Recent scholarship offers different theories on how macrosocial determinants affect the population health of East and Southeast Asian nations. Dominant theories emphasize the effects of welfare regimes, welfare generosity, and labor market institutions. In this article, we conduct exploratory time-series cross-sectional analyses to generate new evidence on these theories while advancing a political explanation. Using unbalanced data of 7 East Asian countries and 11 Southeast Asian nations from 1960 to 2012, primary findings are 3-fold. First, welfare generosity measured as education and health spending has a positive impact on life expectancy, net of GDP. Second, life expectancy varies significantly by labor markets; however, these differences are explained by differences in welfare generosity. Third, as East and Southeast Asian countries become more democratic, welfare generosity increases, and population health improves. This study provides new evidence on the value of considering politics, welfare states, and labor markets within the same conceptual framework.
Abdul KarimSEikemoTABambraC. Welfare state regimes and population health: integrating the East Asian welfare states. Health Policy. 2010;94:45-53.
2.
ChungHNgEIbrahimS. Welfare state regimes, gender, and depression: a multilevel analysis of middle and high income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:1324-1341.
3.
BambraCEikemoTA. Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: a comparative study of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63:92-98.
4.
WilenskyHL. The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures. Vol 140. Berkeley, CA;University of California Press; 1974.
5.
ChungHMuntanerCBenachJ. Employment relations and global health: a typological study of world labor markets. Int J Health Serv. 2010;40:229-253.
6.
FrielSChiangT-LChoY. Review article: freedom to lead a life we have reason to value? A spotlight on health inequity in the Asia Pacific region. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2011;23:246-263.
7.
FrielSLoringBAungkasuvapalaN. Policy approaches to address the social and environmental determinants of health inequity in Asia-Pacific. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2012;24:896-914.
8.
Esping-AndersenG. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. New York, NY: Wiley; 2013.
9.
FerreraM. The “Southern model” of welfare in social Europe. J Eur Soc Policy. 1996;6:17-37.
10.
BambraC. Cash versus services: “worlds of welfare” and the decommodification of cash benefits and health care services. J Soc Policy. 2005;34:195-213.
11.
WoodG. Insecurity and Welfare Regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social Policy in Development Contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
12.
KangasO. One hundred years of money, welfare and death: mortality, economic growth and the development of the welfare state in 17 OECD countries 1900–2000. Int J Soc Welfare. 2010;19(suppl 1):S42-S59.
13.
MuntanerCChungHBenachJNgE. Hierarchical cluster analysis of labour market regulations and population health: a taxonomy of low-and middle-income countries. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:286.
14.
BenachJMuntanerCSantanaVChairsF. Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities. Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2007.
15.
NavarroVMuntanerCBorrellC. Politics and health outcomes. Lancet. 2006;368:1033-1037.
16.
MuntanerCBorrellCNgE. Politics, welfare regimes, and population health: controversies and evidence. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33:946-964.
17.
World Health Organization. Statistical Information System. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
18.
World Bank. World Development Indicators 2012. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications; 2012.
19.
PolityI. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2012. Dataset Users’ Manual. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity. 2012. Accessed January 5, 2016.
20.
GregorioLEGregorioDI. Polity and health care expenditures: the association among 159 nations. J Epidemiol Global Health. 2013;3:49-57.
21.
LinR-TChenY-MChienL-CChanC-C. Political and social determinants of life expectancy in less developed countries: a longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:85.
22.
PuddingtonA. Freedom in the World 2013: Democratic Breakthroughs in the Balance. Freedom House; 2013.
23.
BiggsSLDellEMDixonVL. Health and historical levels of freedom. Global Health. 2010;6:11.
24.
Palma-SolisMVives-CasesCÁlvarez-DardetC. Gender progress and government expenditure as determinants of femicide. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18:322-329.
25.
McGuireJW. Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
26.
SafaeiJ. Is democracy good for health?Int J Health Serv. 2006;36:767-786.
27.
WoodGGoughI. A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy. World Development. 2006;34:1696-1712.
28.
FrancoÁÁlvarez-DardetCRuizMT. Effect of democracy on health: ecological study. BMJ. 2004;329:1421-1423.
29.
ChanMF. The impact of health care resources, socioeconomic status, and demographics on life expectancy: a cross-country study in three Southeast Asian countries. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2015;27:NP972-NP983.
30.
Asian Development Bank. The Social Protection Index: Assessing Results for Asia and the Pacific. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 2013.
