The ratio of the number of housing units over the number of households is 101.2% in 2003, which implies that the housing shortage problem is almost alleviated in the aggregated level. However, the households of substandard housing reach 23.4% as of 2000, where the minimum housing standard is considered as for housing area, housing facilities, and number of rooms. Low income households tend to reside in the inferior housing units and to suffer from the overburden of the housing expenses. Thus, the housing welfare discrepancy between the high income class and the low income class is increasing too.
To enhance the housing welfare for the low income households, the Minimum Housing Standard is enacted by the House Act, and Housing comprehensive Plan(2003-12) includes various housing support programs targeting low income group based upon their income and housing level.
The purpose of this study is to reorganize the various housing programs working at present to make more equal distribution of the government support(“to whom” and “what”) and to establish the effective housing service delivery system(“how”). Therefore, this study reviews the present status of the housing programs and the delivery system, and analyzes the problems they possess. Case study for the selective foreign countries can give some lessons to establish the effective housing programs and the delivery system in Korea.
In chapter 2, housing support programs shown in the Housing Comprehensive Plan(2003-2012) and their service delivery system are reviewed. Housing programs are categorized into three parts, which are public rental housing provision, housing expenses support, and house improvement support. And the housing service delivery system is divided into two parts, which are administrative system and executive system, to be analyzed in the view of specialty, effectiveness, accessibility, responsibility, comprehensiveness, and aggregateness.
In chapter 3, supporting effect and the problems of the housing programs are analyzed. As a result, housing programs seem to have positively affected on enhancement of the housing welfare level and the housing satisfaction of the beneficiaries. However, the programs reveal some problems in the performance and the equality of the provision. When we compare the benefit and the income levels of the beneficiaries for the various housing programs with the income distribution of the target group, we found that the benefits are not equally distributed among various low income classes. Some are given overlapped services by the different programs, while the others are given none from any housing program.
In chapter 4, housing service delivery system, which consists of the administrative system and executive system, is analyzed to figure out the problems. The first one is that the administrative system and the executive system are operated separately by the different ministries. The former is governed by the policy making authorities like Ministry of Construction and Transportation(MOCT) and the Ministry of Health and Welfare(MOHW), while the latter is governed by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs(MOGAHA). Thus it is difficult for the policy making ministries to control the execution process. Second, housing service delivery system is so vertically structured that the local authorities are executing their duties passively rather than autonomously. Third, there is shortage of local government officials working on the housing related service who have specialty on this area. Fourth, beneficiary selection criteria, service contents, and delivery process of housing programs are separately operated without any integrated coordination. That causes overlapped or excluded service for the target group. (The rest is omitted)
- 주거복지 지원 및 전달체계 구축방안 연구(A study for reorganizing the housing programs and establishing the delivery system)
- 김혜승; 송하승; 윤주현
주거복지 지원 및 전달체계 구축방안 연구(A study for reorganizing the housing programs and establishing the delivery system)
|Series Title; No||국토연 / 2004-28|
|Subject Country||South Korea(Asia and Pacific)|
|Subject||Territorial Development < National Land Development
Social Development < Social Welfare