2014, Vol., No.15

Journal of the Scandinavian Society of Korea 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.21

pISSN : 1229-8646
https://journal.kci.go.kr/jssk

The purpose of this study is to explore the concept of the Swedish migrant literature, which contributes to the diversification of the Swedish literature in several ways. Still, dominant literary circle in Sweden tends to underestimate the value of the Swedish migrant literature and it is easy to make a mistake in its literary analysis. Migrant literature often focuses on the social contexts in the migrants' country of origin which prompt them to leave, on the experience of migration itself, on the mixed reception which they may receive in the country of arrival, on experiences of racism and hostility, and on the sense of rootlessness and the search for identity which can result from displacement and cultural diversity. By studying the literary criticism on Jonas Hassen Khemiri and his novel, Montecore, I have come to the conclusion that the critics tend to focus on the authors' otherness. By using intersectionality theory I've analyzed the role as representatives of the other reality that is applied on Khemiri by the literary critics. The theory of intersectionality have been used to contextualize these conclusions. The otherness is one of the negative symbolic capital in a bigger societal perspective and in the author's position within the literary field. In his novel Montecore Khemiri focuses on issues of racism and adjustment to a new life in the putatively progressive development of Sweden. In literature of second generation migrants, a location "between" two cultures is often mentioned as a way of expressing a sense of belonging in neither the guest nor the host community. Those whose experience has been more positive may reject the notion of "between" and feel that they live, rather, in the cultural overlap, not a void but a place of particular richness. In this sense the study of Swedish ‘migrant literature’ may contribute to the understanding of the construction of ethnicity in the contemporary Sweden.

As an alternative to the flexibilization strategy of the liberal market economy model, the EU presents the flexicurity model which implements capitalists' demand for flexible labor utilization and workers' demand for income and employment security at the same time. Referring Denmark and the Netherlands, the EU has established its flexicurity model on the basis of the Dutch golden triangle. This study aims to analyze the flexicurity model with a special reference to the Danish case, and to identify two different types of the flexicurity model by comparing the Danish model and the Dutch model with each other. While both Denmark and the Netherlands offer earnings and employment security through a significant scale of labor market expenditures, they diverge from each other regarding flexibility. Denmark allows flexibility for the entire labor force including regular and non-regular workers, whereas the Netherlands allows flexibility mainly for non-regular workers. In the formation process of the flexicurity model, the Danish model has gone through a long historical process of conflict and dialogue, while the Dutch model introduced was introduced deliberately with a specific policy objective. Despite this difference, both models share the existence of mutual trust and social dialogue between labor and capital. The flexicurity model in Denmark and the Netherlands brings about low unemployment rates and high employment rates. In the midst of the negative impact of the global economic crisis, Denmark and the Netherlands have fared well in maintaining their relative superiority in terms of labor market efficiency. Thus it is appropriate to define the Danish model and the Dutch model as two types of the flexicurity model, because it is too early to judge which one is better than the other.

This paper attempts to explore alternatives to the low social security system, especially for the self-employed, focusing on their characteristics and problems in Korea. As a result of this review, I would like to argue as follows; First, if the best social policy is employment policy(and income creation through it), employment-extension is most important, but the relative high rate of self-employed compared with OECD countries and low mobility in the wage labor market are intrinsically related with low wages and low levels of social security in the wage labour market, which is dualized in regular and non-regular status. So, it is necessary and urgent to restrict large-scale restructuring and discrimination against non-regular workers in enterprises. Second, because the income of most self-employed workers depends on the income and expenditure of economically actives in first and secondary industry, it is also necessary to increase real wages and disposable income of wage earners. Third, strengthening the social safety net for the self-employed requires an approach by stages. In this sense, introducing EITC and expanding the coverage of the self-employed in social insurance systems by government will be important reforms in the short run, but to ensure stable life and social security for self-employed workers, citizenship-based, tax-based universal social services must be expanded in the long run.