• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.91-118
• /
• 2005

This paper examines the impact of the institutional complementarity between welfare regimes and production regimes on income inequality. Using comparative welfare data by various sources for 14 OECD nations from 1980 to 1997, this paper attempts to answer two questions. First, is there a institutional complementary in regulatory process between distribution and production? Second, if it is correct, what kind of causal structure do we predict? Panel Corrected Standard Errors(PCSE) model, a data analysis method in pooled cross-sectional time-series, is employed to examine the interaction effects between the two variables: coordination in the sphere of distribution; coordination in the sphere of production The evidence suggest that there are powerful interaction effects between distributive coordination and production coordination and that the institutional complementary has effects on income inequality. First, the income inequality effect of coordination in the sphere of distribution becomes less positive(more negative) as coordination in the sphere of production increases. Second, the income inequality effect of coordination in the sphere of production becomes less positive(more negative) as coordination in the sphere of distribution increases.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.205-230
• /
• 2005

This study empirically examines if there is a certain linkage between the production regimes and welfare systems; and if linked, how they are linked. It also investigates what the different regimes performed in terms of economic growth and redistribution. As a matter of fact, we have a series of studies that explores structural diversity of production and welfare. However, the existing studies are limited in that they consider only specific facets of the structure, although the structure of welfare capitalism should be studied as a comprehensive whole. This is the gap which this study tries to overcome. The study is composed of two major parts. The first one is the cluster analysis that examines if Esping-Andersen's notion about three different welfare regime and the thesis of diversity of capitalism can be dealt within a single research framework. The second is the ANOVA analysis investigating if variables of production and welfare are to be statistically different in the trichotomy framework. According to the result of the analyses, we can find at least two important evidences about institutional complementaries of production and welfare. First, Esping-Andersen's framework is useful to comprehensively deal with production as well as welfare. Secondly, there are statistically different regimes of production and welfare in the context of political economic and social policy variables. What is the most striking conclusion of the study is that there is no difference among the regimes in terms of the level of economic efficiency; while we can find a huge differences in terms of the level of welfare effectiveness. In conclusion, there is no substantive evidence to argue that welfare is innately antithesis of economic growth.