Divergent Paths, Incomplete Models: Chinese and Korean Pension Development in Comparative Context

The aim of this article is to investigate whether or not the East Asian welfare model (EAWM) can adequately represent China and Korea by examining the historical development of their pension systems. Since Esping‐Andersen introduced his classic three‐world classification of liberal, conservative and democratic welfare types, a wave of comparative social policy analysis in East Asia has emerged. Two distinct perspectives have prevailed within this field of research. First, a number of scholars have elaborated and validated Esping‐Andersen's three‐world classification by claiming East Asian nations are on a developmental trajectory that make them comparable to the Western cases upon which his study was based. The second perspective claims that unlike advanced capitalist states in the West, East Asian countries have constituted a distinctive welfare state model – the so‐called “East Asian welfare model.” This study argues that the development of welfare systems in both China and Korea makes apparent the weaknesses of the EAWM.