Governance Logics of ECEC Integration under Demographic Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Administrative Pragmatism in China and Institutional Normativism in South Korea

Governance Logics of ECEC Integration under Demographic Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Administrative Pragmatism in China and Institutional Normativism in South Korea | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Governance Logics of ECEC Integration under Demographic Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Administrative Pragmatism in China and Institutional Normativism in South Korea 明凤 李 This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Against the backdrop of extreme demographic contraction, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems in both China and South Korea are confronted with severe survival crises, prompting successive waves of integration reforms. However, the policy trajectories of the two nations exhibit a striking divergence: China, grappling with a structural "resource mismatch" between surplus preschool seats and a deficit in 0–3 childcare, tends toward administrative mobilization via minimalist policy discourse. Conversely, South Korea’s reform is driven not by supply shortages, but by the need to resolve long-standing institutional fragmentation and educational inequities. This has prompted the South Korean Ministry of Education to release a comprehensive 31-page implementation plan aimed at a fundamental structural reconfiguration of administrative jurisdiction, teacher qualifications, and financial standards. Utilizing a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD), this study systematically compares the policy texts and institutional backgrounds of both nations. The findings reveal that this policy divergence stems not from the level of administrative efficiency, but from two fundamentally distinct governance logics: Resource-Led Adaptation in China and Rights-Based Transformation in South Korea. The China model relies on administrative mobilization capabilities, activating grassroots "self-rescue" through fuzzy delegation to achieve adaptive resilience. The South Korea model, by contrast, centers on the equitable right to education as its core value, seeking transformative resilience through rigid legal regulation and institutional standardization. This study proposes that the type of state capacity—administrative mobilization versus rule-based governance—serves as a pivotal meso-level variable for understanding the bifurcated reform trajectories within East Asian productivist welfare regimes. These findings not only challenge the monolithic perception of the "East Asian model" but also offer differentiated governance insights for other nations navigating demographic transitions. ECEC integration population shrinkage governance logic institutional resilience state capacity productivist welfare capitalism China-Korea comparison 1. Introduction 1.1 Background: The Crisis of Earthquake and Preschool Education in East Asia East Asian countries in the 21st century are undergoing an unprecedented demographic transition. Ultra-low fertility rates and population aging have not only reshaped the socio-economic landscape but also caused a disruptive impact on the public service system—particularly in the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC). As the epicenter of this "demographic earthquake," the education systems of China and South Korea are facing institutional survival crises due to a sharp decline in student populations. According to the "Statistical Report on Education Development" released by the Ministry of Education of China in 2024, the total number of children in kindergartens in China plummeted to 40.93 million in 2023, a decrease of 5.3457 million (a drop of 11.55%) compared to the previous year (Ministry of Education of China, 2025). This sharp decline directly led to the large-scale closure of private kindergartens and severe underutilization of public educational resources. Meanwhile, as dual-income families become increasingly common, the demand for childcare services for children aged 0–3 has become more urgent. This structural mismatch between "excess school places" and "insufficient childcare spots" has become a key issue that the Chinese government must address (Hong, 2026 ). South Korea faces equally severe challenges, though with distinct contradictions. Its total fertility rate has remained among the lowest globally for years, leaving childcare centers and kindergartens struggling to sustain operations amid a "stock competition" with dwindling enrollments. The core issue isn't merely service shortages, but a chronic "dualistic childcare system" (Institutional Fragmentation) – marked by severe disparities in administrative oversight, funding, and teacher compensation between Ministry of Education-run kindergartens and Ministry of Health and Welfare-managed daycare centers. Against the backdrop of a precipitous population decline, this institutional fragmentation has resulted in excessive administrative overhead and resource redundancy, severely undermining the viability of the national care system (Ministry of Education, 2024). In this context, the integration of ECEC serves not only as a policy tool to promote fertility intentions in both countries but also as an inevitable choice for consolidating public service resources amid population decline. Its objective is to enhance operational efficiency by integrating fragmented education and care resources, alleviate parental childcare burdens, and ultimately drive high-quality population development (Hong, 2026 ). From the perspective of comparative welfare policies, the structural integration of ECEC policies is not unique to East Asia. Since the early 21st century, countries such as the UK, Sweden, and New Zealand have successively advanced reforms to consolidate education and care functions under a single governing body (Kaga, Bennett & Moss, 2010 ). However, these Western examples mostly occurred during periods of population expansion or stability, with integration driven primarily by political demands of child rights movements and the need for service homogenization (Bennett, 2012). In stark contrast, China and South Korea face the backdrop of rapid population decline, which exerts fundamentally different institutional pressures on ECEC integration—not merely a matter of resource redistribution but also a structural reorganization of fragmented institutional legacies, thereby constituting the unique contextual proposition of this study. 1.2 Problem Statement: The Governance Paradox of "One-Statement Mandate" and "Thirty-One-Page Implementation Plan" Despite facing similar demographic crises and policy objectives, China and South Korea exhibit significant contrasts in governance logic and implementation approaches. China achieved large-scale resource mobilization through concise policy discourses, while South Korea relied on detailed legal texts to drive institutional restructuring. This difference is not only reflected in the style of policy texts but also highlights systematic disparities between the two countries in terms of the essence of national capacity, historical institutional inheritance, and the logic of political legitimacy, which constitute the core puzzle and analytical starting point of this study. At the policy text level, China's adopted strategies exhibit highly "minimalist" characteristics. Policy mobilization at the central level is achieved solely through programmatic statements and general rhetoric, such as "encouraging qualified kindergartens to enroll children aged 2–3," without introducing systematic legal revisions or administrative restructuring plans. According to data from the 2024 National Education Development Statistical Report, the country's 253,300 kindergartens (of which 87.26% are inclusive kindergartens) constitute a vast reserve of educational resources (Wang & Di, 2026 ). The logic behind this "minimalist" policy discourse is to leverage administrative mobilization capabilities to activate the resource transformation potential of grassroots organizations, enabling rapid adaptation to demographic changes. In stark contrast, South Korea's policy texts exhibit a completely opposite "maximization" characteristic. The "ECEC Integration Draft Implementation Plan" issued by the Ministry of Education in 2024 is a 31-page technical policy document. This plan is not aimed at filling service gaps but rather at settling the "institutional debt" accumulated over the past three decades of the dual system. The document details comprehensive structural restructuring arrangements, including centralized administrative jurisdiction (unified under the Ministry of Education), unified teacher certification (establishing a unified certificate system for children aged 0–5), and financial support calculation standards (Ministry of Education, 2024). Faced with similarly oriented policy objectives, why did South Korea opt for such a high-cost, highly detailed policy text? Does this choice reflect a governance logic fundamentally different from that of China? This constitutes the second core question of the study (Lee, 2024 ; Jang, 2014 ). 1.3 Research Significance and Necessity This study aims to systematically compare the ECEC integration policy texts and their contexts in China and South Korea, revealing the underlying governance logic behind the apparent dichotomy between "minimalism" and "maximalism." Specifically, the research focuses on the following questions: Do the significant differences in the level of detail in the policy texts reflect differences in administrative capacity, or do they stem from a fundamental trade-off between two distinct governance value orientations—resource optimization and the universalization of rights? Furthermore, how do these differences in governance logic affect the effectiveness and limitations of the policies in both countries? Existing academic research is mainly limited to a single-country perspective. China scholars primarily focus on supply and demand forecasting and resource allocation efficiency in the integration process of ECEC (Wang, 2026 ), while Korean scholars pay more attention to interest negotiations and teacher identity construction during ministerial-level mergers (Baek, 2024 ; Choi, 2023). However, transnational comparative studies from the macro perspective of governance logic remain insufficient. In the context of population decline, should the state prioritize "administrative flexibility" or "institutional standardization"? This question holds significant theoretical implications for other emerging countries facing similar demographic crises. Therefore, this paper attempts to demonstrate that the significant difference in policy refinement between China and South Korea is not a reflection of administrative capability, but rather a fundamental trade-off between governance logic—namely, "resource optimization" and "universalization of rights"—by analyzing the latest data from the 2024 "China Educational Development National Statistical Report", policy documents from the South Korean Ministry of Education, and core literature from CNKI and KCI databases, employing text analysis and comparative case study methods. This finding not only enriches the discourse on governance resilience in East Asian countries but also provides new theoretical references for the transformation of public service systems in the context of population contraction. 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework This chapter aims to elucidate the profound differences in governance logic between China and South Korea against the backdrop of population contraction. The study adopts an empirical-to-theoretical approach: first, it reviews the current academic research focuses and theoretical tendencies in both countries; then, it introduces the theoretical tools of "productive welfare capitalism" and "state capacity"; finally, based on these foundations, it derives the core analytical concepts of this study, laying the theoretical groundwork for subsequent comparative case analyses. 2.1 Literature Review: Focus and Theoretical Disputes in Existing Research 2.1.1 China Research Trends: Demographic Shifts The research field of Administrative Efficiency The Logic on ECEC integration is concentrated in the Chinese academic community, with a research background of negative population growth, primarily focusing on "supply-demand imbalance" and "resource efficiency" issues, exhibiting a clear administrative pragmatism tendency. Wang and Di ( 2026 ) revealed the structural pressure caused by student attrition through a prospective population forecasting model, pointing out that the transformation of resource structure is the core path to solving the problem of idle school enrollment—this assessment directly provides academic basis for the "backward compatibility" strategy at the policy level. In addition, Hong ( 2026 ) elevated the importance of ECEC integration to the level of national governance, emphasizing that it is not only an instrumental measure to alleviate the shortage of childcare, but also a strategic choice for the state to improve supply efficiency by integrating public service resources. This research context is highly consistent with the long-standing tradition of preschool education policy studies in China. Pang and Hu ( 2009 ) were among the first to point out that the fragmented management framework of China's preschool education system leads to severe resource dispersion and uneven quality. From a professional perspective, Feng ( 2018 ) emphasized that the rapid expansion of childcare services without the support of professional standards for teachers would trigger systemic quality risks. Although these key insights have long been marginalized in quantity-oriented policy discussions, they provide important academic references for understanding the inherent contradictions of the China model. A common feature of the aforementioned literature is that policy effectiveness evaluations consistently use efficiency indicators such as "supply quantity" and "coverage rate" as benchmarks, while the standardization of service quality has not received sufficient attention. In addition, Li and Ma ( 2021 ) systematically reviewed the evolution of childcare service provision in China over the past century, revealing a three-stage development trajectory from "unit welfare dominance" to "marketization" and then to "inclusive restructuring," thereby demonstrating that current reforms are an integral part of long-term institutional reshaping. Liu and Liu ( 2021 ) further pointed out that although the total volume of childcare services has continued to grow since the reform and opening-up, the structural contradiction of shrinking public institutions and increasing parental burdens remains unresolved—this is precisely the deep-seated institutional root of the "one-sentence policy" relying on administrative mobilization rather than legislative regulation. This research orientation essentially reflects the characteristics of administrative pragmatism in China's governance logic. 2.1.2 Research Trends in South Korea: Child Rights and Institutional Standardization Compared to the logic of institutional standardization, academic discussions in South Korea demonstrate stronger normative concerns and rights-oriented approaches. Zhang (2014) critically reflected on existing integration controversies, pointing out that the long-standing debates surrounding Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration have been entrenched in an "adult-centered" administrative efficiency logic, thereby neglecting children's fundamental demands for equitable educational opportunities as independent rights holders. From a child rights perspective, Zheng (2022) further integrated two core propositions—ministerial-level integration and unified teacher qualifications—emphasizing that ECEC integration policy objectives should prioritize maximizing children's rights (rather than administrative convenience). Kwon and Lee ( 2025 ) conducted a systematic analysis of integration policies to explore the institutional identity construction of future "infant and toddler education systems," proposing a comprehensive paradigm shift from legal frameworks to curriculum philosophy. Furthermore, Sun (2017) conducted a critical discourse analysis of the formation process of ECEC integration policies during Park Geun-hye's administration, revealing an asymmetric power structure dominated by governance logic within interest group networks. This historical context provides a political economy perspective for understanding South Korea's adherence to institutional normativism. Li's (2024) monitoring report validated the challenges of institutional standardization at the implementation level: industry anxiety triggered by unified teacher qualifications and interdepartmental conflicts caused by standardized financial requirements both exposed structural contradictions between the "upward equilibrium" goal and actual conditions. By reviewing recent domestic research trends in South Korea, Bai (2024) found that academic evaluations of ECEC integration are increasingly focusing on children's rights and service quality rather than mere administrative efficiency. The academic community in South Korea has also made significant contributions to comparative studies. Peng ( 2011 ) analyzed the expansion of South Korea's social welfare system through a political economy lens, situating the dual-track childcare system within the comparative framework of East Asian developing nations. His research revealed three key characteristics of the reform: concurrent expansion of services, institutional fragmentation, and quality differentiation. Additionally, Kwon ( 2005 ) systematically compared the divergent welfare system transformation paths across East Asian economies, identifying an intrinsic correlation between democratization processes and institutional standardization levels. This comparative political economy perspective provides theoretical support for understanding the institutional roots of South Korea's adherence to the "law-first" principle. Ryu et al. ( 2023 ) demonstrated that New Zealand's ECEC integration process, which prioritizes legislative precedents and curriculum standardization, aligns closely with South Korea's policy orientation. This provides cross-regional empirical validation for the normative logic of the Korean model. Li (2016) 's pioneering research traced the historical trajectory of South Korea's ECEC integration, revealing that the tension between efficiency and equity emerged during the policy's initial phase. This structural contradiction persists as a core challenge requiring resolution in implementation plans. Such academic discourse has profoundly influenced South Korea's government, driving its consistent adoption of rule-based governance approaches in institutional integration. 2.1.3 Common blind spots in existing research: Lack of transnational comparisons in governance logic. A comprehensive analysis of current studies on China and South Korea reveals that academic circles in both countries tend to discuss ECEC integration solely within their domestic political and economic contexts, with insufficient academic research engaging in transnational dialogue from the higher-dimensional perspective of governance logic. Notably, the field of ECEC integration research has already produced several internationally significant cases: Liu and Liu ( 2025 ) conducted a systematic study on the motivations, measures, and challenges of Italy's "0-6-year-old integrated system" reform, revealing how continental European integration models are implemented through a three-tier governance framework and digital monitoring systems. Similarly, Hu et al. ( 2015 ) and Yu and Li ( 2014 ) analyzed the formation logic of Japan's Nintei Kodomo-en (Certified Childcare Centers) system, both highlighting the universal principle that institutional integration requires dual legislative and financial safeguards. These international cases demonstrate that the China-Korea comparative study focuses on this research holds both typical relevance and theoretical extension value. This cognitive blind spot makes it difficult for policymakers to distinguish whether the significant differences between China and South Korea in policy texts between 'minimalism' and 'maximalism' are manifestations of administrative capability differences or fundamental divergences in governance value orientations when facing similar demographic shocks. This study is designed precisely to fill this cognitive gap. 2.2 Theoretical Tools: Dual Perspectives of Productivist Welfare Capitalism and State Capacity To elucidate the formation mechanisms of these cross-border disparities, this study employs two interconnected theoretical frameworks. These frameworks are not isolated analytical constructs but are structurally nested: the productivist welfare capitalism theory provides a macro-level explanatory framework for institutional contexts, while the dual distinction of state capacity further reveals the micro-level mechanisms underlying the divergent developmental paths chosen by two countries under identical conditions. 2.2.1 Productivist Welfare Capitalism The unique logic of welfare policies in East Asian countries is elucidated by Holliday ( 2000 ) through the framework of "productivist welfare capitalism." Unlike Western welfare states that regard social security as an inherent citizen right, East Asian welfare policies have historically been positioned as instrumental arrangements to promote economic growth, with their core lying in the productive returns of welfare expenditures rather than the universalization of rights. Although Espin-Andersen (1990) proposed three types of welfare systems—liberal, conservative, and social democratic—this framework's inability to encompass the historical experiences of East Asian countries has been widely discussed in academia (Gough, 2004 ; Kwon, 2005 ). Holliday's theory precisely fills this gap: East Asian countries view welfare as productive investment rather than a consumption-based right, with their social policies consistently centered on economic objectives. During the period of population expansion, early education investment was regarded as a mechanism for cultivating human capital. However, during the phase of population contraction, this framework underwent a fundamental paradigm shift—the function of welfare policies has shifted from "expanding the supply of production factors" to "maintaining system sustainability and preserving public assets," with its core objectives also transitioning from economic efficiency to building governance resilience. This theoretical transformation provides a structural explanation for the logic of China's administrative pragmatism: when the continuous decline in fertility rates puts the preschool education system in a survival crisis, the state's primary consideration is not to reconstruct service standards but to preserve existing investments at the lowest administrative cost. 2.2.2 Two Dimensions of State Capacity: Administrative Mobilization and Rule-Based Governance. This study, based on the productionist framework, further introduces a typological analysis of state capacity to distinguish the different approaches adopted by China and South Korea in addressing the demographic crisis. Williams et al. (2023) categorize institutional resilience into two forms: "adaptive resilience" (flexible adaptation within existing frameworks) and "transitional resilience" (restructuring system logic through disruptive innovation). The China model demonstrates strong administrative mobilization capabilities, specifically manifested in the organizational efficiency of rapidly activating grassroots institutions and redefining the functions of existing resources through administrative directives. This aligns highly with the concept of "absorptive" resilience in the risk governance framework proposed by Oettinger (2013)—that is, the system does not alter its fundamental structure when absorbing external shocks. In contrast, the South Korea model better fits the logic of "rule governance" proposed by Schmidt ( 2021 ): under a democratic and rule-of-law framework, the legitimacy of policy reforms must be ensured through precise legal texts and procedural justice. Therefore, the measure of national capacity lies not in the speed of mobilization but in the refinement of institutional development. The core difference between these two capabilities lies in how the state internalizes "resistance to policy change": the China model resolves resistance through the "blank space" of flexible authorization, while the South Korea model dissipates resistance during the "filling" process of precise contracts. 2.3 Analytical Framework: Derivation of Core Concepts Based on Theoretical Tools This study, based on the two sets of theoretical tools discussed earlier, extracts two distinctly different core analytical concepts, corresponding to the governance logic types of China and South Korea. These concepts not only serve descriptive functions but also constitute theoretical propositions that can be operationally validated in other developing economies in East Asia, with their analytical validity extending beyond the scope of mere case descriptions. First, "functional extension." This concept refers to the state's use of administrative mobilization to assign new service functions to existing institutions without altering the current legal framework or administrative system. This theory directly stems from empirical observations of the China model: kindergartens under the jurisdiction of the education department have extended their service scope to children aged 2–3, essentially constituting a "path-dependent" fine-tuning. By redefining the functions of existing educational resources, social needs can be rapidly met without changing administrative affiliations (Wang & Di, 2026 ). The underlying logic is the application of administrative mobilization capabilities under productionist welfare capitalism: by flexibly delegating functions to bypass the high friction costs of institutional reform, rapid incremental service functions can be achieved with lower political risks. Secondly, "Structural Reengineering". This concept refers to the establishment of a new unified system through comprehensive cross-departmental administrative integration and legal standardization. This approach corresponds to the South Korean model: transferring the child care functions of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to the Ministry of Education, and establishing a unified institutional identity for "infant and toddler schools" (Ministry of Education of South Korea, 2024). This is not only a horizontal transfer of departmental authority but also a "deconstruction and reconstruction" of the entire Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system based on legal legitimacy. The underlying logic prioritizes the normative principle of safeguarding children's rights, which aligns closely with Schmidt's "rule governance" paradigm: standardizing service quality and universalizing rights are more important than the speed of administrative reforms. 2.4 Integration of Analytical Framework: Dual-track Pattern of Institutional Resilience By integrating the theoretical tools and core concepts mentioned earlier, this paper summarizes the governance resilience of China and South Korea in responding to demographic shocks into the following binary analytical framework, providing operational references for case analyses in subsequent chapters. The logic of this framework holds that equivalent demographic pressures will reflect differentiated policy choices through different types of national capacities, and once these choices form path dependence, the institutional boundaries of future reforms will consequently take shape. The two poles of this framework do not imply superiority or inferiority in terms of value judgments, but rather represent governance strategies with inherent rationality under their respective institutional contexts. Adaptive resilience (corresponding to the China model): the tendency to make functional adjustments within the existing institutional flexibility framework. At its core is administrative pragmatism, which involves rapid resource mobilization to respond to crises. Despite the exceptionally swift response speed, there may still be potential risks such as ambiguous regulatory boundaries and insufficient quality supervision. Transformative Resilience (corresponding to the Korean model): A tendency to restructure systemic logic through disruptive innovation. Its core is institutional normativism, which ensures long-term equity and the universalization of rights through legal reconstruction. Despite its high systemic stability, it still faces the risks of significant costs associated with interest negotiations and implementation delays. 2.5 Summary In summary, the integration practices of China and South Korea in ECEC are by no means simple instrumental differences in choice, but rather the path choices shaped by national capabilities under different institutional histories and value orientations. The analytical framework constructed in this chapter—revealing empirical differences through literature reviews, explaining formation mechanisms with theoretical tools, and using core concepts as analytical dimensions—will provide coherent logical support for the case analyses in Chaps. 4 and 5, as well as the in-depth comparison in Chap. 6. 3. Study Design and Methods This study aims to explore the differences in the logic of integrated governance between China and South Korea under the pressure of population contraction. To ensure the rigor and scientific validity of the research, this chapter will elaborate on the rationale for case selection, the reliability of data sources, and the systematic nature of the analytical logic. 3.1 Comparative Case Study Method: Theoretical Basis for Selecting China and South Korea as "Comparable Entities" This study employs qualitative comparative analysis of "Most Similar Systems Design" (MSSD). This methodology was systematically proposed by Przeworski and Teune (1970), with its core logic being to minimize the influence of confounding variables by selecting highly similar comparison units, thereby enabling residual differences in results to be more reliably attributed to core explanatory variables. China and South Korea were chosen as comparative cases due to their high similarity in macroeconomic background and policy objectives, while also exhibiting significant differences in governance tools. In terms of textual analysis strategies, the framework of Braun and Clarke (2006) was referenced to systematically encode and classify policy texts, thereby identifying the governance intentions underlying different discursive patterns. From the perspective of demographic structure, both China and South Korea are facing the severe issue of "a cliff-like decline in student enrollment rates." According to the 2024 National Statistical Educational Development Report, the number of kindergarten enrollments in China continues to drop significantly (Ministry of Education of China, 2025). Meanwhile, South Korea's total fertility rate remains at the lowest level globally, forcing the country's preschool education system to undergo fundamental reforms (Ministry of Education of South Korea, 2024). In terms of cultural and institutional foundations, both countries are deeply influenced by Confucian culture and place great emphasis on early education. Additionally, for a long time, the two countries have managed the care of infants aged 0–2 and the education of children aged 3–5 by different administrative departments, leading to the same dilemma of institutional fragmentation. By placing these two highly similar systems within a unified comparative framework, we can more effectively eliminate confounding variables, thereby focusing on the core research variable: how different governance logics lead to distinctly different policy texts under identical demographic shocks. This comparison not only provides academic explanatory power but also offers crucial insights for the transformation of public services in East Asian countries. 3.2 Data Sources and Text Mining The data collection in this study adhered to the triangulation principle, incorporating three primary data sources: official statistics, policy planning documents, and core academic literature. This strategy employed cross-validation of data with varying characteristics to mitigate the influence of single-source bias while providing quantitative support for qualitative analysis conclusions (Yin, 2018). The specific data sources are categorized as follows: 3.2.1 Official Statistical Data and Original Policy Text. The Chinese data primarily derives from the "National Statistical Report on Educational Development" released by China's Ministry of Education in 2024, which provides authoritative updates on kindergarten numbers, the proportion of inclusive kindergartens, and fluctuations in student enrollment rates. The South Korean data is directly extracted from the "World Class Early Childhood Education and Care Draft Implementation Plan" issued by South Korea's Ministry of Education in June 2024, serving as the core framework document for the current inclusive phase of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in South Korea (Ministry of Education, 2024). 3.2.2 Academic Literature Database. Through the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), we retrieved cutting-edge research achievements in the field of China ECEC resource allocation (e.g., Hong, 2026; Wang & Di, 2026). Meanwhile, with the help of the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS) and the Korea Citation Index (KCI), we obtained Jang's (2014) research from a rights perspective, as well as Lee's (2024) latest report on the integrated monitoring scheme for ECEC. These documents not only provide empirical support for this study but also establish a coordinate system for theoretical exploration. 3.3 Analytical Framework: The Evolution from Policy Discourse to Governance Logic. This study employs a three-tiered analytical progression— "from description to explanation, then to comparison" —to ensure the internal coherence and reproducibility of its arguments. The first level is text mining. By comparing China's "minimalist" directive discourse (such as "encouraging eligible regions..." with South Korea's "maximalist" contractual discourse (such as precise regulations on employee qualifications and financial burden ratios), the superficial differences in granularity between the two countries' policy texts are identified. The second level involves the alignment of analytical dimensions. Based on the theoretical framework established in Chap. 2, we systematically align the policy practices of China and South Korea across three parallel dimensions: "institutional foundation" (historical conditions and resource/institutional accumulation), "policy mechanisms" (authorization methods and operational paths), and "essential characteristics" (types of governance logic). These three dimensions correspond to the structural arrangements in Chap. 4 (China) and Chap. 5 (South Korea), ensuring that the two cases are compared horizontally within the same analytical framework rather than being described in isolation. For example, China's "institutional foundation" focuses on enrollment surplus and resource stock, while South Korea's "institutional foundation" revolves around its dual-track historical deficit; China's "policy mechanisms" emphasize ambiguous authorization and distributed experimentation, whereas South Korea's "policy mechanisms" highlight precision contracts and legal precedents. The third level is logical synthesis. By analyzing the interactions among these dimensions, we extract the deep governance logic: specifically, how China achieves efficient administrative coverage through adaptive resilience via fuzzy authorization (reflecting administrative pragmatism and resource-oriented adaptation); and how South Korea reconstructs the social contract through reform resilience by means of a meticulously designed institutional framework (reflecting institutional normativism and rights-oriented transformation). This deductive process, from "elaborating content" to "execution methods" and ultimately to "why it is executed this way," constitutes the core analytical chain of this paper. 4. Research Result One: Administrative Pragmatism in the China Model 4.1 Resource Foundation: "Downward Compatibility" from the Perspective of Enrollment Surplus. The logic of ECEC integration under the China model primarily relies on precise regulation of existing educational resource stock. Mao (2025) systematically demonstrated the feasibility of supply-demand matching between the idle scale of preschool education resources for ages 3–6 and the demand for childcare services for ages 0–3 by constructing a provincial urban population prediction model, providing quantitative evidence for the strategy of "integrating childcare services into the preschool education system." The predictions by Hai and Gao (2023) similarly indicate that the number of newborns nationwide will continue to decline from 2023 to 2035, a trend that will further expand the idle scale of kindergarten seats in the medium term, creating structural space for integration strategies. By comparing the data from the 2023 and 2024 National Education Development Statistical Reports, it is evident that the current preschool education system is facing severe contraction and the potential space for its expansion. Regarding the number of kindergartens, China registered 274,400 institutions nationwide in 2023, marking a decrease of 14,800 from the previous year (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2024). By 2024, this figure had further declined to 253,300, with an average annual reduction of 21,100 (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2025). This indicates that the preschool education market underwent a dramatic "survival of the fittest" process on the supply side within just two years. Meanwhile, the proportion of inclusive kindergartens showed an upward trend, rising from 86.16% in 2023 to 87.26% in 2024. The most striking statistic is the dramatic fluctuations in preschool enrollment. In 2023, China's preschool enrollment reached 40.9298 million, a 5.3457 million decrease (11.55%) from the previous year (Ministry of Education, 2024). This precipitous decline has resulted in severe kindergarten capacity shortages. The resource base for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration stems from idle classrooms, outdated equipment, and surplus full-time teachers (approximately 3 million in 2024). This downward compatibility isn't a deliberate strategy, but rather a natural system-wide restructuring to prevent large-scale underutilization caused by population decline. 4.2 The operational mechanism of the 'one-sentence' policy: distributed governance and authorization logic. In the process of promoting the integration of ECEC, the policy text of China exhibits an extreme 'conciseness'. The detailed legal provisions, such as the 31-page comprehensive implementation plan proposed by South Korea, were not promulgated by the central government but achieved policy mobilization through programmatic statements like 'encouraging qualified kindergartens to enroll children aged 2–3'. Behind this 'one-sentence' policy lies profound logic of distributed governance. 4.2.1 Central Authorization and Ambiguous Mobilization. By employing vague policy language (e.g., "encouraging" or "exploring"), the central government legally defines childcare services for 2-3-year-olds as an "extension of preschool education" rather than "compulsory education." This ambiguity reduces the political risks of institutional reform, thereby granting local governments considerable interpretative flexibility. 4.2.2 Local Pilot Programs and Differentiated Adaptation. With the central government's "one-stop" authorization, regions implement tailored pilot programs based on fiscal capacity and enrollment pressures. Areas under enrollment pressure (e.g., second-and third-tier cities) promptly establish kindergarten standards, incorporating enrollment data into statistics. Meanwhile, financially robust regions incentivize the transformation of inclusive kindergartens through fiscal subsidies. 4.2.3 Micro-level Practices of Institutional Self-Rescue. At the micro level, for numerous private and inclusive kindergartens facing closure, enrolling 2-3-year-olds has become a "battle for survival." Childcare facilities that originally required massive government funding have transitioned into voluntary services through this "institutional self-rescue" mechanism. Through decentralized governance, the Chinese government has achieved rapid expansion of childcare services at minimal administrative costs. 4.3 Core Features: Resource-Dominated Adaptation and Flexible Governance The essence of the China model can be summarized as "resource-dominated adaptation". The core of this governance logic lies not in "reconstruction of rights", but in "asset recovery" — the primary driving force of its policy objectives is not to ensure every child receives quality services through normative rights, but to transform the existing educational infrastructure into new service supplies. This logic is considered efficient at the economic level, but it forms specific value trade-offs in the context of welfare politics: suspending quality standards in exchange for service speed and coverage, and increasing instant service increments in exchange for institutional flexibility. This core feature is specifically reflected in the following two dimensions. 4.3.1 Rapid recovery of sunk costs. Over the past decade, China has invested a huge amount of funds in the construction of inclusive kindergartens in the field of preschool education. With the decrease in the number of enrolled children, these assets face the risk of becoming "sunk costs." Thanks to flexible governance mechanisms, the government allows kindergartens to be backward-compatible, effectively bridging the gap between the excess capacity of the education system and the shortage of childcare services, thereby maximizing the utilization rate of public assets. 4.3.2 The Advantages and Hidden Concerns of Flexible Governance. The durability of this Administrative Pragmatism stems from its "ultra-high-speed adoption characteristic." Wang and Di (2026) demonstrated that through this resource transformation, China is expected to bridge the significant gap in childcare services for 2-3-year-olds in the short term. However, the underlying issue lies in the lack of institutional normative support: when childcare services are merely regarded as a "peripheral project" or "gap-filling initiative" for kindergartens, can the physical and mental development characteristics of 2-3-year-old infants be supported by professional pedagogy? Long-term foundational research in child development has demonstrated that the 0–3 year old stage exhibits an irreversible window effect on children's cognitive, linguistic, and socio-emotional development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). In the integration of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), the care and education of infants and toddlers aged 0–3 should not simply extend downward to 3-6-year-old preschool education. According to the OECD report "Strong Start VI" (OECD, 2021), the core of high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care lies in "meaningful interaction." Due to the unique nature of children's physical and mental development, the 0–3 year old stage imposes more distinctive and stringent professional requirements on caregivers regarding emotional support and interaction quality. Therefore, the comprehensive restructuring of teacher qualifications in South Korean policies is not only seen as an administrative standardization requirement but also as a response to the core concern of "process quality" in the international forefront of ECEC integration. Transplanting pre-service training for kindergarten teachers directly into childcare settings is considered to pose systemic risks that may affect occupational adaptability. Qin and Liu (2025) conducted an empirical study on the adaptation challenges faced by teachers during the transition of kindergartens into ECEC integrated institutions. The study revealed that under the dual mismatch of "capability demand" and "demand supply," a large number of transitioning teachers encounter structural difficulties where their professional competencies fail to meet job requirements. This micro-level evidence directly exposes the systemic contradiction between the pace of administrative expansion and the cultivation of professional capabilities. Should professional "refinement" yield to administrative "speed"? This stands in stark contrast to the institutional normative model of South Korea and also represents a core challenge that the China model must confront in advancing legislative standardization. 4.4 Summary The China model achieved large-scale resource mobilization through "one-sentence policies," demonstrating the powerful capacity of systematic restoration under administrative pragmatism. The demographic crisis was successfully transformed into an opportunity for service system transformation, reflecting the wisdom of adaptive and resilient governance. However, the effectiveness of this wisdom has limitations: when administrative authorization fails to continuously provide quality assurance incentives, and the gap between the professional competence of conservation teachers and job requirements accumulates to a certain extent, the logic of "compensating quality with quantity" will face systemic challenges. The subsequent development of the China model depends on whether it can gradually establish standardized quality assurance mechanisms while maintaining administrative flexibility—this is precisely the core issue addressed in the policy recommendations of Chap. 7. 5. Discovery II: Institutional Normativism in the Korean Model 5.1 Institutional Foundation: Historical Deficiencies and Integration Space of the Dual-Track System Over Thirty Years The integration logic of the China model is based on "excessive placement numbers," while that of the South Korean model is rooted in "the lack of institutional norms." For a long time, South Korea's Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system has been described as a "dual-track system with two stoves in one house." Under this system, "kindergartens" for children aged 3–5 (under the Ministry of Education, focusing on education) and "nurseries" for infants aged 0–5 (under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, focusing on welfare) are completely separated. Zhang's (2014) research shows that this dual structure not only leads to redundant administrative resource allocation but also creates severe educational inequality at the societal level. It is precisely these institutional deficiencies accumulated over the past thirty years that constitute the fundamental driving force behind South Korea's push for "ECEC integration," determining its inevitable choice of a "structural reorganization" path rather than a simple "functional extension." This historical divide manifests in three dimensions: First, the antagonism in administrative affiliations—the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare operate independently in budget allocation and regulatory standards; Second, disparities in legal frameworks—the "Early Childhood Education Act" and the "Infant Care Act" differ in hardware requirements such as per capita space and childcare quality standards; Most fundamentally, the contradiction lies in the identity gap between teachers, where kindergarten teachers and childcare workers exhibit significant disparities in entry thresholds, compensation, and legal status (Lee, 2024). The formation of this dual-track system is closely linked to the rapid expansion of social policies in South Korea during the 1980s-1990s. The surge in female labor participation rates generated massive childcare demand, prompting the government to classify 0–2 year old infant care under welfare subsidies under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, separating it from the Ministry of Education's 3–5 year old early childhood education system. This created a path-dependent dual-track model (Peng, 2011). Under the pressure of population decline, South Korea's historical legacy has been forced into a critical decision-making phase: when both kindergartens and daycare centers face a sharp drop in student enrollments, integration becomes an inevitable choice, but at the cost of repaying institutional debts accumulated over three decades. Choi (2022) systematically demonstrated the path dependence of phased implementation in early-stage research, proposing that unified administrative management is a prerequisite for all integration measures. Her follow-up study in 2025 incorporated demographic and social structural changes into the integration framework, establishing priority rankings for the new institutional agenda. Sun (2016) also pointed out that the historical evolution of South Korea's ECEC integration has transitioned from prolonged policy debates to a stage of discourse competition, where various interest groups define the legitimacy boundaries of integration through discursive construction. This discourse competition itself constitutes significant resistance to institutional reform. Kang (2023)'s research on medium-and long-term care system reform further adopted the institutional integrity framework, indicating that establishing an integrated service system for children aged 0–5 is not only an administrative efficiency issue but also a strategic choice for repositioning national care responsibilities. In the context of extreme population contraction, this institutional rigidity has become the primary obstacle hindering resource integration. 5.2 Policy Mechanisms of the "ECEC Integrated Implementation Plan Draft": Institutional Approaches for Five Upgrade Pathways. To address long-standing challenges in South Korea, the Ministry of Education released the "World-Class Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation Plan Draft" in June 2024. This document not only provides detailed content but also exemplifies the "institutional normative" logic, with its core focus on achieving comprehensive system innovation through the "Five Upgrade Pathways" (Ministry of Education, 2024). 5.2.1 Deep Integration of Legal and Administrative Systems. The plan explicitly establishes a legal framework of "unified management by the Ministry of Education." Through the revision of the Government Organization Law, the administrative functions, budget, and staffing of child care, originally under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, have been fully transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and local educational institutions. This principle of "legal priority" ensures the irreversibility of institutional-level reforms. 5.2.2 Standardized Fiscal Investment Framework. To address the persistent disparity in government subsidies between kindergartens and daycare centers, the implementation plan proposes an "equalization of educational investment" initiative. Jin (2024) developed a comprehensive fiscal support model using Seoul as a case study. The analysis reveals that achieving uniform cost standards for free education and childcare would necessitate a systematic restructuring of the current budget framework, imposing substantial fiscal redistribution pressures. This requires not only annual budget realignments of trillions of Korean won (KRW) but also meticulous planning to ensure equitable tuition fee reductions for all enrolled children. The goal is to eliminate institutional "premiumity" through fiscal leverage (Kang, 2023). 5.2.3 The "Reconstruction Project" of Teacher Qualifications. This is regarded as the most challenging component of the plan. Kim (2023) conducted an in-depth study on the construction path of the comprehensive teacher qualification system for early childhood education (0–5 years) from the perspective of the teacher qualification system; Kang (2024) designed a complete transition plan specifically for the comprehensive qualification certification system, including promotion and training; through legislative amendment path analysis, a concrete implementation plan was proposed to integrate existing kindergarten and childcare teachers into a unified sequence. Park and Kim (2024) further validated the policy feasibility of this plan within the implementation framework, providing academic support for the most controversial teacher integration among the five standardized reforms. To achieve the "comprehensive teacher qualification for early childhood education (0–5 years)," the South Korean government designed an extremely complex retraining and promotion system. According to Bai (2024), South Korea did not adopt the ambiguous approach in the China model but instead attempted to integrate hundreds of thousands of existing teachers with diverse backgrounds into a unified professional sequence by establishing unified educational requirements and assessment standards. 5.2.4 Standardized Service Environment. The implementation plan has systematically aligned and integrated physical environment standards for kindergartens and nurseries, covering unified specifications for per capita floor space, safety facility configurations, food hygiene standards, and information management systems. This initiative aims to eliminate hardware disparities caused by long-standing administrative affiliations. For numerous nurseries with historically inadequate facilities, this requires substantial renovation investments, which has become a major funding pressure source during the reform process (Ministry of Education, 2024). 5.2.5 Institutionalization of Guardian Participation Mechanisms. Unlike the implicit assumption of parental involvement in the China model, the South Korean implementation explicitly incorporates the participation rights of parent committees, information access rights, and appeal mechanisms into the institutional design, and confirms the status of parents as policy stakeholders through legal texts. This design reflects the deeply rooted value orientation of the South Korean model: reform should not only achieve efficiency integration at the institutional level but also safeguard and highlight the subjective rights of children and families through the institutionalization of participation mechanisms during the reform process (Jang, 2014). The institutional operational path of "rights-based transformation" in the South Korean model is composed of these five trajectories of hierarchical elevation, with its meticulous planning and comprehensive coverage embodying the substantive essence of the "31-page plan". 5.3 Core Features: The Necessity of Rights Transformation and High-Cost Reforms The core of the Korean model can be summarized as "rights transformation". Unlike China's administrative pragmatism, which emphasizes "sunk cost recovery", Korea regards the integration of ECEC as a constitutional-level task to ensure citizens' "equal right to education". 5.3.1 The necessary investment in high institutional costs. This regulatory approach inevitably entails substantial administrative coordination costs and fiscal compensation expenditures. However, within the context of South Korea's rule-of-law society, these costs are regarded as necessary sacrifices for achieving social equity. As Schmidt (2021) noted, although the development of "rule-based governance capacity" progresses slowly, the risks of constitutional violations after policy implementation can be minimized through detailed contractual provisions and compensation mechanisms. 5.3.2 The shift from "institutional focus" to "child-centered approach". South Korea's "upward equalization" philosophy (where all standards align with the highest benchmarks) demonstrates respect for children's rights. As Zhang (2014) criticized, if integration is merely for cost-saving or management convenience, it would constitute a betrayal of children's rights. Therefore, despite population decline pressures, South Korea chooses to invest heavily in service quality enhancement rather than simply downsizing. 5.4 Summary The Korean model exemplifies 'transitional resilience'. Rather than settling for incremental adjustments within existing frameworks, it seeks to establish a comprehensive high-quality public service system through the Draft Integrated Implementation Plan for the ECEC. Despite encountering significant social friction in the short term, its steadfast commitment to 'norms' and 'rights' offers a profound paradigm for institutional reconstruction in late-developing countries facing demographic crises. 6. Discussion: Comparative Analysis of Governance Logic The divergence between China and South Korea in the "minimalism" and "maximalism" of the ECEC integration policy text is not an accidental rhetorical choice, but rather a governance response formed by the two countries based on different dimensions of institutional resilience when facing similar population crises. This chapter will delve into the power struggles, value trade-offs, and the redefinition of national capacity behind this textual difference. 6.1 Power Dynamics Behind Text Granularity: Fuzzy Governance and Precise Contract China model: Administrative mobilization under ambiguous authorization. The "ambiguity" in China's Ministry of Education policies is essentially a highly sophisticated governance strategy. Strategic ambiguity in policy language has been extensively studied in the field of comparative policy analysis; scholars have found that ambiguity is not a sign of policy failure, but a rational choice for building alliances and dispersing risks (Majone, 1989). In China's political and administrative system, this ambiguity serves a specific function: by authorizing local governments to conduct differentiated experiments, the system maintains practical diversity and flexibility under a unified political symbol. This aligns closely with the "empirical learning" logic of China's policy process, as summarized by Heiman (2008). According to Williams et al. (2023)' s classification of institutional resilience, China demonstrates strong adaptive resilience. This logic represents administrative pragmatism, which trades policy "blank spaces" for faster transformation, converting the impact of population decline into a driving force for systemic evolution. The South Korean Model: Legal Integration Under Precise Contracts. In stark contrast, Schmidt's (2021) concept of "rule governance" has been implemented in South Korea's draft ECEC Integration Implementation Plan. Within the framework of democratic rule of law, any changes involving capital flows and personnel status must possess absolute legal legitimacy. Given the profound historical divide in South Korea's dual ECEC system (Jang, 2014), the government must establish detailed provisions through precise "contract texts" regarding teacher qualification transfers and budget allocation ratios. This precision aims to mitigate litigation risks and interest group mobilization; the "maximization principle" in these texts essentially represents a "common standard" negotiated through power dynamics in the rule of law process. The 31-page implementation plan released by South Korea's Ministry of Education for integrating the teacher qualification system aligns closely with the latest international consensus on ECEC teacher workforce development. The OECD's newly published "2024 Talis Survey Report" (2025 edition) explicitly states that ensuring working conditions, career development pathways, and clear qualifications for nursing and education personnel are fundamental to strengthening the ECEC system amid industry demand fluctuations and short-term crises. South Korea's meticulous restructuring of the teacher workforce through "legal precedents" represents an institutional attempt to address systemic pressures caused by population decline. 6.2 The Balance between Efficiency and Equity: Two Ways of Allocating Governance Costs 6.2.1 The Chinese Model: High Efficiency and Its "Gradual" Costs. The China model has achieved a significant improvement in resource adaptation efficiency through Administrative Pragmatism. Statistical data show that despite a 11.55% reduction in the number of enrolled children, the system still maintains an inclusive kindergarten coverage rate of 87.26% (Ministry of Education, 2025), fully demonstrating its strong "asset recovery" capability. This transformation is characterized by gradualness: administrative integration has resolved a large number of overt conflicts. From the theoretical perspective of institutional change, this aligns highly with the concept of "transformation" proposed by Streeck and Thelen (2005) — existing institutions adapt to new environmental pressures through functional reinterpretation, provided that formal rules remain unchanged. The functional transformation of service recipients is achieved through expanded childcare services in kindergartens, without altering the legal nature of the institutions. However, Hong (2026) also points out that although the "quantity" of supply is addressed through administrative mobilization, the absence of detailed regulations leaves regulatory boundaries uncertain. A deeper challenge lies in the fact that, due to the "backward compatibility" of kindergartens, which does not require large-scale recruitment, the originally vast private childcare workforce is facing passive displacement (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). The system survives by adopting the strategy of "speed before quality", but the micro-level cost of the transformation process is often borne by individual practitioners outside the system. 6.2.2 The Korean Model: High Friction Challenges Under High Standardization. The Korean model pursues "upward equalization," ensuring equal-quality services for all children through institutional restructuring, reflecting a strong sense of fairness (Jang, 2014). However, Li's (2024) monitoring report reveals that this path toward absolute standardization faces significant cost of interest negotiation. Due to comprehensive redefinition of employee qualifications, industry anxiety continues to spread, and policy-making is repeatedly delayed. Through a questionnaire survey of 2,246 experts nationwide, Gao (2024) found that among stakeholders in the ECEC integration, parents are the biggest beneficiaries, while employees remain cautious about the integration, with standardized qualification certification methods becoming the most contentious issue—this empirical finding directly exposes structural contradictions in the institutional normative approach regarding interest distribution. Kim et al. (2023) conducted a comparative study of coping strategies among staff and parents in kindergartens and childcare institutions during integration discussions, identifying significant differences in information access channels, appeal expression strategies, and policy cognition frameworks. These differences constitute inevitable social friction during the integration process. From the perspective of comparative welfare reform, this dilemma is not unique to Korea. Pierson's "consolidation politics" theory suggests that any reform involving the status of vested interest groups faces stronger institutional resistance than expansionist reforms. The resistance of South Korean childcare educators to standardized qualification criteria aligns closely with this theoretical prediction: When the benefits of reform (improved service quality) are shared by society as a whole, while the costs (retraining and uncertainty of career transition) are borne by specific groups, The organized resistance from disadvantaged groups is precisely the result of rational collective action (Ostrom, 1990). Although this reform resilience is impeccable at the normative level, its "high institutional costs" lead to an exceptionally slow transition from policy documents to implementation, demonstrating significant resistance. This is precisely the structural challenge that the institutional normative approach must confront. 6.3 Redefining State Capacity: Administrative Mobilization, Institutional Restructuring and the Theoretical Boundaries of East Asian Governance The core findings of this study pose substantial challenges and supplements to the classical Western welfare state theory. In the welfare system comparison framework constructed by Espin-Andersen (1990), the legitimacy of public service transformation stems from the legalist "legitimacy based on rights." This theory posits that a state's welfare commitment to citizens must be established through legislation to gain institutional binding force. However, the China model presents a unique path: before formal legislation is enacted, the administrative system redefines and mobilizes existing resources (particularly vacant preschool education seats), achieving rapid expansion of childcare services. This indicates that state capacity is not limited to the Western sequence of "rights commitment-legislation-execution," but that "administrative mobilization-resource activation-post-legislation" can also effectively utilize state power. However, to simply regard the China model as inherently superior to the Western path is a theoretical oversimplification. Comparative political economy studies show that while state capacity-building based on mobilization can bring short-term efficiency gains, it often comes with long-term risks in quality supervision. The China "Childcare Services Law (Draft)" underwent years of administrative trial operation before entering the legislative process, indicating that "post-legislative" measures are more systemic remedies for the limitations of administrative mobilization rather than pre-designed closed-loop mechanisms. From the perspective of productionist welfare capitalism proposed by Holiday (2000), the logic of this "pre-legislative trial operation" is actually rooted in the historical context of "instrumental welfare" in East Asian countries. When instrumental policy objectives (such as rapidly filling childcare gaps and preventing idle public resources) are achieved, normative goals—such as quality assurance and rights popularization—gradually enter the policy agenda. This path choice depends on the specific conditions of national capacity-building rather than the inherent advantages of the East Asian governance model, and its replicability requires careful evaluation. From a macro perspective of East Asian governance comparisons, China and South Korea exhibit significant differences in the exercise of state capacity under the tradition of "strong state intervention." These differences stem from distinct historical institutional accumulations (such as South Korea's thirty-year dual-track system tradition), variations in political characteristics (the contrast between liberal democracy and party-state systems), and the development of social rights awareness. These findings indicate that "East Asian developmental states" are not a single analytical unit but a pluralistic system—one that can evolve different institutional resilience paths when facing common demographic decline issues. Future theoretical constructs of welfare transition in East Asia must incorporate "types of state capacity" as an intermediate variable in the Holliday framework to accurately capture this internal differentiation. This divergence offers direct theoretical insights for emerging countries. When facing public service crises caused by population shrinkage, the core challenge for policymakers is not simply choosing between "efficiency" and "equity." The key lies in determining the optimal balance between adaptive resilience and transformative resilience under specific national capacities, historical institutions, and political legitimacy, thereby achieving a dynamic equilibrium between short-term system sustainability and long-term rights protection. The comparison between China and South Korea provides two extreme references for this path selection; in fact, most countries will seek tailored combination strategies to adapt to their national conditions. 6.4 Summary The discussion in this chapter shows that the level of detail in policy texts does not reflect quality levels, but rather is a product of the governance environment and historical logic. In an emergency state of resource misallocation, the China model achieves rapid systemic survival and gradual "soft landing" through administrative pragmatism. Conversely, driven by social rights claims, the South Korea model employs institutional normativism to build a fair future through high-cost "disruptive innovation." These two models together constitute two typical resilient scenarios of public service governance during East Asia's demographic transition. In its forward-looking analysis on early childhood education in "2025", the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasized that education systems must have sufficient resilience to achieve long-term benefits in response to changes in industry demand. China rapidly enhanced its adaptive resilience through strong administrative mobilization capabilities, temporarily alleviating the issue of resource misallocation; while South Korea's transformational resilience strategy—by refining institutional norms to stabilize practitioners' expectations and reconstructing the service system—may provide a more sustainable path for the long-term high-quality development of the welfare system. 7. Conclusion and Implications This study compares and analyzes the policy texts on ECEC integration between China and South Korea to explore the two different governance logics and their institutional resilience in addressing the global population decline crisis. This chapter summarizes the research findings and proposes policy recommendations based on recent legislative developments. 7.1 Research Review: The Convergence of Governance Logic and Population Crisis The core finding of this study is that when China and South Korea faced the "admission cliff," two distinctly different governance paradigms emerged—administrative pragmatism and institutional normativism. Both paradigms exhibit an inherent logic that is highly consistent with their respective institutional backgrounds. This divergent evolution is not accidental but is determined by systemic differences such as the essence of state capacity, historical institutional inheritance, and mechanisms of political legitimacy. The China model, with resource-oriented adaptation at its core, demonstrates strong adaptive resilience. According to the 2024 National Education Development Statistical Bulletin, which records the phenomenon of preschool education overcapacity, China achieves the ambiguous delegation of power through "simplified" guiding policies, thereby stimulating the self-protection instincts of local governments and kindergartens. The advantage of this logic lies in its ability to recover and repurpose existing resources with minimal administrative resistance and the fastest speed, avoiding the idling of public assets during demographic transition. From the perspective of path dependence theory (Pierson, 2004 ; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010 ), this model fully utilizes the institutional assets accumulated during the rapid expansion of China's preschool education system over the past decade. By employing the "functional extension" strategy to avoid the high transition costs brought by path shifts, this approach becomes a rational choice under established institutional constraints. Its inherent limitations are equally evident: with lagging standardized supervision, the contradiction between quantitative expansion and quality assurance will become increasingly prominent as the demand for childcare for children aged 2–3 continues to grow. In contrast, the South Korean model prioritizes rights-based transformation as its core, demonstrating remarkable resilience in change. Through the five 'upward equalization' measures outlined in the ECEC Integrated Implementation Plan, South Korea seeks to redefine the social contract among the state, children, and families amid a demographic crisis. While this approach entails substantial institutional costs and implementation delays, its steadfast commitment to 'norms' and 'fairness' ensures the policy's long-term stability within a rule-of-law framework. 7.2 Evolutionary Perspective: Methodological Notes on China's Child Care Services Law After completing the preliminary analytical framework, it is necessary to focus on an important policy development: in December 2025, the "Draft Law of the People's Republic of China on Childcare Services" was officially reviewed and opened for public consultation (consultation period: December 27,2025 to January 25,2026). This legislative progress indicates that China's administrative pragmatism model is entering the "post-legislative" phase, where the outcomes of administrative practices are transformed into binding institutional norms through law. The draft explicitly supports kindergartens admitting children under three years old and provides detailed regulations on the qualifications of practitioners, service standards, and legal liabilities. Yang and Zhu ( 2025 ) conducted a normative legal analysis of this trend, advocating that China's childcare legislation should adopt a "mixed pluralistic" supply model to balance state obligations with social collaboration—a judgment that aligns closely with the "gradual standardization" approach explored in this study. Methodological clarification is needed here to avoid confusing this development with the core analytical framework. The enactment of the Childcare Services Act does not imply that the differences in governance logic between China and South Korea are disappearing, nor does it mean that the binary analytical framework has become invalid. On the contrary, the procedural sequence of "administrative pilot first, legislative confirmation later" is the most typical institutional embodiment of administrative pragmatism logic. The reform consensus is gradually accumulated through low-risk administrative exploration, and only when the path is mature is it solidified through legislation. This fundamentally differs procedurally from South Korea's approach of "legislation first, simultaneous implementation." In other words, "post-legislation" not only confirms the governance differences identified in this study but also does not negate their existence. Therefore, the enactment of the Childcare Services Act should be regarded as a dynamic footnote to the "maturity of China's adaptive resilience model," rather than a fundamental shift toward South Korea's normative path. Future research could track the dynamic convergence or continued divergence in actual service quality and coverage equalization between the two countries after the law's implementation, thereby providing further empirical testing for the theoretical framework proposed in this article. 7.3 Policy Recommendations 7.3.1 Suggestions for the China model: Maintain flexibility in the process of legalization With the advancement of the Childcare Services Law, China should avoid falling into the trap of "over-regulation." International legislative practices have shown that excessively high service standards often lead to the large-scale exit of small and medium-sized service providers from the market, thereby exacerbating supply shortages (Penn, 2009 ). It is recommended to reserve space for "distributed experimentation" during the implementation of legislation, allowing regions facing severe enrollment crises to autonomously determine compliance timelines and resource transition models. This autonomy is crucial for maintaining the system's ability to rapidly respond to population decline. At the same time, efforts must be made to address the inherent shortage of professional talent in the China model. While expanding childcare supply, differentiated professional standards for teachers targeting the 2–3 age group and on-the-job training systems should be established to ensure simultaneous progress in quantity expansion and quality assurance (Feng, 2018 ). 7.3.2 Recommendations for the Korean Model: Introducing Administrative Flexibility within the Regulatory Framework South Korea should reflect on the challenges of "high costs and slow implementation." Comparative cases show that during the integration of the ECEC system, Ireland adopted a "differentiated institutional approach," allowing educational institutions of varying sizes to express phased timelines, which effectively reduced resistance to reform (Hayes, 2013 ). Drawing on China's experience with "pilot programs," it is recommended that South Korea break away from "one-size-fits-all" national mandatory requirements when restructuring its institutions. Specifically, pilot programs for ECEC integration could be launched first in administrative regions facing extreme population decline. This would not only accumulate experience at the micro level but also establish a template for interest coordination before nationwide promotion, thereby alleviating social anxiety (Lee, 2024 ). Additionally, South Korea could learn from the gradual integration experience of Nordic countries: instead of enforcing uniform standards, it could establish a transitional certification mechanism, providing existing teachers with a 3-to 5-year pathway for academic advancement (Einarsdottir & Wagner, 2006 ). 7.4 Research Limitations and Future Prospects This study is based on statistical data from 2023–2024 and the latest legislative developments up to the end of 2025. There are three main limitations: First, the actual implementation effect of the Child Care Services Act remains to be observed; due to the lack of implementation-level data, the analysis of China's "post-legislative" phase in this study remains at the textual level, limiting the completeness of the argument. Second, the implementation resistance and progress of South Korea's "Implementation Plan" at the local level require systematic field research, and the policy text analysis adopted in this study is difficult to capture the micro-level power dynamics in grassroots implementation. Third, the generalizability of the study conclusions, when comparing China and South Korea, is limited by the political and economic background of East Asia. For countries facing similar demographic crises, such as Japan and Thailand, their applicability still needs cross-case validation (Yin, 2018 ). Lee and Choi ( 2025 ) systematically analyzed the research trends in South Korea's Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration from 2023 to 2025, revealing a rapid shift in academic focus from "whether to integrate" to "how to integrate." This transition from policy analysis to implementation evaluation provides new benchmarks and frameworks for future comparative studies. Subsequent research should concentrate on three key areas: micro-level quality assessments at the institutional level after legal implementation; deviations and disparities in grassroots policy execution between China and South Korea; and expanded comparisons with other East Asian economies (The nine core measures of Japan's child-centered policy model and Taiwan's integration experiences) to test and refine the explanatory power of the adaptive resilience and transformative resilience theoretical framework proposed in this study. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution The author was responsible for the entire content of this manuscript, including the conceptualization, analysis, and preparation of the reference list. Data Availability The data used in this study are derived from publicly accessible official statistical communiqués, policy documents, and academic databases. All primary sources are listed in the references. References I. Official Documents and Statistical Data. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2024). 2023 Statistical communiqué of national education development . http://www.moe.gov.cn Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2025). 2024 Statistical communiqué of national education development . http://www.moe.gov.cn/ Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (2025). Childcare service law of the People's Republic of China (Draft) . Ministry of Education [South Korea] (2024). Execution plan for ECEC integration to achieve world-class early childhood education and care (Draft) . II Chinese Academic Literature. Hai, Y., & Gao, J. L. (2023). Forecasting the childcare supply potential of preschool education resources in urban and rural China under the context of low fertility: Based on population trends 2023–2035. Education & Economy , 39 (03), 86–94. Hong, X. M. (2026). High-quality early childhood education: Solving childcare dilemmas through ECEC integration. People's Tribune , (01), 81–85. Li, F., & Ma, H. X. (2021). Research on the supply of childcare services over the centenary of the Communist Party of China: Evolution, logic, and future outlook. Social Security Studies , 05 , 13–25. Liu, X. J., & Liu, Y. L. (2021). Status, problems, and reflections on childcare services in China since the reform and opening-up. China Soft Science , (S1), 376–386. Liu, Y., & Liu, B. C. (2025). The reform of the 0–6 Integrated System of ECEC in Italy: Motivations, measures, and challenges. Comparative Education Review , (06), 71–85. Mao, T. (2025). Research on the integration of provincial urban preschool resources and childcare services from a supply-demand perspective. Population and Economics , (02), 31–46. Qin, X. F., & Liu, X. T. (2025). Dilemmas and pathways of teacher adaptation in the transformation of kindergartens into integrated ECEC institutions. Modern Education Management , (01), 57–66. Wang, Y. F., & Di, H. J. (2026). Demand forecasting for ECEC integration resources under new demographic trends: A perspective on 2025–2050 population dynamics. Education Academic Monthly , (01), 102–111. Yu, D. Q., & Li, H. Y. (2014). Analysis of the Japanese Certified Center for Early Childhood Education and Care ( nintei kodomoen ) system. Education Science , 30 (05), 87–91. Yang, F. W., & Zhu, J. (2025). Provision of childcare services in China: Normative foundations, model selection, and institutional shaping—A legal perspective. Studies in Early Childhood Education , (04), 12–22. Pang, L. J., & Hu, P. T. (2009). Reform of China's preschool education system: Problems and directions. Educational Research , 30 (11), 73–79. Feng, X. X. (2018). Professionalization of childcare services: Significance, status, and policy recommendations. Educational Research , 39 (3), 27–33. Hu, H. Q., Suo, C. Q., & Chen, X. Y. (2015). Development and enlightenment of Integrated ECEC in Japan. School Studies , 12 (06), 102–108. III Korean Academic Literature and Research Reports. Kang, E. J. (2024). A study on the establishment of promotion and training systems for kindergartens and childcare centers after ECEC integration . Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE). Kang, J. W. (2023). A study on the reform plan for the medium-to-long-term infant and toddler care system . Ministry of Health and Welfare. Ko, J. W. (2024). A study on the social needs of experts for ECEC integration policy. Journal of Early Childhood Education & Educare Welfare , 28 (2), 35–64. Kwon, J. Y., & Lee, B. S. (2025). Exploring the identity of future ECEC schools through policy analysis of ECEC integration. Early Childhood Education Research , 45 (4), 391–421. Kim, G. J. (2024). Seoul-style integrated financial support model based on ECEC integration . Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. Kim, D. W. (2023). Teacher qualifications and training systems for 0–5 year olds centered on ECEC integration. Journal of Open Early Childhood Education , 28 (3), 1–27. Kim, H. J., Lee, H. S., & Kang, H. G. (2023). Responses of teachers and parents in kindergartens and childcare centers to the discussion on ECEC integration . Gyeonggi-do Education Research Institute. Ryu, M. H., Park, S. M., & Ahn, H. R. (2023). Exploration of the ECEC integration process and childcare system in New Zealand. Early Childhood Education Research , 43 (2), 277–323. Park, J. H., & Kim, D. W. (2024). Feasibility of 0–5 curriculum operation and teacher training according to the execution plan for ECEC integration. Journal of the Convergence of Culture Technology , 10 (5), 601–608. Baek, J. H. (2024). Domestic research trends and future directions regarding ECEC integration. Journal of Next-generation Convergence Information Services Technology , 13 (6), 839–848. Son, H. S. (2016). Integration of infant education and care: From issues to policy discourse . NRF KRM. Son, H. S. (2017). Critical discourse analysis of the formation process of ECEC integration policy. Journal of Early Childhood Education , 21 (5), 399–419. Lee, Y. J. (2024). Monitoring the phased promotion of ECEC integration and measures to improve performance (II) . Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE). Lee, H. J. (2016). A study on the current status and direction of ECEC integration. Journal of Children's Literature and Education , 17 (4), 821–834. Lee, J. E., & Choi, Y. K. (2025). Analysis of domestic research trends related to perceptions of ECEC integration: Focusing on 2023–2025. Educational Development , 45 (2), 675–699. Jang, Y. I. (2014). Re-examination of discussions on ECEC integration: A childcare perspective on education-centered integration. Korean Journal of Child Care and Education , (87), 113–142. Jeong, H. J. (2022). Arguments and suggestions for ECEC integration from the perspective of children's rights. Korean Journal of Child Care and Education , 136 , 77–101. Choi, E. Y. (2022). Step-by-step promotion plan for the integration of early childhood education and care . Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE). Choi, E. Y. (2025). Analysis of the ECEC policy agenda and system reform in response to demographic and social changes . Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE). IV English Academic Literature. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism . Princeton University Press. Gough, I. (2004). East Asia: The limits of productivist regimes. In I. Gough, & G. Wood (Eds.), Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America (pp. 169–201). Cambridge University Press. Heilmann, S. (2008). From local experiments to national policy: The origins of China’s distinctive policy process. The China Journal , 59 , 1–30. Holliday, I. (2000). Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. Political Studies , 48 (4), 706–723. Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Caring and learning together: A cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education within education . UNESCO. Kwon, H. J. (2005). Transforming the developmental welfare state in East Asia. Development and Change , 36 (3), 477–497. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power . Cambridge University Press. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process . Yale University Press. McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review , 32 (3), 485–510. OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care . OECD Publishing. OECD. (2021). Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care . OECD Publishing. OECD. (2025). Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care . OECD Publishing. Peng, I. (2011). The good, the bad and the confusing: The political economy of social care expansion in South Korea. Development and Change , 42 (4), 905–923. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis . Princeton University Press. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry . Wiley-Interscience. Schmidt, V. A. (2021). Europe’s crisis of legitimacy: Governing by rules and ruling by numbers in the Eurozone . Oxford University Press. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development . National Academy. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies . Oxford University Press. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . Cambridge University Press. Hayes, N. (2013). Early years practice: Getting it right from the start . Gill & Macmillan. Penn, H. (2009). International perspectives on quality in mixed economies of early childhood provision . NCB/Daycare Trust. Einarsdottir, J., & Wagner, J. T. (Eds.). (2006). Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden . Information Age Publishing. Williams, N. (2023). Institutional resilience and economic shock: A comparative study. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice , 25(2). Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8962689","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":609236881,"identity":"2a519c2c-3558-4d10-be7b-18f3880e4aa3","order_by":0,"name":"明凤 李","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shandong Women’s University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"明凤","middleName":"","lastName":"李","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-25 03:39:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105727987,"identity":"25d1a4b5-6e78-44b6-8cee-4612df88f6b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-30 11:07:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1069285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8962689/v1/66c0b225-4b34-4653-b6c5-28250f0a4dfd.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Governance Logics of ECEC Integration under Demographic Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Administrative Pragmatism in China and Institutional Normativism in South Korea","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Background: The Crisis of Earthquake and Preschool Education in East Asia\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEast Asian countries in the 21st century are undergoing an unprecedented demographic transition. Ultra-low fertility rates and population aging have not only reshaped the socio-economic landscape but also caused a disruptive impact on the public service system\u0026mdash;particularly in the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC). As the epicenter of this \"demographic earthquake,\" the education systems of China and South Korea are facing institutional survival crises due to a sharp decline in student populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the \"Statistical Report on Education Development\" released by the Ministry of Education of China in 2024, the total number of children in kindergartens in China plummeted to 40.93\u0026nbsp;million in 2023, a decrease of 5.3457\u0026nbsp;million (a drop of 11.55%) compared to the previous year (Ministry of Education of China, 2025). This sharp decline directly led to the large-scale closure of private kindergartens and severe underutilization of public educational resources. Meanwhile, as dual-income families become increasingly common, the demand for childcare services for children aged 0\u0026ndash;3 has become more urgent. This structural mismatch between \"excess school places\" and \"insufficient childcare spots\" has become a key issue that the Chinese government must address (Hong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth Korea faces equally severe challenges, though with distinct contradictions. Its total fertility rate has remained among the lowest globally for years, leaving childcare centers and kindergartens struggling to sustain operations amid a \"stock competition\" with dwindling enrollments. The core issue isn't merely service shortages, but a chronic \"dualistic childcare system\" (Institutional Fragmentation) \u0026ndash; marked by severe disparities in administrative oversight, funding, and teacher compensation between Ministry of Education-run kindergartens and Ministry of Health and Welfare-managed daycare centers. Against the backdrop of a precipitous population decline, this institutional fragmentation has resulted in excessive administrative overhead and resource redundancy, severely undermining the viability of the national care system (Ministry of Education, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the integration of ECEC serves not only as a policy tool to promote fertility intentions in both countries but also as an inevitable choice for consolidating public service resources amid population decline. Its objective is to enhance operational efficiency by integrating fragmented education and care resources, alleviate parental childcare burdens, and ultimately drive high-quality population development (Hong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). From the perspective of comparative welfare policies, the structural integration of ECEC policies is not unique to East Asia. Since the early 21st century, countries such as the UK, Sweden, and New Zealand have successively advanced reforms to consolidate education and care functions under a single governing body (Kaga, Bennett \u0026amp; Moss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). However, these Western examples mostly occurred during periods of population expansion or stability, with integration driven primarily by political demands of child rights movements and the need for service homogenization (Bennett, 2012). In stark contrast, China and South Korea face the backdrop of rapid population decline, which exerts fundamentally different institutional pressures on ECEC integration\u0026mdash;not merely a matter of resource redistribution but also a structural reorganization of fragmented institutional legacies, thereby constituting the unique contextual proposition of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Problem Statement: The Governance Paradox of \"One-Statement Mandate\" and \"Thirty-One-Page Implementation Plan\"\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite facing similar demographic crises and policy objectives, China and South Korea exhibit significant contrasts in governance logic and implementation approaches. China achieved large-scale resource mobilization through concise policy discourses, while South Korea relied on detailed legal texts to drive institutional restructuring. This difference is not only reflected in the style of policy texts but also highlights systematic disparities between the two countries in terms of the essence of national capacity, historical institutional inheritance, and the logic of political legitimacy, which constitute the core puzzle and analytical starting point of this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the policy text level, China's adopted strategies exhibit highly \"minimalist\" characteristics. Policy mobilization at the central level is achieved solely through programmatic statements and general rhetoric, such as \"encouraging qualified kindergartens to enroll children aged 2\u0026ndash;3,\" without introducing systematic legal revisions or administrative restructuring plans. According to data from the 2024 National Education Development Statistical Report, the country's 253,300 kindergartens (of which 87.26% are inclusive kindergartens) constitute a vast reserve of educational resources (Wang \u0026amp; Di, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). The logic behind this \"minimalist\" policy discourse is to leverage administrative mobilization capabilities to activate the resource transformation potential of grassroots organizations, enabling rapid adaptation to demographic changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn stark contrast, South Korea's policy texts exhibit a completely opposite \"maximization\" characteristic. The \"ECEC Integration Draft Implementation Plan\" issued by the Ministry of Education in 2024 is a 31-page technical policy document. This plan is not aimed at filling service gaps but rather at settling the \"institutional debt\" accumulated over the past three decades of the dual system. The document details comprehensive structural restructuring arrangements, including centralized administrative jurisdiction (unified under the Ministry of Education), unified teacher certification (establishing a unified certificate system for children aged 0\u0026ndash;5), and financial support calculation standards (Ministry of Education, 2024). Faced with similarly oriented policy objectives, why did South Korea opt for such a high-cost, highly detailed policy text? Does this choice reflect a governance logic fundamentally different from that of China? This constitutes the second core question of the study (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3 Research Significance and Necessity This study aims to systematically compare the ECEC integration policy texts and their contexts in China and South Korea, revealing the underlying governance logic behind the apparent dichotomy between \"minimalism\" and \"maximalism.\" Specifically, the research focuses on the following questions: Do the significant differences in the level of detail in the policy texts reflect differences in administrative capacity, or do they stem from a fundamental trade-off between two distinct governance value orientations\u0026mdash;resource optimization and the universalization of rights? Furthermore, how do these differences in governance logic affect the effectiveness and limitations of the policies in both countries?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting academic research is mainly limited to a single-country perspective. China scholars primarily focus on supply and demand forecasting and resource allocation efficiency in the integration process of ECEC (Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), while Korean scholars pay more attention to interest negotiations and teacher identity construction during ministerial-level mergers (Baek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Choi, 2023). However, transnational comparative studies from the macro perspective of governance logic remain insufficient. In the context of population decline, should the state prioritize \"administrative flexibility\" or \"institutional standardization\"? This question holds significant theoretical implications for other emerging countries facing similar demographic crises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, this paper attempts to demonstrate that the significant difference in policy refinement between China and South Korea is not a reflection of administrative capability, but rather a fundamental trade-off between governance logic\u0026mdash;namely, \"resource optimization\" and \"universalization of rights\"\u0026mdash;by analyzing the latest data from the 2024 \"China Educational Development National Statistical Report\", policy documents from the South Korean Ministry of Education, and core literature from CNKI and KCI databases, employing text analysis and comparative case study methods. This finding not only enriches the discourse on governance resilience in East Asian countries but also provides new theoretical references for the transformation of public service systems in the context of population contraction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis chapter aims to elucidate the profound differences in governance logic between China and South Korea against the backdrop of population contraction. The study adopts an empirical-to-theoretical approach: first, it reviews the current academic research focuses and theoretical tendencies in both countries; then, it introduces the theoretical tools of \"productive welfare capitalism\" and \"state capacity\"; finally, based on these foundations, it derives the core analytical concepts of this study, laying the theoretical groundwork for subsequent comparative case analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Literature Review: Focus and Theoretical Disputes in Existing Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1.1 China Research Trends: Demographic Shifts The research field of Administrative Efficiency The Logic on ECEC integration is concentrated in the Chinese academic community, with a research background of negative population growth, primarily focusing on \"supply-demand imbalance\" and \"resource efficiency\" issues, exhibiting a clear administrative pragmatism tendency. Wang and Di (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e) revealed the structural pressure caused by student attrition through a prospective population forecasting model, pointing out that the transformation of resource structure is the core path to solving the problem of idle school enrollment\u0026mdash;this assessment directly provides academic basis for the \"backward compatibility\" strategy at the policy level. In addition, Hong (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e) elevated the importance of ECEC integration to the level of national governance, emphasizing that it is not only an instrumental measure to alleviate the shortage of childcare, but also a strategic choice for the state to improve supply efficiency by integrating public service resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research context is highly consistent with the long-standing tradition of preschool education policy studies in China. Pang and Hu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) were among the first to point out that the fragmented management framework of China's preschool education system leads to severe resource dispersion and uneven quality. From a professional perspective, Feng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized that the rapid expansion of childcare services without the support of professional standards for teachers would trigger systemic quality risks. Although these key insights have long been marginalized in quantity-oriented policy discussions, they provide important academic references for understanding the inherent contradictions of the China model. A common feature of the aforementioned literature is that policy effectiveness evaluations consistently use efficiency indicators such as \"supply quantity\" and \"coverage rate\" as benchmarks, while the standardization of service quality has not received sufficient attention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, Li and Ma (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) systematically reviewed the evolution of childcare service provision in China over the past century, revealing a three-stage development trajectory from \"unit welfare dominance\" to \"marketization\" and then to \"inclusive restructuring,\" thereby demonstrating that current reforms are an integral part of long-term institutional reshaping. Liu and Liu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) further pointed out that although the total volume of childcare services has continued to grow since the reform and opening-up, the structural contradiction of shrinking public institutions and increasing parental burdens remains unresolved\u0026mdash;this is precisely the deep-seated institutional root of the \"one-sentence policy\" relying on administrative mobilization rather than legislative regulation. This research orientation essentially reflects the characteristics of administrative pragmatism in China's governance logic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1.2 Research Trends in South Korea: Child Rights and Institutional Standardization Compared to the logic of institutional standardization, academic discussions in South Korea demonstrate stronger normative concerns and rights-oriented approaches. Zhang (2014) critically reflected on existing integration controversies, pointing out that the long-standing debates surrounding Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration have been entrenched in an \"adult-centered\" administrative efficiency logic, thereby neglecting children's fundamental demands for equitable educational opportunities as independent rights holders. From a child rights perspective, Zheng (2022) further integrated two core propositions\u0026mdash;ministerial-level integration and unified teacher qualifications\u0026mdash;emphasizing that ECEC integration policy objectives should prioritize maximizing children's rights (rather than administrative convenience). Kwon and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a systematic analysis of integration policies to explore the institutional identity construction of future \"infant and toddler education systems,\" proposing a comprehensive paradigm shift from legal frameworks to curriculum philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Sun (2017) conducted a critical discourse analysis of the formation process of ECEC integration policies during Park Geun-hye's administration, revealing an asymmetric power structure dominated by governance logic within interest group networks. This historical context provides a political economy perspective for understanding South Korea's adherence to institutional normativism. Li's (2024) monitoring report validated the challenges of institutional standardization at the implementation level: industry anxiety triggered by unified teacher qualifications and interdepartmental conflicts caused by standardized financial requirements both exposed structural contradictions between the \"upward equilibrium\" goal and actual conditions. By reviewing recent domestic research trends in South Korea, Bai (2024) found that academic evaluations of ECEC integration are increasingly focusing on children's rights and service quality rather than mere administrative efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe academic community in South Korea has also made significant contributions to comparative studies. Peng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) analyzed the expansion of South Korea's social welfare system through a political economy lens, situating the dual-track childcare system within the comparative framework of East Asian developing nations. His research revealed three key characteristics of the reform: concurrent expansion of services, institutional fragmentation, and quality differentiation. Additionally, Kwon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) systematically compared the divergent welfare system transformation paths across East Asian economies, identifying an intrinsic correlation between democratization processes and institutional standardization levels. This comparative political economy perspective provides theoretical support for understanding the institutional roots of South Korea's adherence to the \"law-first\" principle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRyu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that New Zealand's ECEC integration process, which prioritizes legislative precedents and curriculum standardization, aligns closely with South Korea's policy orientation. This provides cross-regional empirical validation for the normative logic of the Korean model. Li (2016) 's pioneering research traced the historical trajectory of South Korea's ECEC integration, revealing that the tension between efficiency and equity emerged during the policy's initial phase. This structural contradiction persists as a core challenge requiring resolution in implementation plans. Such academic discourse has profoundly influenced South Korea's government, driving its consistent adoption of rule-based governance approaches in institutional integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1.3 Common blind spots in existing research: Lack of transnational comparisons in governance logic. A comprehensive analysis of current studies on China and South Korea reveals that academic circles in both countries tend to discuss ECEC integration solely within their domestic political and economic contexts, with insufficient academic research engaging in transnational dialogue from the higher-dimensional perspective of governance logic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the field of ECEC integration research has already produced several internationally significant cases: Liu and Liu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a systematic study on the motivations, measures, and challenges of Italy's \"0-6-year-old integrated system\" reform, revealing how continental European integration models are implemented through a three-tier governance framework and digital monitoring systems. Similarly, Hu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and Yu and Li (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) analyzed the formation logic of Japan's Nintei Kodomo-en (Certified Childcare Centers) system, both highlighting the universal principle that institutional integration requires dual legislative and financial safeguards. These international cases demonstrate that the China-Korea comparative study focuses on this research holds both typical relevance and theoretical extension value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis cognitive blind spot makes it difficult for policymakers to distinguish whether the significant differences between China and South Korea in policy texts between 'minimalism' and 'maximalism' are manifestations of administrative capability differences or fundamental divergences in governance value orientations when facing similar demographic shocks. This study is designed precisely to fill this cognitive gap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Theoretical Tools: Dual Perspectives of Productivist Welfare Capitalism and State Capacity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo elucidate the formation mechanisms of these cross-border disparities, this study employs two interconnected theoretical frameworks. These frameworks are not isolated analytical constructs but are structurally nested: the productivist welfare capitalism theory provides a macro-level explanatory framework for institutional contexts, while the dual distinction of state capacity further reveals the micro-level mechanisms underlying the divergent developmental paths chosen by two countries under identical conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2.1 Productivist Welfare Capitalism The unique logic of welfare policies in East Asian countries is elucidated by Holliday (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) through the framework of \"productivist welfare capitalism.\" Unlike Western welfare states that regard social security as an inherent citizen right, East Asian welfare policies have historically been positioned as instrumental arrangements to promote economic growth, with their core lying in the productive returns of welfare expenditures rather than the universalization of rights. Although Espin-Andersen (1990) proposed three types of welfare systems\u0026mdash;liberal, conservative, and social democratic\u0026mdash;this framework's inability to encompass the historical experiences of East Asian countries has been widely discussed in academia (Gough, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Kwon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Holliday's theory precisely fills this gap: East Asian countries view welfare as productive investment rather than a consumption-based right, with their social policies consistently centered on economic objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the period of population expansion, early education investment was regarded as a mechanism for cultivating human capital. However, during the phase of population contraction, this framework underwent a fundamental paradigm shift\u0026mdash;the function of welfare policies has shifted from \"expanding the supply of production factors\" to \"maintaining system sustainability and preserving public assets,\" with its core objectives also transitioning from economic efficiency to building governance resilience. This theoretical transformation provides a structural explanation for the logic of China's administrative pragmatism: when the continuous decline in fertility rates puts the preschool education system in a survival crisis, the state's primary consideration is not to reconstruct service standards but to preserve existing investments at the lowest administrative cost.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2.2 Two Dimensions of State Capacity: Administrative Mobilization and Rule-Based Governance. This study, based on the productionist framework, further introduces a typological analysis of state capacity to distinguish the different approaches adopted by China and South Korea in addressing the demographic crisis. Williams et al. (2023) categorize institutional resilience into two forms: \"adaptive resilience\" (flexible adaptation within existing frameworks) and \"transitional resilience\" (restructuring system logic through disruptive innovation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe China model demonstrates strong administrative mobilization capabilities, specifically manifested in the organizational efficiency of rapidly activating grassroots institutions and redefining the functions of existing resources through administrative directives. This aligns highly with the concept of \"absorptive\" resilience in the risk governance framework proposed by Oettinger (2013)\u0026mdash;that is, the system does not alter its fundamental structure when absorbing external shocks. In contrast, the South Korea model better fits the logic of \"rule governance\" proposed by Schmidt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e): under a democratic and rule-of-law framework, the legitimacy of policy reforms must be ensured through precise legal texts and procedural justice. Therefore, the measure of national capacity lies not in the speed of mobilization but in the refinement of institutional development. The core difference between these two capabilities lies in how the state internalizes \"resistance to policy change\": the China model resolves resistance through the \"blank space\" of flexible authorization, while the South Korea model dissipates resistance during the \"filling\" process of precise contracts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3 Analytical Framework: Derivation of Core Concepts Based on Theoretical Tools This study, based on the two sets of theoretical tools discussed earlier, extracts two distinctly different core analytical concepts, corresponding to the governance logic types of China and South Korea. These concepts not only serve descriptive functions but also constitute theoretical propositions that can be operationally validated in other developing economies in East Asia, with their analytical validity extending beyond the scope of mere case descriptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, \"functional extension.\" This concept refers to the state's use of administrative mobilization to assign new service functions to existing institutions without altering the current legal framework or administrative system. This theory directly stems from empirical observations of the China model: kindergartens under the jurisdiction of the education department have extended their service scope to children aged 2\u0026ndash;3, essentially constituting a \"path-dependent\" fine-tuning. By redefining the functions of existing educational resources, social needs can be rapidly met without changing administrative affiliations (Wang \u0026amp; Di, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). The underlying logic is the application of administrative mobilization capabilities under productionist welfare capitalism: by flexibly delegating functions to bypass the high friction costs of institutional reform, rapid incremental service functions can be achieved with lower political risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, \"Structural Reengineering\". This concept refers to the establishment of a new unified system through comprehensive cross-departmental administrative integration and legal standardization. This approach corresponds to the South Korean model: transferring the child care functions of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to the Ministry of Education, and establishing a unified institutional identity for \"infant and toddler schools\" (Ministry of Education of South Korea, 2024). This is not only a horizontal transfer of departmental authority but also a \"deconstruction and reconstruction\" of the entire Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system based on legal legitimacy. The underlying logic prioritizes the normative principle of safeguarding children's rights, which aligns closely with Schmidt's \"rule governance\" paradigm: standardizing service quality and universalizing rights are more important than the speed of administrative reforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.4 Integration of Analytical Framework: Dual-track Pattern of Institutional Resilience By integrating the theoretical tools and core concepts mentioned earlier, this paper summarizes the governance resilience of China and South Korea in responding to demographic shocks into the following binary analytical framework, providing operational references for case analyses in subsequent chapters. The logic of this framework holds that equivalent demographic pressures will reflect differentiated policy choices through different types of national capacities, and once these choices form path dependence, the institutional boundaries of future reforms will consequently take shape. The two poles of this framework do not imply superiority or inferiority in terms of value judgments, but rather represent governance strategies with inherent rationality under their respective institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdaptive resilience (corresponding to the China model): the tendency to make functional adjustments within the existing institutional flexibility framework. At its core is administrative pragmatism, which involves rapid resource mobilization to respond to crises. Despite the exceptionally swift response speed, there may still be potential risks such as ambiguous regulatory boundaries and insufficient quality supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransformative Resilience (corresponding to the Korean model): A tendency to restructure systemic logic through disruptive innovation. Its core is institutional normativism, which ensures long-term equity and the universalization of rights through legal reconstruction. Despite its high systemic stability, it still faces the risks of significant costs associated with interest negotiations and implementation delays.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5 Summary In summary, the integration practices of China and South Korea in ECEC are by no means simple instrumental differences in choice, but rather the path choices shaped by national capabilities under different institutional histories and value orientations. The analytical framework constructed in this chapter\u0026mdash;revealing empirical differences through literature reviews, explaining formation mechanisms with theoretical tools, and using core concepts as analytical dimensions\u0026mdash;will provide coherent logical support for the case analyses in Chaps.\u0026nbsp;4 and 5, as well as the in-depth comparison in Chap.\u0026nbsp;6.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Study Design and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to explore the differences in the logic of integrated governance between China and South Korea under the pressure of population contraction. To ensure the rigor and scientific validity of the research, this chapter will elaborate on the rationale for case selection, the reliability of data sources, and the systematic nature of the analytical logic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.1 Comparative Case Study Method: Theoretical Basis for Selecting China and South Korea as \u0026quot;Comparable Entities\u0026quot; This study employs qualitative comparative analysis of \u0026quot;Most Similar Systems Design\u0026quot; (MSSD). This methodology was systematically proposed by Przeworski and Teune (1970), with its core logic being to minimize the influence of confounding variables by selecting highly similar comparison units, thereby enabling residual differences in results to be more reliably attributed to core explanatory variables. China and South Korea were chosen as comparative cases due to their high similarity in macroeconomic background and policy objectives, while also exhibiting significant differences in governance tools. In terms of textual analysis strategies, the framework of Braun and Clarke (2006) was referenced to systematically encode and classify policy texts, thereby identifying the governance intentions underlying different discursive patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of demographic structure, both China and South Korea are facing the severe issue of \u0026quot;a cliff-like decline in student enrollment rates.\u0026quot; According to the 2024 National Statistical Educational Development Report, the number of kindergarten enrollments in China continues to drop significantly (Ministry of Education of China, 2025). Meanwhile, South Korea\u0026apos;s total fertility rate remains at the lowest level globally, forcing the country\u0026apos;s preschool education system to undergo fundamental reforms (Ministry of Education of South Korea, 2024). In terms of cultural and institutional foundations, both countries are deeply influenced by Confucian culture and place great emphasis on early education. Additionally, for a long time, the two countries have managed the care of infants aged 0\u0026ndash;2 and the education of children aged 3\u0026ndash;5 by different administrative departments, leading to the same dilemma of institutional fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy placing these two highly similar systems within a unified comparative framework, we can more effectively eliminate confounding variables, thereby focusing on the core research variable: how different governance logics lead to distinctly different policy texts under identical demographic shocks. This comparison not only provides academic explanatory power but also offers crucial insights for the transformation of public services in East Asian countries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2 Data Sources and Text Mining The data collection in this study adhered to the triangulation principle, incorporating three primary data sources: official statistics, policy planning documents, and core academic literature. This strategy employed cross-validation of data with varying characteristics to mitigate the influence of single-source bias while providing quantitative support for qualitative analysis conclusions (Yin, 2018). The specific data sources are categorized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2.1 Official Statistical Data and Original Policy Text. The Chinese data primarily derives from the \u0026quot;National Statistical Report on Educational Development\u0026quot; released by China\u0026apos;s Ministry of Education in 2024, which provides authoritative updates on kindergarten numbers, the proportion of inclusive kindergartens, and fluctuations in student enrollment rates. The South Korean data is directly extracted from the \u0026quot;World Class Early Childhood Education and Care Draft Implementation Plan\u0026quot; issued by South Korea\u0026apos;s Ministry of Education in June 2024, serving as the core framework document for the current inclusive phase of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in South Korea (Ministry of Education, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2.2 Academic Literature Database. Through the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), we retrieved cutting-edge research achievements in the field of China ECEC resource allocation (e.g., Hong, 2026; Wang \u0026amp; Di, 2026). Meanwhile, with the help of the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS) and the Korea Citation Index (KCI), we obtained Jang\u0026apos;s (2014) research from a rights perspective, as well as Lee\u0026apos;s (2024) latest report on the integrated monitoring scheme for ECEC. These documents not only provide empirical support for this study but also establish a coordinate system for theoretical exploration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.3 Analytical Framework: The Evolution from Policy Discourse to Governance Logic. This study employs a three-tiered analytical progression\u0026mdash; \u0026quot;from description to explanation, then to comparison\u0026quot; \u0026mdash;to ensure the internal coherence and reproducibility of its arguments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first level is text mining. By comparing China\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;minimalist\u0026quot; directive discourse (such as \u0026quot;encouraging eligible regions...\u0026quot; with South Korea\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;maximalist\u0026quot; contractual discourse (such as precise regulations on employee qualifications and financial burden ratios), the superficial differences in granularity between the two countries\u0026apos; policy texts are identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second level involves the alignment of analytical dimensions. Based on the theoretical framework established in Chap.\u0026nbsp;2, we systematically align the policy practices of China and South Korea across three parallel dimensions: \u0026quot;institutional foundation\u0026quot; (historical conditions and resource/institutional accumulation), \u0026quot;policy mechanisms\u0026quot; (authorization methods and operational paths), and \u0026quot;essential characteristics\u0026quot; (types of governance logic). These three dimensions correspond to the structural arrangements in Chap.\u0026nbsp;4 (China) and Chap.\u0026nbsp;5 (South Korea), ensuring that the two cases are compared horizontally within the same analytical framework rather than being described in isolation. For example, China\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;institutional foundation\u0026quot; focuses on enrollment surplus and resource stock, while South Korea\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;institutional foundation\u0026quot; revolves around its dual-track historical deficit; China\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;policy mechanisms\u0026quot; emphasize ambiguous authorization and distributed experimentation, whereas South Korea\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;policy mechanisms\u0026quot; highlight precision contracts and legal precedents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third level is logical synthesis. By analyzing the interactions among these dimensions, we extract the deep governance logic: specifically, how China achieves efficient administrative coverage through adaptive resilience via fuzzy authorization (reflecting administrative pragmatism and resource-oriented adaptation); and how South Korea reconstructs the social contract through reform resilience by means of a meticulously designed institutional framework (reflecting institutional normativism and rights-oriented transformation). This deductive process, from \u0026quot;elaborating content\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;execution methods\u0026quot; and ultimately to \u0026quot;why it is executed this way,\u0026quot; constitutes the core analytical chain of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Research Result One: Administrative Pragmatism in the China Model","content":"\u003cp\u003e4.1 Resource Foundation: \u0026quot;Downward Compatibility\u0026quot; from the Perspective of Enrollment Surplus. The logic of ECEC integration under the China model primarily relies on precise regulation of existing educational resource stock. Mao (2025) systematically demonstrated the feasibility of supply-demand matching between the idle scale of preschool education resources for ages 3\u0026ndash;6 and the demand for childcare services for ages 0\u0026ndash;3 by constructing a provincial urban population prediction model, providing quantitative evidence for the strategy of \u0026quot;integrating childcare services into the preschool education system.\u0026quot; The predictions by Hai and Gao (2023) similarly indicate that the number of newborns nationwide will continue to decline from 2023 to 2035, a trend that will further expand the idle scale of kindergarten seats in the medium term, creating structural space for integration strategies. By comparing the data from the 2023 and 2024 National Education Development Statistical Reports, it is evident that the current preschool education system is facing severe contraction and the potential space for its expansion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the number of kindergartens, China registered 274,400 institutions nationwide in 2023, marking a decrease of 14,800 from the previous year (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2024). By 2024, this figure had further declined to 253,300, with an average annual reduction of 21,100 (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2025). This indicates that the preschool education market underwent a dramatic \u0026quot;survival of the fittest\u0026quot; process on the supply side within just two years. Meanwhile, the proportion of inclusive kindergartens showed an upward trend, rising from 86.16% in 2023 to 87.26% in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most striking statistic is the dramatic fluctuations in preschool enrollment. In 2023, China\u0026apos;s preschool enrollment reached 40.9298\u0026nbsp;million, a 5.3457\u0026nbsp;million decrease (11.55%) from the previous year (Ministry of Education, 2024). This precipitous decline has resulted in severe kindergarten capacity shortages. The resource base for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration stems from idle classrooms, outdated equipment, and surplus full-time teachers (approximately 3\u0026nbsp;million in 2024). This downward compatibility isn\u0026apos;t a deliberate strategy, but rather a natural system-wide restructuring to prevent large-scale underutilization caused by population decline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2 The operational mechanism of the \u0026apos;one-sentence\u0026apos; policy: distributed governance and authorization logic. In the process of promoting the integration of ECEC, the policy text of China exhibits an extreme \u0026apos;conciseness\u0026apos;. The detailed legal provisions, such as the 31-page comprehensive implementation plan proposed by South Korea, were not promulgated by the central government but achieved policy mobilization through programmatic statements like \u0026apos;encouraging qualified kindergartens to enroll children aged 2\u0026ndash;3\u0026apos;. Behind this \u0026apos;one-sentence\u0026apos; policy lies profound logic of distributed governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2.1 Central Authorization and Ambiguous Mobilization. By employing vague policy language (e.g., \u0026quot;encouraging\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;exploring\u0026quot;), the central government legally defines childcare services for 2-3-year-olds as an \u0026quot;extension of preschool education\u0026quot; rather than \u0026quot;compulsory education.\u0026quot; This ambiguity reduces the political risks of institutional reform, thereby granting local governments considerable interpretative flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2.2 Local Pilot Programs and Differentiated Adaptation. With the central government\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;one-stop\u0026quot; authorization, regions implement tailored pilot programs based on fiscal capacity and enrollment pressures. Areas under enrollment pressure (e.g., second-and third-tier cities) promptly establish kindergarten standards, incorporating enrollment data into statistics. Meanwhile, financially robust regions incentivize the transformation of inclusive kindergartens through fiscal subsidies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2.3 Micro-level Practices of Institutional Self-Rescue. At the micro level, for numerous private and inclusive kindergartens facing closure, enrolling 2-3-year-olds has become a \u0026quot;battle for survival.\u0026quot; Childcare facilities that originally required massive government funding have transitioned into voluntary services through this \u0026quot;institutional self-rescue\u0026quot; mechanism. Through decentralized governance, the Chinese government has achieved rapid expansion of childcare services at minimal administrative costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3 Core Features: Resource-Dominated Adaptation and Flexible Governance The essence of the China model can be summarized as \u0026quot;resource-dominated adaptation\u0026quot;. The core of this governance logic lies not in \u0026quot;reconstruction of rights\u0026quot;, but in \u0026quot;asset recovery\u0026quot; \u0026mdash; the primary driving force of its policy objectives is not to ensure every child receives quality services through normative rights, but to transform the existing educational infrastructure into new service supplies. This logic is considered efficient at the economic level, but it forms specific value trade-offs in the context of welfare politics: suspending quality standards in exchange for service speed and coverage, and increasing instant service increments in exchange for institutional flexibility. This core feature is specifically reflected in the following two dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3.1 Rapid recovery of sunk costs. Over the past decade, China has invested a huge amount of funds in the construction of inclusive kindergartens in the field of preschool education. With the decrease in the number of enrolled children, these assets face the risk of becoming \u0026quot;sunk costs.\u0026quot; Thanks to flexible governance mechanisms, the government allows kindergartens to be backward-compatible, effectively bridging the gap between the excess capacity of the education system and the shortage of childcare services, thereby maximizing the utilization rate of public assets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3.2 The Advantages and Hidden Concerns of Flexible Governance. The durability of this Administrative Pragmatism stems from its \u0026quot;ultra-high-speed adoption characteristic.\u0026quot; Wang and Di (2026) demonstrated that through this resource transformation, China is expected to bridge the significant gap in childcare services for 2-3-year-olds in the short term. However, the underlying issue lies in the lack of institutional normative support: when childcare services are merely regarded as a \u0026quot;peripheral project\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;gap-filling initiative\u0026quot; for kindergartens, can the physical and mental development characteristics of 2-3-year-old infants be supported by professional pedagogy?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLong-term foundational research in child development has demonstrated that the 0\u0026ndash;3 year old stage exhibits an irreversible window effect on children\u0026apos;s cognitive, linguistic, and socio-emotional development (Shonkoff \u0026amp; Phillips, 2000). In the integration of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), the care and education of infants and toddlers aged 0\u0026ndash;3 should not simply extend downward to 3-6-year-old preschool education. According to the OECD report \u0026quot;Strong Start VI\u0026quot; (OECD, 2021), the core of high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care lies in \u0026quot;meaningful interaction.\u0026quot; Due to the unique nature of children\u0026apos;s physical and mental development, the 0\u0026ndash;3 year old stage imposes more distinctive and stringent professional requirements on caregivers regarding emotional support and interaction quality. Therefore, the comprehensive restructuring of teacher qualifications in South Korean policies is not only seen as an administrative standardization requirement but also as a response to the core concern of \u0026quot;process quality\u0026quot; in the international forefront of ECEC integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransplanting pre-service training for kindergarten teachers directly into childcare settings is considered to pose systemic risks that may affect occupational adaptability. Qin and Liu (2025) conducted an empirical study on the adaptation challenges faced by teachers during the transition of kindergartens into ECEC integrated institutions. The study revealed that under the dual mismatch of \u0026quot;capability demand\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;demand supply,\u0026quot; a large number of transitioning teachers encounter structural difficulties where their professional competencies fail to meet job requirements. This micro-level evidence directly exposes the systemic contradiction between the pace of administrative expansion and the cultivation of professional capabilities. Should professional \u0026quot;refinement\u0026quot; yield to administrative \u0026quot;speed\u0026quot;? This stands in stark contrast to the institutional normative model of South Korea and also represents a core challenge that the China model must confront in advancing legislative standardization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.4 Summary The China model achieved large-scale resource mobilization through \u0026quot;one-sentence policies,\u0026quot; demonstrating the powerful capacity of systematic restoration under administrative pragmatism. The demographic crisis was successfully transformed into an opportunity for service system transformation, reflecting the wisdom of adaptive and resilient governance. However, the effectiveness of this wisdom has limitations: when administrative authorization fails to continuously provide quality assurance incentives, and the gap between the professional competence of conservation teachers and job requirements accumulates to a certain extent, the logic of \u0026quot;compensating quality with quantity\u0026quot; will face systemic challenges. The subsequent development of the China model depends on whether it can gradually establish standardized quality assurance mechanisms while maintaining administrative flexibility\u0026mdash;this is precisely the core issue addressed in the policy recommendations of Chap.\u0026nbsp;7.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discovery II: Institutional Normativism in the Korean Model","content":"\u003cp\u003e5.1 Institutional Foundation: Historical Deficiencies and Integration Space of the Dual-Track System Over Thirty Years The integration logic of the China model is based on \u0026quot;excessive placement numbers,\u0026quot; while that of the South Korean model is rooted in \u0026quot;the lack of institutional norms.\u0026quot; For a long time, South Korea\u0026apos;s Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system has been described as a \u0026quot;dual-track system with two stoves in one house.\u0026quot; Under this system, \u0026quot;kindergartens\u0026quot; for children aged 3\u0026ndash;5 (under the Ministry of Education, focusing on education) and \u0026quot;nurseries\u0026quot; for infants aged 0\u0026ndash;5 (under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, focusing on welfare) are completely separated. Zhang\u0026apos;s (2014) research shows that this dual structure not only leads to redundant administrative resource allocation but also creates severe educational inequality at the societal level. It is precisely these institutional deficiencies accumulated over the past thirty years that constitute the fundamental driving force behind South Korea\u0026apos;s push for \u0026quot;ECEC integration,\u0026quot; determining its inevitable choice of a \u0026quot;structural reorganization\u0026quot; path rather than a simple \u0026quot;functional extension.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis historical divide manifests in three dimensions: First, the antagonism in administrative affiliations\u0026mdash;the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare operate independently in budget allocation and regulatory standards; Second, disparities in legal frameworks\u0026mdash;the \u0026quot;Early Childhood Education Act\u0026quot; and the \u0026quot;Infant Care Act\u0026quot; differ in hardware requirements such as per capita space and childcare quality standards; Most fundamentally, the contradiction lies in the identity gap between teachers, where kindergarten teachers and childcare workers exhibit significant disparities in entry thresholds, compensation, and legal status (Lee, 2024). The formation of this dual-track system is closely linked to the rapid expansion of social policies in South Korea during the 1980s-1990s. The surge in female labor participation rates generated massive childcare demand, prompting the government to classify 0\u0026ndash;2 year old infant care under welfare subsidies under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, separating it from the Ministry of Education\u0026apos;s 3\u0026ndash;5 year old early childhood education system. This created a path-dependent dual-track model (Peng, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder the pressure of population decline, South Korea\u0026apos;s historical legacy has been forced into a critical decision-making phase: when both kindergartens and daycare centers face a sharp drop in student enrollments, integration becomes an inevitable choice, but at the cost of repaying institutional debts accumulated over three decades. Choi (2022) systematically demonstrated the path dependence of phased implementation in early-stage research, proposing that unified administrative management is a prerequisite for all integration measures. Her follow-up study in 2025 incorporated demographic and social structural changes into the integration framework, establishing priority rankings for the new institutional agenda. Sun (2016) also pointed out that the historical evolution of South Korea\u0026apos;s ECEC integration has transitioned from prolonged policy debates to a stage of discourse competition, where various interest groups define the legitimacy boundaries of integration through discursive construction. This discourse competition itself constitutes significant resistance to institutional reform. Kang (2023)\u0026apos;s research on medium-and long-term care system reform further adopted the institutional integrity framework, indicating that establishing an integrated service system for children aged 0\u0026ndash;5 is not only an administrative efficiency issue but also a strategic choice for repositioning national care responsibilities. In the context of extreme population contraction, this institutional rigidity has become the primary obstacle hindering resource integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2 Policy Mechanisms of the \u0026quot;ECEC Integrated Implementation Plan Draft\u0026quot;: Institutional Approaches for Five Upgrade Pathways. To address long-standing challenges in South Korea, the Ministry of Education released the \u0026quot;World-Class Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation Plan Draft\u0026quot; in June 2024. This document not only provides detailed content but also exemplifies the \u0026quot;institutional normative\u0026quot; logic, with its core focus on achieving comprehensive system innovation through the \u0026quot;Five Upgrade Pathways\u0026quot; (Ministry of Education, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2.1 Deep Integration of Legal and Administrative Systems. The plan explicitly establishes a legal framework of \u0026quot;unified management by the Ministry of Education.\u0026quot; Through the revision of the Government Organization Law, the administrative functions, budget, and staffing of child care, originally under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, have been fully transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and local educational institutions. This principle of \u0026quot;legal priority\u0026quot; ensures the irreversibility of institutional-level reforms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2.2 Standardized Fiscal Investment Framework. To address the persistent disparity in government subsidies between kindergartens and daycare centers, the implementation plan proposes an \u0026quot;equalization of educational investment\u0026quot; initiative. Jin (2024) developed a comprehensive fiscal support model using Seoul as a case study. The analysis reveals that achieving uniform cost standards for free education and childcare would necessitate a systematic restructuring of the current budget framework, imposing substantial fiscal redistribution pressures. This requires not only annual budget realignments of trillions of Korean won (KRW) but also meticulous planning to ensure equitable tuition fee reductions for all enrolled children. The goal is to eliminate institutional \u0026quot;premiumity\u0026quot; through fiscal leverage (Kang, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2.3 The \u0026quot;Reconstruction Project\u0026quot; of Teacher Qualifications. This is regarded as the most challenging component of the plan. Kim (2023) conducted an in-depth study on the construction path of the comprehensive teacher qualification system for early childhood education (0\u0026ndash;5 years) from the perspective of the teacher qualification system; Kang (2024) designed a complete transition plan specifically for the comprehensive qualification certification system, including promotion and training; through legislative amendment path analysis, a concrete implementation plan was proposed to integrate existing kindergarten and childcare teachers into a unified sequence. Park and Kim (2024) further validated the policy feasibility of this plan within the implementation framework, providing academic support for the most controversial teacher integration among the five standardized reforms. To achieve the \u0026quot;comprehensive teacher qualification for early childhood education (0\u0026ndash;5 years),\u0026quot; the South Korean government designed an extremely complex retraining and promotion system. According to Bai (2024), South Korea did not adopt the ambiguous approach in the China model but instead attempted to integrate hundreds of thousands of existing teachers with diverse backgrounds into a unified professional sequence by establishing unified educational requirements and assessment standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2.4 Standardized Service Environment. The implementation plan has systematically aligned and integrated physical environment standards for kindergartens and nurseries, covering unified specifications for per capita floor space, safety facility configurations, food hygiene standards, and information management systems. This initiative aims to eliminate hardware disparities caused by long-standing administrative affiliations. For numerous nurseries with historically inadequate facilities, this requires substantial renovation investments, which has become a major funding pressure source during the reform process (Ministry of Education, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2.5 Institutionalization of Guardian Participation Mechanisms. Unlike the implicit assumption of parental involvement in the China model, the South Korean implementation explicitly incorporates the participation rights of parent committees, information access rights, and appeal mechanisms into the institutional design, and confirms the status of parents as policy stakeholders through legal texts. This design reflects the deeply rooted value orientation of the South Korean model: reform should not only achieve efficiency integration at the institutional level but also safeguard and highlight the subjective rights of children and families through the institutionalization of participation mechanisms during the reform process (Jang, 2014). The institutional operational path of \u0026quot;rights-based transformation\u0026quot; in the South Korean model is composed of these five trajectories of hierarchical elevation, with its meticulous planning and comprehensive coverage embodying the substantive essence of the \u0026quot;31-page plan\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3 Core Features: The Necessity of Rights Transformation and High-Cost Reforms The core of the Korean model can be summarized as \u0026quot;rights transformation\u0026quot;. Unlike China\u0026apos;s administrative pragmatism, which emphasizes \u0026quot;sunk cost recovery\u0026quot;, Korea regards the integration of ECEC as a constitutional-level task to ensure citizens\u0026apos; \u0026quot;equal right to education\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3.1 The necessary investment in high institutional costs. This regulatory approach inevitably entails substantial administrative coordination costs and fiscal compensation expenditures. However, within the context of South Korea\u0026apos;s rule-of-law society, these costs are regarded as necessary sacrifices for achieving social equity. As Schmidt (2021) noted, although the development of \u0026quot;rule-based governance capacity\u0026quot; progresses slowly, the risks of constitutional violations after policy implementation can be minimized through detailed contractual provisions and compensation mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3.2 The shift from \u0026quot;institutional focus\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;child-centered approach\u0026quot;. South Korea\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;upward equalization\u0026quot; philosophy (where all standards align with the highest benchmarks) demonstrates respect for children\u0026apos;s rights. As Zhang (2014) criticized, if integration is merely for cost-saving or management convenience, it would constitute a betrayal of children\u0026apos;s rights. Therefore, despite population decline pressures, South Korea chooses to invest heavily in service quality enhancement rather than simply downsizing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.4 Summary The Korean model exemplifies \u0026apos;transitional resilience\u0026apos;. Rather than settling for incremental adjustments within existing frameworks, it seeks to establish a comprehensive high-quality public service system through the Draft Integrated Implementation Plan for the ECEC. Despite encountering significant social friction in the short term, its steadfast commitment to \u0026apos;norms\u0026apos; and \u0026apos;rights\u0026apos; offers a profound paradigm for institutional reconstruction in late-developing countries facing demographic crises.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion: Comparative Analysis of Governance Logic","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe divergence between China and South Korea in the \u0026quot;minimalism\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;maximalism\u0026quot; of the ECEC integration policy text is not an accidental rhetorical choice, but rather a governance response formed by the two countries based on different dimensions of institutional resilience when facing similar population crises. This chapter will delve into the power struggles, value trade-offs, and the redefinition of national capacity behind this textual difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.1 Power Dynamics Behind Text Granularity: Fuzzy Governance and Precise Contract\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina model: Administrative mobilization under ambiguous authorization. The \u0026quot;ambiguity\u0026quot; in China\u0026apos;s Ministry of Education policies is essentially a highly sophisticated governance strategy. Strategic ambiguity in policy language has been extensively studied in the field of comparative policy analysis; scholars have found that ambiguity is not a sign of policy failure, but a rational choice for building alliances and dispersing risks (Majone, 1989). In China\u0026apos;s political and administrative system, this ambiguity serves a specific function: by authorizing local governments to conduct differentiated experiments, the system maintains practical diversity and flexibility under a unified political symbol. This aligns closely with the \u0026quot;empirical learning\u0026quot; logic of China\u0026apos;s policy process, as summarized by Heiman (2008). According to Williams et al. (2023)\u0026apos; s classification of institutional resilience, China demonstrates strong adaptive resilience. This logic represents administrative pragmatism, which trades policy \u0026quot;blank spaces\u0026quot; for faster transformation, converting the impact of population decline into a driving force for systemic evolution.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe South Korean Model: Legal Integration Under Precise Contracts. In stark contrast, Schmidt\u0026apos;s (2021) concept of \u0026quot;rule governance\u0026quot; has been implemented in South Korea\u0026apos;s draft ECEC Integration Implementation Plan. Within the framework of democratic rule of law, any changes involving capital flows and personnel status must possess absolute legal legitimacy. Given the profound historical divide in South Korea\u0026apos;s dual ECEC system (Jang, 2014), the government must establish detailed provisions through precise \u0026quot;contract texts\u0026quot; regarding teacher qualification transfers and budget allocation ratios. This precision aims to mitigate litigation risks and interest group mobilization; the \u0026quot;maximization principle\u0026quot; in these texts essentially represents a \u0026quot;common standard\u0026quot; negotiated through power dynamics in the rule of law process. The 31-page implementation plan released by South Korea\u0026apos;s Ministry of Education for integrating the teacher qualification system aligns closely with the latest international consensus on ECEC teacher workforce development. The OECD\u0026apos;s newly published \u0026quot;2024 Talis Survey Report\u0026quot; (2025 edition) explicitly states that ensuring working conditions, career development pathways, and clear qualifications for nursing and education personnel are fundamental to strengthening the ECEC system amid industry demand fluctuations and short-term crises. South Korea\u0026apos;s meticulous restructuring of the teacher workforce through \u0026quot;legal precedents\u0026quot; represents an institutional attempt to address systemic pressures caused by population decline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.2 The Balance between Efficiency and Equity: Two Ways of Allocating Governance Costs\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.2.1 The Chinese Model: High Efficiency and Its \u0026quot;Gradual\u0026quot; Costs. The China model has achieved a significant improvement in resource adaptation efficiency through Administrative Pragmatism. Statistical data show that despite a 11.55% reduction in the number of enrolled children, the system still maintains an inclusive kindergarten coverage rate of 87.26% (Ministry of Education, 2025), fully demonstrating its strong \u0026quot;asset recovery\u0026quot; capability. This transformation is characterized by gradualness: administrative integration has resolved a large number of overt conflicts. From the theoretical perspective of institutional change, this aligns highly with the concept of \u0026quot;transformation\u0026quot; proposed by Streeck and Thelen (2005) \u0026mdash; existing institutions adapt to new environmental pressures through functional reinterpretation, provided that formal rules remain unchanged. The functional transformation of service recipients is achieved through expanded childcare services in kindergartens, without altering the legal nature of the institutions. However, Hong (2026) also points out that although the \u0026quot;quantity\u0026quot; of supply is addressed through administrative mobilization, the absence of detailed regulations leaves regulatory boundaries uncertain. A deeper challenge lies in the fact that, due to the \u0026quot;backward compatibility\u0026quot; of kindergartens, which does not require large-scale recruitment, the originally vast private childcare workforce is facing passive displacement (Mahoney \u0026amp; Thelen, 2010). The system survives by adopting the strategy of \u0026quot;speed before quality\u0026quot;, but the micro-level cost of the transformation process is often borne by individual practitioners outside the system.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.2.2 The Korean Model: High Friction Challenges Under High Standardization. The Korean model pursues \u0026quot;upward equalization,\u0026quot; ensuring equal-quality services for all children through institutional restructuring, reflecting a strong sense of fairness (Jang, 2014). However, Li\u0026apos;s (2024) monitoring report reveals that this path toward absolute standardization faces significant cost of interest negotiation. Due to comprehensive redefinition of employee qualifications, industry anxiety continues to spread, and policy-making is repeatedly delayed. Through a questionnaire survey of 2,246 experts nationwide, Gao (2024) found that among stakeholders in the ECEC integration, parents are the biggest beneficiaries, while employees remain cautious about the integration, with standardized qualification certification methods becoming the most contentious issue\u0026mdash;this empirical finding directly exposes structural contradictions in the institutional normative approach regarding interest distribution. Kim et al. (2023) conducted a comparative study of coping strategies among staff and parents in kindergartens and childcare institutions during integration discussions, identifying significant differences in information access channels, appeal expression strategies, and policy cognition frameworks. These differences constitute inevitable social friction during the integration process. From the perspective of comparative welfare reform, this dilemma is not unique to Korea. Pierson\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;consolidation politics\u0026quot; theory suggests that any reform involving the status of vested interest groups faces stronger institutional resistance than expansionist reforms. The resistance of South Korean childcare educators to standardized qualification criteria aligns closely with this theoretical prediction: When the benefits of reform (improved service quality) are shared by society as a whole, while the costs (retraining and uncertainty of career transition) are borne by specific groups, The organized resistance from disadvantaged groups is precisely the result of rational collective action (Ostrom, 1990). Although this reform resilience is impeccable at the normative level, its \u0026quot;high institutional costs\u0026quot; lead to an exceptionally slow transition from policy documents to implementation, demonstrating significant resistance. This is precisely the structural challenge that the institutional normative approach must confront.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.3 Redefining State Capacity: Administrative Mobilization, Institutional Restructuring and the Theoretical Boundaries of East Asian Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe core findings of this study pose substantial challenges and supplements to the classical Western welfare state theory. In the welfare system comparison framework constructed by Espin-Andersen (1990), the legitimacy of public service transformation stems from the legalist \u0026quot;legitimacy based on rights.\u0026quot; This theory posits that a state\u0026apos;s welfare commitment to citizens must be established through legislation to gain institutional binding force. However, the China model presents a unique path: before formal legislation is enacted, the administrative system redefines and mobilizes existing resources (particularly vacant preschool education seats), achieving rapid expansion of childcare services. This indicates that state capacity is not limited to the Western sequence of \u0026quot;rights commitment-legislation-execution,\u0026quot; but that \u0026quot;administrative mobilization-resource activation-post-legislation\u0026quot; can also effectively utilize state power.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHowever, to simply regard the China model as inherently superior to the Western path is a theoretical oversimplification. Comparative political economy studies show that while state capacity-building based on mobilization can bring short-term efficiency gains, it often comes with long-term risks in quality supervision. The China \u0026quot;Childcare Services Law (Draft)\u0026quot; underwent years of administrative trial operation before entering the legislative process, indicating that \u0026quot;post-legislative\u0026quot; measures are more systemic remedies for the limitations of administrative mobilization rather than pre-designed closed-loop mechanisms. From the perspective of productionist welfare capitalism proposed by Holiday (2000), the logic of this \u0026quot;pre-legislative trial operation\u0026quot; is actually rooted in the historical context of \u0026quot;instrumental welfare\u0026quot; in East Asian countries. When instrumental policy objectives (such as rapidly filling childcare gaps and preventing idle public resources) are achieved, normative goals\u0026mdash;such as quality assurance and rights popularization\u0026mdash;gradually enter the policy agenda. This path choice depends on the specific conditions of national capacity-building rather than the inherent advantages of the East Asian governance model, and its replicability requires careful evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrom a macro perspective of East Asian governance comparisons, China and South Korea exhibit significant differences in the exercise of state capacity under the tradition of \u0026quot;strong state intervention.\u0026quot; These differences stem from distinct historical institutional accumulations (such as South Korea\u0026apos;s thirty-year dual-track system tradition), variations in political characteristics (the contrast between liberal democracy and party-state systems), and the development of social rights awareness. These findings indicate that \u0026quot;East Asian developmental states\u0026quot; are not a single analytical unit but a pluralistic system\u0026mdash;one that can evolve different institutional resilience paths when facing common demographic decline issues. Future theoretical constructs of welfare transition in East Asia must incorporate \u0026quot;types of state capacity\u0026quot; as an intermediate variable in the Holliday framework to accurately capture this internal differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis divergence offers direct theoretical insights for emerging countries. When facing public service crises caused by population shrinkage, the core challenge for policymakers is not simply choosing between \u0026quot;efficiency\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;equity.\u0026quot; The key lies in determining the optimal balance between adaptive resilience and transformative resilience under specific national capacities, historical institutions, and political legitimacy, thereby achieving a dynamic equilibrium between short-term system sustainability and long-term rights protection. The comparison between China and South Korea provides two extreme references for this path selection; in fact, most countries will seek tailored combination strategies to adapt to their national conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e6.4 Summary\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe discussion in this chapter shows that the level of detail in policy texts does not reflect quality levels, but rather is a product of the governance environment and historical logic. In an emergency state of resource misallocation, the China model achieves rapid systemic survival and gradual \u0026quot;soft landing\u0026quot; through administrative pragmatism. Conversely, driven by social rights claims, the South Korea model employs institutional normativism to build a fair future through high-cost \u0026quot;disruptive innovation.\u0026quot; These two models together constitute two typical resilient scenarios of public service governance during East Asia\u0026apos;s demographic transition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn its forward-looking analysis on early childhood education in \u0026quot;2025\u0026quot;, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasized that education systems must have sufficient resilience to achieve long-term benefits in response to changes in industry demand. China rapidly enhanced its adaptive resilience through strong administrative mobilization capabilities, temporarily alleviating the issue of resource misallocation; while South Korea\u0026apos;s transformational resilience strategy\u0026mdash;by refining institutional norms to stabilize practitioners\u0026apos; expectations and reconstructing the service system\u0026mdash;may provide a more sustainable path for the long-term high-quality development of the welfare system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion and Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study compares and analyzes the policy texts on ECEC integration between China and South Korea to explore the two different governance logics and their institutional resilience in addressing the global population decline crisis. This chapter summarizes the research findings and proposes policy recommendations based on recent legislative developments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.1 Research Review: The Convergence of Governance Logic and Population Crisis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe core finding of this study is that when China and South Korea faced the \"admission cliff,\" two distinctly different governance paradigms emerged\u0026mdash;administrative pragmatism and institutional normativism. Both paradigms exhibit an inherent logic that is highly consistent with their respective institutional backgrounds. This divergent evolution is not accidental but is determined by systemic differences such as the essence of state capacity, historical institutional inheritance, and mechanisms of political legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe China model, with resource-oriented adaptation at its core, demonstrates strong adaptive resilience. According to the 2024 National Education Development Statistical Bulletin, which records the phenomenon of preschool education overcapacity, China achieves the ambiguous delegation of power through \"simplified\" guiding policies, thereby stimulating the self-protection instincts of local governments and kindergartens. The advantage of this logic lies in its ability to recover and repurpose existing resources with minimal administrative resistance and the fastest speed, avoiding the idling of public assets during demographic transition. From the perspective of path dependence theory (Pierson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Mahoney \u0026amp; Thelen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), this model fully utilizes the institutional assets accumulated during the rapid expansion of China's preschool education system over the past decade. By employing the \"functional extension\" strategy to avoid the high transition costs brought by path shifts, this approach becomes a rational choice under established institutional constraints. Its inherent limitations are equally evident: with lagging standardized supervision, the contradiction between quantitative expansion and quality assurance will become increasingly prominent as the demand for childcare for children aged 2\u0026ndash;3 continues to grow.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the South Korean model prioritizes rights-based transformation as its core, demonstrating remarkable resilience in change. Through the five 'upward equalization' measures outlined in the ECEC Integrated Implementation Plan, South Korea seeks to redefine the social contract among the state, children, and families amid a demographic crisis. While this approach entails substantial institutional costs and implementation delays, its steadfast commitment to 'norms' and 'fairness' ensures the policy's long-term stability within a rule-of-law framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.2 Evolutionary Perspective: Methodological Notes on China's Child Care Services Law\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter completing the preliminary analytical framework, it is necessary to focus on an important policy development: in December 2025, the \"Draft Law of the People's Republic of China on Childcare Services\" was officially reviewed and opened for public consultation (consultation period: December 27,2025 to January 25,2026). This legislative progress indicates that China's administrative pragmatism model is entering the \"post-legislative\" phase, where the outcomes of administrative practices are transformed into binding institutional norms through law. The draft explicitly supports kindergartens admitting children under three years old and provides detailed regulations on the qualifications of practitioners, service standards, and legal liabilities. Yang and Zhu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a normative legal analysis of this trend, advocating that China's childcare legislation should adopt a \"mixed pluralistic\" supply model to balance state obligations with social collaboration\u0026mdash;a judgment that aligns closely with the \"gradual standardization\" approach explored in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodological clarification is needed here to avoid confusing this development with the core analytical framework. The enactment of the Childcare Services Act does not imply that the differences in governance logic between China and South Korea are disappearing, nor does it mean that the binary analytical framework has become invalid. On the contrary, the procedural sequence of \"administrative pilot first, legislative confirmation later\" is the most typical institutional embodiment of administrative pragmatism logic. The reform consensus is gradually accumulated through low-risk administrative exploration, and only when the path is mature is it solidified through legislation. This fundamentally differs procedurally from South Korea's approach of \"legislation first, simultaneous implementation.\" In other words, \"post-legislation\" not only confirms the governance differences identified in this study but also does not negate their existence. Therefore, the enactment of the Childcare Services Act should be regarded as a dynamic footnote to the \"maturity of China's adaptive resilience model,\" rather than a fundamental shift toward South Korea's normative path. Future research could track the dynamic convergence or continued divergence in actual service quality and coverage equalization between the two countries after the law's implementation, thereby providing further empirical testing for the theoretical framework proposed in this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3 Policy Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3.1 Suggestions for the China model: Maintain flexibility in the process of legalization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith the advancement of the Childcare Services Law, China should avoid falling into the trap of \"over-regulation.\" International legislative practices have shown that excessively high service standards often lead to the large-scale exit of small and medium-sized service providers from the market, thereby exacerbating supply shortages (Penn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). It is recommended to reserve space for \"distributed experimentation\" during the implementation of legislation, allowing regions facing severe enrollment crises to autonomously determine compliance timelines and resource transition models. This autonomy is crucial for maintaining the system's ability to rapidly respond to population decline. At the same time, efforts must be made to address the inherent shortage of professional talent in the China model. While expanding childcare supply, differentiated professional standards for teachers targeting the 2\u0026ndash;3 age group and on-the-job training systems should be established to ensure simultaneous progress in quantity expansion and quality assurance (Feng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.3.2 Recommendations for the Korean Model: Introducing Administrative Flexibility within the Regulatory Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth Korea should reflect on the challenges of \"high costs and slow implementation.\" Comparative cases show that during the integration of the ECEC system, Ireland adopted a \"differentiated institutional approach,\" allowing educational institutions of varying sizes to express phased timelines, which effectively reduced resistance to reform (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Drawing on China's experience with \"pilot programs,\" it is recommended that South Korea break away from \"one-size-fits-all\" national mandatory requirements when restructuring its institutions. Specifically, pilot programs for ECEC integration could be launched first in administrative regions facing extreme population decline. This would not only accumulate experience at the micro level but also establish a template for interest coordination before nationwide promotion, thereby alleviating social anxiety (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, South Korea could learn from the gradual integration experience of Nordic countries: instead of enforcing uniform standards, it could establish a transitional certification mechanism, providing existing teachers with a 3-to 5-year pathway for academic advancement (Einarsdottir \u0026amp; Wagner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e7.4 Research Limitations and Future Prospects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is based on statistical data from 2023\u0026ndash;2024 and the latest legislative developments up to the end of 2025. There are three main limitations: First, the actual implementation effect of the Child Care Services Act remains to be observed; due to the lack of implementation-level data, the analysis of China's \"post-legislative\" phase in this study remains at the textual level, limiting the completeness of the argument. Second, the implementation resistance and progress of South Korea's \"Implementation Plan\" at the local level require systematic field research, and the policy text analysis adopted in this study is difficult to capture the micro-level power dynamics in grassroots implementation. Third, the generalizability of the study conclusions, when comparing China and South Korea, is limited by the political and economic background of East Asia. For countries facing similar demographic crises, such as Japan and Thailand, their applicability still needs cross-case validation (Yin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLee and Choi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) systematically analyzed the research trends in South Korea's Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) integration from 2023 to 2025, revealing a rapid shift in academic focus from \"whether to integrate\" to \"how to integrate.\" This transition from policy analysis to implementation evaluation provides new benchmarks and frameworks for future comparative studies. Subsequent research should concentrate on three key areas: micro-level quality assessments at the institutional level after legal implementation; deviations and disparities in grassroots policy execution between China and South Korea; and expanded comparisons with other East Asian economies (The nine core measures of Japan's child-centered policy model and Taiwan's integration experiences) to test and refine the explanatory power of the adaptive resilience and transformative resilience theoretical framework proposed in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author was responsible for the entire content of this manuscript, including the conceptualization, analysis, and preparation of the reference list.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data used in this study are derived from publicly accessible official statistical communiqu\u0026eacute;s, policy documents, and academic databases. All primary sources are listed in the references.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eI. Official Documents and Statistical Data.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2024). \u003cem\u003e2023 Statistical communiqu\u0026eacute; of national education development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.moe.gov.cn\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.moe.gov.cn\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2025). \u003cem\u003e2024 Statistical communiqu\u0026eacute; of national education development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.moe.gov.cn/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.moe.gov.cn/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStanding Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (2025). \u003cem\u003eChildcare service law of the People's Republic of China (Draft)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education [South Korea] (2024). \u003cem\u003eExecution plan for ECEC integration to achieve world-class early childhood education and care (Draft)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eII Chinese Academic Literature.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHai, Y., \u0026amp; Gao, J. L. (2023). Forecasting the childcare supply potential of preschool education resources in urban and rural China under the context of low fertility: Based on population trends 2023\u0026ndash;2035. \u003cem\u003eEducation \u0026amp; Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(03), 86\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong, X. M. (2026). High-quality early childhood education: Solving childcare dilemmas through ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003ePeople's Tribune\u003c/em\u003e, (01), 81\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, F., \u0026amp; Ma, H. X. (2021). Research on the supply of childcare services over the centenary of the Communist Party of China: Evolution, logic, and future outlook. \u003cem\u003eSocial Security Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e05\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, X. J., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. L. (2021). Status, problems, and reflections on childcare services in China since the reform and opening-up. \u003cem\u003eChina Soft Science\u003c/em\u003e, (S1), 376\u0026ndash;386.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Y., \u0026amp; Liu, B. C. (2025). The reform of the 0\u0026ndash;6 Integrated System of ECEC in Italy: Motivations, measures, and challenges. \u003cem\u003eComparative Education Review\u003c/em\u003e, (06), 71\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMao, T. (2025). Research on the integration of provincial urban preschool resources and childcare services from a supply-demand perspective. \u003cem\u003ePopulation and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, (02), 31\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin, X. F., \u0026amp; Liu, X. T. (2025). Dilemmas and pathways of teacher adaptation in the transformation of kindergartens into integrated ECEC institutions. \u003cem\u003eModern Education Management\u003c/em\u003e, (01), 57\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y. F., \u0026amp; Di, H. J. (2026). Demand forecasting for ECEC integration resources under new demographic trends: A perspective on 2025\u0026ndash;2050 population dynamics. \u003cem\u003eEducation Academic Monthly\u003c/em\u003e, (01), 102\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu, D. Q., \u0026amp; Li, H. Y. (2014). Analysis of the Japanese Certified Center for Early Childhood Education and Care (\u003cem\u003enintei kodomoen\u003c/em\u003e) system. \u003cem\u003eEducation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(05), 87\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, F. W., \u0026amp; Zhu, J. (2025). Provision of childcare services in China: Normative foundations, model selection, and institutional shaping\u0026mdash;A legal perspective. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, (04), 12\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePang, L. J., \u0026amp; Hu, P. T. (2009). Reform of China's preschool education system: Problems and directions. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(11), 73\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeng, X. X. (2018). Professionalization of childcare services: Significance, status, and policy recommendations. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 27\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu, H. Q., Suo, C. Q., \u0026amp; Chen, X. Y. (2015). Development and enlightenment of Integrated ECEC in Japan. \u003cem\u003eSchool Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(06), 102\u0026ndash;108.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIII Korean Academic Literature and Research Reports.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKang, E. J. (2024). \u003cem\u003eA study on the establishment of promotion and training systems for kindergartens and childcare centers after ECEC integration\u003c/em\u003e. Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKang, J. W. (2023). \u003cem\u003eA study on the reform plan for the medium-to-long-term infant and toddler care system\u003c/em\u003e. Ministry of Health and Welfare.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKo, J. W. (2024). A study on the social needs of experts for ECEC integration policy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Childhood Education \u0026amp; Educare Welfare\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 35\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKwon, J. Y., \u0026amp; Lee, B. S. (2025). Exploring the identity of future ECEC schools through policy analysis of ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(4), 391\u0026ndash;421.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, G. J. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSeoul-style integrated financial support model based on ECEC integration\u003c/em\u003e. Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, D. W. (2023). Teacher qualifications and training systems for 0\u0026ndash;5 year olds centered on ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, H. J., Lee, H. S., \u0026amp; Kang, H. G. (2023). \u003cem\u003eResponses of teachers and parents in kindergartens and childcare centers to the discussion on ECEC integration\u003c/em\u003e. Gyeonggi-do Education Research Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyu, M. H., Park, S. M., \u0026amp; Ahn, H. R. (2023). Exploration of the ECEC integration process and childcare system in New Zealand. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 277\u0026ndash;323.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark, J. H., \u0026amp; Kim, D. W. (2024). Feasibility of 0\u0026ndash;5 curriculum operation and teacher training according to the execution plan for ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Convergence of Culture Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(5), 601\u0026ndash;608.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaek, J. H. (2024). Domestic research trends and future directions regarding ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Next-generation Convergence Information Services Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(6), 839\u0026ndash;848.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSon, H. S. (2016). \u003cem\u003eIntegration of infant education and care: From issues to policy discourse\u003c/em\u003e. NRF KRM.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSon, H. S. (2017). Critical discourse analysis of the formation process of ECEC integration policy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(5), 399\u0026ndash;419.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, Y. J. (2024). \u003cem\u003eMonitoring the phased promotion of ECEC integration and measures to improve performance (II)\u003c/em\u003e. Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, H. J. (2016). A study on the current status and direction of ECEC integration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Children's Literature and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 821\u0026ndash;834.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, J. E., \u0026amp; Choi, Y. K. (2025). Analysis of domestic research trends related to perceptions of ECEC integration: Focusing on 2023\u0026ndash;2025. \u003cem\u003eEducational Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 675\u0026ndash;699.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJang, Y. I. (2014). Re-examination of discussions on ECEC integration: A childcare perspective on education-centered integration. \u003cem\u003eKorean Journal of Child Care and Education\u003c/em\u003e, (87), 113\u0026ndash;142.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeong, H. J. (2022). Arguments and suggestions for ECEC integration from the perspective of children's rights. \u003cem\u003eKorean Journal of Child Care and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e136\u003c/em\u003e, 77\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi, E. Y. (2022). \u003cem\u003eStep-by-step promotion plan for the integration of early childhood education and care\u003c/em\u003e. Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi, E. Y. (2025). \u003cem\u003eAnalysis of the ECEC policy agenda and system reform in response to demographic and social changes\u003c/em\u003e. Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIV English Academic Literature.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEsping-Andersen, G. (1990). \u003cem\u003eThe three worlds of welfare capitalism\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGough, I. (2004). East Asia: The limits of productivist regimes. In I. Gough, \u0026amp; G. Wood (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eInsecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 169\u0026ndash;201). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeilmann, S. (2008). From local experiments to national policy: The origins of China\u0026rsquo;s distinctive policy process. \u003cem\u003eThe China Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolliday, I. (2000). Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 706\u0026ndash;723.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaga, Y., Bennett, J., \u0026amp; Moss, P. (2010). \u003cem\u003eCaring and learning together: A cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education within education\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKwon, H. J. (2005). Transforming the developmental welfare state in East Asia. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 477\u0026ndash;497.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahoney, J., \u0026amp; Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). \u003cem\u003eExplaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMajone, G. (1989). \u003cem\u003eEvidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process\u003c/em\u003e. Yale University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. \u003cem\u003ePopulation and Development Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 485\u0026ndash;510.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2006). \u003cem\u003eStarting Strong II: Early childhood education and care\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2021). \u003cem\u003eStarting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2025). \u003cem\u003eResults from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng, I. (2011). The good, the bad and the confusing: The political economy of social care expansion in South Korea. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 905\u0026ndash;923.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePierson, P. (2004). \u003cem\u003ePolitics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrzeworski, A., \u0026amp; Teune, H. (1970). \u003cem\u003eThe logic of comparative social inquiry\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley-Interscience.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmidt, V. A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eEurope\u0026rsquo;s crisis of legitimacy: Governing by rules and ruling by numbers in the Eurozone\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShonkoff, J. P., \u0026amp; Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). \u003cem\u003eFrom neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development\u003c/em\u003e. National Academy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStreeck, W., \u0026amp; Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2005). \u003cem\u003eBeyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom, E. (1990). \u003cem\u003eGoverning the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayes, N. (2013). \u003cem\u003eEarly years practice: Getting it right from the start\u003c/em\u003e. Gill \u0026amp; Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePenn, H. (2009). \u003cem\u003eInternational perspectives on quality in mixed economies of early childhood provision\u003c/em\u003e. NCB/Daycare Trust.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEinarsdottir, J., \u0026amp; Wagner, J. T. (Eds.). (2006). \u003cem\u003eNordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden\u003c/em\u003e. Information Age Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, N. (2023). Institutional resilience and economic shock: A comparative study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 25(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, R. K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eCase study research and applications: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"ECEC integration, population shrinkage, governance logic, institutional resilience, state capacity, productivist welfare capitalism, China-Korea comparison","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAgainst the backdrop of extreme demographic contraction, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems in both China and South Korea are confronted with severe survival crises, prompting successive waves of integration reforms. However, the policy trajectories of the two nations exhibit a striking divergence: China, grappling with a structural \"resource mismatch\" between surplus preschool seats and a deficit in 0\u0026ndash;3 childcare, tends toward administrative mobilization via minimalist policy discourse. Conversely, South Korea\u0026rsquo;s reform is driven not by supply shortages, but by the need to resolve long-standing institutional fragmentation and educational inequities. This has prompted the South Korean Ministry of Education to release a comprehensive 31-page implementation plan aimed at a fundamental structural reconfiguration of administrative jurisdiction, teacher qualifications, and financial standards. Utilizing a Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD), this study systematically compares the policy texts and institutional backgrounds of both nations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal that this policy divergence stems not from the level of administrative efficiency, but from two fundamentally distinct governance logics: Resource-Led Adaptation in China and Rights-Based Transformation in South Korea. The China model relies on administrative mobilization capabilities, activating grassroots \"self-rescue\" through fuzzy delegation to achieve adaptive resilience. The South Korea model, by contrast, centers on the equitable right to education as its core value, seeking transformative resilience through rigid legal regulation and institutional standardization. This study proposes that the type of state capacity\u0026mdash;administrative mobilization versus rule-based governance\u0026mdash;serves as a pivotal meso-level variable for understanding the bifurcated reform trajectories within East Asian productivist welfare regimes. These findings not only challenge the monolithic perception of the \"East Asian model\" but also offer differentiated governance insights for other nations navigating demographic transitions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Governance Logics of ECEC Integration under Demographic Contraction: A Comparative Analysis of Administrative Pragmatism in China and Institutional Normativism in South Korea","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-24 19:01:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8962689/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"87871e17-219b-4a9a-ac2d-3181583aac1c","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 24th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-24T19:01:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-24 19:01:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8962689","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8962689","identity":"rs-8962689","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}