The Legislature and Agenda Politics of Social Welfare: A Comparative Analysis of Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes in South Korea

CLAIM CONNECTIONS / 5

Where this source is used

• Researchers and public bodies attribute social provision to risk pooling, consumption smoothing, poverty relief, redistribution, labor-force participation, social investment, political incorporation, legitimation, or social control; the institutional label does not decide among these purposes.

  • qualifies · pp. 1245–1248, authoritarian-period legitimation and targeted provision

• Shim analyzes social-welfare bills across authoritarian and democratic periods and finds that welfare priority rises continuously with higher levels of democracy, cautioning against a simple regime binary.

  • supports · pp. 1235–1255, abstract and regime-period comparison

• Shim identifies authoritarian-period welfare initiatives directed to groups including the military, teachers, politicians, and civil servants, showing that provision can be selective within a political settlement.

  • supports · pp. 1245–1248, regime-period findings on cabinet bills and occupational groups

• The 1988–2008 Korean sequence shows democratization, crisis, and institutional expansion under changing conditions; it does not establish that democracy alone caused reform or that formal expansion produced universal access.

  • qualifies · abstract and pp. 1241–1248

• Social provision can operate under democratic or authoritarian rule, so welfare institutions do not by themselves establish Democracy or political accountability.

  • supports · pp. 1235–1255, abstract and analysis across 1948–2016