 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
According to data from 2010, low-income earners (those earning 12 million won or less) make up 37.8% of South Korea's labour force. [1] Conversely, the highest income earners (those earning 100 million won or more) make up 1.4% of the labour force. [1]
Among other countries in OECD, South Korea performs relatively well when considering indicators such as the Gini coefficient and Palma ratio, especially when limiting the comparison to countries with similar populations. [2]
However, income polarization (the income gap) has not eased since the IMF stimulus, and thus is becoming more serious as of 2018.
In 2014, the poverty gap index was 39%, which ranked third overall among OECD countries. According to Wells X, the nation's top-tier 1390 people monopolize assets worth around 270 trillion won, comparable to the national budget. [3]
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated economic inequality in South Korea. [4] South Korea's President, Moon Jae-in, attributed a deepening wealth gap between the rich and the poor to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. [5]
The following table shows the number of people and earned income by annual salary in Korea. [6]
| Sort | Number of People | Percentage of total workers | Earned Income | Percentage of total earned income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 million won or less | 4.51M | 31.6% | 21.0 trillion won | 5.70% |
| 12 million won or less | 5.41M | 37.8% | 31.3 trillion won | 8.47% |
| 30 million won or less | 9.90M | 69.3% | 123.0 trillion won | 33.28% |
| 45 million won or less | 11.89M | 91.4% | 123.0 trillion won | 47.15% |
| 60 million won or less | 13.06M | 91.7% | 260.2 trillion won | 70.41% |
| 80 million won or less | 13.82M | 97.4% | 313.1 trillion won | 84.72% |
| 100 million won or less | 14.09M | 98.6% | 337.4 trillion won | 91.30% |
| Over the 100 million won | 0.19M | 1.4% | 32.2 trillion won | 8.70% |
| SUM | 14.29M | 100% | 369.6 trillion won | 100.00% |
In 2019, an article published on Xinhua claimed that the government-led economic growth policy resulted in a drop in South Korea's Gini index from 2018. [7] However, it should be cautioned that the figure has only improved due to sluggish economic growth among high-income earners.
The 2019 film Parasite depicted drastic economic inequality between South Korea's wealthy and the poor, which is not necessarily reflected in reality. [8] In contrast, 1% of the United States' top income earners earn 20% of the country's income, whereas the ratio is smaller in South Korea, with 12.2% of the population earning the same percentage of South Korea's total income. [8]
Economic polarization creates many problems, though some of the following are more evident in South Korea:
Economic inequality is often linked to low or limited social mobility, a situation which may instill a sense of hopelessness among South Korea's youth. [9] Gambling, though extremely limited due to its legality in South Korea, can be a dangerous source of debt for South Koreans who are susceptible to gambling and gambling addiction. [10] In 2017, the availability of cryptocurrency in South Korea, [11] combined with a lack of legal outlets for gambling, has contributed to gambling problems and associated debt. [12]
There are many causes for economic inequality, but the following causes are mainly talked about in Korea.
Not only the financial crisis itself, but also the ensuing contraction in domestic investment and worsening overall employment conditions. A slump in the domestic economy and strengthening the nation's economic structure dependent on exports. Before the Asian financial crisis, local companies used to make lax investments, ironically these over-investments had a positive impact on employment.
In the real economy, the imbalance of information results in reverse selection or moral hazard. The efficiency wage theory may be applied to solve the problems arising from this. Then, contrary to conventional wisdom, the phenomenon of "giving more to hardworking people than to work" occurs. It is easy to understand that there is a big difference in prize money even though the difference between first and second place is very small in a big competition. People who are confident of their own skills will prefer a competition with a big prize money because they think 'I can be number one.' It serves as a mechanism to drive out the uncompetitive and attract the competitive. In other words, in theory, the more strictly one considers who is good or bad, the more polarization can be intensified. For now, meritocracy is the clearest and most reasonable resource distribution standard in reality when there is no external pressure, so it is valid both in terms of efficiency and in terms of legitimacy. However, polarization is another matter. In other words, a legitimate society can be more polarized, and the oppositely unjust society can be called a more equal society. Simply saying that polarization is severe cannot determine that society is unjust.
In his book The Great Leveler, Walter Schaedel said that political inequality creates economic inequality. [13] In the book, the author said, "As the nation has historically been formed, public power has been concentrated on a few people. In terms of hierarchy, it is a very sharp spire structure. These political inequalities have encouraged economic inequality," The Republic of Korea says that economic inequality has intensified since the 1990s as well as political inequality.
In the 2016 Hanyang University dissertation, a survey was conducted on the perception of economic inequality among generations. In the paper, 70 percent of the people held the government responsible for failing to narrow the income gap. So many modern people say that the current government's policy inequality is not helping to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. [14]
The poverty of low-income people is getting worse due to the long-term deterioration of employment in South Korea. Therefore, the government has tried to increase employment every time over the past few years, but no results have been made yet. [5] In an article published in the 2018 Korean Times, the IMF said Korea's income inequality was the poorest among 22 Asian-Pacific countries. In this article, the nation's economic growth is growing fast, but it also talked about inequality in household income due to the difficulty of finding jobs for young job seekers. [15]
One proposed solution to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor is the establishment of a universal social safety net. South Korea's share of government spending on welfare is among the lowest among OECD countries. There is a need to resolve the gap between the rich and the poor. [16]
The state tries to bridge income inequality and the gap between the rich and the poor by intervening in the market without undermining the flow of the free market economic system.
As a representative economic policy for resolving income inequality, Korea has an income-led growth policy, and disaster support funds from around the world, which were prepared due to economic damage caused by Covid-19, can also be seen as efforts to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor in the short term and in numerical terms by guaranteeing basic income for low-income families.
A 2018 Korea University degree paper conducted a study on how social welfare policies improve economic inequality. The income of the top 10% was about 6.6 times the income of the lowest 10% in 1990. As of 2016 this has increased to about 10 times. The universal concept of social welfare is becoming increasingly prominent in the 21st century as economic inequality continues to rise. In the paper, two countries were cited as examples: Sweden, which developed industrial competitiveness based on marketism before implementing social welfare, and the United Kingdom, which maintained a balance between industrial competitiveness and welfare efficiency. The paper stated that the Korea public pension and the basic livelihood security system required more financial support. For health security, support was needed first for the lower-income class for the continuity of working welfare. In addition, in order to continuously supplement and develop industrial competitiveness, it is necessary education provides fair opportunities and discovers talent. It also states that it is necessary to divide the low-income class in Korea into recipients of welfare and the class directly above so that people do not feel a decline in their motivation to work. [17]
Considering history and economics, the gender gap issue has greatly improved since the 1970s, when the Korean economy started to boom. Nevertheless, Inequality in social, cultural, and economic spheres affects Korean women in the modern day. Since 2002, 72.4% of women perceived gender inequality within the society, according to the Social Survey by Statistics Korea. [18]
According to the Asian Development Bank, the female labor force participation rate in South Korea has climbed from 54.4% to 67.5%, whereas the growth rate in per capita income has risen from 3.6% to 4.1% on average, over a generation. Additionally, differences between men and women at home and in the labor market were entirely eliminated. [18]
Nevertheless, the terminology or way of referring to women has not gradually developed like the South Korean economy. Some Koreans still refer to a woman as Djip-saram , meaning a person who stays at home, and a husband as Bakat-Yangban , which denotes a guy who goes working for his family. In other words, the considered stereotype reflects the notion that women should stay at home and take care of their children whereas men should go to work. [19]
The country still faces a notable gender participation within the job market. The Republic of Korea's female labor force participation rate (LFPR), is much lower than the male rate for approximately 77%. More specifically, just 55% of Korean women between the ages of 15 and 64 are employed. Despite the fact that South Korea does not make a noticeable difference between the average of OECD countries (being 79%). The country is below average when it comes to labor force of women between the ages of 15 and 24, considering the 65% averaged. The level of education is a factor related the gender gap of the LFPR, considering the 88.3% of the men with a graduate school education whereas women rate was 62.9% with the same education degree. [18]
Since 1975, rural residents in Korea experience poverty to a considerably higher level than urban residents. All agricultural families reported expenditures per capita lower than the mean for urban households. At the time, there was a relationship between the demographic level among families and the level of poverty. Therefore, a reduction of poverty levels among households was reached while decreasing the quantity of family members. [20] Nevertheless, a study that compares poverty levels comparing Chile, Mexico and South Korea, showed that South Korea has historically low inequality and has had the greatest achievement in eradicating poverty among the three countries. This resulted from the nation's social initiatives of the time being increased. [21]
Considering the context on a growth that took place under a rightist/conservative dictatorship within the country, as well as supported by a military strongly allied with influential business conglomerates known as chaebols; this made policies to get influenced with early land reform and labor-intensive export-oriented manufacturing, with the aim of reducing poverty. Notwithstanding, in terms of social welfare spending as mentioned in the paper, [21] Korea only increased to 4.6 percent of GDP contemplating much less money spent related to social security. The aforementioned has a clear relationship with the inequality factor in the country, since considering the comparison with other countries, the report considers that the decrease in social security increases inequality, as in the case of Mexico. On the other side, after the government implemented land reform in Korea, the country's powerful government was able to oversee an employment- and farmer-driven economic strategy that decreased poverty and kept inequality at a minimum. [21]
Compared to another Asian country such as the Philippines, South Korea had an advantage considering the 600 COVID testing centers with 58 in the Philippines at the time. [22]
Despite the fact that socioeconomic status was unrelated to in-hospital mortality in South Korean COVID-19 patients due to the full covering of hospital costs for these patients; the increased probability of a COVID-19 infection took place mostly in the lower socioeconomic households. Speaking about gap age, the relationship between adults over 60 years of age who presented the above mentioned condition were even more prone. However, for those aged 20 to 39 years, the level of infection was higher regardless of the socioeconomic status of the youngest. [23]
Considering the adversities of globalization, there is a clear unequal relation regarding injustice, distribution of wealth and the relation to the severity of the contagion. The differences between dying, having been hospitalized and having received effective treatment also lead to background factors that explain inequality. Among them, the possibility of being able to stop working to recover from the disease properly, to receive a reduction in salary and the necessary medications, are differences at the global level that contributed to the injustice and poor distribution of goods in the pandemic. SMEs, lower-income households, undocumented immigrants, and workers with poor benefits and working conditions were the most impacted at the national level. More generally, South Korea was hit hardest with high levels of unemployment as well as a collapsing economy. [24]
The poverty threshold, poverty limit, poverty line, or breadline is the minimum level of income deemed adequate in a particular country. The poverty line is usually calculated by estimating the total cost of one year's worth of necessities for the average adult. The cost of housing, such as the rent for an apartment, usually makes up the largest proportion of this estimate, so economists track the real estate market and other housing cost indicators as a major influence on the poverty line. Individual factors are often used to account for various circumstances, such as whether one is a parent, elderly, a child, married, etc. The poverty threshold may be adjusted annually. In practice, like the definition of poverty, the official or common understanding of the poverty line is significantly higher in developed countries than in developing countries.
Economic inequality is an umbrella term for a) income inequality or distribution of income, b) wealth inequality or distribution of wealth, and c) consumption inequality. Each of these can be measured between two or more nations, within a single nation, or between and within sub-populations.
In economics, income distribution covers how a country's total GDP is distributed amongst its population. Economic theory and economic policy have long seen income and its distribution as a central concern. Unequal distribution of income causes economic inequality which is a concern in almost all countries around the world.
Feminization of poverty refers to a trend of increasing inequality in living standards between men and women due to the widening gender gap in poverty. This phenomenon largely links to how women and children are disproportionately represented within the lower socioeconomic status community in comparison to men within the same socioeconomic status. Causes of the feminization of poverty include the structure of family and household, employment, sexual violence, education, climate change, "femonomics" and health. The traditional stereotypes of women remain embedded in many cultures restricting income opportunities and community involvement for many women. Matched with a low foundation income, this can manifest to a cycle of poverty and thus an inter-generational issue.
Poverty reduction, poverty relief, or poverty alleviation is a set of measures, both economic and humanitarian, that are intended to permanently lift people out of poverty.
Child poverty refers to the state of children living in poverty and applies to children from poor families and orphans being raised with limited or no state resources. UNICEF estimates that 356 million children live in extreme poverty. It is estimated that 1 billion children lack at least one essential necessity such as housing, regular food, or clean water. Children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as adults and the poorest children are twice as likely to die before the age of 5 compared to their wealthier peers.
International inequality refers to inequality between countries, as compared to global inequality, which is inequality between people across countries. International inequality research has primarily been concentrated on the rise of international income inequality, but other aspects include educational and health inequality, as well as differences in medical access. Reducing inequality within and among countries is the 10th goal of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring that no one is left behind is central to achieving them. Inequality can be measured by metrics such as the Gini coefficient.
A social welfare model is a system of social welfare provision and its accompanying value system. It usually involves social policies that affect the welfare of a country's citizens within the framework of a market or mixed economy.
Poverty is measured in different ways by different bodies, both governmental and nongovernmental. Measurements can be absolute, which references a single standard, or relative, which is dependent on context. Poverty is widely understood to be multidimensional, comprising social, natural and economic factors situated within wider socio-political processes.
Income inequality has fluctuated considerably in the United States since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950 and 1980.
In China today, poverty refers mainly to the rural poor. Decades of economic development has reduced urban extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms, which still stands in 2022.
The social safety net (SSN) consists of non-contributory assistance existing to improve lives of vulnerable families and individuals experiencing poverty and destitution. Examples of SSNs are previously-contributory social pensions, in-kind and food transfers, conditional and unconditional cash transfers, fee waivers, public works, and school feeding programs.
The effects of social welfare on poverty have been the subject of various studies.
Poverty in New Zealand deals with the incidence of relative poverty in New Zealand and its measurement. Between 1982 and 2011, New Zealand's gross domestic product grew by 35%. Almost half of that increase went to a small group who were already the richest in the country. During this period, the average income of the top 10% of earners in New Zealand almost doubled going from $56,300 to $100,200. The average income of the poorest tenth increased by only 13% from $9700 to $11,000. Figures from 2016 show that about 15% of the population lives in poverty, compared to 9% in the 1980s, and 22% in 2004.
Poverty in South Korea has been in drastic decline since the mid-20th century, particularly the absolute poverty rate. Relative poverty was also in decline until the late 1990s, rose in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis, and has been in decline since the 2010s. While only about 2% of South Koreans are affected by absolute poverty today, about 14-15% of these 2% are elderly and are affected by relative poverty. Elderly relative poverty has been in consistent decline since 2011, according to the OECD.
The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the average difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working. Women are generally found to be paid less than men. There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter typically takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. In other words, the adjusted values represent how much women and men make for the same work, while the non-adjusted values represent how much the average man and woman make in total. In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79–83% of the average man's salary, compared to 95–99% for the adjusted average salary.
Social determinants of health in Mexico are factors that influence the status of health among certain populations in Mexico. These factors consist of circumstances in which people grow, live, work, and age, as well as the systems put in place to deal with illnesses.
South Korea's pension scheme was introduced relatively recently, compared to other democratic nations. Half of the country's population aged 65 and over lives in relative poverty, or nearly four times the 13% average for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This makes old age poverty an urgent social problem. Public social spending by general government is half the OECD average, and is the lowest as a percentage of GDP among OECD member countries.
Economic inequality in New Zealand is one of the social issues present in the country.
Poverty in Norway had been declining from World War II until the Global Financial Crisis. It is now increasing slowly, and is significantly higher among immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. Before an analysis of poverty can be undertaken, the definition of poverty must first be established, because it is a subjective term. The measurement of poverty in Norway deviates from the measurement used by the OECD. Norway traditionally has been a global model and leader in maintaining low levels on poverty and providing a basic standard of living for even its poorest citizens. Norway combines a free market economy with the welfare model to ensure both high levels of income and wealth creation and equal distribution of this wealth. It has achieved unprecedented levels of economic development, equality and prosperity.
