콘텐츠 바로가기
로그인
컨텐츠

Category Open

Resources

tutorial

Collection of research papers and materials on development issues

home

Resources
Social Development Social Welfare

Print

Korean pension reform from the perspective of women’s social rights

Related Document
Frame of Image
  • Korean pension reform from the perspective of women’s social rights
  • Kim, Soo-Wan
  • Seoul National University(Center for Social Sciences)


link
Title Korean pension reform from the perspective of women’s social rights
Similar Titles
Material Type Articles
Author(English)

Kim, Soo-Wan

Publisher

[Seoul]:Seoul National University(Center for Social Sciences)

Date 2014-04
Journal Title; Vol./Issue Korean Social Sciences Review(KSSR):vol. 4(no. 1)
Subject Country South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
Language English
File Type Link
Subject Social Development < Social Welfare
Holding Seoul National University

Abstract

This study seeks to understand Korean pension reform debate during 2003-2007 in gender perspective, and find theoretical and policy implications on women’s social rights. First, previous gender-related perspectives on social policy are critically reviewed. A comprehensive analytic framework including not only women’s three status - as a worker, a wife and a mother - but also a right as a citizen in society, and macro approaches as well as micro one is suggested. Second, Korean pension reform process and debates were reconstructed by gender perspective. In Korean pension reform process, the main critical issues were insignificant poverty reduction effect as well as financial instability. Most reform alternatives or measures argued seriously in reform debates had significant gender meaning, which has been rarely recognized as “gender issue”. This study focused on analyzing weakening of male bread winner model unintentionally caused by reform measures for financial stability, gender meaning of multi-pillar system (or strengthen the private pension schemes), Wollstonecraft’s dilemma issues in pension reform debate, social protection perspective versus compensation for child care perspective, and paradox of gender-equality measures.