This paper examines the historical trajectories of welfare state development in two of the institutional patterns identified in the literature as 'social protection by other means': Australia and Japan. Over time, the forces of economic liberalisation have undermined the institutional foundation of 'social protection by other means' in these countries. Social policy has increasingly become subsumed under economic policy and this subordinate nature of social policy to economic considerations effectively ended the Australia's wage earners' welfare state and the Japanese employment security regime. However, while both Australia and Japan have followed a similar neoliberal path in their social policy reform direction, the forms and patterns they have taken to follow are not in uniform against the forces of economic liberalisation. I argue here that Australia has undergone a process of 'diversification' in its reshaping efforts of welfare state structure. In Japan, by contrast, more conventional forms of welfare state deepening and expansion have emerged. Also, while Australia's financial commitment stayed intact, Japan increased its level of financial commitment to a great extent. All in all, while both countries have been restructuring their welfare reforms towards more market accommodating directions, the institutional dynamics underpinning each have led to a divergent pattern in the reform of social policy.
Indigenous peoples lived in remote areas are marginalized and discriminated against, and their living condition and development opportunity is limited. The Council of Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan has long recognized their disadvantage status, and has been eager to set up service center in each indigenous township to provide concerning and care for the most disadvantage groups. National Dong Hwa University has hosted the in-service training and supervisory program since 2007. Quality of services and cultural competence were the core of in-service training program in 2007. However, from critical social work perspective, the primary function of these centers is not to redeem the shortage of welfare service in remote areas, or to deliver the service themselves. The primary function is to identify the unequal distribution of social welfare, education, medical, economic and political resources in remote areas, and to remove the barriers that excluded the most vulnerable from using services. Materials from government document and in-depth interview with social workers and residents will be gathered to elaborate this. We suggest that critical thinking together with advocacy skill should be the core of in-service training for indigenous social worker in those centers.