Session 21: Comparative Perspectives on Inequality in Asia

Organizer and Chair: Erik M. Kuhonta, Stanford University

Discussant: Deborah J. Milly, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

One of the most pressing problems in Asia today is socio-economic inequality. While the region has made impressive strides in reducing absolute poverty, inequality remains deeply entrenched in many countries. Inequality is a broad construct that is not easily captured by income differentials alone. Political forces, gender hierarchies, and spatial differences all impact inequality. This panel seeks to examine inequality in a "border-crossing" spirit by looking at it from multiple angles: geographic (Northeast and Southeast Asia); disciplinary (economic, political, and social); and analytical (macro and micro perspectives). All papers are linked by a normative concern for improving human welfare and by a methodological perspective that privileges comparative-history.

The first paper, by Erik Kuhonta, asks why Malaysia has distinguished itself as the only country in Southeast Asia with a successful pattern of equitable development. Kuhonta claims that a combination of political organization and ethnic pressure has enabled Malaysia to advance social reforms. In the second paper, Worawut Smuthkalin seeks to explain the evolution of welfare institutions in emerging Asian economies. Smuthkalin argues that to understand welfare development, one has to look closely at the configurations of welfare institutions and the links between the state and social forces throughout history. The third paper by Erik Mobrand addresses problems of internal migration in China and Korea. Mobrand argues that divergent patterns of economic development explain why Chinese migrants received welfare assistance while Korean migrants did not. Finally, the last paper takes a distinct look at the relationship between gender hierarchies and inequalities in globalized labor relations. Shifting the lens away from women’s experiences, Mary Beth Mills analyzes how globalized labor processes in Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and South Korea are informed by ideas and experiences of masculinity.

The Political Foundations of Equitable Development in Southeast Asia

Erik M. Kuhonta, Stanford University

This paper analyzes divergent trajectories of development in Southeast Asia through a state-society framework. The central question addressed is this: why has Malaysia achieved a successful pattern of equitable development, while two comparable countries in the region, the Philippines and Thailand, have not? The argument I put forth is that the conjuncture of political organization and social forces is key to understanding variation in developmental trajectories. In Malaysia, a hegemonic, institutionalized ethnic party has provided the political conditions for advancing social reform in a nation riven by ethnic and class cleavages. In Thailand, the absence of institutionalized parties and of sustained mass mobilization has limited the impetus for reform. While in the Philippines, persistent mass pressure for social reform has failed to make headway due to the lack of political institutions that might aggregate and advance the interests of the poor. The comparison of these three cases indicates that social pressure and institutionalized political force are both necessary for equitable development to be achieved.

State and Society: Welfare Development in Four Asian Emerging Markets

Worawut Smuthkalin, Stanford University

How can one account for the formation and the development of welfare institutions in Northeast and Southeast Asian emerging markets? Neither the classic European welfare state literature that assumes a democratic context nor the current Asian welfare state literature with its static emphasis on state interests and objectives is able to provide a comprehensive argument for welfare state development during a period of democratic transitions in the region.

My paper offers a dynamic model to explain the evolution of welfare institutions in Asian economies in the 1990s. I make two central arguments. First, democracy does not necessarily fare better than autocracy in providing social welfare. What matters are the arrangements and configurations of welfare structures that each regime-type is capable of implementing. Second, I argue that the configurations of the welfare institutions developed during the authoritarian regime period—particularly the links between the state and social forces—is key to understanding the direction and extent of welfare development during the period of democratic transition. At an important stage in state formation, authoritarian leaders formed alliances with social sectors to stabilize their regime and to develop the economy. Social welfare, which was directed toward working classes, was provided in exchange for those groups’ support of the regime. This argument will be fleshed out through comparisons of Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, and China.

For the Home Team? Urban Migrants and Rural Leaders in China and South Korea

Erik Mobrand, Princeton University

In the process of large-scale, rural-urban migration that accompanies rapid economic growth, leaders emerge who help often-poor migrants survive in the city. These low-level leaders assist migrants in finding jobs, acquiring housing, securing urban services, and avoiding police, among other goals. This paper examines one set of such leaders through a comparison of rural-urban migrants in China since the 1980s with those in South Korea in the 1960s and 1970s. In China, rural actors (local officials, entrepreneurs, clan organizations) have performed important leadership roles for city-bound migrants, even monitoring their working conditions and setting up schools for their children. In South Korea, however, migrants found no such help from rural-based people. The cause of this difference can be traced to divergent kinds of economic development. Growth led by small, rural units in China has fostered incentives for rural groups to promote the labor their villages send away. In South Korea, growth led by larger, more urban units provided far fewer such incentives.

Crises of Masculinity: Thoughts on Globalized Labor and Gender Inequality in Asia

Mary Beth Mills, Colby College

Modes of globalized production intersect with gender inequalities in multiple ways throughout contemporary Asia. Best known in the literature, perhaps, is the extensive recruitment of feminized work forces in Asian industrial zones and the commercial sex trade. Related patterns mark the international mobility of Asian labor, for example, as domestic servants and other low-wage and service workers. Valuable scholarly attention has already focused on the relationship of gender hierarchies and inequalities to Asian women’s experiences of globalized labor relations.

This paper builds on these contributions but shifts the angle of view to ask how these processes are informed by (and contribute to) ideas and experiences of masculinity. Across Asia, men and women can experience the societal changes stemming from increasingly globalized market and labor relations in different (sometimes conflicting) ways. Moreover, states, business interests, as well as marginalized communities frequently make use of local cultural meanings and symbols of masculinity in debates about (or as bases for resisting) the structural disparities and ideological transformations associated with globalization. The resulting tensions find expression in what might be called "crises of masculinity": contests and conflicts over gendered norms and identities not only within households and local communities but also at the national level. Case examples from different parts of Asia—including Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and South Korea—illustrate these varied dynamics and their consequences both for challenging conventional patterns of inequality and for reproducing structures of power and related hierarchical norms.