In Europe and North America, welfare state theories often link the development of social policies to religious divisions. The logic goes: the more religiously fragmented a society is, the more likely it is that faith-based values shape political parties and social policies.
But what happens in a place like Taiwan—a multireligious, non-Christian society with a complex colonial past and decades of authoritarian rule? Laliberté (School of Political Studies) unpacks this unique case to show how religious diversity plays out differently.
A structured approach to a complex topic
Using a historical institutionalist lens, he explores four key questions:
Do religious divisions shape political cleavages?
How close are the ties between religion and the state?
Do faith traditions offer distinct social visions?
Have religious actors mobilized politically to shape policy?
The surprising answer: Religion matters—but not how you’d expect
Laliberté finds that:
Taiwan’s religious diversity hasn’t led to strong political polarization or faith-based political parties.
Faith groups like the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation and the Presbyterian Church have been important service providers—but haven’t shaped welfare policy design in a lasting way.
The state maintained tight control over religion during authoritarian rule, limiting its political influence.
No single religious tradition emerged as dominant, making it hard for religion to shape national social visions.
Even in democratic times, religious voices have contributed to public debates, but not to policy structures.
Why this matters
Taiwan’s case challenges assumptions rooted in Western experiences. It shows that a deeply religious society doesn’t necessarily produce religious welfare states. The story of Taiwan is one of pragmatism, political control, and religious pluralism—not theological domination.
Read the full article "Religions and the Development of Taiwan’s Welfare Regime", published in the International Journal of Taiwan Studies (2024)