Do social welfare developments in socialist countries such as Cuba, China and Vietnam converge or diverge in terms of their distributive characteristics and outcomes? To what extent has the socialist legacy shaped the structure and evolution of their welfare systems? What role does the economy play in shaping social protection under socialism? Moreover, is there a distinct ‘socialist’ model of social welfare comparable to the ‘liberal,’ ‘social democratic’ and ‘conservative/continental’ welfare regimes outlined in Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990)? In Comparing Socialist Approaches: Economics and Social Security in Cuba, China, and Vietnam, Professor Mesa-Lago offers some of the most informative and thought-provoking insights into these pressing questions.
Comparing Socialist Approaches provides a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the economic models and social protection systems in Cuba, China and Vietnam during their socialist periods (i.e. post-World War II). The book begins by distinguishing Cuba’s centrally planned socialist economy from the socialist market economies of China and Vietnam, highlighting key differences in the ownership of the means of production, agrarian reform, industrialisation strategies, employment structures and currency and exchange rate unification.
Subsequently, the book develops a comprehensive analytical framework to compare the social protection systems of the three countries across multiple dimensions: unity and equal treatment, universal coverage and access, benefit sufficiency, social solidarity and gender equity, administrative efficiency, reasonable costs and tripartite participation, and financial and actuarial sustainability. Using this framework, the book conducts a transparent and detailed performance evaluation of each system. The resulting policy recommendations (Chapter 7) emerge as both compelling and well-substantiated.
I am particularly impressed by several strengths of this book. First, the comparative framework it develops for analysing social welfare is notably multidimensional. While the individual dimensions and indicators included in the framework are not entirely novel, most existing studies in comparative social welfare tend to focus on only one or a few aspects – such as benefit adequacy, financial and actuarial sustainability, or universal coverage – thereby limiting a holistic understanding of social protection systems. In contrast, Mesa-Lago’s framework offers a more comprehensive and integrated approach, which I anticipate will be widely adopted by scholars and students in future research. Additionally, the framework facilitates discussion of the interrelationships among multiple dimensions – such as the relationship between universal coverage and financial sustainability, or the interplay between benefit adequacy and social solidarity – which will deepen our understanding of the political dynamics, contestations and coalitions that shape government policy in these aspects.
Second, the book adopts a comprehensive perspective on social protection, conceptualising it as a welfare system encompassing (contributory and non-contributory) social insurance, healthcare and social assistance. These domains of social policy are not treated as isolated components; rather, the book emphasises their interaction and the potential – or ongoing – processes of integration, thereby offering a dynamic and needs-based view of social policy. Vulnerable groups – such as migrants, elderly women, impoverished rural families and precariously employed individuals – must navigate the welfare system by triangulating among its various components to access aid and protection. In this sense, social protection extends beyond a social insurance model designed for salaried employees with stable incomes and contributions, or a means-tested social assistance model targeting individuals in need. It is the dynamic interplay and integration among the different components of the welfare system that define a robust social protection framework, particularly in the face of significant economic, demographic, and structural pressures. The book is pioneering in both adopting and advocating for this comprehensive perspective of social protection.
Lastly, the book draws on a wide range of available data sources, qualitative materials and scholarly literature to construct a detailed profile of social protection in the countries studied. The author is transparent about the limitations and availability of data, as well as the challenges related to case selection and cross-country comparability. This methodological mindfulness enhances the credibility, accuracy and validity of the comparative analysis presented in the book. The empirical richness and accessibility of the book also make it a valuable resource not only for social scientists but also for general readers interested in social welfare, socialism and the economies of Cuba, China and Vietnam.
The book concludes that the Sino-Vietnamese socialist market model has demonstrated superior economic and social performance compared to Cuba’s model, which remains dominated by central planning and characterised by modest and largely ineffective reforms. Cuba developed its social security system earlier, more rapidly and more expansively than its economic capacity could sustain, rendering it financially unsustainable in the long term – particularly given the country’s persistent economic underperformance. As a result, accelerated population aging has had a pronounced negative impact on the financial sustainability of Cuba’s social security system. While similar demographic pressures are beginning to affect China, they have not yet significantly impacted Vietnam. In summary, the book identifies a growing divergence between Cuba, on one hand, and China and Vietnam, on the other, in terms of both economic development and social protection outcomes. This divergence is attributed to the structural differences between Cuba’s rigid and inefficient centrally planned economy and the more flexible Sino-Vietnamese socialist market economies, which have generated robust growth through non-state sectors, foreign trade and investment.
Given the stark contrast between the two groups, an important question arises: why has Cuba not adopted the Sino-Vietnamese model? The book rightly argues that the primary reasons are ‘political rather than economic: to pursue the survival of the regime at any cost’ (p. 199). Specifically, Cuban military leaders have resisted reforms that might threaten the status quo, as the armed forces effectively control and own many state enterprises that constitute a major source of the country’s hard-currency revenue. To be sure, similar political dynamics that compromise economic efficiency and social equity are not absent in China and Vietnam, despite their relatively stronger performance across a range of socioeconomic indicators. A deeper analysis of the political and economic logic – and their interplay – is essential to further advance our understanding of social protection in these countries.
