• 한국사회복지학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.04a
• /
• pp.847-865
• /
• 2000

In a broad range of socio-economic and political systems, we could be able to say that the common and highest goal of all nations is the well-being of the people. From this point of view, it can be seen that two significant historic developments were achieved in the 20th century. One was the maximization of productivity through the socially efficient distribution of resources and the other was the concept of national welfare, which assumes social responsibility for the basic livelihood of human beings. In this point, it is need not only to strengthen economic wealth, but also to redistribute resources equitably. Efficiency and equity, economic and growth, and national welfare emphasize the above-mentioned principle, but they are deeply interdependent in that the well-being of the people cannot be guaranteed in the presence of only one of those. This study aims to find out the equilibrium point those problems in the productive welfare policy in Korea. Finally, it is necessary to develop productive welfare systems in order to solve the issues well.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.29-62
• /
• 2011

이 글은 2010년 이후 복지가 정치의 중요한 쟁점이 된 사회경제의 구조와 정치과정에 관한 연구이다. 2010년 이후 갑자기 활발해진 복지정치를 선거와 정당을 중심으로 살펴보고자 하며, 그 내용은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 복지에 대한 국민의 관심이 다른 경제정책이나 안보문제를 능가할 정도로 커진 원인을 1998년 외환위기 이후 사회경제의 거시구조적 변화를 통해 살펴보았다. 둘째, 2010년 중반이후 정당들의 복지확대 경쟁을 선거승리를 위한 정치적 동학의 측면에서 정리하였다. 셋째, 만약 선거와 정당을 중심으로 하는 복지정치가 복지정책과 정당체계의 수렴을 수반한다면 한국의 복지모형에 어떤 변화가 있을 수 있는지를 짚어 보았다.

• Journal of the KSME
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.60-65
• /
• 2004

이 글에서는 우리나라 국가경제 발전의 안정적 에너지 공급원으로서 역할을 담당하고, 또한 방사선 및 방사성동위원소의 이용을 통하여 국민복지에 기여하여 온 우리나라 원자력 과학기술의 발전사를 소개하고자 한다.

• 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.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.261-277
• /
• 2001

이 글을 다음과 같이 요약한다. 첫째, 경제발전은 인간의 욕구를 충족시키기 위한 수단이다. 둘째, 경제발전에 관한 여러 이론들이 있다. 어떤 한 이론도 경제 발전을 충분히 설명하지 못한다. 여러 가지 복합적 요인을 고려하는 것이 타당하다. 셋째, 경제발전의 영향은 환경을 파괴한다는 증거가 있다. 넷째, 지속가능한 시민복지사회를 만들려면 동양적 환경가치관의 재발견과 적용이 필요하다. 다섯째, 1972년 스톡홀름 회의이후 환경보존과 관련하여 여러 가지 제도적 발전이 있었다. 그중 Agenda 21의 실천은 정부와 시민에게 중요한 움직임이다. 여섯째, 더 넓은 지속가능성 즉 5 가지 지속가능성의 적용을 권장한다. 특히 문화적 지속가능성의 실천이 중요하다. 일곱째, 국가투자를 적정화하면 환경투자비율을 높이면서 국민복지를 향상시키고, 경제성장을 지속하는 것이 가능하다. 여덟째, 지속가능한 시민복지사회를 만들려면 개인과 단체가 전략계획의 실천을 일상화해야한다.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2008

This is a timeseries study on the riving forces behind the changes of Korean welfare state. There are a few previous studies on the determinants of korean welfare state. These previous studies have some limitations in terms of reliability of the data source and validity of the statistical method used. Using the Comparative Social Policy Data-set(CSPD), we try to overcome the limitation of these previous studies. And adapting the time series regression, we examine the hypotheses about the changes of korean welfare state. In this study, four dependent variables are examined: the ratio of public social welfare expenditure to the GDP(WELGDP), the ratio of public social welfare expenditure to the government budget(WELGOV), the ratio of social expenditure to the GDP(SOCX), social welfare expenditure per capita. And independent variables were selected based on the theoretical background on the changes of welfare state. The results of this study as follows: First, the variables based on structural functionalism (industrialization) are the major driving forces behind the changes of korean welfare state since 1960s. Second, the effect of unemployment variable may be reasonably interpreted as reflecting the residual characteristics of korean welfare state. Third, the politics of the left based on power resource theory should be restrictedly interpreted. Ultimately, korean welfare state is still at rudimentary stage where the theory of industrialization is well applied as a driving forces behind the changes 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
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.229-252
• /
• 2007

Traditional quantitative approaches to comparative social policy research in welfare state have mostly focused on cross-national variations in social policy. More recently, they have attempted to account for disparities in the local provision of social policy. However, heavily relying on traditional theories of welfare state development (e.g., industrialism theory, power resource approach, and state-centric thesis), most of them seem to have explained the local variation from a central or national perspective, thereby completely ignoring the local perspective. Furthermore, their theoretical bases have been exclusively derived from the social context of post-war era. In tackling these issues, this study aims at localizing and updating the theoretical framework of local welfare policy in the post-industrial age. The framework provided in this study calls for a shift in the theoretical perspective towards more local and new approaches (e.g., new social risks, new public management and intergovernmental relations).

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.311-336
• /
• 2003

This paper purports to explain the conflicts and compromises between supra-national authority and national welfare state in an era of globalization. For this purpose this paper, first of all, examines if Community law(EU) is directly applicable to member states(direct applicability), and subsequently, if Community law is superior to national law(supremacy). It duly claims that Community law is de facto applicable to member states and thus is superior to national law, but de jure the direct applicability and supremacy of Community law are still ambiguous in practice. Secondly, it briefly describes the development of EU social policy from 'The Rome Treaty(1957)' to 'The Amsterdam Treaty(1997)', and ascertains clear limitations of social dimension of EU. Thirdly, it explains why CEU(Commission of European Union) sequently fails to achieve uniform harmonization policy in the making of social Europe. This paper concludes that 'downward harmonization thesis' or 'convergence thesis' which commonly stresses that globalization seriously impinges on nation-state's policy autonomy and policy capacity is not evidenced at least in the case of EU social policy.

• 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.