: the state now attempts to steer and regulate the increasing involvement of non-governmental actors (2006). These regulatory systems vary according to context and content. The context includes the type of risk, public preferences and attitudes, organized interests. The content is defined by the scale, structure and style of the regulatory regime (Hood et al. 2001: 34). Hood et al. maintain that the regime is swayed by three types of pressure: market failure orientation, which demands governments in liberal, capitalist societies to correct serious failures in markets; opinion-responsiveness, which compels governments to respond to public opinion; and interest-driven concerns, which require the government to respond to organized groups demands (2001: 62).

Risk and Risk Regulation in East Asia

Comparatively speaking, the concept of risk is less popular among the social and public policy analysts in East Asia, though the term ‘risk’ is not new in this region. In the field of social policy, others terms, such as ‘danger’, ‘hazard’, ‘problem’, ‘challenge’ and ‘need’, are more likely to be used in discussions of unemployment, poverty, care of the elderly, family breakdowns and retirement. ‘Risk’ was associated with political stability and, since the Asian financial crisis, with economic uncertainty and vulnerability. It was also used in discussions of health and epidemic diseases, environment and resource management, natural disasters, GM food, and technology.

Delayed and underdeveloped risk-management and regulatory systems were typical of East Asian societies. This may be related to several factors. First, the traditional fatalistic culture may have promoted an attitude of acceptance rather than confrontation, as well as low levels of confidence in the state’s ability to tackle risks. Or, the opposite may be true: the government’s success in managing the economy, which led to the growing affluence of the middle class, may have led to a more complacent attitude toward risk. East Asian governments are elite-dominated technocracies that strongly encourage the development of the economy and are characterized by a top-down style of management. They are staffed by bureaucrats and technocrats who can resist or even ignore the pressure to improve risk management (Chou 2009).

Using Korea as an example, Chang argues that it is an ‘undeveloped risk society’ in a state of ‘compressed modernity’. He argues that the modernity achieved by Korea was so accelerated that traditional norms and modern innovations were forced into an uneasy coexistence: explosive economic growth created various hazardous consequences in social, political and cultural spheres, as well as the economy. Public institutions and the cultural environment did not develop at a similar pace. The risk managers, specialists and scientists were ill-equipped to tackle the risks that emerged in the compressed modernization process; the public was also careless regarding risks, and refused or delayed the implementation of appropriate measures (1998, 1999).

In recent decades, most East Asian societies have undergone rapid democratization (or have experienced significant pressure to democratize the polity) and globalization. There is an increasing expectation that the state should manage risks, with participation from the non-state sectors. A shift from government to governance is required: the top-down governing style must be replaced with a more flexible, co-operative approach in order to meet the new demands. While an effective state is important, Chou warns us that society also has obligations – to supervise, reflect and criticize; more diversified and transparent deliberations and greater public trust are also crucial in this new style of risk governance (2009).

Plan of the Book

This book introduces the concepts of risk analysis and management, and examines their application to the situation in East Asia. While it does consider various types of risk, it primarily focuses on the new social risks related to family and work in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan – the more developed societies in East Asia.

The book is divided into four parts. The first part provides a basic understanding of the theoretical approaches to risk and risk regulation. Zinn’s chapter outlines the shift from a technical understanding of risks to an understanding that is also informed by psychological and sociological perspectives. Hutter suggests that risk regulation as a particular form of governance gained currency in the 1990s. She also maintains that, while risk-based regulations vary across societies, they all contribute to the ‘decentring’ the state and the increased participation of economic and civil society sectors. Hutter alerts us to the effects that new scientific trends and a future-oriented world view might have on risk regulation in the context of Asia. Similarly, Zinn warns us that rapid changes in East Asian societies have led to the erosion of traditional institutions, workplaces and ambitions, and the advent of new forms of power and subpolitics, which will affect our understanding of risk and choices of intervention.

The second part of the book deals with risks within the family. The chapters describe the rapidly changing demographic trends in the four societies, including declining fertility rate, smaller family size, increasing female participation in the labour force, and ageing. They also draw attention to changes in family values, the weakening of the family’s caregiving capacities and increasing difficulties in balancing family-work pressures. There are now more divorces, incidents of domestic violence, and non-traditional families.

Takahashi argues that Japan has the sharpest gender division in East Asia. ‘Reconciling work and family life’ is a major concern, especially for single-parent families. Due to cultural notions of privacy and shame, and low expectations of social rights, there has been very little discussion of the plight of divorcees or victims of intimate partner violence. The question of whether or not the government should play a part in people’s private lives remains open to debate in Japan.

Soma discusses the concept of the healthy family in Korea. Given the new social risks, there are two key issues for family policy reforms: Will these reforms result in universal family policies affecting all children, regardless of the status of their parents? Will these reforms follow a new model, based on the relationship between individuals and society, rather than equilibrium development model of ‘individual – family – society (nation)’?

Fu and Hughes analyse the response to risk as reflected in family policies in Taiwan and find that the government has enhanced its efforts to build a social care system for older and disabled members, to offer support to victims of domestic violence, and to provide equitable arrangements for cross-cultural marriages and non-traditional families. These efforts reflect the family-centred approach that the government has long espoused, but they also represent an increasing recognition of the diverse forms of family in Taiwan.

Chan’s chapter adopts the concept of individualization to measure family values in Hong Kong. The findings confirm the coexistence of high degrees of adherence to individualization and to traditional family values. Such is the contradictory nature of reflexive modernity. Chan suggests that, given the increased emphasis on individual fulfillment and respect for diversity, government policies must be informed by a better understanding of individuals’ preferences rather than a paternalistic benevolence.

Reviewing these four chapters, Wang observes a common agenda: the authors are agreed that East Asian societies have recognized the emerging needs of families and have responded (though there is still much room for improvement) with increased flexibility and greater accommodation of non-traditional families. Wang also reminds us of two key questions that should inform any intervention into family structure and values: Can individual-centred policies be reconciled with family-centred policies? Will the emphasis on individual needs weaken family ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgement
• 1 Introduction: Risk and Public Policy in East Asia
• PART I RISK AND RISK REGULATION: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES
• PART II RISK AND FAMILY CHANGES
• PART III RISK, WORK AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SECURITY
• PART IV RISK AND ITS GOVERNANCE
• Index