Here is the second paper, comparing Hong Kong's minimal welfare state to America's bloated one. Here's a snippet:
In the weeks leading up to Hong Kong’s handover to Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong’s caged-home dwellers were in the spotlight. The city was flooded with foreign journalists, and the phenomenon of the city’s caged homes was at the top of their lists of things to see.
Foreign reporters streamed in and out of the city’s caged homes, and gasped in horror at the squalid accommodations of the cagemen and women. However, it seems that few bothered to investigate into the background of the caged housing. In the months leading up to the handover, welfare groups and the Hong Kong Government were swamped with requests to visit the caged people. Some caged dwellings were visited by as many as four camera crews a day as the handover drew near. Yet, when the Secretary for Housing gave a press briefing on the territory’s housing policies, only about a dozen foreign journalists showed up.
In their eagerness to seek out a “dark side” to Hong Kong’s capitalist success story, these journalists missed one important point: that the phenomenon of people living out their old age in cages is rooted not in the vagaries of Hong Kong’s capitalist system, but in a severe housing shortage caused by a long-standing government monopoly on land ownership, and early government intervention in the property market. These journalists also missed out on an even more interesting story: that in spite of a history of from zero to minimal government support for public welfare services, and in spite of the fact that less than 40 years ago well over half the population lived in abject poverty, Hong Kong has actually performed better than many western nations in the area of social welfare.
You can read the rest here.