Comparative social policy research on East Asia has gained momentum since the 1990s, due in large part to the region's growing economic clout. Scholars in the field have been preoccupied with the question of how much East Asia conforms to or differs from the ideal typical welfare states constructed by Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1990) based on European experiences.

James Midgley, one of the earliest East Asia watchers, has forcefully argued all along for a need to move beyond the static and Eurocentric approach. While the prevailing wisdom sees East Asia as weak in social policy, Midgley (Reference Midgley1995) casts a more positive light through an alternative social development perspective. This perspective highlights the role of government in development, the integration of economic policy and social policy and the importance of development for welfare.

What is the role of social policy in the face of economic volatility, such as the 2008 global financial crisis? James Midgley, together with James Lee and Yapeng Zhu, extends the social development perspective in an edited volume Social Policy and Change in East Asia. The introduction co-authored by the three editors and the chapter by Midgley lay out a research agenda that links social policy to economic turbulence. The essential message is that social policy can play a more active role than policy scholars often believe, not just as the last line of defence in the event of economic downturn and recession, but as part of a larger package to promote long-term stability and sustainable development. The social development perspective is fundamentally interventionist, in line with the Keynesian tradition while in sharp contrast to the neo-liberalist agenda.

Over half of the remaining chapters have mainland China as the research focus. Compared to other governments in the region and elsewhere, the Chinese government moved decisively with an unprecedented four-trillion yuan rescue package. China itself was fiscally and financially strong, but its export sector was hard hit. Millions of migrant workers were laid off and returned home, causing concerns about social instability in host cities and home provinces. The central government reacted quickly with a bold rescue plan.

Chapters in this volume provide a detailed analysis of the rescue package and related policy responses, ranging from employment, education, social security, health care and housing. The rescue package of course sought to stabilise the economy and society as its immediate purpose. However, in line with the social development perspective, the Chinese government also tried to turn the ‘crisis’ into an ‘opportunity’ for social policy reform. As documented in this volume, China has made considerable progresses in restructuring its welfare system, extending medical insurance to migrant workers and beefing up the public housing program.

The Chinese case fits well with the social development perspective. As this volume shows, government intervention has the features described by the social development perspective. It combined short-term rescue and long-term development. Some of the programs rolled out were both economic and social. Stabilising the economy clearly had social benefits, while increasing government spending on physical infrastructure and human resource development is also economically beneficial. The underlying belief that economic policy and social policy can reinforce each other to produce economic and social benefits is in sharp contrast to the belief that stresses trade-offs between economic policy and social policy, and forces the choice between government and market, or between growth and protection. In this light, this volume should be lauded for calling for a rethinking of intervention, development and welfare.

Interestingly, as some of the chapters show, there are considerable variations among East Asian governments in their capacity to pursue integrated development. For instance, James Lee compares housing policy in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. As noted in the introduction (p. 13), ‘housing is one area of social policy which straddles over two zones: economic and social’. Yet, Singapore is quite successful in making housing policy work for economic development and household asset building, while Japan is somewhat successful and Hong Kong is least successful. The contrast opens up an array of questions for the social development perspective: What are the political, economic and social conditions that make the social development approach work? Do Japan and the ‘four tigers’ still have those favourable conditions?

The chapter by Kim-wah Chung on the failure of Hong Kong's Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme raises the same question. A similar program in Singapore has worked well for promoting both economic and social development. The contrast between Hong Kong and Singapore calls for further theorising and analysis of the structural and institutional conditions sustaining the social development approach.

Even in the case of China, the chapter by Yapeng Zhu on housing policy shows that government intervention does not always produce social benefits. China already had an over-heated housing market prior to the 2008 financial tsunami. The government rescue package further fuelled the housing bubble, thus derailing the government plan to cool off the housing market. With hindsight, the government rescue may have overshot the problem. While a balanced and comprehensive analysis of the consequences of the four-trillion yuan rescue package is still lacking, there are criticisms of rampant corruption and delayed reform. The expected benefits of social development are overshadowed by the accusation of misallocated rescue funds. This again raises the question of what ensures the formulation and implementation of social development-oriented policy responses.

Overall, this volume broadens the scope of social policy research to economic volatility, instability and policy response. Down the road, it would be interesting to see how different approaches, including the social development perspective, theorise, analyze and debate on East Asia, one of the most dynamic regions in the world.