콘텐츠 바로가기
로그인
컨텐츠

Category Open

Resources

tutorial

Collection of research papers and materials on development issues

home

Resources
Economy Financial Policy

Print

2001년도 국가예산과 정책목표(National budget and policy objectives of 2001) : 경제사회여건변화와 재정의 역할(Socio-economic changes in Korea and fiscal roles of the government)

Related Document
Frame of Image 예산집행정보 , 분석 · 측정보 예
예산집행정보, 결산정보, 부과· 지· 자이체 고전 수납자료 전자이체결과 감사자료
예산정보시스템 ( 획예산처) 기 감사정보시스템 ( 사원) 감
각 중앙 / 일선관서
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1999. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2000. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2001. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100%
80%
5% 7% 19% 11% 6% 5% 5% 24% 20% 25% 25% 19% 28% 33% 58% 44% 34% 28% 19% 37% 42% 43% 37% 45% 60% 54% 54% 59% 57% 55% 59% 21% 16% 18% 6% 18% 17% 16% 19% 21% 18%
총세입대비 비중
60%
23%
40%
20%
0%
합계 (22.44) 서울 (3.42) 부산 (1.49) 대구 (1.09) 인천 (1.08) 광주 (0.73) 대전 (0.68) 울산 (0.58) 경기 (4.01) 강원 (1.03) 충북 (0.90) 충남 (1.16) 전북 (1.30) 전남 (1.50) 경북 (1.59) 경남 (1.55) 제주 (0.32)
지방교육 재정교부금
지방교육양여금
교육환경개선교부금 + 국고지원금
자치단체부담수입
교육비특별회계부담수입
100%
8% 10%
13% 12% 14%
11%
9%
7%
12%
12%
17%
80%
21% 26% 45% 25% 27%
19%
20%
18%
19%
13%
12% 14% 15% 13%
총세입대비 비중
60%
16% 19% 20% 18%
16% 16% 14%
17%
40%
22% 52% 55% 44% 44% 44% 52% 53% 56% 69% 73% 67% 71% 74% 70% 67% 64%
20%
22%
0%
합계 (22.20) 서울 (3.58) 부산 (1.53) 대구 (0.96) 인천 (1.09) 광주 (0.65) 대전 (0.65) 울산 (0.56) 경기 (4.14) 강원 (0.97) 충북 (0.81) 충남 (1.17) 전북 (1.21) 전남 (1.42) 경북 (1.53) 경남 (1.62) 제주 (0.31)
지방교육 재정교부금
지방교육양여금
교육환경개선교부금 + 국고지원금
자치단체부담수입
교육비특별회계부담수입
교육부 (2.4조 )
국 립 대 경상비, 시설비 지원 (1.3조 ) 일반지원
대학기반조성 국립대기자재 공사립대시설설비확충 학술연구조성 전 문 대 실험실습 기자재 BK 21 대학원중점육성지원 이 공 계 대 학 기 자 재 첨 단화 국제전문인력양성 산업대학특성화 국립대학교원성과급 국립대학구조조정평가 지방대학특성화지원 교육개혁추진우수대학 공과대학중점지원 대학기초 우수시범학교 대학연구센터 연구개발 목적기초연구 우 수 연 구 센 터 (SRC/ ERC) 지 역 협 력 연 구 센 터 (RRC) 특성화장려사업 지역기술혁신센터 신기술창업보육 - 농림기술개발 보건의료기술연구개발 선도기술의료공학기술 - 취업유망분야훈련
연 구 비 와 관련지원 (1.1조) 특수목적


Full Text
Title 2001년도 국가예산과 정책목표(National budget and policy objectives of 2001)
Similar Titles
Sub Title

경제사회여건변화와 재정의 역할(Socio-economic changes in Korea and fiscal roles of the government)

Material Type Reports
Publisher

서울:한국개발연구원

Date 2001
Series Title; No 연구보고서
Pages 366
Subject Country South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
File Type Documents
Original Format pdf
Subject Economy < Financial Policy
Holding 한국개발연구원; KDI 국제정책대학원

Abstract

This study explores the appropriate fiscal role of the Korean government given the newly emerging socio-economic trends such as information/knowledge-based society.
The rapid and radical transformations in the previous century will persist into the 21st century with new opportunities and uncertainties constantly taking place. Soci0-economic policies that can facilitate virtuous interactions among technology, economy and society must be actively implemented to sustain Korea’s balanced growth.
One of the major factors that will significantly affect Korea over the next several decades is the aging of the population, which generally has a negatively effect on national fiscal conditions by weakening the tax base and increasing the social burden of taking care of the elderly group. Korea’s population is aging particularly rapidly, actually much faster than many advanced economies, which makes the design and implementation of sound policies to deal with the issue one of the most pressing tasks facing the country.
Transition to an information/knowledge society is also going to significantly influence Korea’s future fiscal operations. Rules and social institutions that had accommodated the industrial age are likely to become outdated and even counterproductive in the future, changed environment. In the knowledge society, education will gain increasing importance as the platform for creating and acquiring new information, knowledge and technology. Establishing systems to assist educational institutions in gaining competitiveness is also of utmost importance.
An analysis found that Korea’s degree of income distribution inequality has worsened since the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. The Gini coefficient, an indicator of income inequality, calculated for Korea’s urban working households rose from 2.8 to 3.0 after the crisis, while the low-income population has also increased. The higher income inequality of urban workers was mainly due to the reduction in the number of those employed, which suggests the government’s efforts to create jobs as the most important policy to improve the current income distribution.