• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.185-212
• /
• 2010

This study simulates the effects of basic income on income redistribution in Korea, and compares the redistribution effects of basic income models with the effect of the current welfare system. Using the Korea Welfare Panel Study(2008), absolute/relative poverty rate, poverty gap ratio, gini coefficients are measured. As a result of simulation, the basic income models reduced poverty more effectively than the current system. And among the three basic income models, the basic income model combined with flat-rate tax reduced poverty more effectively. And the basic income model combined with progressive tax reduced inequality more effectively. The results of the study reported in this paper confirm the paradox of redistribution which suggest that the effect of universal welfare program on redistribution is the most noticeable.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.221-227
• /
• 2022

This study purports to deal with so-called basic income policy that Korea society has paid a great amount of attention to in welfare policy area. As an introduction, the definitions of basic income policy, and her natures and characteristics, and ideological foundation will be covered. Then, this study will discuss current debating issues upon basic income policy around the world such as basic income policy vs pre-existing social security systems, basic income policy and labor supply, the potential effect of basic income policy upon income redistribution, and feasibility of basic income as an actual policy. In conclusion, this study will investigate major criticisms on basic income policy and suggest viable paths that interested researcher should take for further study on basic income.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.69 no.3
• /
• pp.289-315
• /
• 2017

Debate on basic income expanded worldwide as well as in South Korea. However, the expansion of these discussion has led to vigorous arguments for and against the various claims of basic income. In order to introduce basic income in Korea, discussing on the picture of Korean welfare state which includes basic income is important. In this study, 'Ideal Model of Korean Basic Income (and Welfare State)'is discussed and theoretically constructed using fuzzy-set ideal type approach, and feasible paths in realizing Korean basic income are suggested. This study attempts to contribute to a practical discussion on taking feasible and reasonable path to realize full basic income in Korean welfare state.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2018

This article critically reviews the arguments that deny the financial feasbility and effectiveness of universal basic income as an alternative to existing social security systems and makes some suggestions to design effective and efficient basic income schemes. Regarding the financial feasibility of universal basic income, I argue that replacement of the existing regressive tax expenditures with universal basic income without raising tax rates can effectively reduce tax burden or provide income support to a majority of people except the rich. Addition of basic income to the tax base and reduction of the number of beneficiaries of public assistance and the amount of cash payment for them can further help save money. Regarding the redistributive effect, I note that the targeting ability of the existing social security systems is not good and that "the paradox of redistribution" that universal-type programs tend to be more redistributive than selective programs applies to universal basic income as well. I demonstrate significant redistributive effect of a hypothetical revenue-neutral basic income scheme and reviews several empirical studies done in Korea and abroad to show that basic income can be more effective in redistribution than social insurances or public assistance programs. Lastly, I emphasize the need to construct a reliable tax-benefit microsimulation model to help researchers to study redistributive effects of basic income schemes and other taxes and social policies.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.17 no.5
• /
• pp.77-88
• /
• 2019

This study is empirically intended to look into the effects of basic income security on poverty elimination and life independence in income security policies. To achieve this, poverty elimination and life independence through the national pension and basic pension as old-age pension for basic income security and the unemployment benefit and livelihood benefit as employment insurance were determined as dependent variables. The 10th data from Korea Welfare Panel Study were used in the statistical package program to analyze these variables. The overall findings showed that the national pension and basic pension as part of the old-age pension had a positive effect on poverty elimination and life independence. The unemployment benefit and livelihood benefit of employment insurance were not significant and they were rejected. And poverty elimination had a significant effect on life independence and it was adopted. Consequently, the old-age pension is a pensionable income security policy given to all the elderly with lower income, which it is very useful for guaranteeing a basic income. Poverty elimination leads to life independence through the guarantee of a certain basic income, suggesting that they are closely related to each other.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2018

Globalization, deindustrialization, and the revolutionary development of technology has led to the concerns that existing social policies might not be fit for the current and upcoming society. At the same time, the idea of universal basic income has drawn significant attentions as the alternative to the old welfare state. There are pros and cons of basic income, and scholars of both sides stand against each other with their equivalently strong logics. In this situation, some governments have planned or conducted field experiments in order to estimate the causal effects of basic income. This study explores the Finnish and Dutch basic income experiments in methodological perspective. All the World have been watching the experiments in these two countries with keen interest. The results of these experiments will surely influence on the pros and cons of basic income in numerous countries, including South Korea. It is important to precisely figure out the methodological meanings and limitations of the experiments, for the experiments in both countries deal with only some partial components of basic income and have been exposed to many threats to internal validity. Therefore, scholars for and against basic income should be careful in interpreting the findings from these experiments. This study elucidate the methodological meanings and limitations of the Finnish and Dutch basic income experiments. Furthermore, this study extracts some lessons from these experiments that would be useful if scholars would have an opportunity to design and conduct a basic income experiment in South Korea.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.45-70
• /
• 2018

After critically assessing the effectiveness of basic income as an alternative to the existing social security system, this article argues that basic income is fundamentally incapable of providing an adequate protection for those in social risks or welfare needs. The proponents of basic income often claims that technological innovations will lead to the end of work and thus that basic income will be required for all citizens in the future. Moreover, they emphasize that labor market flexibility is making a large segment of work forces unstable working poor, what is often called the precariat who are not effectively protected by the existing social insurance programs. For them, basic income is the best source of social protection for the precariat of today and the citizens in the future, freeing them from the necessity of having a paid work. This article, however, points out the ineffectiveness of basic income as social protection due to its unustainably high cost that comes from unconditional benefit provisions regardless of levels of income, social risks, and welfare needs. Also it challenges the simplified 'Luddites' image of workless society in the future, arguning that techological unemployment can be overcome by new job creation as seen in Silicon Valley and job sharing following working time reduction. It maintains that it is more cost-effective and reliable to strengthen the welfare state based on the principle of reciprocity that aims at 'universal sufficient protection for those in social risks and welfare needs.'

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.37-71
• /
• 2018

Since 2016, public and political interest on basic income has been increased beyond academic interest. The recent debate on basic income has expanded on issues regarding to the concrete implementation of basic income moving further than the debate on conception of the basic income in the abstract level. This study examines major critiques of basic income which was raised from social policy area and makes a counter-argument on these critiques. Major points summarized as follows. First, the problem of jobs and social insurance exclusion is not serious enough to call for basic income. Second, existing social security systems will be crowded out by excessive financial burden if basic income is introduced. Third, policies to cultivate citizens' capacities to cope with a technological change should be given priority over basic income. This study disputes these critiques by counter arguing four points. First, it is necessary to reconstruct welfare state based on basic income, given the labor market changes, such as long-term trend of employment change, newly emerging employment of platform companies, and inconsistency of platform labor and social insurance. Second, hypothesis of crowding-out effect on social security system is just a criticism that can be applied to the basic income initiative of the right-wing. Also, it is unable to find a logical basis or evidence of this hypothesis from the historical process of welfare state development or previous studies. Third, it is necessary to discuss how to reconfigure existing social security system and basic income which are complementary to each other and also have consistency with labor market as a configuration, not as a matter of choosing between basic income and social security system. Fourth, de-laborization does not mean a refusal to labor but a free choice, and the basic principle of social security is not needs but right. In conclusion, in order to develop more productive debate on basic income, it requires more sophisticated discussion and criticism from the point of view of the distributive justice; the debate on the sustainability of social insurance-centered welfare states; and debates on the political realization of basic income.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2019.05a
• /
• pp.189-190
• /
• 2019

4차 산업혁명시대의 소득양극화와 불평등 해소를 위한 기본소득은 한국사회의 시급한 빈곤문제를 완화할 수 있는 소득보장정책일 뿐 아니라 시민들의 욕구를 투사해 복지 너머의 새로운 삶의 양식을 발명할 수 있는 가능성을 가진 정책 의제이다.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2018

The economic penalty of care and gender inequality reinforce each other. Unequal distribution and treatment of care are at the basis of gender inequality. Care creates economic penalty that deepen gender inequality. Those who perform care work tend to take the position of the vulnerable in socio-economic power relations. Due to their weak position, it is difficult for them to voice out a fair treatment and reward for their work. As a result, care workers both at home and in the public sector suffering from lower economic value of care are positioned in unequal gender relations with more vulnerable socioeconomic status. The basic income system may have the potential to mitigate multifaceted gender inequalities in our society. For the introduction of basic income to help realize the real freedom for women, it is necessary to understand unique natures of care work and tackle economic penalties of care work. This paper examines the relationships between care penalties and basic income, focusing on the debate on the introduction of the basic income system. We argue that if the economic penalties caused by unique natures of care work are not eased or resolved, the introduction of the basic income may not contributes to alleviating gender inequalities.