IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v19y2002i3p57-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

INDIVIDUALISM, COLLECTIVISM AND THE MARKETIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY: Chile and China Compared

Author

Listed:
  • James Midgley
  • Kwong‐leung Tang

Abstract

Ideological beliefs are of central importance in current debates about the marketization of social security. However, developments in Chile and China suggest that the conventional individualist‐collectivist dichotomy, which has framed ideological debates on social security, fails to capture the complexities of ideological differences as well as the imperative of economic development which appears to be driving social security policy in both countries. Examining events in these countries, it is suggested that the individualist‐collectivist dichotomy needs to be reconsidered. It is also argued at a normative level that these ideologies no longer provide a viable basis for social security policy, and that the “developmentalist” approach emerging in China merits further scrutiny.

Suggested Citation

  • James Midgley & Kwong‐leung Tang, 2002. "INDIVIDUALISM, COLLECTIVISM AND THE MARKETIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY: Chile and China Compared," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 19(3), pages 57-84, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:57-84
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2002.tb00296.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2002.tb00296.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2002.tb00296.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Hyde & Silvia Borzutzky, 2015. "Chile's “Neoliberal” Retirement System? Concentration, Competition, and Economic Predation in “Private” Pensions," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 123-157, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:57-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.