The first inspiration is that the construction of China's welfare system should have a clear goal, otherwise, taking one step at a time, it is easy to take a detour. At present, China's welfare system is at an important historical juncture of the greatest legislative density, "Social Insurance Law" and "Social Assistance Law" is being proposed, to be established in all systems, there is rigidity, it will be difficult to turn around, which is the lesson of Japan. 1973 oil crisis in Japan's "first year of welfare" setbacks in the 80's British Thatcherism and Reagan's economics. Thatcherism and Reaganomics in the global capitalist world set off the welfare system of the "revolutionary movement" more so that Japan is at a loss: on the one hand, it has to meet the domestic aspirations, to cope with foreign pressure, the development of the welfare system, on the other hand, to the welfare system, "Westernized On the one hand, it had to satisfy domestic aspirations and cope with foreign pressure to develop the welfare system; on the other hand, the fear of "westernization" of the welfare system compelled it to take measures to maintain the family-centeredness characteristic of the traditional Confucian culture of East Asia; this contradiction was manifested in the welfare policy, that is, the expansion of welfare expenditures alternated with the contraction of welfare.
The second inspiration is that from this world economic crisis and the lessons learned from Japan, we can conclude that the selective model is a bit more resilient and adaptive in responding to economic fluctuations, and that this model is more in line with the traditional Confucian culture as well as with China's current level of economic development. Of course, as I said earlier, the level of expenditure has little to do with the level of economic development. The key issue is still to choose a model that suits the long-term interests of Chinese society and its citizens. The selective model is characterized by the fact that the level of the contributory insurance system should be appropriate, and the non-contributory security system should be constructed with great effort, and should not be deviated from the pattern or be too high, and the lessons of Japan should be learnt in this respect. The selective model emphasizes that expenditure target groups should be targeted. Obviously, the universal relief system is less suitable for our national conditions, because it is less able to cope with external demand and economic fluctuations.
This is the third inspiration: the construction of the social security system and the social security legislation should be based on the strength of the system and should not exceed the level of economic development. Otherwise, some of the legislation will be too fast to be effective. I think there are some lessons to be learned from our Labor Contract Act, which was implemented in 2008. Korea has had two similar lessons. First, Korea formulated the Medical Insurance Act as early as 1963, but due to various reasons, including a lack of uniformity in understanding and insufficient financial resources, the Act was not implemented in the end. As a result, the Act was partially implemented in 1977 after 14 years, and fully implemented in 1989 after another 12 years. Secondly, when Korea started to implement the national pension system in 1988, it adopted a program of lower rates and higher benefits, i.e., the goal of the system of "low rates - high benefits", which subsequently increased the burden on the national treasury as it was always in a state of not being able to cover its expenditures. As the system was predicted to be in deficit by 2036 and the fund would be depleted by 2047, Korea had to carry out the "Reform of the Pension Act" twice, in 1998 and 2007, in order to adjust the rate standard and the level of benefits.