The Social Protection Floor and the ‘New’ social investment policies in Japan and South Korea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japan and South Korea have always taken what may be called a social investment approach to their social and economic development policies. They were able to achieve a high level of economic growth, in part, because of their targeted social spending that supported and protected the productive sectors of the society. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a marked shift in the targets of social investment, from predominantly skilled, male, industrial core workers to more peripheral, marginalized, and vulnerable population groups, such as women, children, and the elderly. Moreover, this new policy focus is now increasingly put forward from the perspective of inclusive welfare and the discourse of social inclusion, thus breaking from the earlier productivist thinking. Indeed, recent social investment policy debates in the two countries are often framed in terms of intergenerational equity, social and economic sustainability, and economic democracy. What are these ‘new social investments’, and why the shifts? This article looks at the new social investment policies in Japan and South Korea to understand factors behind the changes, and assess how ‘new’ are these new social investments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it