2011, Vol.18, No.1

Korea Social Policy Review 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 2.47

pISSN : 1226-0525
https://journal.kci.go.kr/kasp

This paper aims to disentangle the multi-faceted complexities of discourse and policy on poverty through the prism of political sociology. First, it examines three concepts of poverty and a typology of poverty paradigms through the social exclusion discourse together with regime approaches. It then categorizes four types of poverty policy, namely social transfer benefits, taxation, social investment, and employment, in terms of ex ante distribution and ex post redistribution on the one hand, and work and welfare on the other. Following on from this, the paper analyzes poverty alleviation pursued by the developmental state which attempted to secure legitimacy by ensuring output-oriented effectiveness instead of input-oriented democratic legitimation. Here attention is paid to the governance of the developmental state and the Janus-faced nature of the authoritarian regime. Finally, it highlights an integrated approach, based upon four types of poverty policy, necessary to reduce poverty and inequality.

The main purpose of this study is to critically review existing studies of poverty in social policy. The study examines 246 articles which were published in “Korean Journal of Social Welfare”, “Social Welfare Policy”, “Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies”, and “Social Security Review” from 1998 to 2010, using quantitative content analysis. Although the number of poverty studies has shown an upward trend, there are also some limitations as follows. First of all, there is a strong tendency to rely on income-based poverty, rather than considering multi dimensions of poverty measurement. Secondly, many studies stick to outdated ways of explaining the realities of poverty, based on observations of householders or heads of family. Third, although a variety of methodologies has been observed, this has had little impact on the results. In addition, the analyses also indicate some limitations, such as otherization of the poor, symbolization of the analytic realities, and too much emphasis on the individual unit of analysis, mainly due to the predominance of quantitative research. These repeated research patterns present a serious impediment to exploring distinctive or creative policy alternatives. Poverty studies have reached a limit and are seemingly unable to come up with an effective counter plan to recent poverty problems that are more composite and itemized.

This study analyses the problems of Korean public assistances programs(PAP) and propose reform options. In recent years, the PAP has played a very important role in protecting the poor who were left out of social safety net. It means that the first objective of PAP is the expansion of social expenditure to cover the excluded poor. There is also two other objectives : support for the self-reliance of the working poor, and reform of inefficient benefits systems. With these objectives, the reform of PAP should be taken in line with the actual and coming reform direction of social protection system. The debate on the reform of PAP has been focused on the benefit system of National Basic Livelihood Security Program(NBLSP). Threre are three line of arguments which have been conflicting with one another. In fine, each of these arguments champions : 1) the expansion of PAP expenditure, 2) the activation of working poor, or 3) the efficiency of welfare programs. However, it is next to impossible to choose one among the three. Also, the propositions for the reforms (reform of benefit system, separation of cash benefit program in accordance with demographic subgroups) should not be thought of as independent of income protection for the poor. The choice proved to be impossible, after a long debate. But a more comprehensive reform plan for the PAP should be crafted. This study underlines that the OECD countries have reformed the institutional structure of PAP, the allocation strategy of public resources, the share of cash benefit and in-kind benefit in the past twenty years. The reform’s failure in some European countries was also an important research subject. This study proposes an open discussion about the actual problems of PAP : welfarefraud, delivery system, and low policy outcome. Finally, this study propses a paradigm shift in PAP. Helping the working poor exit from NBLSP is not the feasible policy objective, because that it means an exit from all welfare programs.