ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS AND EQUITY IN SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEMS: A MONGOLIA–SOUTH KOREA COMPARISON
Keywords:
Social welfare systems, Poverty reduction, Income inequality, Comparative analysis, Mongolia, South KoreaAbstract
This study explores how social welfare systems in Mongolia and South Korea perform in terms of reducing poverty and promoting equity. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines statistical analysis with insights from policy documents and existing research. The findings show that South Korea maintains lower and more stable poverty rates, supported by stronger institutions and a more diversified economy. In contrast, Mongolia experiences higher and more fluctuating poverty levels, largely due to its reliance on commodity-driven growth. The results also show that while poverty in Mongolia decreases during periods of economic expansion, these improvements are not sustained during downturns. In addition, analysis of income inequality reveals that both countries continue to face persistent disparities. Overall, the study highlights the importance of economic stability and institutional strength in achieving welfare systems that are both effective and equitable.
References
1. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press.
2. Anckar, C. (2008). On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389–401.
3. Brooks Evans & Ruslan Yemtsov & Zurab Sajaia & Maddalena Honorati & Michael Lokshin. (2018). Measuring the Effectiveness of Social Protection. World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 29802, April.
4. Choi, Y. J. (2012). End of the era of productivist welfare capitalism? Diverging welfare regimes in East Asia. Asian Journal of Social Scienc, 40(3), 275-294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/156853112X650827
5. Dorjdagva J, Batbaatar E, Svensson M, Dorjsuren B, Togtmol M, Kauhanen J. (2021). Does social health insurance prevent financial hardship in Mongolia? Inpatient care: A case in point. PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0248518. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248518
6. Heintz, J., & Lund, F. (2012). Welfare regimes and social policy: A review of the role of labour and employment (Programme Paper No. 17). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
7. Holliday, I. (2002). Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia. Political Studies, 48, 706-723. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00279
8. Kwon, H., & Holliday, I. (2022). The Korean welfare state: Development, reforms, and challenges. Social Policy & Administration, 56(6), 945–960.
9. Kwon, Huck-ju, and Eunju Kim. (2026). Social Protection in South Korea: Transition from the Developmental to the Universal Welfare State. WIDER Working Paper 2026/3 Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2026. doi:https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2026/679-7
10. World Bank . (2022). World development report 2022: Finance for an equitable recovery. World Bank.
11. Yang, N., & Kühner, S. (2020). Beyond the Limits of the Productivist Regime: Capturing Three Decades of East Asian Welfare Development with Fuzzy Sets. Social Policy and Society, 19(4), 613–627. doi:10.1017/S147474641900054X
12. Yang, N., & Kühner, S. (2025). From Productivism to Post-Productivism: Unpacking the Socio-Economic Conditions for Welfare Development in Six East Asian Economies. Political Studies. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251369291
