• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.162-189
• /
• 2002

In general, every welfare state is to be productive. If not, the welfare state itself cannot be sustainable because resource for the development of welfare only comes from a sound level of economic development However, how to mix welfare and production differs from country to country. This article tackles this phenomenon as a starting point. Granted, contemporary studies of comparative welfare state often starts from the theory of welfare regime which has been suggested by Esping-Andersen. This article also regards the framework as an analytic tool to elaborate upon the concept of productive welfare and to categorize different types of conception of productive welfare. In liberal regime, the concept is so narrowly interpreted that they emphasize micro-efficiency of specific welfare programs. On the contrary, the other two regime types recognize the concept of productive welfare as relatively wide. Therefore, conservative and social democratic regimes underscore macro-efficiency of the welfare state as a whole. Empirical analyses of this article explores each regime's success and failure in terms of achieving fundamental goals of the welfare state, i.e. economic development and enhancement of equality. A series of evidence show that liberal regime fails in achieving both goals, while the other two regimes seem to be relatively successful. In conclusion, it may be pointed out that current tendency of neo-liberalism and anti-welfarism in Korea should be overcome, which must be the prime task of social welfare academia of this country.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 2019

The industrialization theory that industry and economic development of country has an important influence on the development of the welfare state had become a major theory explaining the development of the welfare state. However, the theory of industrialization faced criticism that the size of public welfare was relatively weak even in advanced industrial countries where industrialization developed. To complement and explain these limitations, The theory of democracy that the welfare state could be expanded as a strategy for election competition, and the theory of power-resources theory that welfare states could develop when the power of unions and left parties demanding welfare states were strengthened. This study uses Fuzzy-set analysis for the data of OECD countries adding industrial structure variables to existing theory of the development of welfare state. The result suggests that the proportion of manufacture such as industry structure of country is important for the development of welfare state.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.277-304
• /
• 2005

The review of the literature shows that analysts tend to follow two approaches in their investigation of the differences in terms of the development of welfare state. The first approach focused on the logic of industrialization. In this account, technological and structural changes rather than political choices of ideological preferences and culture create the conditions for the emergence of welfare state. The second approach emphasizes the importance of the growth of unionization for the development of welfare state. However, this study analyses the development of welfare state by using cultural theory developed by Mary Douglas. Culture theory has a specific point of departure : the grid-group typology proposed by Mary Douglas. Group refers to the extent to which an individual is incorporated into bounded units. Grid denotes the degree to which an individual's life is circumscribed by externally imposed prescriptions. Hierarchical culture (high grid-high group) favors social conservatism, giving government the right to intervene in matters of social institutions. Germany and Japan belong to this culture. Individualistic culture (low grid-low group) reluctant to develop social insurance programs. Individuals who are bound by neither group incorporation nor prescribed roles inhabit an individualistic social context. Great Britain and the United Sates of America belong to this culture. Egalitarian culture (low grid-high group) prefer to develop social insurance program. Strong group boundaries couples with minimal prescriptions produce social relations that are egalitarian. Sweden belong to this culture.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.5-27
• /
• 2010

The objective of this study is to examine the dicourse of East Asian Welfare Models and its applicability to explain the development of the Korean Welfare State(regime). The Confucianist Welfare State, representing East Asian Welfare Models has limitations in explaining the current features and dynamics of east asian welfare states. Compared to the western and northern european welfare states, the Welfare State(Regime) of Korea, one of the east asian countries show the clear differences in terms of its origin, the background of formulation, the orientation of the policy and the actors. Thus, a new approach to examine the East Asian Welfare Model is needed. As a theoretical framework, the origin and the growth of the Korean Welfare State(Regime) can be understood and explained in the boundary of concept and the theoretical framework of the Authoritative Developmental State; Historically, the democratization of the 1980s and the financial crisis of the end of 1990s in Korea contributed to the growth of the welfare policies and institutions in Korea. Japan, Taiwan and other east asian counties, such as Hong Kong and Singapore have many similarities with Korea in terms of welfare policies and institutions. Comparative studies of these countries can create significant and useful results to develop a new concept and model of East Asian Welfare States. Case studies and active academic exchanges among welfare state researchers in these east asian countries are very important to develop a new concept of East Asian Welfare State Models.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.371-393
• /
• 2013

The objective of this article is to compare the characteristics and the origin of Welfare State in Korea and France. This study also finds out the causes of underdevelopment of Welfare State in Korea. In the third Republic of France, the first Industrial Accident Compensation Law was legislated in 1898. The discussion of the project of Law commenced in 1880. The Parliamentary Debate on the legislation of the Law had continued for 18 years. The leaders of the debate was the group of progressive Republicans(Radicals) in the French Parliament. In Korea, it was also in the period of the third Repulic, the President and several members of the Supreme Committee of National Reconstruction (Guk-Ga-Jai-Gun-Choi-Go-Ho-Eui), the authoritative military government who enacted and developed the Social Insurance Law of Industrial Accident Compensation, the first Law of Welfare State in Korea. However, Korea and France show more differences than similarities in the terms of the origin of the Welfare State. The motivations and goals of social policies of the two countries were quite different at the beginning stage. In France, the progressive Republicans of Parliament made welfare state policies in order to maintain the politico-social hegemony and social peace by provision of economic supports to workers. In Korea, the group of military officers had begun the welfare legislation in order to win the general election and obtain political power in 1963. Comparison on the origins of the welfare states in the two countries shows similarities as well as differences in terms of the role of actors. In France, the state and the owners of big enterprises had agreed and played positive roles in the legislation of the welfare state policies. However, the owners of small companies, merchants and farmers had played negative roles. Like the French case, Korean government and owners of big enterprises had played positive roles. The state as a major actor of the legislation of the social insurance programs in the two countries are slightly different. In Korea, the owners of small companies had played negative roles in making of medical insurance programs in 1976. Comparison of the current state of two welfare states shows substantial differences in terms of the development of the welfare state. What is the reason for such differences? Why does Korean Welfare State underdevelop? Historically, the developmentalism as an major ideology of the third Republic of Korea has continually influenced the underdevelopment of the Welfare State. It implies that Koreans have to invent a new ideology of Welfare State which can replace the developmentalism and support the development of Welfare State in the future. Without such a new ideology, it is very difficult to develop an european style welfare state in Korea.

• The Journal of Korean society of community based occupational therapy
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.45-59
• /
• 2011

Objective : he aim of this study is to describe on the definition of the welfare state and scope of the social welfare and to analyze the development of the social welfare policy for the disabled in South Korea. Methods : We described on the definition of the welfare state and scope of the social welfare and analyzed the social welfare policy and welfare policy for the disabled among Korean Government through literature review. Finally, We also analyzed the welfare policy for the disabled in the Roh Moo-hyun Administration. Results : Welfare policy or welfare policy for the disabled was developed as economic growth from 'selective welfare' to 'universal welfare'. Scope of the social welfare was expanded from 'minimum guarantee' of the Lee seong-man administration to 'participatory welfare' of the Roh moo-hyun administration and that was similar to the welfare policy of administration for the disabled. Conclusion : We suggest that occupational therapist based community should find unmet health need and provide home-based rehabilitation services to the disabled and the elderly.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.47-67
• /
• 1983

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.145-177
• /
• 2001

This paper seeks to analyze how the welfare state has developed both in the Kim Young Sam government and in the Kim Dae Jung government. Among other things, the two governments share some similarities: compared to the previous authoritarian governments, both of them enjoyed a high level of democratic legitimacy; the two were under pressure to win the elections to acquire and remain in power; and finally, the two tried to strengthen welfare system. But there exist more critical differences. The Kim Dae Jung government was a minority government, while the Kim Young Sam government was a majority one. Compared to the latter one, the former came to power in an extremely bad economic condition. Fortunately, however, the Kim Dae Jung government was able to enjoy a relatively high level of state autonomy resulting from an exceptional situation of foreign currency crisis. In addition, it was more reformist in policy orientation and had a more open cooperative network with civil society. All these differences added up to produce remarkable differences with regard to the improvement in welfare development. Especially, it is noted that the Kim Dae Jung government was very successful in several respects: provision of national minimum, integration of national medical insurance, development of productive welfare system, and final1y increase in welfare spending. Recently, criticisms from the opposition party, the press, and middle and upper class people mount against the Kim Dae Jung government which has made significant mistakes in instituting the separation of medical and pharmaceutical businesses. However, the important improvements in welfare institutions and programs by the Kim Dae Jung government need to be maintained to deal with all the negative effects of a naked market economy. They must also be sustained to keep alive democracy that Korean people have fought for nearly half a century.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.39-67
• /
• 2018

The Korean welfare state has achieved remarkable development during the last two decades, but simultaneously we have witnessed growing prevalent social conflicts and exclusion in the society. This research argues that the source of current problems lies in the nature of the Korean welfare regime, so called, 'paternalistic liberalism'. The paternalistic liberalism has been formulated by the combination of legacies of the developmental state and neo-liberalism. Paternalism with the growth-oriented and employment-centered approach has been a significant factor to restrict individuals' freedom and happiness in the Korean welfare state. It has also been embedded in the Korean welfare state such as social insurance, workfare programs, and centralized social services. In this context, this research proposes social liberalism, pursuing real freedom for all, as a new paradigm for the Korean welfare state. Breaking from the old path, Freecurity, combining freedom and security, which is argued to be the upgraded version of flexicurity, is also newly proposed as the operating model of social liberalism.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.291-315
• /
• 2016

This paper analyzed experientially political conducts of the political players on privitization of healthcare service and public healthcare sercive aftrer the democratization in order to determine the influence of democracy on the development of a welfare state. For this purpose, the contents of the major daily newspaper reports from 1993 to 2012 were analyzed. As a result of such analysis, it was found that the political parties did not drive the policy even after the democratization reflecting the demands of the people, political parties had a strong conservative stance and did not show a consistent ideological inclination in their policies. Second, even though the role of the civic movement in the public healthcare service issue became larger after the democratization, policy decisions were driven by the government in an authoritative manner. In addition, the degree of contribution by the civic movements to the development of public healthcare service did not offset the influence of the president and the finance ministry on the development of privatization. Third, both the development of public healthcare service and privatization progressed simultaneously under the Kim Dae Jung, Rho Mu Hyun and Lee Myung Bak administrations after the democratization and it is thus difficult to argue that the qualitative nature as a welfare state was changed after the democratization. However, the degree of development as a welfare state differed depending on the ideological inclination of the presidents, the capacity of the welfare ministry and the ministry that drove the privatization.