• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.129-153
• /
• 2003

This study examines the socio-economic impacts of recent welfare reform in the United States. Based on the neo-conservative critique to the traditional public assistance system for low-income families, the 1996 welfare reform has given greater emphases on reducing welfare dependency and increasing work effort and self-sufficiency among welfare recipients. In particular, the welfare reform legislation instituted 60-month lifetime limits on cash assistance, expanded mandatory work requirements, and placed financial penalties for noncompliance. With the well-timed economic boom in the second half of the 1990s, the welfare reform seems to achieve considerable progress; welfare caseload has declined sharply to reach less than 50% of its 1994 peak, single mothers' labor force participation has increased substantially, and child poverty has decreased. In spite of these good signals, the welfare reform also has several potential problems. Many welfare leavers participate in the labor market, but not all (or most) of them. The economic well being of working welfare leavers did not increased significantly, because earnings increase was canceled out by parallel decrease in welfare benefits. Furthermore, most of working welfare leavers are employed in jobs with poor employment stability and low wages, making them highly vulnerable to frequent layoff, long-time joblessness, persistent poverty, and welfare recidivism. Another serious problem of the welfare reform is that a substantial number of welfare recipients are faced with extreme difficulties in finding jobs, because they have severe barriers to employment. The new welfare system with 5-year time limit can severely threaten the livelihoods of these people. The welfare reform presupposes that welfare recipients can achieve self-reliance by increasing their labor market activities. However, empirical evidences suggest that many people are unable to respond to the new, work-oriented welfare strategy. It may be a very difficult task to achieve both objectives of the welfare reform((1) providing adequate income security for low-income families and (2) promoting self-sufficiency) at the same time, because sometimes they are conflicting each other. With this in mind, a possible solution can be to distinguish welfare recipients into "(Very)-Hard-to-Employ" group and "(Relatively)-Ready-to-Work" group, based on elaborate examinations of a wide range of personal conditions. For the former group, the primary objective of welfare policies should be the first one(providing income security). For the "Ready-to-Work" group, follow-up services to promote job retention and advancement, as well as skill-training and job-search services, are very important. The U. S. experiences of the welfare reform provide some useful implications for newly developing Korean public assistance policies for the able-bodied low-income population.

• Journal of Climate Change Research
• /
• v.2 no.4
• /
• pp.283-295
• /
• 2011

Many actions against climate change have been taken to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions at home and abroad. As of 2007, the GHGs emitted from buildings accounted for about 23 % of Korea's total GHGs emission, which is the second largest GHG reduction potential following industry. In this study, we introduced Carbon Zero Building (CZB), which was constructed by the National Institute of Environmental Research to cut down GHGs from buildings in Korea, and evaluated the main applied technologies, the amount of energy load and reduced energy, and economic values for CZB to provide data that could be a basis in the future construction of this kind of carbon-neutral buildings. A total of 66 technologies were applied for this building in order to achieve carbon zero emissions. Applied technologies include 30 energy consumption reduction technologies, 18 energy efficiency technologies, and 5 eco-friendly technologies. Out of total annual energy load ($123.8kWh/m^2$), about 40% of energy load ($49kWh/m^2$) was reduced by using passive technologies such as super insulation and use of high efficiency equipments and the other 60% ($74.8kWh/m^2$) was reduced by using active technologies such as solar voltaic, solar thermal, and geothermal energy. The construction cost of CZB was 1.4 times higher than ordinary buildings. However, if active technologies are excluded, the construction cost is similar to that of ordinary buildings. It was estimated that we could save annually about 102 million won directly from energy saving and about 2.2 million won indirectly from additional saving by the reduction in GHGs and atmospheric pollutants. In terms of carbon, we could reduce 100 ton of $CO_2$ emissions per year. In our Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis, the Break Even Point (BEP) for the additional construction cost was estimated to be around 20.6 years.