Keynote Speech - 사회투자지원재단 · 한제도들을도입시행하고있다. 예를들어, 미국에서는소유주택에대한세금혜택, 사업투자세금혜택, 예를들어,

Keynote SpeechMichael Sherraden

Professor of Social DevelopmentWashington University in St. Louis

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py

SEOUL WELFARE FOUNDATION 11

최근한국은누진적인자산형성지원정책의일환으로아동발달계좌(Child Development Accounts:

CDAs)를도입하 다. 아동발달계좌는부모및후원자들의저축기회를증가시키고형성된자산을통해아

동과청소년의발달에투자함으로써빈곤의세습방지를주목적으로하고있다. 또한빈곤층의자산형성을

지원하도록설계된개인발달계좌(Individual Development Accounts: IDAs)가희망통장이라는이름으

로서울시에의해도입논의가이루어지고있다. 희망통장은근로빈곤층에게저축할수있는동기부여를제

공함으로써빈곤탈출의가능성을향상시키려는목적을가지고있다.

한국에서자산형성지원제도의시행및도입논의는정책결정자들의새로운사회정책도입을위한실험으

로이해될수있다. 특히한국에서사회투자(social investment) 정책에관한관심이증가하고있다. 노령

화, 저출산율, 그리고경제적양극화현상과같은새로운사회적위험(new social risks)이한국사회에서

도사회문제로 두되면서, 사회투자정책은이러한새로운사회적위험에효율적으로 처할수있는 안

으로등장하고있다. 그일환으로자산형성지원정책은많은주의와관심을받아왔고한국에서도입및실

시되고있다.

한국에서다양한자산형성지원정책의도입은주목할만한현상이지만, 자산형성지원정책의시행착오를

줄이기위해서는그정책의이론적논의와경험적연구에관한논의가병행되어야할것이다. 이러한관점

에서이 은새로운사회적위험그리고이에따른사회정책의변화에관한논의를시작으로사회투자정책

과자산형성지원정책을간략하게소개한다. 또한이 은사회투자정책과자산형성지원정책, 이두정책이

어떻게연관되어있는지그리고한국사회정책발달에어떠한함의를가지고있는지를논할것이다.

Ⅰ서론

사회투자정책과자산형성지원정책：한국사회정책에미치는함의점에관한연구

Michael Sherraden

워싱턴 학교(Washington in St. Louis) 교수

한 창 근

Center for Social Development 연구원

로일생동안사회정책과관련된결정을스스로내려야만한다. 후기산업사회에서필요로하는것은시민들

의활발한참여를기초로이루어지는적극적(active) 사회정책이다. 이는발전과참여를증가시키고개인

들과가족으로하여금그들의능력을향상시키는기회를주는것을말한다(Sherraden, 2003).

최근사회정책의변화및개혁을설명하기위하여다양한시도가있어왔다. Neil Gilbert는사회적급여

자격(entitlements)을중요시하는이전의제도에서가능성을향상시키는국가(enabling state)로변화하

고있다고요약하고있다. 이것은시민들을공공서비스와급여를받아생활하는수동적수혜자로보기보

다는정부의지원을통해개인들이자기자신을보호할수있는능력을향상시키는데초점을두는제도및

국가를의미한다(Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989 ; Gilbert, 1995). 국신노동당의새로운정치적정책강령인

“사회투자국가”는Anthony Giddens의제3의길：사회민주주의의새로운길(1998)에서처음사용되었

다. 약간은다른의미이지만일맥상통된의미에서, Jim Midgley(1999)는지금의변화과정을‘생산성

(productivity)’중심의과정으로보고있고사회투자의등장을가장 향력있는사회정책으로해석하고

있다. 게다가사회투자는1990년 중반이후에나타난유럽복지국가의변화과정을설명하는데이용되고

있다(Dufour & Morrison, 2005 ; Taylor-Gooby, 2004).

3. 사회투자국가의주요특징

기존연구들을기초로하여사회투자국가의기본적특징을몇가지제시할수있다. 사회정책과경제정책

의통합적연관성, 인간잠재력의개발에초점, 치료적접근보다는예방적정책, 그리고고용및노동시장의

중요성강조등이그것이다. 이러한특징들과함께명시되어야할것은사회투자정책은기존의소득보장정

책을 체하려는것이아니라는것이다. 오히려소득보장제도의기초하에개인및가족의발달에보다초

점을두고있다는것이다.

1) 사회정책과경제정책의통합

오늘날사회보호와경제발달이상충된다는논리는도전받고있다. 요즘사회정책은생산성과경제발달

에기초가되는노동시장과깊은관계를가지고있는것이사실이다. 반 로, 경제발달은가족이나지역사

회의발달및안전그리고사회적연 에긍정적인 향을미치도록설계되어야한다. 이러한점에서사회

정책과경제정책은상호보완적인관계를가지고있다고봐야한다. 특히사회정책은인적그리고사회적

자본의증가그리고경제참여를향상시키도록개인들의능력을향상시키는투자지향적방향으로발달해

야한다(Lister, 2004 ; Midgley, 1999 ; Perkins, Nelms, & Smyth, 2004).

물론모든사회정책이사회투자에부합하지는않는다. 노인, 환자, 장애인, 아동, 그리고빈곤가구의아

동들에게일차적인보호와지원이필요하다. 정책결정자들에게가장중요하게논의되어야하는것은소득

보조가필수적이라는점과함께경제참여와생산성을향상시키는차원에서발달과능력향상을도모하는


1. 새로운사회적위험

사회복지제도는사람들이가지고있는위험들을최소화하는제도를의미한다. 따라서사회적위험의변

화는복지국가의적응또는개혁을필요로한다. 전통적사회적위험으로노령화, 실업, 건강문제, 산업재

해, 그리고 빈곤 등을 예로 들 수 있다. 남성근로자들의 완전고용을 특징으로 한 산업사회(industrial

society)에서는이러한전통적사회적위험들은사회전체에비교적골고루분배되어있어왔다. 사회안전

망(safety net)을갖춘복지국가에서는시장실패(market failure) 등의이유로발생할수있는위험들에

해서커다란위기없이근로자들을보호할수있었다(Esping-Anderson, 1990 ; Woods, 2007).

세계경제의국제화와이에따른변화로특징지어질수있는후기산업사회에서복지국가는이전에경험

하지못한새로운사회적문제들을경험하고있다. Peter Taylor-Gooby(2004)에의해처음논의된“새로

운사회적위험들(new social risks)”은지금은학계및정책결정자들의많은관심을받고있다. 기존연구

들의분석을통해, Woods(2007)는다음과같이새로운사회적위험들을정리하여제시하고있다：1) 비

정규직노동시장의팽창, 2) 노령인구의급속한증가, 3) 여성근로자의증가이에따른아동과노인들의보

호필요성의증가, 4) 실업과사회적배제, 5) 국제적이민의증가그리고이에따른다양한근로층, 6) 차별

(discrimination). 이러한새로운사회적위험들의도전에 해서사회정책은그위험들의부정적 향을

줄이고사회적well-being을증가시키기위한 책을마련해야한다.

2. 전통적인복지국가에서사회투자국가로의변화?

복지국가는다양한사회적위험에 한 응과정치적 향에의해축적된여러정책수단들의종합적결

과물이다. 기존의복지국가는퇴직, 실업, 건강, 그리고사고등의사회적위험들에 한소득보전이가장

중요한기본적복지제도이다. 소득보장제도는장기간안정적인노동시장을기초로한효과적인제도 다.

그러나소득보장제도는시장실패에서발생한부족한소득을보충해주는제도이지성장이나발전을목표

로하는제도가아니다. 다시말해, 소득보전은시민들의가능성및역량(capabilities)을향상시키는제도

가아니라시민들의소득보전을지원해주는소극적인사회정책이다(Sherraden, 2002, 2003).

21세기사회정책은변화와개혁의한가운데에놓여있다. 소득에기초한정책들이충분한역할을해주던

산업사회는이미지나가고있다. 복지국가는고령화, 근로인구층의감소, 그리고양극화현상등과같은새

로운사회적위험들의압력을받고있다. 더욱이불안정한노동시장을우선으로한경제적상황변화는전통

적복지국가를위협하고있다. 새로운경제에서시민들은자신들이가지고있는자산을통제하고결과적으

12

2007 International Academic Symposium of Seoul Welfare Foundation

빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안사회투자정책과자산형성지원정책：한국사회정책에미치는함의점에관한연구

2 0 0 7

서 울 복 지 재 단

국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅱ사회투자정책

4. 사회투자정책들

Midgley(1999)는사회투자정책의다양한방안들을제시하고있다. 여기에서간략하게요약정리하면

다음과같다. 첫째, 사회정책및프로그램은비용효과적이어야한다. 비용절감뿐만아니라투자에따른효

과증 가프로그램을설계하거나평가하는데필수요소로고려되어야할것이다. 둘째, 인적자본에 한

투자는경제발달에기초가되기때문에우선적으로도입되어야한다. 셋째, 사회적자본(social capital)에

한다양한정의가이루어지고있지만, 사회적자본이경제발달에긍정적으로 향을미친다는점에서사

회적자본의향상에초점을두어야할것이다. 넷째, 개인및지역사회의자산형성은사회발달의기초가되

므로, 이들의자산형성을지원하는정책들이개발및도입되어야한다. 다섯째, 노동시장에서고용과일은

복지를달성하는가장기초가되는요소로서, 고용이나자 업을통해경제적참여를향상시키는방안들이

적극적으로고려되어야한다. 여섯째, 사회에널리퍼져있는차별또는배제에 한 처없이는사회투자

정책이성공할수없다는점이강조되어야한다. 따라서이러한차별또는배제를지양하는방안들도고려

되어야할것이다. 마지막으로, 경제발달의저해요인으로간주되는범죄, 폭력, 정치적충돌, 그리고부패

등에 한적극적 처가필요하다. 이러한 처없이는사회적그리고경제적발달에필수요소인긍정적인

사회환경조성이어렵게될것이다.

자산형성지원제도는사회투자전략의하나의방안으로간주되고있다. 자산형성지원제도는금융자산(예

금, 주식, 증서, 그리고생명보험) 그리고비금융자산(집, 땅, 그리고사업과같은부동산)의소유와형성을

촉진해주는제도를말한다. 금융자산및비금융자산은더큰발달을초래하거나삶의질을향상시키는데투

자될수있다. 복지(well-being)는단순히노동시장에서근로소득에의해정해지는것이아니라자산의형

성및투자를통해서도달성될수있는것이다. 일반적으로부또는자산은아주불평등하게분배되어있다.

그러나사람들이그들의복지를위해자산이필요하지않다는것을의미하는것은아니다. 전통적복지국가

에서는저소득층이자산을형성할수있도록도와주는제도적기초가마련되지않았는데, 이는전통적복지

국가의중요한결함이라고볼수있다(Sherraden, 1991).

자산형성지원제도는새로운제도가아니다. 거의모든국가들은시민들의자산형성을지원해주는다양

한제도들을도입시행하고있다. 예를들어, 미국에서는소유주택에 한세금혜택, 사업투자세금혜택,

노동시장내에서(401(k)s and 403(b)s) 또는노동시장밖에서의(Individual Retirement Accounts:

IRAs and Roth IRAs) 확정기여(defined contribution) 연금에 한세금혜택등이그예이다. 또한저축

및 자산형성에 주어지는 세금혜택 제도는 Individual Training Accounts, Educational Savings


사회투자전략을도입하는것이다.

2) 인간잠재력의개발

지금까지논의되었듯이, 소득보조는전통적복지국가의가장중요한정책중의하나 다. 예를들어, 근

로자들이실업에처하게되면, 실업보험또는공공부조제도를통해실업자들의생계보조가이루어진다. 이

러한소득보조제도는생계를유지시킨다는점에서필수적이지만, 실업자로하여금새로운고용을준비하

거나노동시장에다시진입시키는데그리성공적이지는않았다. 소득보조의중요성은인정하되, 사회투자

정책은건강, 교육, 그리고자산형성등에투자를통하여인적자본의향상에초점을두고있다(Lister,

2004). 이렇게향상된능력(capabilities)은실업자들의재고용가능성을높이고또한인적자본의향상으

로이어지는등긍정적 향을가질것으로기 되고있다.

3) 예방적정책

어느의미에서사회정책은치료적접근에서예방적복지정책으로변화되고있다(Woods, 2007). 산업

사회복지국가에서의사회정책은사회문제에 한사후적 처에중점을두어왔다. 그러나후기산업사회

에서복지정책들은인적자본과인간의잠재력에 한투자를강조한다. 이러한투자정책들은사회문제의

사후 처라기보다는사전예방적 처방안으로간주될수있는것이다. 이러한‘예방적(preventive)’복지

정책은Giddens(1998)에의해제시된‘긍정적(positive)’복지국가와같은맥락에서이해될수있다. 긍

정적복지정책은수동적으로어떠한문제점들이발생하기까지기다리는것이아니라적극적으로어떠한

상황이일어나도록주도적으로 처한다는특징을가지고있다. Giddens는사회투자가긍정적복지의발

달에중점을두어야한다고보고, 긍정적복지의증진방안으로시민들의참여와자산형성을강조하고있다.

4) 고용중심정책

사회투자정책은일과고용의중요성을강조하고있다. 이는사회정책이실업자, 청년실업자, 싱 부모

들, 그리고장애인들로하여금노동시장에적극적으로참여하도록하는다양한동기부여를제공하고있다

는점을기초로이해될수있다(Midgley, 1999). 일또는고용은빈곤탈출의기본이될뿐만아니라사회적

참여를중가시키는기본요소이다. 일을중심으로한사회정책은교통지원, 아동보호, 고용상담, 직업훈련,

임금보조, 그리고고용장애요인들의제거등을포함하고있다. 국과미국에서이러한고용을통한복지정

책들이주를이루고있으나, 다른지역의복지국가들또한고용을중심으로한복지정책들이발달되는경향

을보이고있다(Lister, 2004).

14



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅲ자산형성지원제도

를확 실시하기위한법안이미국국회에상정되어있다.

국에서는미국의개인발달계좌를모델로하여Saving Gateway 제도가시범사업으로시행되고있다.

현 국정부는Saving Gateway의전국적실시를추진하고있으나아직은논의수준에머물고있다. 만

의타이페이시에서도Family Development Accounts를실시하고있으며, 기타여러나라에서도미국의

개인발달계좌를모델로한자산형성지원제도를시행하고있다.

3. 이론과경험적연구들

Sherraden(1991)은저소득층을포함한모든사람들의저축및자산형성과정을설명하기위해제도적

저축이론(institutional saving theory)을제시하 다. 이이론은두개의큰틀로이루어져있다. 첫번째

틀은개인들의자산형성에관한것으로제도적요인들을강조하고있다. 개인의선호나소득등의자원이

자산형성에미치는 향을배제하는것이아니라상 적으로개인의저축을제도화과정을통해설명하고

있다. 미국Washington University에있는Center for Social Development(CSD)에서조사된연구에

따르면, 7가지 제도적 요인들이 강조되고 있다：접근성(access), 기 (expectation), 정보

(information), 동기부여(incentives), 촉진(faciliation), 제한(restriction), 그리고 안전성

(security)(Bevelry & Sherraden, 1999; Sherraden, Schreiner, & Beverly, 2003; Sherraden & Barr,

2005; Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007).

첫째, 은행및금융기관에접근성을가지고있는개인들은거래비용(transaction costs)을줄임으로써

자산을형성할수있는높은기회를가지고있다. 둘째, 저축에관한정보가있는사람들은다양한선택과그

로인한결과들을알고있기때문에정보가없는사람들보다도자산형성할수있는높은기회를가지게된

다(Lusardi, 2003 ; Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007). 셋째, 매칭그리고금융소득에 한면세등은동기

부여의예들이다(Clancy et al., 2006). 매칭이저축결과에긍정적으로미친다는연구결과들은퇴직연금

(Munnell, Sunden, & Taylor, 2001/2002) 그리고College Savings Plans(Clancy et al, 2006)에관한

조사에서나타나고있다. 넷째, 촉진은저축프로그램에의참여와저축을향상시키기위해서도입되는다양

한제도적요인들을말한다. 자동납부가 표적인예이다. Sherraden et al.(2003)은촉진을계약에의해

서가입하는저축프로그램의가장중요한요소로보고있다. 다섯째, 제도적저축이론에서기 는저축목표

액설정이나저축방법등에 한기 가제도적으로형성된다는것을의미한다. 여섯째, 매칭액의최고액설

정이나저축용도의제한등은저축행위와관련된제한을두는것을말하는데이러한제한도저축과연관되

어있다. 마지막으로사람들은저축프로그램의안전성을또하나의요인으로생각하고있다는것이다.

제도적저축이론의두번째틀은자산형성지원제도의정당화를제시하는것으로자산이다양한긍정적

효과를가지고있다는것이다. Sherraden(1991)은저축을단순히소비되지않은소득또는지연된소비라

는개념으로보는것에더하여다양한저축효과를설명하고있다. 첫째, 자산소유는실업이나건강문제등


Accounts, State College Savings(529) Plans, Medical Savings Accounts 등에서도 이루

어지고있다. 이러한제도들은미국에서빠른속도로확 되고있다.

1. 포괄적자산형성지원제도의의의

불행하게도위에서설명된여러자산형성지원제도의공통점은그것들이역진적이라는것이다. 역진적인

이유는두가지이다. 첫째, 빈곤층은제도적으로이러한자산형성지원제도에참여를하지못하고있다. 둘

째, 주요자산형성지원제도들은주로세제헤택이나면세등을통해이루어지고있으나빈곤층은이러한혜

택을아주적게또는거의받지못한다는점이다(Sherraden, 1991, 2001).

자산형성기회는모든사람들에게열려있어야한다. 또한보다많은동기부여와혜택이저소득층에게주

어져야한다. 이러한특성을가지고있는자산형성지원제도가포괄적(inclusive) 자산형성지원제도이다.

포괄적자산형성지원제도는보편적이고(universal), 누진적이고(progressive), 적절하고(adequate), 그

리고일생주기(lifelong)를고려한제도로정의내릴수있다(Sherraden, 2005). 포괄적자산형성지원제도

는자산소유가개인, 가족, 그리고지역사회의발달에긍정적으로 향을미친다는점에그제도적정당성

을두고있다. 자산형성은가족들이장기간그리고세 간그들의복지를향상시키는기초가된다. 사회지

출이사회및경제발달에기여하여야한다는인식에따라, 사회정책 안은복지를소득및소비로정의내

리는수준을넘어서Amartya Sen(1999)의역량(capabilities)을강조하는정책이될것이다. 이러한점에

서자산형성은능력을향상시킬뿐만아니라경제발달과사회발달의상충성을지양하고이둘의선순환적

관계를조성할수있을것이다.

2. Individual Development Accounts(IDAs)

포괄적자산형성지원제도의전형적인예가개인발달계좌(Individual Development Accounts: IDAs)

이다. 이계좌는Sherraden(1988, 1991)에의해처음제시되었으며, 1990년 중반에미국에서시행되었

다. 개인발달계좌는저소득층의저축액에 해매칭을제공한다는점에서누진적이다. 저소득층들은자발

적으로개인발달계좌에참여하고저축한다. 계약된저축용도(주로주거구입, 학학자금, 그리고소규모

창업)에사용하기위해저축액을인출하는경우에매칭이제공된다. 주로1:1 또는2:1이가장일반적인매

칭률이나, 프로그램기관의결정에따라보다높은매칭률을제공하기도한다(Schreiner, Clancy, &

Sherraden, 2002). 현재미국에서는40개이상의주에20,000~40,000개의계좌가있는것으로추정되고

있다. 개인발달계좌의확 는주목할만하나, 미국에서이계좌는국가차원에서시행되는것이아니라지역

사회에서센터나금융기관을중심으로실시되는시범사업이라는한계를가지고있다. 다만개인발달계좌

16



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

은그연관성을간략하게설명하고있다. 앞에서논의되었던사회투자제도의4가지특성에기초하여설명

할것이다(표4-1 참조).

첫째, 자산형성지원제도가사회정책과경제정책의통합에기여하는가라는점이다. 경제학이론에서알

수있듯이저축은경제적행위이다. 개인들은미래소비를위해서저축을한다. 개인들의저축은총수요증

가에긍정적이다. 또한저축그리고미래의소비는생산을자극하고이에따라노동시장의활성화를초래할

수있다. 저축및자산은미시적차원에서개인및가족의발달과연관되기도하지만거시적관점에서는경

제발달에기여하기도한다.

둘째, 자산은인간의잠재력을발달시키고실현화시킨다. 사람들은미래소비뿐만아니라인적자본에의

투자를위해저축한다. 본인뿐만아니라아동들의교육을위해서저축을하게되고, 이러한저축은결국에

는가족의복지향상을위한투자를의미한다. Sherraden(1991)에의해강조되었듯이자산은미래지향적

이기때문에인적자본에긍정적 향을미친다.

셋째, 소득보전은경제적위기를완화시키기위하여소득을이전한다는즉, 사후적치료의의미를가지

고있는반면에, 자산형성지원제도는예방과능력의향상을강조한다. 앞에서설명된첫번째자산효과에서

살펴보았듯이자산은미래의경제적충격을완충한다(Sherraden, 1991). 미래에발생할수있는위기에

처하기위하여저축을한다는것이다. 이러한관점에서자산은사회투자정책이예방적접근이라는점과

일맥상통하고있다.

마지막으로근로및고용은저축과 접하게관련되어있다. 저축액은실업을당했을때에이용되기도하

고, 저축이고용에긍정적효과를미칠수도있다. 개인발달계좌의사용처에 해서살펴보았듯이저소득층

참여자들은소규모사업을창업하거나, 미래고용의가능성을높이기위해서 학교학자금을마련하거나,

또는직업훈련등을위해서저축을하고있다. 이러한특성은저축프로그램이고용과긍정적으로관련되어

있다는점을보여주고있다. 또한미국개인발달계좌참여자들과인터뷰에따르면, 저축액을늘리기위하여

근로시간을증가시킨다는결과도있다. 이러한결과는자산형성지원제도가생산적인고용이나자 업을

통해서경제적참여를촉진시킨다는것을의미한다.

결론적으로자산형성지원제도는사회투자제도와그기본특성을같이하고있다는점을확인할수있다.


으로인한소득충격을완충함으로써가구의안전성을향상시킨다. 둘째, 자산은미래지향적인생활습관을

길러준다. 셋째, 자산을가지고있는사람들은인적자본이나다른자산을형성할수있는기초를가지게된

다. 넷째, 자산은지식이나기술의집중및특성화를향상시킨다. 다섯째, 자산은위험을분산시켜줌으로써

위험으로부터의자유를향상시킨다. 여섯째, 자산은예측과통제를부여함으로써개인의효율성을증가시

킨다. 일곱째, 자산은사회적 향력을높인다. 여덟째, 자산을가지고있는개인들은자기자산을보호하기

위하여정치적참여를증가시킨다. 마지막으로자산은후세 의삶에많은 향을미친다(Scanlon, 2001;

Zhan & Sherraden, 2003).

4. 발달과정(Progress)

Sherraden(1991)이제도적저축이론과개인발달계좌를제시한이후, 많은나라에서포괄적자산형성

지원제도의도입및발달이이루어지고있다. 개인발달계좌와같은종류의포괄적자산형성지원제도는캐

나다, 호주, 페루, 우간다, 그리고여러나라에서실시되고있다. 그러나일반적적은규모의시범사업의형

태로이루어지고있다는단점이있다. 국가규모의포괄적자산형성지원제도의실시가가능한가?

미국에서의개인발달계좌에 향을받아서 국에서는보다보편화되고누진적인자산형성지원제도가

2005년실시되었다. 국에서는자산형성지원제도에관한정책적논의를거친뒤, 2001년Tony Blair 총

리는누진적급여체계를가지고있는Child Trust Fund를제시하 다. 적용연령이나급여에있어서차이

를가지고있지만, 싱가포르와한국에서도아동들을 상으로한유사한자산형성지원제도를실시하고있

다. 싱가포르는학교아동연령 6세부터 16세까지의아동들을 상으로Edusave 정책을실시하고있고,

Baby Bonus 제도는 출산율에 긍정적인 향을 미치는 것으로 기 되고 있다(Loke & Sherraden,

2006). 한국에서는우선장애아동, 고아, 그리고시설수용아동들을 상으로한Child Development

Accounts(CDAs)를2007년4월부터실시하고있다. 이제도는2010년에는근로빈곤층가구에태어나는

모든출생아들로확 실시될예정이다. 미국에서는 SEED(Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship,

and Downpayment)라는이름으로신생아동들을 상으로시범사업이실시되고있다. 이제도는미국

국회에서법안논의가이루어지고있다.

자산형성지원제도는사회투자의한방법으로흔히간주되고있지만(김연명, 2007; Midgley, 1999;

Sherraden, 1991), 이두제도가어떻게연결되는지에 한연구는그리많지않다. 이러한관점에서이

18



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅳ사회투자와자산형성지원제도

〈표4-1〉사회투자와자산형성지원제도의연관성

사회정책과경제정책의통합

인간의가능성의개발

예방적정책

고용중심의정책

저축은그자체로경제적행위

저축은경제적발달에기여함

인적자본의발달에기여

미래지향적인사고를진취시킴

위기를완충하는역할

저축이노동시장에긍정적효과를미침

사회투자제도 자산형성지원제도

2. 한국에서의사회투자

한국에서사회투자에관한정부차원에서의논의는김 중정부에의해논의되었다. DJ 복지주의또는

생산적복지(productive welfare)라는김 중정부의사회정책슬로건에서알수있듯이그정부는참여

와생산성을중시하는복지정책의실시를추구하 다. 생산적복지는일차적으로시장에서의형평성있는

분배를기초로하며, 기본적인간욕구를충족시키기위하여공평한자산의분배를추구하며, 자활을위한

사회투자를강조하며, 사회구성원모두의삶의질을향상시키기위한투자의확 를추구한다(삶의질향

상기획단, 2000). 김 중정부의생산적복지가정치적성격논쟁에있어서많은논의가있어왔으나(김연

명, 2002), 생산적복지는다음과같이요약될수있다: “우리는개인들이사회투자를위해서노력하는그

러한생산적복지제도를원한다. 우리는동기부여를통해중산층의확 에기여하고한국시민전체의삶

의질향상에기여하는그러한생산적복지를도입할필요가있다(Presidential Committee for Quality-

of-life).”

생산적복지의기본틀이사회투자정책과상당부분일치한다는점에주목할필요가있다. 생산적복지는

사회복지제도의확충을통해성장과복지의균형을달성하려고하 다. 또한생산적복지는자활및삶의

질향상을위해“사회투자”를증가시켜야한다는표현을쓰기도하 다. 그러나경제위기에 처하기위하

여, 생산적복지의실시방안은소득보장제도의개혁및개선(국민기초생활보장법의도입)에치중된것이

사실이다. 공공부조의예산및급여자의증가가1998년과2001년사이에각각2.6배그리고3.5배증가하

다(홍경준& 송호근, 2006).

이전정부에서사회투자논의가도입된이후, 노무현정권에들어와서사회투자에관한학계그리고정책

결정가들사이에서활발한논의가이루어지고있다. 노무현 통령은이전정부와의차별성을두기위해서

‘참여’정부를주장하 으나 부분의사회정책은김 중정부의정책들을물려받은것은사실이다. 그러

나사회투자에관한논의는많은발달을보여왔는바, 특히한국에서Child Development Accounts(CDAs)

의도입및실시는이러한사회투자정책의발달적논의를상징적으로보여주고있다.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Sherraden은자산형성지원제도를다음과같이평가하고있다. “자산형성지원제도는단순히하나의프로

그램이아니라가능한한다양한정책적노력들을하나의체계로통합한것이다(Sherraden, 1991:199).”

그러나자산형성지원제도가사회투자제도하에서어떻게실시될것인지그리고다른사회정책및제도와

어떤연관성을가지는지에 한연구가더욱필요할것으로기 된다.

1. 한국의복지국가

지금형태의한국복지국가는 1960년 박정희전 통령이독재정권을정당화하기위하여도입되었

다. 급속한경제성장그리고사회복지제도의마련등은그체제를정당화하는데기여하 다. 1990년 중

반까지한국복지국가는경제위주그리고부차적인복지라는특성을보여왔다(Gough, 2001).

한국복지국가의역사상전환점은1997년에발생한경제위기와이에따른1998년김 중정부의출현으

로볼수있다. 부분의아시아국가들이1997년경제위기를경험하 지만, 특히한국의경우에는그정도

가심하 다(표5-1 참조). 경제성장은갑자기멈췄고심지어마이너스성장을보 으며, 완전고용수준을

유지하던실업률은1998년6.8%로치솟았다. 그리고수백만명의사람들이가난에빠지게되었다. 이러한

경제위기에 처하기위하여새정부는노동시장정책및사회정책의구조적개혁을실시하게되었다(홍경

준& 송호근, 2006).

20


Ⅴ한국에의함의

1996 6.8 6.1 4.5 7.5

경제성장 1997 5.0 6.7 5.0 8.4

1998 -5.8 4.6 -5.1 0.4

1996 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.0

실업률 1997 2.6 2.7 2.4 1.8

1998 6.8 2.7 4.7 3.2

한국 만 홍콩 싱가포르

〈표5-1〉’97 아시아경제위기의비교

〔그림5-1〕국가별상위10%의순자산보유비율

출처：Lo & Wong(1999).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Italy Finland Korea Canada Germany Sweden U.S.

4. 한국에서의포괄적자산형성지원제도도입논의과정

한국에서자산형성지원제도의도입논의는2004년11월에열린제56회국정과제회의에서이루어졌다.

그회의이후에정부차원에서다양한논의가이루어졌다. 특히한국과미국에서열린사회투자및자산형

성지원정책에관한국제회의에서유시민전보건복지부장관과 Sherraden교수와의교류가이루어졌고

이러한과정에서Child Development Accounts가2007년4월에실시되었다(남윤주외, 2007).

1) Child Development Accounts

시행첫해CDAs는우선시설아동, 고아, 그리고장애아동을주요 상으로도입되었다. 2008년에는공

공부조수혜가구의아동들에게확 적용될예정이다. 2009년에는근로빈곤층가구에게로확 될예정이

며2010년에는신생아의약50%를수혜 상으로확 될예정이다.

이계좌에서는아동및청소년이18세되는해에교육학자금, 주거구입, 그리고소규모창업등의용도로

저축액을인출할수있다. 부모및후원자는매달3만원을저축하고이액수에한하여1:1 매칭을국가가제

공한다. 시설아동및고아의경우는기관후원자가매달3만원을후원하게된다(남윤주외, 2007).

CDAs는저소득층의자산형성을지원하는의미를가질뿐아니라개인의역량을발달시키고균등한기

회를주기위한제도의의미를가지고있다. 또한CDAs는자산불평등, 노동시장에서의양극화, 그리고저

출산율에 처하기위해서도입되었으나, 인적자원에의투자그리고경제적참여의증가라는결과를초래

할것으로기 되고있다.

2) Individual Development Accounts

서울복지재단은서울시와후원재단들과협력하여한국형개인발달계좌를2007년에도입하려고추진하

고있다. 이제도는자산형성과이에따른자활을향상시켜빈곤탈출가능성을향상시키려는취지를가지고

있는것으로기 되고있다. 시범사업에서는우선100가구를선정하고이들로하여금주거구입, 학자금마

련, 그리고소규모창업의저축용도에 해서1.5:1의매칭을제공할예정이다. 시범사업의기간은3년으로

그기간동안매달20만원의저축액을목표로하고있다(남윤주외, 2007).

서구선진복지국가의경우국제화의 향으로복지제도의긴축현상으로보이고있는반면에한국의경

우복지제도의확충및확 를보이고있다는점은눈여겨볼만한현상이다. 사회복지제도의성숙화, 경제



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

3. 한국에서의자산불평등

자산빈곤은기본적욕구를충족시킬수있는가능성을낮출뿐만아니라위기 처에불안정한기초를제

공하게된다. 한국에서최근자산에관한관심이급증하고있다. 이전에는소득이경제적불평등의주요지

표이었는데반해최근에는재테크에관한관심의증가로시민들사이에자산불평등그리고자산형성에관

한관심이증가하고있다. 이러한변화는한국에서경제성장그리고주식및부동산등에서의자산시장의

붐에의해서설명되고있다. 그러나상당수의빈곤층은투자할자산이거의없는경우가 부분이라서이러

한논의에서배제되고있는것이사실이다.

한국통계청의가구자산조사에따르면, 한국인구의상위10%가전체부의52%를소유하고있는것으

로밝혀졌다(그림5-1 참조). 이러한자산불평등은전세계적으로유사한경향을보이고있다. 또한한국은

가구당평균 2억 8천만원가량의총자산을가지고있고약 4천만원의부채를가지고있고이에따라약 2

억4천만원의순자산을가지고있는것으로나타났다. 자산의부동산편중현상은심한것으로나타났는바,

총자산의약 80%가부동산인것으로나타났다. 이것은다른나라에비해훨씬높은비중을보여주고있다

(한겨레신문, 2007년3월8일).

그림5-2는상위20%와하위20%의소득및금융자산격차를보여주고있다. 두가지점에주의를기울

일필요가있다. 첫째, 금융자산의격차가소득격차보다크다는점이다. 2006년소득격차는5.38배인반면

에금융자산은7.24배의차이를보이고있다. 둘째, 그림을통해알수있듯이소득격차에비해금융자산격

차가점점증가하는경향을보이고있다. 그리고만약부동산을포함할경우더큰자산격차를보일것을쉽

게예측할수있다. 예를들어주거자산의격차가점차확 되고있는데, 주거자산지니계수가2002년0.51

에서 2006년 0.57로증가하 다. 또한국민은행의자료에의하면지난 5년간평균아파트가격은 35.7%

이상의증가를보여왔다(Korean Times, 2007년 4월 11일).

22


〔그림5-2〕상위20%와하위20%의소득및금융자산차이비교

0

20

40

60

80

1996 2000 2006 Year

Financial assets Income

Ⅵ앞으로의추진방향

3. 자산형성지원제도의확

경험적연구들은동기부여및정보등을통해제도적기회가주어진다면빈곤층도저축할수있다는결과

들을제시하고있다(Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007). 이러한관점에서빈곤층들의적극적참여를유도하

게끔하는제도의확 가우선시되고있다. 이러한제도확 는여러가지측면에서이루어질수있다. 저소

득층을주 상으로한포괄적자산형성지원제도의도입이그하나의방법이될것이다. 또한CDAs와같이

보편적이고포괄적인자산형성지원제도를도입하되, 저소득층에게는매칭과같은동기부여를제공하는누

진적인제도를고려할수도있다. 또다른방안으로기존의자산형성지원제도의개선을통해서사각지 에

놓여있는저소득층으로하여금그들의자산형성기회를확 해야한다. 특히비정규직문제가커지고있는

한국실정에서이들에 한자산형성지원제도의제도적방안을마련하고이들이기존의사회보장제도의

혜택을받을수있도록제도적개선이이루어져야할것이다.

1990년 를거치면서한국의사회정책은다양한변화를겪어왔다. 특히1997년의경제위기그리고이

에따른진보적정권의출현은그변화의주요추동요인이었다. 이러한발달과정에서사회정책은확 되었

으나, 지도자들에게는사회정책이더이상경제발달및국제경쟁력에저해가되어서는안된다는점이분명

해지고있다.

사회정책은경제사회구조의변화로부터자유로울수없다. 후기산업사회에서사회정책은변화하고있

는사회문제들특히고령화, 불안정한노동시장, 그리고지구화에적절하게 처해야한다. 이러한상황에

서사회정책에서주목할만한현상은사회투자에관한관심이증가하고있다는것이다.

자산형성지원제도는사회투자정책의하나의일환으로등장하 다. 출현배경에있어서차이는있지만자

산형성지원제도그리고사회투자정책은많은특성을공유하고있다. 특히앞에서살펴보았듯이, 이둘은사

회정책과경제정책의선순환적통합, 인간의잠재력발달에 한투자, 예방적접근, 그리고고용중심의정

책들이라는점에서유사한입장을취하고있다. 사회투자국가의발달과함께자산형성지원제도는경제및

사회발달에중요한환경과기회를제공하는중요한역할을할것으로기 되고있다.

Sherraden(2003)은 21세기사회정책이가지고있는세가지주요목적을다음과같이설명하고있다.

첫째, 위기에 처하고사회안정을증진시키기위하여사회정책은사회보호(social protection)를목적으

로한다. 이사회보호는소득과소비의보호를통해서이루어지는것으로 20세기복지국가제도의가장중

요한역할이기도하 다. 둘째, 사회정책은개인및사회구성원들의근로, 지역사회, 그리고시민사회에의

적극적참여를권장하는사회발달(social development)의목적을가지고있다. 셋째, 사회정책은반경기



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

위기그리고이에따른민주정권의출현, 그리고민주화의확 등은이러한사회복지정책의발달을설명

하고있다(홍경준& 송호근, 2006).

그러나한국복지제도의발달은소득보장제도에치우친발달로특징지어질수있다(홍경준& 송호근,

2006). 이러한관점에서사회투자론그리고자산형성지원제도는한국에서사회정책의개혁가능성을다분

히품고있다. 비록소득보장제도의폐지및 체를의미하지는않더라도, 자산형성은분명히개인, 가족,

그리고지역사회의발달을증진시키는데기여할것으로기 되고있다.

자산형성지원제도와사회투자정책이효과적일것인가? 이러한관점에서한국의사회경제적상황에서

사회투자정책의발달방향을논할필요가있다. 특히다음의세가지점들은주의깊게논의할필요가있다.

1. 사회투자전략환경조성

사회정책과경제정책을통합적인시각으로접근하는사회투자전략이제 로이루어지려면이러한통합

이가능하도록지지해주는환경조성이필요하다. 김연명(2007)은인적자본발달을위한정책들을예로들

면서학교세팅뿐만아니라가정, 기관, 노동시장, 그리고지역사회에서인적자본향상과관련된제반요인

들이상호협력할때에그목적을달성할가능성이높은것으로보고있다. 비슷한맥락에서, Midgley(1999)

는환경의중요성을강조하고있다. 정책목표를달성하기위해서는프로그램이효과적으로운 되어야할

뿐만아니라지역사회에서의조직들사이에통합적으로연계되어야한다는점을강조하고있다.

2. 사회서비스와의연계

사회투자정책은사회서비스프로그램들과긴 하게연계되어야만성공할가능성이높을것이다. 한국은

상 적으로사회서비스의발달수준이미미한실정이다(김연명, 2007). 사회투자정책은기본적으로여성

을비롯한시민들의노동시장참여를적극장려한다. 그러나이에따른아동및노인들을돌보는케어서비

스가뒤따르지않을경우그정책효과성을달성하기어렵게된다. 자산형성지원제도의경우도마찬가지이

다. 예를들어, CDAs의경우후원사업이제 로이루어지지않을경우CDAs 사업은실패할가능성이높

은것이다. 또한아동발달과관련되어있는아동서비스사업과의연계가이루어지지않는다면CDAs는아

동의건강한발달뿐만아니라성인이된후자활달성이라는정책목표를달성할가능성이낮아지게될것이

다.

24


Ⅶ결론

김연명(2007). 사회투자정책과 한국 사회정책의 미래, 우리나라에서의 사회투자정책 적용방안연구, 보건복

지부 중앙 사회복지학과

한겨레 신문(2007). 상위 20%가 하위 20%보다 7배 이상의 금융자산을 보유. 9월 10일.

한겨레 신문(2007). 상위 10%가 전체 순자산의 52%를 보유. 3월 8일.

Beverly, S.G. & Sherraden, M.(1999). Institutional determinants of saving : Implications for low-income

households and public policy. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28, 457-473.

Clancy, M., Han, C., Mason, L. R., & Sherraden, M.(2006). Inclusion in college savings plans : Participation and

saving in Maine’s matching grant program. St. Louis, MO : Washington University, Center

for Social Development.

Dufour, P. & Morrison, I.(2005). The state of the social investment state in the field of employment policy.

Canadian Journal of Career Development, 4(1), 1-9.

Esping-Andersen, G.(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge and Oxford.

Hong, K. Z. & Song, H. K.(2006). Continuity and change in the Korean welfare regime. Journal of Social Policy,

35(2), 247-265.

Giddens, A.(1998). The third way : The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Gilbert, N.(1995). Welfare justice : Restoring social equity. NewHave: Yale University Press.

Gilbert, N., & Gilbert, B.(1989). The enabling state : Modern welfare capitalism in America. Oxford : Oxford

University Press.

Gough, I.(2001). Globalization and regional welfare regimes : The East Asian case. Global Social Policy. 1(2) :

163-189.

Kim, Y.(2002). Social welfare policy in the Kim Dae-Jung government. The Characteristics of Korean Welfare

State. pp.109-142. [InKorean] IngangwaBokji.

Korean Times,(2007). Disparity in home values greater than income gap. April 11.

Lister, R.(2004). The third way’s social investment state. Jane Lewis and Rebecca Surrender eds. Welfare state

change: Towards a third way? Oxford : University Press.

Lo, M. C., & Wong, K.(1999). The Asian crisis : A statistical point of view.

Loke, V. & Sherraden, M.(2006). Building assets from birth : A comparison of the policies and proposals on

Children Savings Accounts in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Korea, and the United

States(CSD working paper 06-14). St. Louis : Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Lusardi, A.(2003). The impact of financial education on savings and asset. Working Paper wp061. Michigan

Retirement Research Center, University of Michigan.

Midgley, J.(1999). Growth, redistribution, and welfare : Toward social investment, Social Service Review

Munnell, A. H., Sunden, A., & Taylor, C.(2001/2002). What determines 401(k) participation and contributions?

Social Security Bulletin, 64(3), 64-76.

Nam, Y., Sherraden, M., Zou, L., Han, C., Kim, Y., & Han, W.(2007). Asset-based policy in South Korea. St.

Louis : Washington University, Center for Social Development.


#참고문헌적지출(counter-cyclical spending), 재정적안정, 저축과투자, 그리고경제적성장과같은거기경제적

사항들과연계되어구성되어야한다. 소득보장제도과함께사회투자정책은위의3가지정책목적을달성하

는데중요한역할을할것으로기 된다.

한국은이제막사회투자국가로향해서출발하기시작했다. 어떤점에서한국은어느다른국가보다도이

러한출발을확고히하고있다고보여진다. 그러나사회투자는그것이어떻게정의내려지는지, 어떻게실

시되어야하는지, 그리고어떻게그결과를평가해야하는지등에있어서아무것도정해지지않은상태이

다. 이러한점에서사회투자전략에관한보다진지한논의와함께미래계획에 한고민이필요한시점이

다. 구체적인정책들은면 하게구성되어야하고평가를위한연구사업도필수적이다. 이러한점에서서울

시의개인발달계좌는중요한사례가될것이다. 최 효과를달성하기위해한국형 IDAs는어떻게실시되

어야하는가? 누가 IDAs의평가사업을담당할것인가? 연구결과는제도개선과정책발달에어떻게 향

을미칠것인가? 서울시 IDAs가전국으로확 될수있을것인가? 이러한안건들에 한논의는중요하고

희망적이지만앞으로보다많은노력이필요할것으로보인다.

26

2007 International Academic Symposium of Seoul Welfare Foundation 2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄


Perkins, D., Nelms, L., & Smyth, P.(2004). Beyond neo-liberalism: The social investment state? social policy

working paper No. 3. Brotherhood of St. Laurence and Center for Public Policy, University of

Melbourne.

Presidential Committee for Quality-of-life.(2000). DJ Welfarism. ChungWaDae.

Rhyu, S.(2007). Making a better future with social investment. A keynote speech at the New America

Foundation. Washington, DC. March.

Scanlon, E.(2001). Toward a theory of financial savings and child well-being : Implication for research on a

children and youth(research background paper 01-11). St. Louis : Washington University, Center for

Social Development.

Schreiner, M., Clancy, M., and Sherraden, M.(2002). Saving performance in the American Dream

Demonstration : A national demonstration of Individual Development Account. St. Louis : Washington

University, Center for Social Development.

Schreiner, M., & Sherraden, M.(2007). Can the poor save? Savings and asset building in Individual

Development Accounts. New York : Aldine de Gruyter.

Sen, A.(1999). Development as Freedom.New York : Knopf.

Sherraden, M.(Ed.).(2005). Inclusion in the American dream: Assets, poverty, and public policy. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Sherraden, M.(2003). Individual accounts in social security : Can they be progressive? International Journal of

Social Welfare. 12 : 97-107.

Sherraden, M.(2002). From a social welfare state to a social investment state. In C. Kober & W. Paxton(Eds.),

Asset-based welfare and poverty : Exploring the case for and against asset-based welfare policies(pp.5-

8). London : Institute for Public Policy Research.

Sherraden, M.(2001). Asset-building policy and programs for the poor. In T. Shapiro & E. Wolff(Eds), Assets for

the poor : The benefits of spreading asset ownership(pp.302-323).New York : Russell Sage Foundation.

Sherraden, M.(1991). Assets and the poor : A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY : M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Sherraden, M.(1988). Rethinking social welfare : Toward assets. Social Policy. 13(3): 37-43.

Sherraden, M., & Barr, M.S.(2005). Institutions and inclusion in saving policy. In N. Retsinas & E. Belsky, eds.,

Building Assets, Building Credit : Bridges and Barriers to Financial Services in Low-income

Communities. Washington : Brookings Institution Press.

Sherraden, M., Moore-McBride, A., Johnson, E., Hanson, S., & Shanks, T.(2005). Saving in low-income

households : Evidence from interviews with participants in the American Dream Demonstration. St.

Louis: Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Sherraden, M., Schreiner, M., & Beverly, S.(2003). Income, institutions, and saving performance in Individual

Development Accounts. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(1), 95-112.

Taylor-Gooby, P.(2004). New risks, new welfare : The transformation of the European welfare state. Oxford

University Press.

Woods, D. R.(2007). The welfare state and pressures to reform : A literature review, working paper no. 36.

Wirtschaft & Politik. Universität TUbingen.

Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M.(2003). Assets, expectations, and children’s educational achievement in female-

headed households. Social Service Review. 191-211.

28


〃

Recently, the government of South Korea implemented Child Development Accounts(CDAs)

as a progressive asset-based policy. The goals of CDAs are to reduce intergenerational

transmission of poverty by increasing investment in development opportunities for children

and youth. In addition, an Individual Development Account(IDA) demonstration program,

known as Jump Start, for low-income households is currently under consideration by the Seoul

City Government in Korea. Jump Start aims to help the working poor escape poverty by

providing incentive-based mechanisms for asset accumulation.

The initiation of asset-based policies in Korea can be understood as policy makers'

exploration for a potential new direction in social policy. Of particular interest in Korea is the

concept of 'social investment.' New social risks such as aging, low fertility rate, and economic

polarization are threatening Korean society, and social investment policies can be viewed as an

attempt to respond more effectively to these challenges. In this regard, asset-based policies are

being implemented in Korea with considerable interest and careful consideration.

While the implementation of more inclusive asset-based policies is noteworthy, we suggest

that policy testing may decrease trial and error when theoretical background and empirical

evidence are taken into consideration. In this regard, this paper provides a discussion of social

investment and inclusive asset-based policy, how they may be interrelated, and some

Ⅰ Introduction

Social Investment State and Asset-based Policy:Implications for Korean Social Policy

Michael Sherraden

Professor of Social Development

Washington University in St. Louis

Chang-keun Han

Research Associate

2. Shift from Traditional Welfare State to Social Investment State?

The welfare state is a conglomeration of programs created over many years, responding to a

variety of social risks and political appeals, through a number of different policy channels.

Despite the complexity, income support has been the key feature of the welfare state

responding to risks such as retirement, unemployment, health, and accident. Income support,

on its own, was an effective policy when the economy offered many long-term, stable, and, by

today's standards, low-skilled jobs. Income support has maintained people when they did not

have income from industrial production, but has not designed for growth and development. In

short, income support is a passive social policy that supports citizens, but not designed to

increase their capabilities(Sherraden, 2002, 2003).

Social policy in the 21st century appears to be in the midst of a transformation. The industrial

economy in which income-based policies were sufficient is passing. The welfare state is under

increasing pressure due to new social risks such as the demographic changes of aging and

shrinkage of the working-age population. Furthermore, economic challenges, especially less

stable employment, threaten sustainability of the traditional welfare state. In this new

economy, people must be in control of resources and, in effect, make their own social policy

decisions throughout their lifetimes. What is required in this post-industrial economy is an

active social policy, one that promotes development and engagement and enables individuals

and families to increase their capabilities(Sherraden, 2003).

A variety of attempts have been made to explain the transition of social policy in the 21st

century. Neil Gilbert describes a shift away from social entitlements, with an 'enabling state'

treating individuals as actors who are capable of looking after themselves with some assistance

from the government, not as totally passive recipients of public benefits and services(Gilbert &

Gilbert, 1989; Gilbert, 1995). 'Social investment state,'a political platform of the New Labour

Party in the United Kingdom, was perhaps first used by Anthony Giddens' book, The Third

Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy(1998). In a somewhat different but complementary

interpretation, Jim Midgley(1999) describes the 'productivist' nature of current trends and the

emergence of 'social investment' as a dominant policy theme. In addition, social investment

has been used to explain the development of European welfare states since the middle of

1990s(Dufour & Morrison, 2005; Taylor-Gooby, 2004).


Social Investment Model For Poverty PreventionSocial Investment State and Asset-based Policy:Implications for Korean Social Policy

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

implications for social policy in Korea. We begin with discussion of new social risks and

apparent transitions in welfare states. Then we discuss recent policy experiences and new

conceptualizations of social policy reforms around the world, which in some respects can be

summarized as a shift from traditional welfare states to social investment states. We also

examine development of inclusive asset-based policy, its theoretical background and empirical

evidence. Further, asset-based policy is considered in terms of social investment policy. Finally

we turn to implications of social investment policy and asset-based policy, and offer some

thoughts on future directions of Korean social policy.

1. New Social Risks

The welfare state is a system that reduces or minimizes human risks, and therefore any

potential changes in social risks may require adjustments or reforms of the welfare state.

Traditional social risks include vulnerabilities in old age, unemployment, health problems,

occupational accidents, and poverty. These risks were relatively well redistributed during the

industrial age characterized by a form of full and stable employment of most male citizens.

Further, most workers were able to exit the labor market without a crisis, and the welfare state

was able to provide safety nets for workers experiencing risks from market failures(Esping-

Anderson, 1990; Woods, 2007).

In the post-industrial era, with transformation and globalization of the world economy, the

welfare state has experienced new social problems that are not always widespread

phenomena. "New social risks," a phrase coined by Peter Taylor-Gooby(2004), is now used by

scholars and policy makers. After an extensive review, Woods(2007) presents several new

social risks: 1) expanding informal labor markets, 2) the growth of an aging population, 3)

women's employment and pressures for care needs of children and the elderly, 4)

unemployment and social exclusion, 5) migration and diverse working populations, and 6)

discrimination. With the challenges of these new social risks, future policy should attempt to

handle adverse impacts and increase social well-being(Woods, 2007).

30


Ⅱ Social Investment

of human capital through investments for health, education, and asset accumulation(Lister,

2004), so that these increased capabilities could facilitate prompt reemployment at the same or

higher compensation from the labor market.

3) Preventive policies

Also, to some extent, social policy has moved away from 'remedial' measures and toward

'preventive' welfare policies(Woods, 2007). In industrial welfare states, welfare policies have

been implemented largely as reactions to problems. However, welfare policies in the post-

industrial society may emphasize investments in human capital and development of human

potential, discussed above. Such 'preventive' welfare policies have a similar meaning with

'positive' welfare introduced by Giddens(1998). 'Positive' welfare allows individuals and

groups to make things happen rather than having things happen to them. Giddens argues that

the social investment state should promote 'positive' welfare, including citizen engagement and

wealth creation.

4) Employment orientation

Another feature of a social investment strategy is emphasis on work or employment, where

social policy provides incentives for the unemployed, young old, lone parents, and the

disabled to move into labor markets(Midgley, 1999). Work is considered a key to moving

people out of poverty and promoting social inclusion. These social policies may include

transportation support, child care, employment counseling and training, wage supplements,

and overcoming other employment barriers to make work more possible. While workfare or

welfare-to-work policy is prevalent in the United Kingdom and the United States, other welfare

states also pursue an employment-oriented approach(Lister, 2004).

4. Policies for Social Investment

Midgley(1999) illustrates several pathways toward social investment, or a more productive

social policy. First, social programs should be designed for cost effectiveness. Not only cost

savings but also greater returns to investment should be considered in program designs and

evaluations. Second, human capital investments should be a priority of social policy because



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

3. Features of a Social Investment State

Several key features of a social investment state can be identified. They are integration of

social policy and economic policy, emphasis on the development of human potential,

preventive policies rather than remedial measures, and an orientation toward employment. In

all of these features, the aim is not replacement of income support policies, which are often

vital, but rather creation of social investment policies to promote not merely survival but

development of individuals and households.

1) Integration of social policy and economic policy

Today, the assumed competition between social protection and economic growth is, in some

aspects, being challenged. It is now common for policy to be actively integrated with the labor

market, which has the potential to enhance productivity and contribute to economic

development. In return, economic growth can have positive impacts on family and community

stability and social cohesion. In this regard, a social investment strategy assumes that social policy

and economic policy should be integrated insofar as possible because they are complementary.

From this perspective, when possible, social policy should be investment-oriented, seeking ways

to enhance human and social capital and capabilities of people to participate in the productive

economy(Lister, 2004; Midgley, 1999; Perkins, Nelms, & Smyth, 2004).

Of course, not all social policies are amenable to social investment. In many cases, the

elderly, the ill, the disabled, dependent children, and children in poverty require foremost care

and support. The challenge for policy-makers is also to recognize that income support is vital

and at the same time introduce social investment strategies that can promote development of

capabilities and increase future economic engagement and productivity.

2) Development of human potential

As discussed above, income support has been the primary policy mechanism of the

traditional welfare state. For example, when workers become unemployed, unemployment

insurance or other income transfer has been the primary response. This is important in

maintaining standard of living, but does not necessarily promote preparation for renewed

employment; indeed, some economists would say that it is a hindrance to employment. We

believe in income support, but social investment policies would also emphasize the realization

32


1. The Meaning of Inclusive Asset-based Policy

Unfortunately, one common feature of most existing asset-based policies is that they are

highly regressive. The reasons are twofold: first, the poor often do not participate in the asset-

based policies that exist; second, asset-based policies operate primarily through tax deferments

or exemptions that benefit the poor little or not at all(Sherraden, 1991, 2001).

Opportunities for asset accumulation should be open to all people. Further, greater public

incentives and benefits should be provided to low-income households and minorities, which

means 'inclusive' asset-based policy. 'Inclusive' asset-based policy should be universal,

progressive, adequate, and lifelong(Sherraden, 2005). Inclusive asset-based policy can be

justified in that asset ownership can lead to the development of individuals, families, and

community. Indeed, asset accumulation is the way families improve their well being over time

and across generations. In this regard, there is increasing recognition that social spending for

some purposes and/or in some forms can contribute to both economic growth and social

development. Reflecting these understandings, the best social policy alternatives will move

beyond the idea of consumption as well being, toward what Amartya Sen(1999) identifies as

capabilities. Building peoples' assets is one policy pathway to increase capabilities and reduce

the trade-off between economic growth and social development.

2. Individual Development Accounts

A typical example of inclusive asset-based policy is Individual Development Accounts(IDAs),

proposed by Sherraden(1988, 1991). In the United States, IDAs have been implemented since

the mid 1990s. IDAs are progressive saving accounts wherein savings of eligible low-income

participants are matched at various ratios determined by the sponsoring organization. Low-

income households voluntarily participate in IDAs and their deposits are matched at the time

of withdrawal if the savings are used for approved uses, such as home purchase, post

secondary education, or micro enterprise. Match rates are usually 1:1 or 2:1, but sometimes

range higher to attract people to the program(Schreiner, Clancy, & Sherraden, 2002). Today it is

estimated that there are 20,000 to 40,000 IDA accounts in over 40 US states. In other words, the

policy is widespread, but still in a community-based demonstration mode. Legislation to

expand IDAs is before the US Congress.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

these investments are likely to lead to economic development. Third, although social capital is

still poorly defined(e.g., trust, relationships, rules, and networks), social capital may be

positively associated with economic development and therefore should be promoted. Fourth, a

social investment perspective aims to develop individual and community assets. Individual and

community assets are a foundation for further development. Fifth, there is an emphasis on

economic participation through productive employment and self-employment. Productive

employment in the labor market is a key determinant in achieving well-being. Sixth, without

reducing barriers such as discrimination, it is difficult to make a social investment strategy

succeed. Last, social problems such as crime, violence, political conflict, and corruption can

undermine economic development. In this regard, it is imperative to create a stable social

climate that is conducive to economic and social development.

A pillar of the social investment strategy is asset-based policy. Asset-based policy aims to

facilitate the accumulation and holdings of assets such as financial(e.g., savings, securities, and

life insurance) and non-financial(e.g., housing, land, and business) assets. Financial and non-

financial assets can be invested to generate returns and improve standard of living. To put this

another way, labor income is not the only source of well being it is achieved in part through

investment of assets. To be sure, assets are very unequally distributed in the world, but this

does not mean that people do not need assets for their well being. Indeed, it has been a major

oversight of the traditional welfare state that building assets of people at the bottom has been

largely ignored(Sherraden, 1991).

Asset-based policy is not new. All countries have developed policies to help people

accumulate assets. For example, asset-based policy in the United States includes home

ownership tax benefits, investment tax benefits, defined contribution retirement accounts with

tax benefits at the workplace such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, and defined contribution accounts

away from the workplace, such as Individual Retirement Accounts(IRAs) and Roth IRAs. Other

asset accounts with tax benefits include Individual Training Accounts, Educational Savings

Accounts, State College Savings(529) Plans, and Medical Savings Accounts. These asset-based

policies in the United States are growing rapidly.

34


ⅢAsset-based Policy

asset ownership can improve household stability by cushioning income shocks. Second, assets

can create an orientation toward the future in that assets represent potential for the future.

Third, assets promote development of human capital and other assets. Asset holding helps

individuals pay more attention to investment in themselves and other assets. Fourth, assets may

promote focus and specialization of knowledge and skills. Fifth, assets provide a foundation

for risk-taking. Assets ownership "protects against negative consequences of taking a loss, and

therefore permits greater freedom for risk taking in the search for larger gains"(Sherraden,

1991: 159). Sixth, assets increase personal efficacy, since assets allow greater prediction and

control. Seventh, assets increase social influence. Eighth, assets may increase political

participation to protect property. Finally, assets increase the welfare of offspring(Scanlon, 2001;

Zhan & Sherraden, 2003).

4. Progress

Since Sherraden's(1991) proposal, there has been modest progress toward more inclusive

asset-based policies in many countries. IDA-type programs have now been also adopted in

Canada, Australia, Peru, Uganda, and other countries. But these are all small programs of a

demonstration nature. Is a large and inclusive asset-based policy possible?

Influenced by results from IDAs, a more universal and progressive asset-based policy began

in the United Kingdom in 2005. After a serious discussion of asset-based policy, in 2001, Prime

Minister Tony Blair proposed a Child Trust Fund for all children, with progressive funding.

With distinctions in eligible age and benefits, Singapore and Korea have similar asset-based

policy for children. Singapore implemented the Edusave scheme for school children aged 6

and 16, and the Baby Bonus scheme to increase fertility rates(Loke & Sherraden, 2006). In

Korea, Child Development Accounts(CDAs) were implemented in April 2007, targeting

disabled children, children on welfare, and children without parents. Korean CDAs are to

expand all newborns of the working poor by 2010. In the United States, universal and

progressive accounts for children at birth are now in the process of demonstration in the

SEED(Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment) initiative, and CDA

legislation is under consideration in the US Congress.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

In the United Kingdom, a Saving Gateway, modeled after IDAs, has also been in a

demonstration phase. The current UK government intends to "roll out" the Saving Gateway to

the country but has not said when this will occur. Similarly, Taipei City government has been

experimenting with Family Development Accounts modeled after IDAs, and there are

numerous other examples around the world.

3. Theory and Evidence

Sherraden(1991) proposed an institutional saving theory to explain asset ownership of not

only middle or higher income households but also the poor. Two basic ideas underlie this

work. First, institutional features of policy and program influence saving and asset

accumulation. Research at the Center for Social Development(CSD) at Washington University in

St. Louis has identified several institutional features: access, expectations, information,

incentives, facilitation, restrictions, and security(Beverly & Sherraden, 1999; Sherraden,

Schreiner, & Beverly, 2003; Sherraden & Barr, 2005; Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007).

Low-income households with easily accessible saving institutions(access) can significantly

improve savings outcomes by decreasing transaction costs. People with

knowledge(information) of how to save are inclined to behave differently from those

without(Lusardi, 2003). For example, people with knowledge of saving are aware of their

financial choices and of the consequences of those choices(Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007).

Matching grants, tax-free earnings, and rebates can be types of incentives(Clancy et al., 2006).

Positive relationships between matching and saving outcomes are found in retirement pension

accounts(Munnell, Sunden, & Taylor, 2001/2002) and 529 savings plans(Clancy et al., 2006).

Facilitation means assistance with participation and savings. Sherraden et al.(2003) regard

facilitation as a key feature of most contractual saving programs. The goal of

savings(expectations) can be institutionalized. The match cap in IDAsis regarded as a target

savings amount, which often becomes a goal for participants(Sherraden et al., 2003).

Compared to other institutional factors, restrictions limit certain types of actions or impose

limits so that goals are more likely to be achieved.

The second part of the theory is about asset effects, which have the potential toprovide a

solid rationale for inclusive asset-based policy. Sherraden(1991) posits that, in addition to

deferred consumption, assets may improve household well being in a number of ways. First,

36


Last, work or employment is directly associated with savings. While people use savings in

case of unemployment, there could be positive effects of savings on work or employment.

First, regarding the purposes of savings in IDAs, low-income households can save for starting a

small business, or for education or job training to enhance opportunities for future

employment. Second, evidence on IDAs finds that participants may work more hours to save in

IDAs(Sherraden et al., 2005). These findings suggest that asset-based policy may facilitate

economic participation through productive employment and self-employment.

In conclusion, asset-based policy is a good fit with the social investment strategy. The asset-

based approach emphasizes the role of assets in individual and collective welfare. In a broad

way, "asset-based policy is not merely a matter of social programs, but of a policy framework

that can, insofar as possible, integrate numerous policy efforts into a single system"(Sherraden,

1991 : 199).

1. The Korean Welfare State

The current form of the welfare state in Korea was introduced during the 1960s by Park

Chung-hee to legitimize his authoritarian regime. While rapid economic growth solidified the

status of the authoritarian regime, social welfare initiatives also played an important role in

consolidating power. Until the mid-1990s, the Korean welfare state could be characterized as

emphasizing economic growth as the priority, with social protection secondary(Gough, 2001).

A turning point in the Korean welfare state occurred with the financial crisis in 1997 and the

inauguration of the Kim Dae-jung administration in 1998. While most Asian countries

experienced the financial crisis, the economic shocks in Korea were severe(see Table 5-1). The

financial crisis brought the growth process to a sudden halt. Unemployment skyrocketed to a

peak of 6.8 percent in 1999 and more than one million Koreans were thrown into poverty. The

economic and social situation forced the new government to implement quickly a wide range

of macroeconomic and structural reforms, including labor market and social policy

changes(Hong & Song, 2006).



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

While asset-based policy is regarded as a strategy of social investment(Kim, 2007; Midgley,

1999 Sherraden, 1991), few studies have investigated to what degree they are interrelated. In

this section we begin to fill this gap. Key themes of social investment are used to organize this

discussion(see Table 4-1).

The first theme is whether asset-based policy integrates social and economic policy. As

economic theories claim, saving is economic behavior. Individuals save for future

consumption, which is a basic asset effect. In this regard, savings contribute to aggregate

demand. Further, savings can stimulate more production and employment. The positive effects

of savings on the economy suggest that asset-building initiatives are conducive to economic

grow that the macro level, as well as development of households at the micro level.

Second, saving can promote development of human potential. People save for not only

future consumption but also investment of human capital. They save for future education for

themselves or their children and invest their savings for enhancement of well being. The

positive effects of assets on development of human potential can be summarized by

Sherraden's(1991) assets effects theory. He suggests that assets can create an orientation

toward the future and positive action because assets represent potential for the future.

Third, while income maintenance policy focuses on relief of economic shocks by transferring

income, a remedial approach, asset-based policy emphasizes prevention and development of

capabilities. As a primary asset effect, savings buffer future economic shocks(Sherraden, 1991).

In this regard, savings are directly associated with the preventive approach of a social

investment strategy.

38


Ⅳ Social Investment and Asset-Based Policy

Ⅴ Implications for Korea<Table 4-1> Relationship between Social Investment and Asset-based Policy

Integration social and economic policy

Development of human potential

Preventive policies

Employment-oriented approach

Saving as economic behavior

Conducive to economic growth

Development of human capital

Positive effect on future orientation

Savings for buffering crises

Positive effects on labor market

Social investment strategy Asset-based policy

counter-cyclical and humanitarian responses to the crisis.

While the social investment strategy was introduced by Kim Dae-jung, it has been during the

Roh Moo-hyun administration in which policy makers and scholars in Korea have actively

discussed the meaning and implications of social investment. President Roh announced

"participatory"government as a slogan of the administration, but generally inherited the social

policy agenda from his predecessor. The Roh administration has adopted social investment as a

platform for reforming social policy. As part of this overall approach, Roh has endorsed a more

active role of government in ameliorating economic inequality and providing social support for

lower-income Koreans. Korean CDAs are a practical and symbolic representation of this

orientation.

3. Asset Inequality in Korea

Asset poverty lowers potential to meet basic needs such as food, shelter, sanitation,

healthcare, and education. Similarly, asset poverty creates a weak foundation for risk-taking.

Recently attention has been paid to asset inequality in Korea. Traditionally, income has been

the primary indicator of economic inequality, but the trend has changed and today Jae-tech, or

techniques of asset accumulation, has been a common phrase among Korean people. In part

this is driven by a strong economy and booming assets markets. With stock market and

apartment price increases, it has become a priority of many Koreans to invest and increase

assets. However, the have-nots are largely excluded from the trend because they have few or

no resources for investment.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

2. Social Investment in Korea

A social investment strategy at the federal level was first introduced by the Kim Dae-jung

administration, and named DJ welfarism or productive welfare, known as the welfare policy

contributing to participation and production. Productive welfare emphasizes primary

distribution through an equitable market system, a fair redistribution of wealth to meet basic

human needs, social investment for self-support, and expansion of investments to enhance the

quality of life for everyone in society(Presidential Committee for Quality-of-life, 2000). There

have been wide-ranging debates on the political characteristics of productive welfare(Kim,

2002), but it might be summarized as follows: "We need a system of productive welfare where

each person can put forth his or her best efforts for social development. We need to actively

introduce productive welfare policies that are incentive based and which aim at fostering the

growth of the middle class and improve the standard of living for all Koreans"(Presidential

Committee for Quality-of-life, 2000).

It is perhaps noteworthy that the direction of productive welfare is almost the same as the

social investment strategy. Productive welfare has emphasized "a balance between growth and

welfare" by expanding social welfare programs for the excluded. Further, it used "social

investment" to increase self-support and as a result enhance the quality of life. Since the

financial crisis required emergency responses, productive welfare also focused on reform and

expansion of income maintenance programs(e.g., enactment of the National Security for Basic

Livelihood System) for the unemployed and the poor. For example, the budget amount and

number of beneficiaries of public assistance between 1998 and 2001, respectively increased by

2.6 times and 3.5 times(Hong & Song, 2006). These are major increases, implemented as

40


Economic1996 6.8 6.1 4.5 7.5

Growth1997 5.0 6.7 5.0 8.4

1998 -5.8 4.6 -5.1 0.4

Unemployment1996 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.0

Rate1997 2.6 2.7 2.4 1.8

1998 6.8 2.7 4.7 3.2

South Korea Taiwan Hong Kong Singapore

<Table 5-1> Comparison of Asian Economic Shocks in 1997

Source : Lo and Wong(1999)

Source : Household Assets Survey by the National Statistical Office(NSO); Hankyorae, 2007, March 8.

[Figure 5-1] Percentage of Total Net Worth Owned by the Top 10% of Households

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Italy Finland Korea Canada Germany Sweden U.S.

2002, which were much higher increases than in other regions(Korean Times, 2007, April 11).

4. Inclusive Asset-based Policy in Korea

Among policies for social investment, asset building and asset-based policy was first

discussed at the 56th 27

Korean National Meetings in November 2004. The idea of asset-based policy had been

brought from Korean visitors to the United States, especially at the University of California at

Berkeley, where Sherraden was a visiting professor in 2003. Since the meeting, discussion has

grown steadily in Korean government circles. In particular, Rhyu Si-min, the Minister of Health

and Welfare played an importantrole in implementing asset-based policy in Korea. In

November 2006, Sherraden was invited as the keynote speaker at a conference entitled,

"Toward a New Paradigm in Social Policy: The Potential of Child Development Accounts in

Asset-based Social Policy," organized by the Korean Labor Institute and Chung Ang University

Professor Kim Yeon-myung. This conference generated substantial discussion and reinforced

interest in asset-based policy in Korea. Following this meeting, Minister Rhyu visited the United

States in March 2007 to learn more about the American experience in CDAs and other asset

building innovations. He introduced Child Development Accounts as a component of Korean

social investment policy, aimed at tackling new social risks and promoting development of all

households(Nam et al., 2007).

1) Child Development Accounts

The Korean government implemented CDAs in April 2007. In the first year, CDAs target

children on welfare, children without parents and children with disability. In 2008, CDAs are to

expand to include all children of low-income households eligible for the public assistance

program. In 2009, CDAs will grow to include children of all the working poor. By 2010, the

government intends to encompass all children born into low- and middle-income households,

approximately 50% of all Korean newborns(Nam et al., 2007).

At age 18, children will be allowed to withdraw their CDA funds for postsecondary

education, housing, or small business. Parents and/or sponsors can make the maximum

monthly deposit(approximately US$30) into a CDA, matched 1:1 by the Korean government. In

particular, for institutionalized children and children without parents, $30 will be from



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

The Household Assets Survey by the National Statistical Office(NSO), reported above(see

Figure 5-1), finds that the top 10% of Koreans hold about 52% of total net wealth. While asset

inequality in Korea is less than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, it is more

than in Italy and Finland . On average, a Korean household has total assets of 281 million

Korean Won and debt of 39 million Korean Won, for an average net worth of about 242 million

Korean Won. Interestingly, the real value of assets is approximately 80% of total assets, larger

than that of other countries, e.g. Japan at 62%, Canada at 50%, and the United States at

36%(Hankyorae, 2007, March 8).

Figure 5-2 presents the disparity in income and financial assets between the top 20% and the

bottom 20% of households in Korea, expressed as a proportion. Two findings are noteworthy.

First, as expected, the financial asset gap is larger than the income gap. Second, compared with

changes in the income gap, the gap of financial assets has increased steadily. While this study

uses differences between the two groups on financial assets, we can expect that the gap would

be greater if total assets including real assets were used. For example, the disparity in the value

of homes between the haves and have-nots is wider. The Gini coefficient on residential assets

was found to increase from 0.51 in 2002 to 0.57 in 2006. In particular, there was a large increase

in higher-end apartment prices. According to Kookmin Bank, the average apartment price

nationwide jumped 35.7% over the past five years. There were also disparities in the increase

across regions. The apartment price rose 73.1% in Seoul and 68.6% in Gyeonggi Province since

42


[Figure 5-2] Disparity in Income and Financial Assets in Korea, Top 20% vs. Bottom 20%

0

20

40

60

80

1996 2000 2006 Year

Financial assets Income

Note : Financial assets is the sum of amounts in a checking account, savings accounts, stock, and bonds. The financial assets disparity

ratio is calculated by dividing the average financial assets of the top 20% households by that of the bottom 20%. Likewise, the

household income disparity ratio is calculated by dividing the average household income of the top 20% by that of the bottom 20%.

Source : Household Assets Survey by the National Statistical Office(NSO). Hankyoreh, September 10, 2007.

Will asset-based and social investment policies be effective? In this regard, it will be

necessary to study and review carefully social investment policy in the context of Korean social

and economic conditions. Several themes require careful attention, three of which are

highlighted below.

1. Environments Conducive to Social Investment Strategies

Social investment policy aims to integrate social policy and economic policy, and it is

imperative to provide environments for this integration. Kim(2007) provides an example of

how to integrate policies for the development of human capital. He suggests that social settings

such as family, school, organization, labor market, and community should be coordinated to

enhance human capital of knowledge, techniques, competence, and other attributes. In a

similar vein, Midgley(1999) emphasizes the importance of environment. Policies cannot occur

in a vacuum. They must be integrated into effective programs and organizations at the local

level.

2. Coordination with Social Services

Social investment policy has a much better chance to be successful when it coordinates with

social service programs. In advanced welfare states, the development of social services has

been by and large the result of the growing participation of women in the labor market. Korea

has a different situation where, despite the growth of women's participation in the labor

market(the participation rate of women in Korea increased from 47% in 1990 to 49% in 2003),

social services were characterized by slow development in size and expenditure(Kim, 2007).

The provision of social services in Korea has developed at a sluggish pace because it has been

assumed that families are responsible for taking care of their family members(Hong & Song,

2006). Social investment policy develops programs to activate women's participation in the

labor market. Therefore, social investment and social service policy should work together to

support families participating in the labor market. Public social services should be increased to

support working women, children, and the elderly. The same can be said offset-based policy.

For example, CDAs in Korea cannot be operated as intended without support from social



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

organizational sponsors and $30 matched by the government(Nam et al., 2007).

Minister Rhyu(2007) views CDAs not only as a mechanism for encouraging asset

accumulation of low-income households, but also as a policy for increasing equal

opportunities through development of individual capabilities. While CDAs were introduced as

part of broader efforts to tackle asset inequality, polarization in the labor market, and

plummeting birth rates in Korea, policy effects of CDAs may also include investment in human

capital and an increase in economic participation.

2) Individual Development Accounts

In collaboration with the Seoul City government and private funding companies, Seoul

Welfare Foundation is preparing an IDA demonstration program in 2007. The IDA program

aims to provide opportunities of asset accumulation for poverty alleviation with financial

education to increase behaviors for saving and self-support. In the pilot project, 100 working

poor families will save for three areas: home buying, education, and micro enterprise. Funding

is a topic of discussion, but program design is progressing. When implemented, each IDA

participant is to deposit a maximum of 200,000 Korean Won(US$200) per month for three

consecutive years, matched 1.5:1 by private funding companies(Nam et al., 2007).

While advanced welfare states have tended to scale back their welfare systems under the

pressure of a global economy, it is interesting that Korea has taken a different route. Korean

social policy has expanded in recent decades. Both the maturation of welfare systems and the

financial crisis explain the expansion. Further, the consolidation of democracy has contributed

to social policy growth(Hong & Song, 2006).

However, the development of the Korean welfare state has been based predominantly on an

income support policy(Hong & Song, 2007). In this regard, the social investment paradigm and

asset-based policy have the potential to reform social policy in Korea, not to abandon income

support, which is essential for survival, but to add asset building to promote development of

individuals, families, and communities.

44


ⅥDirections for the Future

investment.

Asset-based policy has emerged as a pillar of social investment policy. Despite certain

differences in background, asset-based policy shares key features with social investment. In

particular, both focus on integration of social policy and economic policy, development of

human potential, preventive policies, and an employment orientation. With the continued

development of the social investment state, asset-based policy may play an important role in

creating conditions and opportunities for economic and social development.

Sherraden(2003) suggests that social policy in the 21st 27 century may have three major

goals: social protection goals, social development goals, and macroeconomic goals. Social

protection to buffer hardship and promote social stability has been the primary almost

exclusive theme of 2027

century welfare states. The focus is on standard of living, coverage, adequacy, and minimum

protections at the bottom. This is social welfare defined in terms of income and consumption.

Social development of families and households refers and their active participation in work,

community, and civic affairs. Looking ahead, social development may become as important as

social protection. Last, social policy increasingly will be formulated with macroeconomic

considerations in mind, including counter-cyclical spending, fiscal stability, savings and

investment, and economic growth.

Korea has begun to move toward a social investment state. In some respects, Korea is more

explicit about this than other nations(e.g., Rhyu, 2007). But these concepts are in the early

stages of definition, specification, implementation, and testing. It is an important time for Korea

to discuss social investment strategies and create future plans. Specific policies must be

carefully designed, and research will be essential. The Seoul City IDA project is an important

case in point. How can IDAs work best in Korea? Who will study the Seoul IDAs to see if they

are successful? How will research be used to improve policies as they develop? Can the Seoul

IDA project inform a larger asset-based policy for the nation? The agenda is exciting and

hopeful, but great deal of work lies ahead.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

services programs, which can organize sponsorship for savings among institutionalized

children and children without parents. In addition, child care, food, and health services are

necessary for child development. Without coordination with social services for children, CDAs

cannot achieve the goal of healthy development and self-reliance of children as they become

adults.

3. Expansion of Asset-based Policies

Empirical results suggest that the poor can save if they participate in saving programs and

they are provided with incentives and information(Schreiner & Sherraden, 2007). In this regard,

inclusion in asset building should be a priority. Inclusion can happen in two ways. First,

progressive saving plans can target low-income households. Or low-income households can

have more incentives in universal saving plans such as CDAs. A universal, progressive policy

beginning at birth was the original proposal for IDAs(Sherraden, 1991). Another pathway is to

include the excluded into existing asset-based policies. For example, workers in underground

or informal markets are today unlikely to participate in retirement pension plans. Through

providing incentives and/or enforcement, the excluded should have opportunities to save for

retirement income.

Since the 1990s, Korean social policy has undergone significant changes. Two phenomena

may explain these changes: the response to the 1997 financial crisis and the advent of more

liberal administration. In these developments, social policy benefits have expanded, and at the

same time, Korean leaders have been clear that social policy should not hamper economic

growth and international competitiveness.

Related to the above, social policy cannot escape from changes in underlying economic and

social structures. The post-industrial era requires that policies play appropriate roles in dealing

with changing social problems due to aging, unstable job markets, and globalization. Under

these circumstances, a noteworthy change in social policy is the increasing attention to social

46


ⅦConclusions

Perkins, D., Nelms, L., & Smyth, P.(2004). Beyond neo-liberalism : The social investment state? social policy

working paper No. 3. Brotherhood of St. Laurence and Center for Public Policy, University of

Melbourne.

Presidential Committee for Quality-of-life.(2000). DJ Welfarism. ChungWaDae.

Rhyu, S.(2007). Making a better future with social investment. A keynote speech at the New America

Foundation. Washington, DC. March.

Scanlon, E.(2001). Toward a theory of financial savings and child well-being: Implication for research on a

children and youth(research background paper 01-11). St. Louis : Washington University, Center for

Social Development.

Schreiner, M., Clancy, M., and Sherraden, M.(2002). Saving performance in the American Dream

Demonstration : A national demonstration of Individual Development Account. St. Louis : Washington

University, Center for Social Development.

Schreiner, M., & Sherraden, M.(2007). Can the poor save? Savings and asset building in Individual

Development Accounts. New York : Aldine de Gruyter.

Sen, A.(1999). Development as Freedom. New York : Knopf.

Sherraden, M.(Ed.).(2005). Inclusion in the American dream: Assets, poverty, and public policy. New York :

Oxford University Press.

Sherraden, M.(2003). Individual accounts in social security: Can they be progressive? International Journal of

Social Welfare. 12: 97-107.

Sherraden, M.(2002). From a social welfare state to a social investment state. In C. Kober & W. Paxton(Eds.),

Asset-based welfare and poverty: Exploring the case for and against asset-based welfare policies(pp.5-

8). London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Sherraden, M.(2001). Asset-building policy and programs for the poor. In T. Shapiro & E. Wolff(Eds), Assets for

the poor : The benefits of spreading asset ownership(pp.302-323).New York : Russell Sage Foundation.

Sherraden, M.(1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY : M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Sherraden, M.(1988). Rethinking social welfare : Toward assets. Social Policy. 13(3): 37-43.

Sherraden, M., & Barr, M.S.(2005). Institutions and inclusion in saving policy. In N. Retsinas & E. Belsky, eds.,

Building Assets, Building Credit : Bridges and Barriers to Financial Services in Low-income

Communities. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Sherraden, M., Moore-McBride, A., Johnson, E., Hanson, S., & Shanks, T.(2005). Saving in low-income

households : Evidence from interviews with participants in the American Dream Demonstration. St.

Louis : Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Sherraden, M., Schreiner, M., & Beverly, S.(2003). Income, institutions, and saving performance in Individual

Development Accounts. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(1), 95-112.

Taylor-Gooby, P.(2004). New risks, new welfare: The transformation of the European welfare state. Oxford

University Press.


2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Beverly, S.G. & Sherraden, M.(1999). Institutional determinants of saving: Implications for low-income

households and public policy. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28, 457-473.

Clancy, M., Han, C., Mason, L. R., & Sherraden, M.(2006). Inclusion in college savings plans: Participation and

saving in Maine’s matching grant program. St. Louis, MO : Washington University, Center for Social

Development.

Dufour, P. & Morrison, I.(2005). The state of the social investment state in the field of employment policy.

Canadian Journal of Career Development, 4(1), 1-9.

Esping-Andersen, G.(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge and Oxford.

Hong, K. Z. & Song, H. K.(2006). Continuity and change in the Korean welfare regime. Journal of Social Policy,

35(2), 247-265.

Giddens, A.(1998). The third way : The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Gilbert, N.(1995). Welfare justice : Restoring social equity. NewHave : Yale University Press.

Gilbert, N., & Gilbert, B.(1989). The enabling state : Modern welfare capitalism in America. Oxford : Oxford

University Press.

Gough, I.(2001). Globalization and regional welfare regimes : The East Asian case. Global Social Policy. 1(2) :

163-189.

Kim, Y.(2002). Social welfare policy in the Kim Dae-Jung government. The Characteristics of Korean Welfare

State. pp.109-142. [InKorean] IngangwaBokji.

Korean Times,(2007). Disparity in home values greater than income gap. April 11.

Lister, R.(2004). The third way’s social investment state. Jane Lewis and Rebecca Surrender eds. Welfare state

change : Towards a third way? Oxford : University Press.

Lo, M. C., & Wong, K.(1999). The Asian crisis : A statistical point of view.

Loke, V. & Sherraden, M.(2006). Building assets from birth : A comparison of the policies and proposals on

Children Savings Accounts in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Korea, and the United

States(CSD working paper 06-14). St. Louis : Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Lusardi, A.(2003). The impact of financial education on savings and asset. Working Paper wp061. Michigan

Retirement Research Center, University of Michigan.

Midgley, J.(1999). Growth, redistribution, and welfare : Toward social investment, Social Service Review

Munnell, A. H., Sunden, A., & Taylor, C.(2001/2002). What determines 401(k) participation and contributions?

Social Security Bulletin, 64(3), 64-76.

Nam, Y., Sherraden, M., Zou, L., Han, C., Kim, Y., & Han, W.(2007). Asset-based policy in South Korea. St.

Louis: Washington University, Center for Social Development.

48


#References

Woods, D. R.(2007). The welfare state and pressures to reform: A literature review, working paper no. 36.

Wirtschaft & Politik. Universität TUbingen.

Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M.(2003). Assets, expectations, and children’s educational achievement in female-

headed households. Social Service Review. 191-211.

50


〃

Topic 1Yeon-myung Kim

Professor of Social WelfareChung-Ang University

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py

S e o u lW e l f a r e

Foundation


1997년의외환위기이후나타난경제와노동시장구조의양극화징후와 2000년이후급속히진행되는

저출산∙고령화현상은60년 이후산업화시 에형성된한국사회의모습을크게바꾸어놓을것으로전

망되고있다(국민경제자문회의, 2006：제1부；최경수∙문형표외, 2003). 특히사회복지, 더넓게는사

회정책분야는양극화와저출산∙고령화의 향을가장직접적으로받고있고, 앞으로받게될핵심적 역

중의하나이다. 한국의사회복지가본격적으로시작되었던1970년 와80년 는경제및노동시장구조에

서완전고용과비교적균질적인노동시장이형성되어있었고, 상 적으로젊은인구구조와안정된가족기

능이유지되고있었다. 때문에한국의사회복지제도역시균질적노동시장과인구가족구조의상 적안정

성을‘전제’로설계되었으며사회보험의상 적발달과사회서비스의낙후라는한국사회복지의특징은이

런상황을반 한것이다. 하지만최근의비정규직의급증으로상징되는노동시장의양극화와인구가족구

조의변화는한국복지제도의기본틀을재검토해야하는상황을만들고있다(정책기획위원회, 2006a:30-

83).

최근한국에서사회복지학계를넘어서행정부와정치권에서까지상당한주목을받고있는사회투자론1)

은우리와유사한노동시장및인구학적변화를먼저겪은서구사회에서새로운경제사회구조의변화에

Ⅰ서론：왜사회투자인가?

한국에서사회투자전략의가능성,쟁점그리고전망

김 연 명

중앙 사회복지학과교수

1) 사회투자가한국에서논의되면서사회투자‘국가’와사회투자‘전략’(혹은‘정책’)이라는차원과맥락이다른두용어를혼용해서사용하는것이상

당한문제점을불러일으키고있다는지적이제기되었(김 순, 2007). 뒤에서(제Ⅱ장2절) 논의하는것처럼사회투자국가라는용어는여러가지

차원에서사용되고있으며, 세용어를구별해서쓰는경우도있고혼용되어사용되는사례도다수발견된다. 이 에서사용한사회투자론’은사회

투자국가와사회투자전략두차원을모두포함하는의미로사용하되, 사회투자전략이라는용어는사회정책분야에한정된새로운패러다임이란의

미로사용하기로한다.

안정적인핵가족구조, 셋째, 낮은수준의실업율과안정된임금을유지시키는신케인즈주의정책을통해

국민경제를관리할수있었던정부, 넷째, 노동계급과중간계급의동맹이그들의욕구를충족시키기위한

복지급여와서비스를제공하는데효과적인압력을행사할수있는정치체계. 테일러-구비가지적한이러한

요인중노동시장구조를포함한경제구조의변화와가족및인구학적구조의변화는‘고전적’복지국가를

지탱했던경제∙사회적기반에균열을발생시켰다는점에서중요한의미를갖는다.

그러나1970년 중반이후고전적복지국가를지탱했던자본주의경제사회구조는근본적인변화를겪

게되며상당한변화의압력에노출된다. 흔히‘후기산업사회’post-industrial society로의이행으로통

칭되는 이러한 경제사회구조의 변화를 가져온 요인은 다양하게 제시되지만(Pierson, 2001:82-99;

Esping-Andersen, 1999:Chap 9) 다음과같은몇가지로단순화시킬수있다. 첫째, 고용이제조업부문에

서서비스부문으로 량이동하면서생산성하락과경제성장의둔화가발생하 다. 즉복지재정을뒷받침

할만한여력이감소한것이다. 동시에지식기반경제가도래하면서인적자본을축적하지못한일부계층에

서만성적인빈곤과사회적배제를경험하는현상이나타났다. 둘째, 서비스업의팽창으로여성노동력이

늘어나고세계화등의 향으로경쟁이격화되는상황에서고용의안정성이떨어지는등균질적이고안정

적이던산업사회의노동시장구조에서균열이발생하기시작했으며여기서특정계층의사회적배제가구

조화되는현상이나타났다. 셋째, 여성취업률의상승, 저출산∙고령화, 그리고편부모가가구의증가등으

로전반적으로아동, 노인등가족의취약가구원보호기능이현저히떨어지게되었다. 이러한경제구조, 노

동시장의변화, 그리고가족∙인구학적구조의변화는전통적인산업사회에서는크게부각되지않았던소

위‘새로운사회적위험’의출현이라는논의로이어진다.

2. 새로운사회적위험의출현

상 적으로안정적인경제, 인구학적구조하에서존재했던고전적복지국가프로그램의주요초점은실

업, 노령, 산업재해등소득의중단을가져오거나혹은질병이가져오는예외적인지출등이른바전통적산

업사회에서발생하는‘구사회적위험’old social risks에 한 응이었고여기서사회정책프로그램의초

점은소득상실을보존해주는소득보장프로그램 income maintenance programs이었다. 하지만후기산

업사회로의이행으로불리는경제사회구조의변화는전통적인복지국가의소득보장프로그램이포괄하지

못하는‘새로운사회적위험’new social risks을구조화시켰다(Esping-Andersen, 1999:Chap 8). 신사

회위험의개념을구체화하고 이개념을서구사회정책의변화와연관시켜체계적인논의를하고있는테일

러구비는신사회위험을“후기산업사회로의이행과연관된경제, 사회변동과연관된결과로서사람들의생

애기간에직면하는위험들”(Talyor-Gooby, 2004:2)로규정하면서신사회위험의발생경로를네측면에

서고찰하고있다(Taylor-Gooby, 2004:3-4).

첫째는맞벌이부부의증가와여성교육의향상으로여성들의노동시장참여가급증하면서일과가정을


응하기위한복지전략의일환으로출현하 다. 퍼킨스와그의동료들의지적처럼“사회투자와관련된모든

문헌들에서는사회투자전략이급변하는경제, 사회적질서에 응할필요성에서나온것이라는인식이존

재하고있다”(Perkins et.al., 2004:2). 즉, 제2차세계 전이후 1970년 중반까지전성기를구사했던

‘고전적복지국가’2) classic welfare state 의토 를이루었던경제, 인구학적구조가급변하면서변화된

환경에 응하기위한새로운형태의복지전략의하나로서사회투자론이부상하고있는것이다. 사회투자

론을이처럼변화된경제, 사회환경에적응하기위한새로운복지전략으로이해하면최근에급격한경제∙

사회적변화를겪고있는한국사회에도상당한시사점을줄수있다는것이이 의기본전제이다. 즉, 아직

도선진국‘따라잡기’catch-up 전략이유효한한국적상황에서선진복지국가에서새롭게부상하는사회

투자론의타당성과수용가능성을검토하는것은한국의사회복지발달전략수립에상당한도움을줄수

있다는점이다.

이런배경하에이 의목적은첫째, 서구에서사회투자론이등장하게된사회경제적배경을신사회위험

의출현이라는시각에서조망하고, 둘째, 기존의전통적복지정책혹은사회정책과구별되는사회투자전략

의주요특징과핵심프로그램의내용을고찰하는것이다. 위와같은논의를바탕으로이 의세번째목적

은한국적맥락에서사회투자전략의쟁점을검토하고향후를전망하는것이다. 이 의핵심적주장은사회

투자전략이비록서구적맥락에서출현한논의이지만우리나라상황에서도유용한복지확 전략의가능

성이충분하다는점을강조하는것이다.

1. 복지국가의경제사회적기반변화

제2차세계 전이후 1970년 까지서구의 다수의국가들은지속적인경제성장을바탕으로이른바

‘고전적복지국가’체제를만들어냄으로써경제성장과사회통합이라는두개의목표를동시에성취할수

있었다. 테일러-구비에의하면이념형적으로볼때서구에서 1970년 중반까지의‘고전적복지국가’는

다음과 같은 몇 가지의 우호적인 경제∙정치∙사회적 조건에서 존재할 수 있었다(Taylor-Gooby,

2004:1). 첫째, 인구의 다수에게높은수준의가족임금을제공했던 규모의안정적인제조업에의해특

징지워지는경제의지속적성장, 둘째, 아동과취약한노인그리고여타피부양집단에게케어를제공했던

54


빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안한국에서사회투자전략의가능성, 쟁점그리고전망

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅱ사회투자론의등장배경과개념화

2) 사회투자론주창자들의공통적인특징중의하나는1970년 까지서구에서존재했던복지국가가어떤형태로든새롭게변화해야한다는문제의식

을공유한다는것이다. 때문에변화된경제사회환경속에서새로운복지전략을구상하기위해과거의복지국가를‘전통적’복지국가혹은‘고전

적’복지국가로상 화시킨다. 필자가이 에서사용한‘고전적’복지국가라는용어는포웰과휴이트가 국복지국가의변화를정리하면서사용

한용어를차용한것이다(Powell and Hewitt, 2002: Chap. 2).

양한 수준에서 이해될 수 있다고 하며 용어 사용의 맥락을 세 가지 차원으로 구분하고 있다(Lister,

2004:157-158). 첫번째차원은‘제3의길’사상가와정치인들이사용하는방식으로한사회가지향해야

할중요한미래의가치를내세우면서이것을총괄하는차원에서사회투자국가라는용어가사용되는것인

데리스터는이경우를‘규범적이상’normative ideal으로표현하 다. 두번째차원은사회투자국가를

경제적세계화와출산율의저하로성숙한복지국가가직면하고있는인지된경제, 사회적도전에 한‘실

용적 응’pragmatic response이란차원에서사용하는경우이다. 세번째로‘분석적도구’analytical

tool로서특정국가의복지체제를묘사할때사용되는경우이다. 즉, 사회투자국가가사회민주주의적요소

와신자유주의적/자유주의적요소가결합된‘혼합형복지체제’hybrid welfare regime 로묘사하는차원

에서사용되는경우이다. 사회투자국가를복지체제차원으로이해하면자유주의적복지국가의전통에서

최근에사회투자정책들을집중적으로가미하고있는 국, 캐나나정도만이사회투자국가로분류할수있

다5).

하나의규범적이상으로사회투자국가라는용어를비슷한맥락에서사용하는경우는국내의논의에서도

발견되는데 표적인예가임채원(2006, 2007)이다. 그는 국신노동당이제시한새로운미래지향적가

치들을거의그 로수용하면서새로운경제사회패러다임으로서사회투자국가의지향점이한국에서도필

요함을역설하고있다. 사회투자국가를복지체제의유형분석차원에적용하는경우도국내논의에서나타

나는데양재진외(2007:제3장)는서구의복지국가의변화를사회투자국가로의전환으로인식하면서 국

을 표적인자유주의형사회투자국가로스웨덴을 표적인사민주의형사회투자국가로그유형을분류하

고있다. 사회투자국가를규범적지향점혹은복지체제유형분류를위한분석도구로사용하는것은사회투

자론을이해하고이것을한국사회에적용하거나복지체제를연구하는데각각장단점을가져올수있다6).

특히사회투자국가라는용어가고전전복지‘국가’혹은신자유주의‘국가’라는용어와 등한수준의이론

적, 실천적체계를갖춘독자적패러다임인가에 해서는의문의여지가있다. 가령사회투자국가가실체를

갖춘하나의 안적패러다임이되기위해서는사회정책뿐만아니라경제정책, 조세∙재정정책등에 해

다른패러다임과구분되는독자적이론적, 정책적체계를갖추어야한다. 물론경제, 조세, 재정정책등의

분야에서소위‘제3의길’노선에따른정책지향과담론이없는것은아니지만(Giddens, 1998, 2004) 고

전적복지국가가신자유주의국가와확실하게구별되는독자적패러다임으로보기에는한계가있다.

하지만다음절에서보겠지만사회정책분야로사회투자논의를좁혀서보면사회투자론은이론적, 실천

적측면에서새로운패러다임으로볼수있을만한설득력있는실체가있다. 필자가이 에서초점을맞춘

것도바로리스터가‘실용적 응’이라고부른노동시장구조및인구가족구조의변화로나타나는신사회위

험에 응하는새로운복지전략혹은사회정책전략을의미하는차원에서사회투자국가라는용어를사용하


양립하기어려운저숙련여성층에서신사회위험이나타난다. 둘째는노인인구의증가로노인케어의부담

이급증하고있다. 노인케어는상당부분여성에게주어져있고여성이케어와직장을병행하기어려워노동

시장에서철수하면홑벌이부부가되기때문에빈곤의가능성이높아진다. 셋째, 무숙련생산직의비중을

줄여온생산기술의변동, 그리고저임금의비교우위를이용한국가간경쟁의격화로발생하는노동시장구

조의변화는교육수준이낮은사람들이사회적으로배제되는위험을발생시킨다. 즉, 교육수준이낮을수록

실업에빠질확률과장기빈곤에빠질위험성이높아진다. 넷째, 일부국가에서민 화된공적연금, 의료보

험등에서소비자가선택을잘못할경우혹은민 보험에 한규제가잘이루어지지않을경우새로운위

험이발생할수있다.

새로운위험의발생경로를네가지로분류한테일러-구비는세 역에서사회적취약계층이새로운사회

적위험에노출될가능성이높다는점을지적하고있다(Taylor-Gooby, 2004:5). 첫째 역은가족과성역

할의변화와관련하여①일과가족의책임특히아동양육의책임간의균형을잡는것②노인수발에 한요

청을받거나혹은수발 상자가되어가족의지원이없는경우이다. 둘째, 노동시장변화와관련하여①적

절한수준의임금과안정적인직업을얻는데필요한기술이없는경우②쓸모없게된기술과훈련을받았거

나혹은평생교육을통해그기술과훈련을제고시킬수없는경우이다. 셋째, 복지국가변동과관련하여불

안정하고부적절한연금과불만족스러운서비스를제공하는민간공급을이용하는경우이다. 테일러-구비가

정리한신사회위험의발생 역중한국적인상황에서의미가떨어지는세번째 역, 즉국가복지의민 화

에서발생하는위험을제외한다면결국신사회위험이논의되는지점은크게보아노동시장과인구가족구조

의변화가발생되는지점으로볼수있다. 뒤에서보겠지만서구에서새롭게나타나는핵심적인사회투자프

로그램의 부분은모두노동시장과인구가족구조의변화에 응하는정책들에집중되어있다.

3. 사회투자론의개념화：사회투자‘전략’

사회투자에관한서구의문헌에서는‘사회투자국가’social investment state, ‘사회투자전략’social

investment strategy 그리고‘사회투자정책’social investment policy이란용어가다양하게등장한다.

사회투자론의큰맥락에포함시킬수있는연구자들내에서도논자에따라사회투자국가라는용어를주로

사용하는가하면(Lister, 2003, 2004)3), 세용어를모두사용하는경우도있고(Perkins et.al. 2004), 사회

투자전략(혹은정책)이란용어를주로사용하고사회투자‘국가’라는용어를거의사용하지않는경우등

(Esping-Andersen, 2002a. 2002b;Taylor-Gooby, 2006) 다양한편차가있다4). 리스터는이용어가다

56



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

3) 주지하듯이사회투자국가라는용어는 국‘신노동당’노선의경제∙사회정책에이론적기반을제공한앤서니기든스의1998년저작The ThirdWay에서처음사용되었는데(Giddens, 1998:제4장). 최근기든스는‘제3의길’을‘새로운사회민주주의’new social democracy로불러달라고

주문하고있다(Giddens, 2004).4) 물론리스터처럼일관되게사회투자국가라는용어를사용하는경우도에스핑안데르센의사회투자전략을인용하는등사회투자라는용어와개념

을자신의논의에사용하고있다.

5) 사실사회투자론자들이집중적으로분석하고정책적예를들고있는나라는 국과캐나다정도이다(Lister, 2004;Dufour and Morrison, 2005).6) 사회투자국가를 국식제3의길노선과동일한경제, 사회개혁패러다임으로인식하는경우와복지체제의새로운유형으로사용하는용법이가져

오는문제점에 해서는김 순(2007)의비판이있었다. 김 순의이러한비판에 한논의와재반론은「경제와사회」2007년가을호(통권75호)

에실릴김연명(2007)과양재진(2007)의 을참고하기바라며이 에서는자세한논의를생략하기로한다.

상시키고지식경제에서의성공을위해개인과사회를적응시킴. 일곱째사회정책과경제정책을통합적으

로사고함, 그러나사회정책은여전히경제정책의시녀(handmaiden)임. 여덟째, 표적화됨(targeted), 그

리고자산조사프로그램을선호함. 이러한리스터의정리는사회투자국가의핵심요소라는표현을사용하

고있음에도불구하고‘실용적차원’의사회투자론, 즉사회투자전략의특징을상당부분내포하고있는것

으로보인다8). 이러한두연구자의정리는상호공통점을갖고있는가하면사회정책의우위성을강조하는

등약간의강조점의차이가보이기도한다. 때문에상당히추상적차원에제시된이러한논의들을정책프로

그램수준으로낮추어보면사회투자전략의특징을좀더명확하게이해할수있다. 다음절에서는구체적

인프로그램위주로사회투자전략의내용과특징을파악해보기로한다.

2. 사회투자전략의주요프로그램

최근사회투자와관련된각종문헌에서제기하고있는사회투자전략의주요프로그램을몇가지로나누

어보면첫째, 근로연계복지와적극적노동시장정책등을포괄하는‘활성화정책’activation policy, 둘째,

아동과여성친화적정책등의사회복지서비스프로그램, 그리고세번째로자산형성asset-building 접근법

등으로분류할수있다9). 첫번째로근로연계복지나적극적노동시장정책은정책이나온맥락이다르지만

노동가능한실업자나빈곤층을전통적인현금수당을지급함으로써보호하는것이아니라교육훈련을통해

노동시장안으로통합시키려는공통점을갖고있어 부분의사회투자관련문헌에서이정책을사회투자전

략의주요프로그램으로보고있다(Perkins. et.al, 2004: 4-5; Taylor-Gooby, 2006;14-16). 국노동당

정부에서시행된새로운고용전략New Deal Program이 표적인예로많이언급되는데이시각에서는

청년혹은성인실업자에 한현금지원을줄이고직업훈련이나평생교육같은능력개발프로그램을강조한

다. 또한근로연계복지는미국에서발생된신자유주의적정책으로알려져있으나사회투자전략에서는이를

노동가능빈곤층을노동시장안으로통합시키는‘활성화전략’의일환으로인식하고있다. 테일러구비는

1990년에유럽각국의노동시장정책과빈곤정책의변화를논의하면서노동시장의탈규제, 저임금직종에의

취업장려, 적극적노동시장정책, 공공부조에서의사례관리등을유급노동화전략으로통칭하여부르며이

것을“노동력의동원”으로표현하고있다(Taylor-Gooby, 2006:14). 사회투자전략에서활성화전략을중시

하는이유는노동시장구조의변화로저기술, 저학력의노동자가실업과빈곤에노출될위험성이높고지속

적인사회적배제를경험하기때문에교육훈련등을통해이들을노동시장안에통합함으로써사회적배제

를사전적으로예방하는효과에주목하기때문이며, 이것을일종의기회의재분배로인식하고있다.


는경우이다. 이렇게경제∙사회구조의변화에 한실용적 응으로서사회투자론을수용할경우사회투

자‘국가’라는용어는이런문제의식을수용하기에는포괄하는의미가너무넓다. 이런이유로이하에서는

사회복지혹은넓게는사회정책분야에서의새로운전략(혹은정책) 이라는의미에서사회투자전략(혹은

사회투자정책)이란용어를사용하기로한다. 사회투자를사회정책분야에한정된새로운복지전략정도의

수준으로 수용하는연구자들은 에스핑 안데르센(Esping-Andersen, 2002a, 2002b), 테일러-구비

(Taylor-Gooby, 2006), 그리고쉬라든(Sherraden, 2006) 등을들수있다. 다음절에서는사회투자전략

에초점을맞추어이전략의특징과주요프로그램등의내용을살펴보기로한다7).

1. 사회투자전략의특징

사회투자전략에 한학계의합의된정의를찾기는쉽지않으나나름 로이전략의특징을정리해보려

는연구가있다. 먼저퍼킨스와그의동료들은사회투자의기본골격 social investment framework에

한정 한정의는없지만세가지의공통점을이모델에서추려낼수있다고한다(Perkins, et.al., 2004:2-

4). 첫번째로사회투자모델의주요관심은경제정책과사회정책을통합시키는데있다. 이들에의하면“사

회투자는사회적지출을낭비적이고의존성의근원으로보는신자유주의적비판에효과적으로응답하려는

것을목적으로한다”(Perkins et.al., 2004:2). 즉, 사회투자전략에서는사회정책을경제적‘부담’혹은반

생산적인요소로보는신자유주의와는달리사회정책이인적자본을강화시켜주는투자적기능을하기때

문에경제에매우생산적인역할을하는것으로인식한다. 두번째특징은사회투자는전통적인소득재분배

를통한평등보다새로운사회적위험에능동적으로적응할수있는능력을길러주는기회의재분배에 한

투자, 특히인적자본에 한투자를강조한다. 세번째로사회투자전략은교육과훈련을통해많은사람들

을경제활동에참여하도록지원하는것에초점을둔다(활성화전략).

일관되게사회투자국가라는용어를즐겨사용하는리스터는사회투자‘국가’의핵심요소를다음과같은

여덟가지로정리하고있다(Lister, 2004:160). 첫째, ‘세금과지출’을 신하여사회투자라는담론이사용

되는것. 둘째, 인적자본과사회적자본의투자：아동과지역사회가상징임. 셋째, 아동이미래의시민노동

자로서우선권이주어지고성인의사회적시민권은노동의무에의해규정됨. 넷째, 미래지향적임. 다섯째,

평등을촉진하는소득의재분배보다사회통합을촉진하는기회의재분배에초점. 여섯째, 국제경쟁력을향

58



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

7) 사회투자론을사회투자전략수준으로이해한다하더라도규범적수준에서사회투자국가를주창하는문헌과그논리들을사회투자전략에서언급

하지않을수없다. 리스터도사회투자국가를‘규범적’차원에서이해하는경우와‘실용적’차원에서이해하는것이‘서로얽혀있다’intertwined고보고있다(Lister, 2004:175).

8) 앞에서리스터는사회투자국가라는용어가‘규범적’, ‘실용적’, 그리고도구적차원세수준에서이해되고있다는점을서술하 다. 리스터는그가

정리한 사회투자국가의 여덟 가지 요소가 어떤 차원에 속한 것인지명확하게 밝히지 않고 있으나 그 내용을 보면‘규범적’차원과‘실

용적’차원을혼합한것으로보인다. 즉, 리스터의정리를규범적차원의사회투자‘국가’의특징으로만볼수없다는것이다.

9) 분류의근거가된문헌은 Perkins, et.al.(2004), OECD(2005), Lister(2003), Esping-Andersen(2002b, 2002c), Sherraden(2007),Midgely(1999), Taylor-Gooby(2006) 등이다.

Ⅲ사회투자전략의특징과프로그램

지금까지살펴본것처럼서구에서사회투자전략이등장하게된것은흔히후기산업사회로의이행으로

통칭되는경제사회구조의근본적변화(Pierson, 2001)와신사회위험의출현이라는구조속에서전통적인

복지국가와신자유주의적프로그램의한계를어떻게극복할것인가라는문제의식이들어가있다. 따라서

사회투자정책이한국적맥락에서의미를가지려면한국에서도유사한위험구조의변화가목격되어야한

다. 한국사회에서사회적위험구조의변화를노동시장및인구가족구조의변화라는측면에서간단히살펴

보기로한다10).

1. 사회적위험구조의변화

외환위기이후한국사회는기업간( 기업과중소기업), 산업구조(수출과내수산업), 그리고노동시장

구조에서급격한양극화가발생되고있다(국민경제자문회의, 2006). 양극화의양상은여러가지지표로확

인된다. 먼저근로자의임금격차가확 되고있다. 1998년72.8%이던 기업근로자와중소기업근로자의

현금급여격차가2003년에는65.1%로확 되었다(노동부, 2003). 고용구조의양극화는더욱심하게발생

하고있다. 1993년에서 2000년까지 7년간소득 5분위와 6분위에해당하는중간수준의일자리가 27만개

줄어든반면에하위1, 2위분위일자리와상위9, 10분위일자리는각각62만개와 56만개가늘어났다(전

병유외, 2006). 특히저임금일자리의상승은 부분의여성들이진입한것으로보고되고있다. 경제와고

용구조의양극화로빈곤층의규모도늘고있다. 소득이최저생계비이하인절 빈곤층의규모는1996년전

체가구의3.1%에불과했으나2000년에는8.2%로급격히상승하 고, 2003년에는10.4%를기록하 다

(여유진∙김미곤∙김태완∙양시현, 2005:133). 이는10가구중1가구가절 빈곤상태에처해있음을의

미한다. 특히절 빈곤층중에서도근로빈곤층의증가양상도눈에띈다. 근로빈곤층의규모는절 빈곤층

의약50%를점유하고있는것으로추정된다. 소득분배의양극화는교육기회의격차로이어지고있다. 한

조사에의하면1998년도시가구의하위10%의 학진학률이63% 고, 상위10%는68%로약5%의격차

를보 으나 2003년에는하위 10% 가구의진학률이 73%, 상위 10%의진학률이 81%로격차가 8%로벌

어졌다(이 , 2005). 소득양극화에따른교육기회의격차는누구라도교육을통해비교적원활한신분상승

의기회를가질수있었던한국사회에가장심각한위협이되고있다. 때문에저소득층의인적자본확충을

위한적극적사회정책없이는빈곤의세습화와저소득층의사회적배제현상이강화될가능성이높다.


둘째로아동복지와여성친화적인정책은에스핑안데르센에의해 표적인사회투자프로그램으로강조

되었다(Esping-Andersen, 2002b, 2002c). 사회투자전략의상징으로언급되는아동복지를강조하는이

유는아동기에불리한환경에서자라인적자본을축적하지못한경우성인기의실업과빈곤으로이어질가

능성이높다는인식에근거하고있다. 즉아동기에불리한성장조건을사회적개입을통해해소함으로써노

동시장에서의성공을촉진할수있다는것이다. 2020년까지아동빈곤을완전히해소하겠다는 국의

Sure-Start 프로그램과캐나다의Campaign 2000 으로불리는아동빈곤해소프로그램이 표적인사례로

언급된다. 이시각에서는아동을보호해야할 상이기보다는‘미래의시민노동자’Citizen-Workers of

the Future로규정하고(Lister, 2003) 아동의성장발달을지원하는교육, 보육, 의료등의프로그램이종합

적으로주어진다. 여성친화적인정책은여성고용이증가하는상황에서여성에게일과가정을양립가능하

게하여노동력공급을원활하게해주고, 여성친화적인고용과직업이아동양육시간을확보해줌으로써아

동의건전한성장발달에 향을미친다는점에서적극적으로강조되고있다. 또한맞벌이가아닌경우빈

곤에빠질확률이높기때문에가구빈곤을막기위해서도여성의노동참여가적극적으로권장된다. 에스핑

안데르센은여성친화적인정책의핵심으로서첫째, 적절한가격의보육제공, 둘째, 유급출산휴가, 그리고

더욱중요한것은유급아동양육휴가, 셋째로아동이아플경우결근을인정해주는세가지요소를핵심적으

로들고있다(Esping-Andersen, 2002c:94).

세번째로자산형성접근법은쉬라든교수(Sherraden, 1992)에의해미국에서논의되기시작하여최근

국, 싱가폴, 캐나다등으로확산되고있는프로그램이며최근한국에서도‘아동발달계좌’Children

Development Account라는형태로제도화가이루어지고있다. 이프로그램의기본아이디어는단순히

저소득층이나취약계층에게공공부조를통해현금을지원하는것외에‘저축’으로상징되는물적자산을

형성시켜줌으로써성인저소득층과아동이노동시장에적응할수있는물적기반(주거비, 교육비등)을형

성시켜주고공공부조수혜자의근로의욕의감소를줄이자는전략이다(Sherraden, 2006). 국의경우는

2002년이후태어난모든아동에게£250-£500 파운드를일시금으로나누어주어저축하게하는형태를

취하고있으며캐나다, 싱가폴에서는교육비에충당하기위한별도의교육계좌를시행하고있는데이프로

그램의 부분은사회투자전략에이론적기반을두고있다.

지금까지본사회투자전략의핵심프로그램들은고전적복지국가의핵심적프로그램을이루었던소득보

장제도와는구별되는특징을보이고있다. 고전적복지국가가소득상실등의위험으로구사회적위험에

처하는소득보장프로그램위주의복지정책이짜여졌다면사회투자전략에서는시민들의노동시장적응을

지원하는프로그램들이핵심을이루고있다는점에서전통적복지정책과뚜렷하게구별되는특징을갖고

있다. 물론노동시장적응프로그램들은이미보편적인소득보장프로그램을어느정도갖춘고전적복지국

가의바탕위에서성립되는정책들이다. 뒤에서논의하겠지만사회투자전략을우리나라에적용할경우반

드시몇개의핵심적프로그램만을사회투자프로그램으로한정시키는것보다는좀더넓은의미로정의할

필요성이있다.

60



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅳ사회투자전략필요성

10) 한국사회의위험구조변화는이미다른보고서에서자세히서술되어있으므로(정책기획위원회, 2006a: 제1장, 국민경제자문회의, 2006: 제1부;

최경수∙문형표외, 2003) 간단히언급하고자한다.

투자의필요성이높아지고있다. 한국경제의성장원천에 한기존의연구에의하면한국은선진국경제에

비해총요소생산성향상과같은질적요소에의한성장기여율은매우낮고단순히양적요소투입증 에

의존한성장패턴을보여왔다. 한국경제가구조적저성장국면으로빠지지않기위해서는양적투입의존형

성장에서벗어나혁신과생산성향상이주도하는성장단계로이행해가야하는데이러한혁신주도형성장

단계에서는인적자본의향상이핵심적인요소라할수있다(국민경제자문회의, 2006; 최요철∙김은 ,

2007). 즉, 한국경제의성장동력을요소투입중심의물적자본에서벗어나인적자본이구현하는기술또는

지식을기반으로하는경제로전환시켜야하는데사회투자전략은바로이러한인적자본확충의필요성을

충족시킬수있는가장유력한전략중의하나이다.

선진국에서부상하고있는사회투자전략은이미고전적복지국가단계를거치면서기초적인소득보장프

로그램이완비된상태에서나온것이다. 한국에서사회투자전략의필요성을신사회위험의출현과새로운

성장전략의필요성이라는시각에서찾는다고해도기초적사회안전망이취약한한국사회에그 로적용

하기는어렵다. 한국의사회복지발전단계는사회보험과공공부조의사각지 에서보듯이아직도기본적

인소득보장프로그램에서보편주의를달성하지못한상태에있다. 한국사회에서사회투자전략이신사회

위험에 처하기위한패러다임으로서가능성과유용성이있다는것을인정한다고해도고전적소득보장

프로그램이완성되지못한한국의상황에서는논의해보아야할지점이많다. 몇가지핵심적인쟁점을짚

어보자.

1. 소득보장프로그램의 체물인가보완물인가?

고전적복지국가를경험하지못한한국상황에사회투자전략을적용할경우가장핵심적쟁점은사회투

자프로그램을고전적소득보장프로그램과유기적으로결합시키는문제일것이다. 이것은사회투자정책이

고전적인소득보장프로그램을 체하는것인가? 아니면상호보완적인가? 하는문제이다. 기존의사회투

자관련문헌에서는 체로고전적인프로그램과사회투자프로그램을 체관계가아닌상호보완적인관계

로보고있다. 예를들어에스핑안데르센과팔리어는아동에 한예방적이고치료적인장기적인사회정책

전략들에 있어서 빈곤가정에 한 적절한 소득보장프로그램이 선결조건임을 상당히 강조하고 있다

(Esping-Andersen, 2002a:10; 2002b:66; Palier, 2006:115). 즉사회투자전략은고전적소득지원프로

그램이결합되어야효과를발휘할수있다는점을강조하면서사회투자전략은고전적프로그램의 체물



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

급속한저출산∙고령화역시신사회위험의가능성을높여주고있다. 2005년924만명으로전체인구의

19.1%를차지한유년인구는2050년에380만명, 9.0%로급격히하락할것으로보인다. 반면2005년438

만명으로총인구의9.1%를차지한노인인구는2050년에1,579만명으로늘어나전체인구의37.3%에이

를것으로예측되고있다. 이것이의미하는바는2015년을기점으로생산가능인구가급속히감소하는반면

부양을필요로하는노인인구가급속히늘어나노인부양문제가큰사회적문제로부각될것이라는점이다.

인구구조의변화는잠재성장률을크게하락시킬것으로예상되고있으며생산인구의감소는노인인력의

적극적활용, 기존생산인구의인적자본향상을통한 생산성향상의필요성을더욱증 시키게될것이다.

이처럼인구하나하나가중요해지는상황에서는노동시장정책, 교육정책, 보건복지정책등이개개인의인

적자본향상에기여할수있는여건을갖출필요가있다.

복지적역할을담당하던전통적인가족기능의약화역시새로운사회적위험구조로등장하고있다. 1990

년에 3.7명에달하던평균가족원수가 2000년 3.1명으로떨어졌으며, 단독가구의비율도 90년 9.6%에서

2000년에15.5%로높아졌고, 여성가구주의비율도같은기간에15.7%에서18.5%로증가했다. 여성경제

활동참가율은90년에557만명에서2003년에686만명으로129만명이증가하 다(통계청, 2004). 하지

만한국의여성경제활동참여율은OECD 평균과비교하여 9.4%, 졸이상고학력여성의경우는 20.5%

포인트가낮은수준에있다. 특히가임기여성의경제활동참여율은선진국에비해적게는 10% 많게는

30%(스웨덴) 이상낮아여성의경제활동인구가더늘어날개연성이충분하다. 이러한가족구조와여성경

제활동인구의증가는아동과노인에 한케어를가족이책임지던과거와는다른방식의문제해결을요구

하고있다.

최근의한국사회의경제, 사회적변화를보면후기산업사회의신사회적위험으로볼수있는다양한위

험들, 즉여성고용의확 로인한일과가정의양립문제, 노인케어의문제, 근로빈곤층의문제, 저출산∙

고령화등의문제가뚜렷하게출현하고있다는것이다. 이러한사회적위험은전통적인소득보장프로그램

으로 처하기어려우며새로운사회정책프로그램, 즉, 신사회위험에 처하기위한사회투자전략이필요

하다는것이다.

2. 새로운성장전략과사회투자전략

앞에서서술한한국의경제사회구조의변화와완전히구분되는것은아니지만한국의사회발전단계를

고려할때사회투자전략의필요성이높은또다른이유를발견할수있다. 한국은그동안높은경제성장을

통해경제운용에필요한사회간접자본등에 한투자, 즉, ‘물적투자’를어느정도갖추어놓았다. 하지만

물적자본량을증가시킴으로써경제발전을도모하는‘요소투입적경제성장전략’은 IMF 외환위기이후한

계에도달했다는것이일반적인평가이다(국민경제자문회의, 2006). 특히전세계적으로지식기반사회가

도래하는상황에서한국이선진경제로진입하기위해서는지식기반경제의바탕이되는인적자본에 한

62


Ⅴ사회투자전략적용의쟁점

의노동력을양성하는프로그램에초점을두고있기때문에이정책의효과성은결국적절한일자리의제공

과관련된다. 에스핑안데르센은사회투자로서의사회복지전략에서이점을강조하고있는데그는 여성에

게일과가정을양립할수있는일자리가수반되지않으면공공복지제도하나만으로일과직장을양립가능

하게하기어렵다고주장하고있다(Esping-Andersen, 2002c:94). 노동가능한빈곤층이나실업자를노동

시장안으로통합시키려는활성화전략도유사한문제에노출될수있다. 즉, 사회투자전략은사람들에게인

적자본을축적시켜노동시장안으로보내는것을의미하기때문에노동시장안에서적절한일자리가제공

되지않으면정책적한계를갖게된다. 한국에서사회투자정책의 상이되는 부분의인구집단은기술과

학력수준이취약한가구(그가구의아동)일가능성이높기때문에이들이시장을통해제공되는일자리를

지속적으로확보하는데는한계가있을것으로보인다. 때문에당분간은공공부문에서제공하는사회적일

자리가사회투자전략, 특히저소득층과실업자들을노동시장안으로통합시키는데전략에서매우중요한

위치를차지할것이며이런의미에서사회투자전략은공공부문에서의일자리창출등국가전반의고용전

략과의결합성을높여나가야한다. 특히공공과민간무문모두에서교육, 보건의료, 보육등사회서비스산

업의활성화와고용창출, 그리고사회투자프로그램을체계적으로결합시키는방향이필요하다.

3. 정책인프라의문제

사회투자전략은개개인의인적자본확충혹은개인의능력개발에초점을두는프로그램이기때문에인

적자본이제 로형성될수있는환경조성이매우중요하다. 때문에노동시장에원활히진입∙적응할수있

도록인적자본축적프로그램과이를가능케하는가정및지역사회환경을조성하는접근이필요하며, 이

를위해서는직장환경, 가정환경, 지역사회환경, 교육환경등의제반환경이불리해지지않도록환경을조

성해주어야한다. 사회투자정책의핵심적목표인인적자본확충의예를들어보자. 인적자본은일부에서이

해하듯이학습능력(인지능력)을향상시키는공교육프로그램만을의미하지는않는다. 인적자본의향상은

좋은교육프로그램뿐만아니라좋은가정및지역사회환경조성과보건의료정책, 그리고직업능력개발사

업등의노동시장정책, 그리고문화, 체육정책등이통합적으로결합되어야가능하다. 인적자본에관한

OECD의보고서에서는인적자본을“경제적활동과관련하여 개인들에게내재되어있는지식, 기술, 역량

competence, 그리고다른속성들”로정의하고있으며(1998:9), “인적자본을향상시키기위한어떤전략

도인적자본이창출되고사용되는사회적환경 social settings - 학교, 각종조직, 노동시장, 지역사회, 그

리고각종국가제도와문화- 의 향력을인식할필요가있다”고서술하고있다(1999:10). 따라서적절한

학교교육뿐만이아니라적절한다른사회적환경이갖추어지지않을경우12) 모든사회구성원에게시장경제

에적응하는기회의평등이제공될수없다. 따라서사회투자정책은보건복지, 교육, 고용정책, 청소년∙가

족∙여성정책, 문화∙체육정책등사회정책프로그램간의결합도를높여야소기의목적을달성할수있다.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

이아니라는점을확실하게하고있다11). 저소득층의자산형성프로그램을주장한쉬라든교수역시빈곤층

에 한생활지원프로그램과자산형성프로그램이상호보완적관계에있으며자산형성프로그램이공공

부조를완전히 체하는프로그램이아니라는점을강조하고있다(Sherraden, 2006).

충실한현금지급프로그램이사회투자전략의전제조건이라는주장은한국사회복지전략에서여전히타

당한주장으로수용되어야한다. 즉, 고전적복지국가혹은사회연 적사회복지가갖는의의가부정되어서

는안된다. 하지만한국적상황에서는고전적복지국가에서나타난최소한의사회안전망(소득보장프로그

램)을보편주의적으로갖추어야하는과제와사회투자전략으로상징되는새로운사회정책흐름을수용하

는과제가프로그램의개발과사회정책예산배분과정에서서로충돌할가능성이높은것이현실이다. 물론

고전적프로그램과사회투자프로그램이반드시충돌되는것은아니다. 한국의사회정책프로그램중상당

수가현재까지도확 단계에있기때문에고전적프로그램과사회투자프로그램을결합시킬가능성이상

당히열려있다. 가령국민기초생활보장법을차상위계층으로확 하는경우차상위계층에게교육훈련프

로그램이나자산형성프로그램, 그리고창업등의자활프로그램을적극적으로시행함으로써노동시장을

통한빈곤탈출을도와줄수있다. 또한현재확 중인실업및고용 책을단순히현금지원적프로그램에

집중하기보다는교육훈련과평생교육확 를통한노동시장으로의통합에보다역점을둘수있다. 그리고

일과가정의양립을위한보육강화, 출산양육휴가등의복지, 노동시장정책은이미김 중정부와노무현정

부에서강조되어추진된정책들이다. 그리고보건의료에 한정부지출은서구의사회투자론에서거의언

급되지않는프로그램이나WHO같은기관에서는이미1990년 중반에보건의료지출을‘투자’라는개념

으로규정하고있음을상기할필요가있다. 한국사화에서도노령화가급속히진행되는시점에서부족한공

공의료에 한투자는미래의막 한의료비용을줄일수있는사회투자적관점에충분히부합된다. 때문에

한국적상황에서는사회투자전략을보건의료까지포함하는넓은의미로사용할필요가있다.

2. 일자리의창출과사회투자전략

사회투자전략은궁극적으로보건복지, 교육, 노동정책을통해일반인과취약계층의인적자본을향상시

켜이들을노동시장안에서원활하게적응시키는데초점을두고있다. 즉사회투자전략은일종의노동력공

급(동원)을통한고용율향상전략이다. 물론사회투자전략이 강제적인노동력동원전략은아니다. 사회

투자전략은노동시장에서의‘적응가능성’adaptability과‘고용가능성’employability을최 한높이고

고용을통해 인간의자아실현과자긍심을실현할수있다는가정을갖고있으며이것이전통적인소득보장

프로그램과구별되는측면이기도한다. 사회투자전략이지식기반사회, 양극화사회에적응할수있는양질

64


11) 사회투자로서의복지개념을강조한에스핑안데르센의2002년책서문을쓴반덴부로크벨기에노동사회부장관은“사회투자는사회적지출의

체물이아니다”라고 언급하고있다(Vandenbrouche, 2002:x).

사회투자론은변화해가고있는서구자본주의의경제, 사회적환경속에서고전적복지국가체제를공격

하는신자유주의담론과정책을극복하는과정에서제기된것이다. 사회투자정책의궁극적목표는국민개

개인의인적자본을향상시켜고용가능성을높이고이를통해경제의성장잠재력을제고시키는것이다. 사

회정책은지식기반사회가작동하기위한전제조건이되어가고있으며, 최근에OECD에서도지적하듯이

‘잘설계된사회정책’은경제에상당히긍정적인 향을미치게된다(OECD, 2005). 앞에서보았듯이최

근한국의경제사회구조의변화는새로운사회정책패러다임을필요로하고있다. 이런의미에서신자유주

의적사회정책에 응하기위해출현한‘사회투자전략’은변화된경제사회적조건하에서경제성장과사회

복지를결합시켜야하는한국의상황에서새로운한국사회의사회정책패러다임으로서추진해볼충분한

가치가있는것으로판단된다.

문제와비판할점은많지만1987년이후한국은복지프로그램이지속적으로팽창되어왔고, 김 중정부

를거치면서복지국가초기모습을갖추는데에이르 다고평가할수있다(김연명편, 2002). 하지만사회

투자개념에입각한사회복지프로그램은그야말로초기적단계에있다. 〈표 6-1〉은사회투자전략의프로

그램으로분류할수있는적극적노동시장정책과가족관련사회지출의규모를비교한것이다. 직업훈련및

고용서비스등에지출되는비용인적극적노동시장정책에관한한국의지출규모는 2003년에GDP 비

0.2%로OECD 평균0.6%에크게미달하고있으며지출순위는OECD 회원국중26위로최하위권에위치

해있다. 아동보육과출산∙육아지원에사용되는‘가족관련지출’역시GDP 비 0.1%로OECD 평균

2.1%와는비교가안될정도로낮은수준에있다.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

동시에사회투자정책은에스핑안데르센도강조했듯이성공적발달단계진입을위한생애주기별접근이

필요하다(Esping-Andersen, 2002a:6-7). 즉, 특정생애주기의결함이그이후의발달단계에서장애를일

으키지않고긍정적효과를발휘하도록모든사회정책프로그램의생애단계별효과를고려하여추진되어

야한다. 가령특히아동및청소년기에인지, 정서, 신체능력의발달이성인기의성공적노동시장적응으

로나타나도록사회정책프로그램이생애주기별로통합적으로짜여질필요가있다.

사회투자정책의 부분은단순히현금을지급하는정책이아니라인간개개인의특성파악을통해인적

자본향상과고용가능성을높이는전략이기때문에섬세하고세 한행정체계가요구된다. 가령노동능력

이있는빈민에게단순하게현금을지급하기위해서는소득파악과현금지급을위한전달체계만이필요하

다면이사람의기술능력을향상시켜노동시장안으로통합시키기위해서는개별상담인력, 교육훈련시

설, 직업안전망등의인프라가필수적이다. 즉, 한국처럼사회복지, 사회정책의인프라가제 로정비되어

있지않은상황에서는사회투자정책이제 로된효과를발휘하기어렵다. 특히모든서비스가실제적으로

집중되는지역단위에서의효율적인사회정책인프라구축이매우중요하다. 지역단위에서보건정책, 복지

정책, 교육정책, 고용정책등의인프라가상호유기적으로결합되어야사회투자정책의효과성이발휘될수

있다. 때문에사회정책과관련된교육부, 복지부, 노동부, 문광부, 청소년위원회등중앙부처간의유기적협

력은물론지자체와중앙정부간에제 로된정책협력체계를갖추는것이필수적이다.

66


Ⅵ결론과전망

12) 인적자본의창출과관련된생애에걸친환경을OECD 보고서에서는아래와같이다양하게보고있다(1998:12). ①공식교육제도：아동조기교

육, 학교의무교육, 의무교육이후의직업혹은일반교육, 학등의고등교육, 성인교육등. ②기업에서행해지는직업훈련과공적으로제공되는

노동시장직업훈련등의비공식교육. ③여러상이한조직에서의근무와R&D 같은특별한활동을통해얻은경험(직업을통해얻은기술수준은

순 인적자본 형성에 가장 강력한 향을 미치는 요인 중의 하나가 될 수 있다. ④ 가족, 지역사회, 그리고 interest networks 같은 더

욱‘비공식적환경’에서발생하는상당한양의관련된학습. 가족내부와 유아보육환경에서키워진학습과학습준비는미래의인적자본형성

에중요한기초가된다. 가정에서의학습은매체와정보네크워크에 한접근이확장됨에따라서잠재적으로더욱풍부화될수있다. 비공식적환

경은개별국가들이다양하고, 개별화된형태의학습쪽으로이동해가면서중요성이더해지고있다.

〔그림5-1〕인적자본향상을위한사회정책의통합적접근개념도

인지능력 정서능력 신체능력 기술능력

정규교육방과후�교육

(보육∙교육정책)

부모훈련서비스정신건강/상담서비스

인관계�훈련(문화∙복지정책) 자활사업

직업능력개발사업(고용정책)

여건조성�복지프로그램

가족∙여성∙청소년정책

공공보건정책의료보장정책산업안전정책

생활체육정책

인적자본의�향상

비율 순위 비율 순위

스웨덴 1.3 2 3.5 3

독일 1.1 4 1.9 15

프랑스 1.1 4 3.0 9

국 0.5 15 2.9 11

일본 0.3 20 0.7 27

미국 0.1 27 0.7 27

한국 0.2 26 0.1 29

OECD 평균 0.6 - 2.1 -

적극적노동시장정책 가족관련지출

〈표6-1〉OECD 주요국의가족및적극적노동시장정책지출의GDP 비율(2003)

(단위: %, 등)

비고：순위는OECD 회원30개국가중터키를제외한순위임.

자료：OECD, Social Expenditure Database, 2007

국민경제자문회의(2006). 동반성장을위한새로운전략과비전：일자리창출을위한패러다임전환. 교보문고.

김연명편(2002). 한국복지국가성격논쟁. 인간과복지

김연명(2007). 우리나라에서사회투자론논의의쟁점. 경제와사회. 2007년가을호(제75호). 한국산업사회학회.

김 순(2007). 사회투자국가가우리의 안인가?: 최근한국의사회투자국가논의와그문제점. 경제와사회. 2007년여름

호(통권74호).

김윤태(2005). 국복지국가의전환：사회정책의가능성과한계. 사회복지정책. 통권21호. 한국사회복지정책학회.

노동부(2003). 기업체노동비용조사보고서.

박순우(2007). 사회정책의변화와사회투자전략: 국의사례. 김연명외. 우리나라에서의사회투자정책적용방안연구. 보

건복지부∙중앙 사회복지학과.

보건복지부(2007). 사회투자와보건복지정책(안).

양재진(2007). 사회투자국가가우리의 안이다: 사회투자국가비판론에 한반비판. 경제와사회. 2007년가을호(제75

호). 한국산업사회학회.

양재진, 김 순, 안재흥(2007). 한국형사회투자국가모델형성을위한기초연구. 재정경제부∙한국사회과학연구협의회.

여유진∙김미곤∙김태완∙양시현∙최현수(2005). 빈곤과불평등의동향및요인분해. 한국보건사회연구원.

윤홍식(2007). 가족∙여성정책의사회투자와한국복지국가. 김연명외. 우리나라에서의사회투자정책적용방안연구. 보건

복지부∙중앙 사회복지학과.

이 (2005).교육이동성측면에서본양극화의실태와해소방안：고등교육을중심으로. 한국교육개발원. 교육정책포럼.

2005년12월호통권118호.

임채원(2006). 신자유주의를넘어사회투자국가로. 한울.

_______(2007). 사회투자국가：미래한국의새로운길. 한울.

전병유외(2006). 노동시장양극화와정책과제. 한국노동연구원.

정부∙민간합동작업단(2006). 함께가는희망한국VISION 2030.

정책기획위원회(2006a). 선진복지한국의비전과전략. 동도원.

________________(2006b). 사회비전2030.

최경수∙문형표∙신한석∙한진희편(2003). 인구구조고령화의경제적 향과 응과제(Ⅰ). 한국개발연구원.

최요철∙김은 (2007). 산업별인적자본의추계와성장요인분석. 조사통계월보2007년2월호. 한국은행.

통계청2004. 한국의사회지표.

Dufour, Pascale and Ian Morrison.(2005). The State of the Social Investment State in the Field of Employment

Policy. Canadian Journal of Career Development. Volume 4. Number 1. special issue - welfare to work.

pp.1-9.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta.(1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta.(2002c). A New Gender Contract. in Esping-Andersen, Gosta. et.al, Why We Need a

New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta.(2002a). Towards a Good Society. Once Again? in Esping-Andersen, Gosta. et.al, Why

We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.


#참고문헌<표6-1>의자료는2003년까지의상황을반 한것이며집권중반기부터강화되기시작한노무현정부의

사회투자강화정책을반 하지못하고있다. 노무현정부는후기산업사회의변화에따른새로운사회정책

의필요성, 특히사회투자의필요성을매우강조했으며(정책기획위원회, 2006a, 2006b), 사회투자전략의

범주로볼수있는적극적노동시장정책, 아동및여성복지에 한예산투자를강화해왔다. 최근에복지부에

서주도한아동발달계좌(CDA)도이러한맥락에서인식할수있다(복지부, 2007). 물론한국에서사회투

자전략의발전가능성을회의적으로보는시각도있다. 그근거는사회투자전략이워낙노무현정부의정치

적상징물로강하게각인되어있기때문에정권이다른정당으로교체될경우급격히축소될가능성이높다

는것이다. 하지만경제구조및노동시장의양극화와급격한저출산∙고령화추세는정치에의한정책선택

의폭을극도로제한하고있음에주목할필요가있다. 앞에서언급한것처럼한국에서사회투자전략이급격

히부상할수있었던것은양극화와저출산∙고령화라는경제사회구조의급속한변화가있었기때문이다.

때문에노동시장의양극화와저출산∙고령화문제가해결되지않는이상사회투자전략은정권의속성과

상관없이한국사회의주요한사회정책전략으로자리잡게될것이다.

68

2007 International Academic Symposium of Seoul Welfare Foundation 2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄


Esping-Andersen, Gosta.(2002b). A Child-Centred Social Investment Strategy. in Esping-Andersen, Gosta. et.al,

Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

European Commission.(2001). Social Policy Agenda.

Giddens, Anthony.(1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Polity Press.

Giddens, Anthony.(2000). The Third Way and Its Critics. Polity Press.

앤서니기든스(Giddens, Anthony).(2004). 노동의미래. 신광 역. 을유문화사.(2002. Where Now for New Labour.

Polity Press).

Kim, Yeon-Myung(2006). Towards a Comprehensive Welfare State in South Korea, Working Paper No.14, Asia

Research Centre, London School of Economics,

Lister, Ruth.(2003). Investing in the Citizen-Workers of the Future: Transformations in Citizenship and the State

under New labour. Social Policy and Adminstration. 37(5).pp427-433.

Lister, Ruth.(2004) The Third Way's Social Investment State. Jane Lewis and Rebecca Surender eds.. Welfare

State Change: Towards a Third Way? Oxford University Press.

Midgley, James.(1999). Growth, Redistribution, and welfare: Toward Social Investment. Social Service Review.

March. 1999.

OECD.(1998). Human Capital Investment: An International Comparison.

OECD.(2005). Extending Opportunities: How Active Social Policy Can Benefit Us All. OECD.

OECD.(2007). Social Expenditure Database, 2007

Palier, Bruno.(2006). The Re-orientation of European Social Policies toward Social Investment.(unpublished

paper)(www.cprn.org).

Perkins, Daniel., Lucy Nelms and Paul Smyth.(2004). Beyond neo-liberalism: the social investment state?. Social

Policy Working Paper No. 3. Brotherhood of St Laurence and Center for Public Policy(University of

Melboune).

Pierson, Paul.(2001). Post-Industrial Pressures on the Mature Welfare State. in Pierson, Paul ed., The New

Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Powell, Martin and Martin Hewitt.(2002). Welfare State and Welfare Change. Open University Press.

Sherraden, Michael.(2002). Asset and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policyn From the Social Welfare State

to the Social Investment State.

Sherraden, Michael.(2003). From the Social Welfare State to the Social Investment State. Shelterforce Online.

Issue ££128. March/April 2003. National Housing Institute.

Sherraden, Michael.(2006). Asset for All : Toward Universal, Progressive, Lifelong Accounts. 노동

연구원주최사회정책의새로운패러다임워크샵발표문.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter.(2004). New Risks and Social Change. Peter Taylor-Gooby ed.. New Risks, New Welfare:

the Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter.(2006). European Welfare Reforms : The Social Investment Welfare State. Presented at

"Social Policy at a Crossroad: Trends in Advanced Countries and Implications for Korea." Organized by

the The East-West Center and KDI.

Vandenbroucke, Frank.(2002). Foreword: Sustainable Social Justice and 'Open Co-ordination in Europe. Gosta

Esping-Andersen, et. al. Why we need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

70


〃

The outlook for the post-1997 financial crisis for economic and labor market bipolarization

and the rapid decrease in birthrate and aging of the general population since 2000 is that it

would radically alter the shape of Korean society formed since 1960s industrialization.

(National Economic Advisory Council, 2006: Volume 1; Kyung-Soo Choi, Pyo-Hyung Moon, et.

al, 2003) In particular, social welfare, and more generally the social policy field as a whole has

been most directly affected by bipolarization, low birthrate and aging population, and these

are signs of further core affects yet to come. In the 1970s and 1980s when the social welfare

program was initiated in Korea, the economy was stable and consisted of for-life employment,

a relatively homogeneous labor market and a relatively young population that maintained

stable family functions. As such, (i) the Korean social welfare system was built on the premise

of a homogeneous labor markets and stable family structure and (ii) the development of social

insurance programs and the underdevelopment of social services in Korea reflected the

economic situation of the era. However, the recent phenomena of rapid increasing

bipolarization of the labor market evidenced by rising number of non-regular workers and

seminal changes in population and family structure necessitate a reevaluation of the basic

foundation of the Korean social welfare system (The Presidential Commission on Policy

Planning, 2006a : 30-83).

Ⅰ Introduction : Why 'Social Investment'?

Social Investment Strategy in Korea :Possibilities, Issues and Prospects

Seminar Report for Seoul Welfare Foundation Social Investment Strategy (Nov. 16, 2007)

Professor Yeon-myung Kim

Department of Social Welfare,

Chung-Ang University

1. Socio-Economic Shift in the Welfare State

Since the end of World War II and until the 1970s, owing to continuous economic growth, the

Western countries were able to establish the classic welfare state and thus able to

simultaneously achieve both economic growth and social integration. According to Taylor-

Gooby, the "classical welfare state" as an ideal type came about in the context of the following

favorable socio-economic conditions: Firstly, continuous economic growth supported by large

and stable manufacturing industries that provided high level of family wages for a great

number of the population; secondly, stable nuclear-family structure that provided care for the

children and the elderly as well as other dependent groups; thirdly, a government that was

able to successfully manage the national economy by implementing the neo-Keynesian

economic policies and kept the unemployment rate low and stabilized wages; a political

system in which a working-class and middle-class alliance put effective political pressure to

provide welfare allowances and services to satisfy their needs. (Taylor-Gooby, 2004:1) Out of

all the causes that Taylor-Gooby indicated, the changes in economic structure, including the

restructuring of the labor market, the demographic shift has the importance of indicating that a

crack has developed in the socio-economic base that maintained the "classic welfare state."

However, since the mid-1970s, the capitalist economic social structure that supported the

classic welfare state underwent fundamental changes and was exposed to the pressure to

change. Although there are many causes suggested for the shift in the socio-economic structure

which commonly resulted in and referred to as "the transition to the post-industrial

society,"they can be simplified into the following (Pierson, 2001:82-99; Esping-Anderson, 1999:

Chap. 9) : Firstly, a decrease in productivity and lower economic growth emerged as

employment creation shifted from manufacturing sectors to service industries. In other words,

state's financial capability for welfare programs had declined. At the same time, with the arrival

of the knowledge-based economy, chronic poverty and social exclusion have emerged among

people who have not acquired enough human capital (i.e., employable skills). Secondly, (i)

the expansion of the service industry has resulted in an increase of women in the workforce,

(ii) an increasing global competition brought about less job security, (iii) a crack began to

develop in the homogeneous and stable labor market and (iv) these resulted in a situation


Social Investment Model For Poverty PreventionSocial Investment Strategy in Korea : Possibilities, Issues and Prospects

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

The social investment perspective1) that's been getting attention by politicians and the

academic circles of social welfare has appeared as a new welfare strategy in Western countries

that have already undergone labor market and demographic shifts as Korea. As Perkins and his

colleagues have indicated, "there is an awareness in all of the social investment literature that

the model is the product of the need to respond to a radically changed economic and social

order" (Perkins et al., 2004:2). In other words, the social investment perspective, one the new

forms of welfare strategies, has risen up in response to the rapidly changing economic and

demographic structure which had formed the basis of the Golden Age of "the classic welfare

state"2) since World War II up to the mid 1970s " The basic premise of this work is that, if we

were to understand social investment perspective as a new welfare strategy which aims to

adapt to the rapidly changing socioeconomic environment in Western countries, it can afford

us significant policy implications to cope with the similar structural changes happening in

Korea. In other words, looking at the applicability of the newly emerging social investment

perspective could help us establish a new welfare strategy for Korea.

With this background, the objectives of this work are as follows: Firstly, to review the social-

economic backgrounds that gave rise to the social investment perspective from the point of

new social risks; and secondly, to examine the social investment strategy in relation to the

traditional welfare policies or social policies by examining its distinguishing characteristics and

core programs. Based on such discussions, the third objective of this work is to speculate on

the future prospects of the social investment strategy and its issues in the context of the Korean

situation. The core assertion of this work is that, in spite of its Western origins, the social

investment strategy offers a possibility of being useful as a new welfare strategy for Korea.

72


Ⅱ The Emergence of Social Investment Perspective and Its Concept

1) Mixed use of social investment 'state' and social investment 'strategy' (or 'policy) when social investment is being discussed in Koreahas been pointed out to create significant problems (Young-Soon Kim, 2007). As discussed later (in II 2), the term social investmentstate is used in multiple dimensions, and people use the three terms for different meanings but you can also find out many cases ofmixed use. The social investment perspective in this paper encompasses meanings of both social investment 'state' and socialinvestment 'strategy'. The term social investment strategy is used to mean a new paradigm in social policy area.

2) One of the common characteristics of the social investment perspective proponents is that they share a sense of issue that thetraditional welfare states in Western society should change into whatever form it may be. Thus, so as to propose a new welfarestate in a post-industrial society, they tend to describe welfare states in th past as 'traditional' or 'classic' welfare state. The term'classic' welfare state I use in this paper is borrowed from Powell and Hewitt who used it in reviewing the historicaltransformations of the British welfare state (Powell and Hewitt, 2002: Chap. 2).

choice in a privatized pension plan, medical insurance, etc. in some countries or when there is

no adequate regulation on public insurance, new social risks may emerge.

Taylor-Gooby points out that social vulnerable groups ccould be exposed to the new social

risks in the three following areas (Taylor-Gooby, 2004:5). The first area deals with the

following concerns regarding the issue of family and gender-role shift: (i) balancing work and

family responsibility, especially child rearing responsibility and (ii) having the need to care for

an elderly or an elderly person who needs care with no family support. Secondly, regarding

the labor market shift: (i) when a person lacks the necessary skills to earn adequate wages or

procure secure employment and (ii) receiving non-marketable skill training or no possibility of

developing and improving any marketable skill through continuing education. Thirdly,

regarding the welfare state shift, the problem is of having an inadequate pension and having to

rely on an inadequate public pension system. If we were to overlook the possibility of

privatization of main state welfare programs in Korea, the most significant new social risks are

the ones stemming from labor market restructuring and changing family dynamics. As will be

discussed later on, the core programs of most of the newly emerging social investment

programs in Western countries have concentrated on responses to labor market restructuring

and the changing family dynamic.

3. The Conceptualization of Social Investment Perspective: Social Investment

'Strategy'

In the social investment literatures in Western countries, the terms "social investment state",

"social investment strategy, and "social investment policy" are appear often. Even within the

circle of important researchers of social investment perspective, there are the following

discrepancies in the terms used in their work : not only are there some who use the term

"social investment state" (Lister, 2003, 2004)3), some use all the three terms (Perkins et. al.

2004); the term "social investment strategy"(or "policy") is used frequently, but "social

investment state"is almost never used (Esping-Andersen, 2002a. 2002b; Taylor-Gooby, 2006)4).



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

where a special class of people were undergoing social exclusion. Thirdly, with the increasing

numbers of women in the labor market, low birthrate and population aging , rise of single-

parents family, an obvious weakening of family support and protection for the elderly and

children occurred. These fundamental changes in economic, labor market, and demographic

structures have created new social problems that the traditional industrial society did not

foresee and are referred to as "new social risks."

2. The Emergence of New Social Risks

The main focus of the classical welfare state programs was in responding to the 'old social

risks,' i.e., reponding to income interruption or exceptional expenses due to unemployment,

old age, industrial accidents, illness. Further, its social policy programs were income

maintenance programs to compensate for the loss of income. However, post-industrial

society's so-called "socio-economic shift" brought attention to the "new social risks" that the

classical welfare state's income security programs did not encompass (Esping-Anderson,

1999;Chap 8). Taylor-Gooby's work embodies the notion of the "new social risks"and relates it

to Western countries' social changes. According to him, "new social risks are the risks that

people now face in the course of their lives as a result of the economic and social changes

associated with the transition to a post-industrial society". (Taylor-Gooby, 2004: 3-4). He

identifies four important processes in the emergence of new risks.

Firstly, the rising numbers of dual-income households and the rapid rise in women's

economic participation due to the improvement of women's education, the new social risks of

low skilled women who have trouble balancing work and family life emerge. Secondly, an

increase in the elderly population requires greater elderly care and a rapid rise of the economic

burden. Because women are generally left in charge of elderly care which makes it difficult for

women to balance work and family responsibilities and they might withdraw from the

workforce, the end result might be a reduction of the household income and increasing

likelihood of poverty. Thirdly, the production technological shift, which requires less unskilled

workers, and the labor market restructuring driven by the countries that have traditionally

utilized low paid workers bring about the risks of people of low education being socially

excluded. In other words, the lower the level of education, the higher the likelihood of the

person facing unemployment and long-term poverty. Fourthly, when a consumer makes a bad

74


3) As you are aware, the term 'social investment state' was first used in Anthony Giddens' book The Third Way (1998) which providedthe theoretical foundation for economic-social policy of British 'New Labor Party' line (Giddens, 1998: Chapter 4). 3) RecentlyGiddens has been requesting that people call the book not 'The Third Way' but 'New Social Democracy' (Giddens, 2004).

4) Of course, even when Lister consistently uses the term 'social investment state', he cites Esping-Andersen's social investmentstrategy to use the term and concept of social investment in his discussion.

economic and public finance policy. However, the social investment state has limitations as a

distinct alternative paradigm because it does not offer policy packages encompassing social,

economic and taxation policy.

However, as will be examined in the next chapter, if we were to narrow the discussion of

"social investment"to the social policy field, the social investment perspective can be seen as a

new paradigm which has its own theory and policy packages. The reason for this author's

work focusing on this point is the same as the way in which Lister uses the term "practical

response"as in (i) discussing the new welfare strategy as a way of responding to the new social

risks or (ii) using the term "social investment state" in the context of signifying "social policy

strategy." When the term "social investment perspective " is used as a way of launching a

practical response to the socio-economic changes, the term "social investment state" has too

broad a meaning to be used to refer to the awareness of the issues. For these reasons, from

here on, the term "social investment strategy" (or "social investment policy") shall be used to

refer to "social welfare" or more broadly to "new strategy" (or "new policy") in the social policy

field. The researchers who use the term "social investment strategy" to refer to "new welfare

strategy" in the field of the social policy field in a limited way are Esping-Andersen (Esping-

Andersen, 2002a, 2002b), Taylor-Gooby (Taylor-Gooby, 2006) and Sherraden (Sherraden,

2006). In the next chapter, our discussion shall focus on the concept of "social investment

strategy"and examine its special characteristics and main programs7).

1. Social Investment Strategy's Special Characteristics

It is not easy to find a definition of "social investment strategy" that the academic circle can

agree upon, but there have been researchers who tried to examine the special characteristics of

this strategy. Perkins and his colleagues argues that they can not find a precise definition of

"social investment framework,"three common points will be brought out in this model



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Lister claims that social investment state could be understood on a number of levels (Lister,

2004 : 157 -158). The first dimension which Lister calls ''normative ideal" represents values and

orientations of a future society. The second dimension means the "pragmatic response" of

mature welfare states to the economic and social challenges occurring due to globalization and

demographic changes. Thirdly, it is used as an "analytical tool" describing a particular state's

welfare system. In other words, it is used in describing a hybrid welfare regime in which a

social investment state combines the essential elements of a social democratic state and a neo-

liberal/liberal state. If we were to use the welfare regime dimension of the term, only Canada

and the United Kingdom, the liberal welfare states that concentrate on their social investment

policies, can be classified as the social investment states5).

Korean scholars have different understandings about the social investment state. Some accept

social investment state as a normative ideal for Korea. By accommodating the future-looking

values suggested by the United Kingdom's New Labour Party, Chae-Won Im (2006, 2007) asserts

the necessity of Korea adapting those points of the social investment state as a new socio-

economic paradigm. Application of the term "social investment state" in concrete analysis of

welfare states also occurs in some works on the subject. As Jae-Jin Yang and others (2007 :

Chapter 3) acknowledge the converting of Western welfare states into a social investment state

and make the following classifications : (i) the U.K. as a liberal social investment state and (ii)

Sweden as a social democratic social investment state. Using the concept of "social investment

state"as a normative ideal or as an analytical tool for classifying the welfare regimes can offer

both advantages and disadvantages6). However, in particular, there is a room for some

skepticism whether the term "social investment state" is an alternative paradigm that has an

equal level of theories and practical policies as "classical welfare state" or "neo-liberal state." For

example, in order for social investment state to become an alternative paradigm, it must be

equipped with a unique theoretical and practical perspectives with regard to social policy,

economic policy, and tax policy.

taxation and public finance policy paradigms. Of course it is not the case that there are no

works that discuss the Third Way of policy direction (Giddens, 1998, 2004) in the field of

76


Ⅲ Social Investment Strategy's Special Characteristics and Programs

5) In fact, the U.K and Canada are probably the only countries where social investment proponents conduct intensive analysis andsuggest policy examples (Lister, 2004; Dufour and Morrison, 2005).

6) Young-Soon Kim (2007) criticized of the problems brought by the fact some recognize social investment state as the sameeconomic and social reform paradigm as in The Third Way in the U.K. and others use it as a new type of welfare regimes. Refer tothe two articles written by Yeon-Myung Kim (2007) and Jae-Jin Yang (2007) for detailed discussions of and arguments against suchcriticism.

7) Although we understand the social investment theory as a social investment strategy, I cannot but mention literatures & theoriesadvocating social investment state in social investment strategy. Lister also sees that understandings of social investment state in'normative' terms and in 'practical' terms are intertwined (Lister, 2004:175).

2. The Main Programs of Social Investment Strategy

If we classify the main programs of social investment strategy suggested by recent works, we

can break them down into the following: activation policy, including workfare programs and

active labor market policy; social services represented by women-friendly policies and child

welfare, and asset-building programs9). Firstly, although workfare and active labor market

policy stem from different veins, their common point is not just traditionally paying out cash to

unemployed workers who are capable of work and the poor but integrating them into the

labor market through education and training. As such, most of the literatures dealing with

social investment considers this program to be the main program of social investment strategy

(Perkins et. al, 2004: 4 5; Taylor-Gooby, 2006 : 14-16). Many allude to the New Deal Program, a

new employment strategy carried out by the Labour Party of the U.K, which reduces the cash

support to adolescents and adult unemployed while emphasizing marketable skill

development, such as job training and continuing education. Furthermore, although workfare

is known as a neo-liberal policy developed in the United States, social investment strategy sees

this as an "activation policy" which integrates the able-bodied poor back into the labor market.

In a Taylor-Gooby' article reviewing the changes of labor market and poverty policies in

European countries, he referred deregulation in the labor market, low-income job

encouragement, active labor market policy and case management in public assistance program

as "workforce mobilization (Taylor-Gooby, 2006:14). The reason for activation policy taking on

importance in social investment strategy is because low skilled workers and workers with low

education run the risk of experiencing unemployment and social exclusion and education and

training integrates them back into the labor market. So, the emphasis is put on (i) the

prevention of social exclusion of the high-risk groups and (ii) to understand this as a

redistribution of opportunities.

Secondly, child welfare and women friendly policies have been emphasized by Esping-

Andersen as representative social investment programs (Esping-Andersen, 2002b, 2002c). The

reason for child welfare being referred to as the role model program of social investment

strategy is based on the fact that it recognizes that a child brought up in a disadvantaged

environment does not acquire adequate human capital, runs the risk of being unemployed and



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

(Perkins, et. al., 2004:2-4). Firstly, the main interest of social investment framework is

integrating economic policy and social policy. According to them, "social investment aims to

offer an effective answer to neo-liberal critiques of social spending as wasteful and a source of

dependency"(Perkins et. al., 2004:2). In other words, unlike the neo-liberal perspective which

sees welfare spendings as an economic burden," social investment strategy recognizes them as

productive factors contributing to economic growth and social stability. The second special

characteristic is that, rather than seeking an equality of outcomes through income

redistribution policy social investment emphasizes an equality of opportunity by fostering

people's abilities to allow people to voluntarily adapt to the new social risks. Thirdly, social

investment strategy has its focus on providing support to people to participate in the economy

by focusing on education and training (activation policy).

Lister, who consistently makes use of the term "social investment state,"defines the core

essence of it in the following eight ways (Lister, 2004:160): Firstly, a discourse of social

investment in place of tax and spending. Secondly, investment in human and social capital:

children and community as emblems. Thirdly, childern prioritized as citizen workers of the

future. Fourthly, future-focused. Fifthly, redistribution of opportunity to promote social

inclusion rather than of income to promote equality. Sixthly, Adaptation of individuals and

society to enhance global competitiveness and to prosper in the knowledge economy. Seventh

point is to think of social policy and economic policy in an integrated manner. However, a

social policy is still a handmaiden to an economic policy. Eighth point is to prefer targeted,

often means-tested programmes. Although Lister use the term social investment 'state', the

Lister's definition seems to include the "pragmatic response" of social investment perspective8).

In addition to the definitions of these two researchers having common features, they do slightly

diverge on where they put their emphasis. If we bring the highly abstract discussions down to

the level of policy program, we can get a clear understanding of the special characteristic of

social investment strategy. The next chapter will deal with the content and the special

characteristic of social investment strategy by way of its detailed programs.

78


8) Previously Lister mentioned that the term 'social investment state' is understood in three ways, namely, in 'normative' and 'practical'terms & as a tool. Lister does not specify clearly where the eight elements of social investment state defined by him belong.However, if you look into it, it seems that he mixed the use of 'normative' and 'practical'. In other words, we cannot say what Listerdefined is the characteristics of social investment 'state' as a normative level.

9) Literatures as the basis for the above classification include Perkins, et.al. (2004), OECD (2005), Lister (2003), Esping-Andersen(2002b, 2002c),(2007), Midgely (1999), Taylor-Gooby(2006) etc.

market. Of course, any labor market adaptation program is a policy that is established upon the

background of, and presupposes a, universal income guarantee program of a classical welfare

state to some extent. As will be discussed below, when applying social investment strategy to

Korea, it is necessary to define it, not limit it to a few applicable programs but, more broadly.

As we have seen above, the emergence of social investment strategy in the West was

generally (i) in response to the so-called fundamental socio-economic change in the post-

industrial society (Pierson, 2001) and (ii) consideration of how to overcome the limitations of

the programs of the traditional welfare state and neo-liberal policies. Consequently, if social

investment strategy were to be implemented meaningfully in the Korean context, we must pay

close attention to the similar social changes in Korea. Let us examine the changing structures of

social risks in Korean society from the aspects of labor market change and demographic

shift10).

1. Changing Structures of Social Risks

There is rapid bipolarization within the industries (both large and small), manufacturing

industries (both export and domestic) and in the labor market structure of the post-foreign

currency crisis in Korea (National Economic Advisory Council, 2006). The bipolarization can be

expressed through indexes. Firstly, the wage-gap between workers is growing. The 72.8% cash

payment gap between large industry workers and small and medium industry workers in 1998

grew to 65.1% in 2003 (Ministry of Labor, 2003). Bipolarization in the employment structures is

more severe. For the seven-year period from 1993 and 2000, the middle level jobs of income

class 5 and 6 have declined by 270,000. On the contrary, the lowest level jobs of income class 1

and 2 and the highest-level jobs of income class 9 and 10 increased by 620,000 and 560,000,



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

suffering chronic poverty as an adult. In other words, by offsetting the child's disadvantaged

upbringing prior to the child's entry into the work force, the strategy can promote a person's

success in the labor market. The Sure-Start Program of the U.K. that is designed to eliminate

child poverty by 2020 and Canada's so-called Campaign 2000 child poverty elimination

program are referred to as examples. Rather than seeing children as protective targets, this

point of view designates children as citizen workers of the future (Lister, 2003) and this

program would deliver child development support such as education, health, medical care, etc.

in an integrated manner. Women-friendly policies are actively emphasized because it smoothes

out the problems associated with women labor supply and allows women to balance work and

family responsibilities while an increasing number of women are entering the workforce. As

such, it secures women-friendly employment opportunities for women and affords women

child-rearing time. Furthermore, because a single-income household runs the risk of falling

into poverty, in order to prevent household poverty, women's participation in the workforce is

actively recommended. For core women-friendly policies, Esping-Andersen sites the following:

Firstly, affordable childcare system; secondly, paid maternity leave, and more importantly, paid

parental-leave; and thirdly, the recognition of absent when children are sick (Esping-Andersen,

2002c: 04).

Thirdly, the asset building approach was first discussed in the United States by Professor

Sherraden (Sherraden, 1992) but has recently become an expanding program in the U.K.,

Singapore, Canada, etc. and also recently instituted in Korea as the "Child Development

Account." The basic idea behind this program is, in addition to paying public cash support to

low income and vulnerable groups, to help them build material assets through savings. That in

term will afford ways for low-income adult and children to adapt to the shifting labor market

and build up living expenses and educational funds, etc. It is thereby a strategy to reduce

welfare dependency of public assistance beneficiary (Sherraden, 2006). In the case of the U.K.,

every child born since 2002 receives 250 to 500 pounds periodically to encourage savings.

Singapore and Canada have special educational savings programs that have a theoretical basis

in social investment strategy.

The core programs of social investment strategy examined up to this point exhibited

characteristics different from the core programs of a classical welfare state. If a classical welfare

state had an income maintenance programs as its core welfare policies to cope with old social

risks, the core programs of social investment strategy have a clear difference from traditional

welfare policies in that they consist of programs for supporting citizens to adapt to the labor

80


Ⅳ The Necessity of Social Investment Strategy

10) I will be brief in mentioning changed risk structures of Korean society since it is discussed in detail in another report(Commission on Policy Planning, 2006a: Ch. 1, National Economic Advisory Council, 2006: Part 1; Kyung-Soo Choi∙Hyung-PyoMoon et. al, 2003).

to 3.1 persons in 2000; a single-person household rate of 9.6% vis-?-vis the entire number of

households in 1990 increased to 15.5% in 2000; and over the same period, the rate of female-

head households increased from 15.7% to 18.5%. Women's economic participation rate of

5,570,000 in 1990 increased to 6,860,000 in 2003, an increase of 1,290,000 (KNSO, 2004).

However, compared to the OECD average, women's participation in the workforce is 9.4% less

and the working women graduating from universities is 20.5% less than the OECD average. In

particular, the economic participation rate of women aged 18-36 in Korea compared to

advanced countries is 10% less at minimum and 30% less at maximum (vis-?-vis Sweden). Thus,

there is an increased probability of more women participating in the workforce in Korea in the

future. This type of family structure change and an increased number of women in the

workforce demands a different approach to childcare and elderly care solutions than

traditional family-based child and elderly care. If we look at recent changes in the Korean

economy and social make-up, we can clearly see the emergence of new social risks in the post-

industrial society; the problems of reconciling work and family life due to a greater number of

women in the workforce; elderly care problems; the problems of the working poor, low

birthrate and population aging etc. It is very difficult to cope with such problems with a

traditional income security programs and they require new social policy programs, i.e., social

investment strategy to cope with the new social risks.

2. New Economic Growth and Social Investment Strategy

Although not to be clearly separate from the above discussed changes in the Korean

economy and social make up, there are other important reasons to site the necessity of

implementing social investment strategy. Through high economic growth during the last

decades, Korea has accumulated a considerable amount of physical capital. However, the

generally acknowledged view since the 1997 foreign currency crisis, the "input-led growth

strategy" that promotes economic growth through increasing physical capital has reached its

limitation (National Economic Advisory Council, 2006). In particular, with the whole world

transforming toward an knowledge-based economy, there is a growing necessity for Korea to

invest more on human capital in order for Korea to become an advanced economy. According

to existing research, the Korean economy has followed a pattern of input-led economic

growth. In order for Korea to not fall into the category of a low growth country, Korea's growth



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

respectively (Byung-You Jung et. al., 2006). In particular, the increased low-paid jobs appear

to have been filled by women workers entering the workforce. The number of poor is

increasing along with economic restructuring and employment structure bipolarization. The

extent of the number of households in absolute poverty, i.e., earnings below the minimum cost

of living, in 1996 was only 3.1% of the total population. This figure rapidly rose to 8.2% in 2000;

and 10.4% was recorded for the year 2003 (You-Jin Yeo, Mi-Gon Kim, Tae-Hwan Kim, Shi-

Hyun Yang, 2005: 133). This means that 1 household in 10 is in absolute poverty. The apparent

increase of the working poor included in the households in absolute poverty can also be

noticed. It is estimated that about 50% of the households in absolute poverty are working poor

households. It is also observed that the income distribution gap occurs along the educational

opportunity gap. According to research: (i) there was a 5% gap in the university matriculation

rate in 1998- the rate for the lowest 10% household income earners in urban areas was 63% and

the highest 10% income earner household was 68%; and (ii) the gap in 2003 increased to 8%-

the rate for the lowest 10% was 73% and the highest was 81% (Young Lee, 2005). A relatively

smooth social mobility afforded by better education in Korean society to close income

differential between classes is facing a most serious threat. Consequently, without an active

social policy that can allow all individuals to enhance their human capital , i.e., marketable

skill, there is a greater possibility of worsening the social exclusions suffered by the low-

income class.

The rapidly decreasing birthrate and population aging also bring on the possibility of the

new social risks. It appears that the 19.1% of children (9,240,000) vis-?-vis the entire population

in 2005 would drop to 9.0% (3,800,000) by 2050. On the contrary, the 9.1% elderly (4,380,000)

vis-?-vis the entire population in 2005 is expected to increase to 37.3% (15,790,000) by 2050.

This means that by 2015, there will be a severe drop in productive population. At the same

time, the rapid increase of the number of elderly requiring care will become a serious social

issue. It is expected that the demographic shift (i) will have a significant reduction in potential

economic growth rate, (ii) will require active participation of the elderly in the labor market

and (iii) the necessity to increase production by improving the human capital development of

the existing population. In this situation, it is critically important to provide a means and

opportunity for each individual to develop his or her human capital through a labor market

policy, educational policy, healthcare and welfare policy.

The weakening of the traditional family role that once played a welfare function is also

representing new social risks The average household member of 3.7 persons in 1990 dropped

82


guarantee program or supplementing it? Most of the existing works on social investment regard

social investment program as not a substitute for a classical program but the two as

supplementing one another. For example, regarding medical care and long-term social policy

strategy involving children, Esping-Andersen and Palier emphasize an adequate income

guarantee program as its prerequisite (Esping-Andersen, 2002a: 10; 2002b: 66; Palier, 2006:

115). In other words, as they emphasize the point that social investment strategy can only be

fully effective when integrated with a classical income support program, they make it certain

that social investment strategy is not a substitute for a classical income support program11).

Professor Sherraden who advocated an asset-building program for the poor, also sees a mutual

supplementary relationship between classical cash support for the poor and an asset building

program. He emphasized that an asset building program is not a complete substitute for a

classical public assistance program (Sherraden, 2006).

The insistence that the existence of a sufficient cash support program is a prerequisite of

social investment strategy should be received as being quite relevant in implementing social

investment strategy in Korea. In other words, collective responsibility expressed in the idea of

the classical welfare state or in social welfare programs must not be denied when

implementing social investment strategy. However, given the current Korean situation, it is true

that there is a possibility of social policy implementation decision between an attempt to

secure a universal social safety net (i.e., income guarantee program) of classical welfare state

and an attempt to accommodate the flow and development of new social programs of social

investment strategy. This in no way means that social investment strategy programs directly

clash with classical social programs. Given that a number of Korean social programs are still in

the expansion stage, there is a wide open door of a possibility of integrating classical social

programs and the programs of social investment strategy. For example, if the National Basic

Livelyhood Security program were to be extended to the next level, it could result in (i) a

higher-level educational or training program or an asset building program or (ii)

entrepreneurship program all of which would occur within the labor market and assist the

participants to evade poverty. Furthermore, rather than concentrating on the current expansion

of unemployment and the counter unemployment plan which simply offers cash support, it

would be prudent to focus on labor market integration through expanded educational training



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

needs to change from a growth pattern relying on productive factors input toward a pattern

that leads to innovative and a productivity-enhancing model. It can be said that the core

ingredient of this type of innovation-based economic growth is the enhancement of human

capital (National Economic Advisory Council, 2006; Yo-Chul Choi and Eun-Young Kim, 2007).

In other words, the Korean economic growth force should be out of the commitment to

physical capital and move toward human capital-based growth, such as a technology oriented

or knowledge-based economy. In this context, social investment strategy is one of the most

effective strategies that can fulfill the need to enhance human capital

Social investment strategy emerging in the advanced countries has come about after those

countries already have gone through their classical welfare state stage and are already

equipped with an established basic social protection programs. Even if we were to take a point

of view that implementing social investment strategy in Korea is necessary to counter the

emergence of the social risks and decide to implement a new growth strategy, it is difficult to

apply it to Korea as it is because of the underdeveloped Korean social safety nets. As the great

numbers of the uncovered people in social insurances and social assistance of Korea show,

the current Korean social protection programs have not achieved its universality. Even if we

recognize the usefulness of social investment strategy as a new paradigm that allows us to cope

with the new social risks, because Korea doesn't have a complete classic income security

programs, there are many issues that need to be discussed if social investment strategy were to

be implemented in Korea. Let us turn to the core points of contention.

1. Is Income Guarantee Program a Substitute or a Supplement?

Given the current Korean situation of not yet having achieved the classical welfare state

stage, the most contentious issue vis- -vis implementing social investment strategy would be

integrating it with the classical income guarantee program within a fixed period. Would the

issue of doing so mean that social investment strategy is an alternative to a classical income

84


Ⅴ Social Investment Strategy's Application and Points of Contention

11) Vandenbrouche, Labor & Social Dept. Secretary of Belgium, says "social investment is not a substitute for social expenditure." inhis prelude to Esping-Andersen' book (2002) where he highlighted the welfare concept as a social investment.

the labor market, any policy stemming from it can be limited if there is no suitable employment

available in the labor market. Because the primary target population of social investment

policy is likely to be households whose members have low technical skills and low education

and with children, the programs of this policy might have limitations in those individuals to

secure continuous employment available through the labor marketplace right away. For this

reason, for such duration, employment offered through the public sector would take on a

strategic importance in social investment strategy integrating low income and unemployed

individuals into the labor marketplace. Because of this, social investment strategy must

improve its ability to integrate itself with public sector employment creation and the state's

general employment policy.

3. Administrative Infrastructure Issues

Because social investment strategy is a program that focuses on developing individual

human capital or a marketable skill, a proper human capital development environment is

very important. So, in order to allow individuals to smoothly enter and adapt to the labor

market, a program to develop a proper home and regional environment developing

programs that make human capital development program possible is needed. To do so, we

must ensure that the target individuals do not have a disadvantaged work environment,

home environment, regional environment, educational environment and other relevant

environment. Let us turn to the core targets of social investment strategy's human capital

enhancement programs. The term "human capital"does not only pertain to academic skill

(cognitive skill) programs, as some would have it. In addition to a decent educational

program, human capital improvement is possible when a decent home environment and

neighborhood environment develop, healthcare policy, job creation programs, labor market

policy and culture and physical fitness policies are all integrated. According to the report by

OECD on human capital, it defines "human resource" as "the knowledge, skills, competences

and other attributes embodied in individual that are relevant to economic activity" (1998: 9).

Moreover, the report also pointed out that "any strategy to enhance human capital needs to

recognise the influence of the social settings in which it is created and used; schools,

organizations, labor markets, communities, and national institutions and cultures" (1999:

10). Consequently, when not just education through school, but other adequate social



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

and continuing education. Moreover, the labor market welfare policies of strengthening child

rearing support, maternity leave, etc. were emphasized and promoted by the governments of

Dae-Jung Kim and Moo-Hyun Rho. In addition, it is important to note that although

governmental healthcare related expenses are rarely referred to by Western social investment

strategy, entities such as WHO have designated healthcare spending as "investment"since the

mid 1990s. From the point of fact that the population of Korea is rapidly aging, supplementing

the insufficient public healthcare would be an investment that could prevent much greater

future medical expenses is something that can be certainly agreed to. Because of this, for the

current Korean situation, there is a need to broaden the scope of social investment strategy to

include healthcare.

2. Job Creation and Social Investment Strategy

Social investment strategy's long-term focus is increasing human capital of the general

population and the vulnerable group through health welfare, education and labor policy so as

to allow them to be integrated into the labor market smoothly. In other words, social

investment strategy is a type of employment improvement strategy through labor upply or

mobilization. However, social investment strategy is certainly not a compulsory labor

mobilization strategy. Social investment strategy (i) maximizes worker adaptability and

employability within the labor market, (ii) is supposed to be a means of self-actualization and

source of self-pride through one's work and employment, and (iii) this aspect of social

investment strategy stands apart from a traditional income guarantee program. Because social

investment strategy is focused on being a program that fosters good quality labor that allows a

participant to adapt to the demands of an knowledge-based society and a bipolar society, the

effects of social investment strategy is related to presenting an ideal employment. Esping-

Andersen puts emphasis on this point of social welfare strategy as a social investment, he

claims that, unless the program accompanies the type of work and jobs that allow women to

successfully balance work and family responsibilities, social welfare system alone cannot allow

women to balance work and family responsibilities (Esping-Andersen, 2002c: 94). Because

activation policy is focused on integrating work-capable poor and unemployed individuals

back into the labor market, it, too, may run into similar problems. Because social investment

strategy is about allowing people to accumulate human capital and integrating them back into

86


need to be set up for each life-stage and integrating the stage so that childhood and adolescent

cognitive, emotional and physical ability development would allow the individual to

successfully adapt to the labor market later on in life.

Because social investment strategy is not a mere pay-cash policy but is a strategy that

discovers each individual's special potentials and improving those qualities so as to improve

his or her employability, it requires a fine-tuned detailed administrative system. If an income

review and cash delivery system is what is required for just paying cash to an employable poor

person, an infrastructure of individual counseling, educational facility for training, and

employment safety net are needed to improve this person's marketable skill and integrating

him back into the labor market. In other words, when social welfare and social infrastructure is

not properly in place as it is in Korea, it is difficult for social investment strategy to be fully

effective. In particular, effective social infrastructure development for each region where all

social services are concentrated is very important. Only when the regional infrastructure of

healthcare, welfare policy, educational policy, employment policy, etc. are in place and

integrated in cooperation, can social investment strategy show its full effectiveness. As such, in

addition to an effective cooperation between the central social policy related central

departments of education, welfare, labor, information and adolescent commission, it is

necessary to have a policy cooperation system between regional offices and the central

government.

Social investment strategy was suggested forward within the changing capitalist economies

of the West where neo-liberal criticism of the classical welfare state and as a process of

overcoming the criticized policy shortcomings. Social investment strategy's final goal is to

improve each individual citizen's human capital so as to increase their employability and,

through this, actualizing their inherent abilities. Social policy should meet all the conditions of

operating an knowledge-based society. Further, as it has recently been pointed out by OECD,

"a well designed social policy will have a positive effect on the economy"(OECD, 2005). As

was seen above, the recent socio-economic changes occurring in Korea require a new social

policy paradigm. In this context of the current Korean situation in need of integrating



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

environments are not in place12), an equal opportunity to adapt to the labor market cannot be

offered to all the individuals in society. As such, social investment strategy must increase the

level of integration among healthcare, education, employment policy, adolescent, family and

women's policy, culture and physical fitness policy and other social programs in order to

achieve its intended goals.

At the same time, as Esping-Andersen emphasized that a well-defined and coordinated

periodic life-phase stage programs are needed for a person to successfully enter the next

development stage (Esping-Andersen, 2002a: 67). In particular, in order for a defect in one life

stage not to negatively affect the later life stages, all social policies need to be promoted by

keeping its effectiveness for a particular life stage in mind. For example, social policy programs

88


12) OECD report shows the lifelong learning environment with regard to creation of human capital as follows (1998:12). ① Formaleducational system : early child education, mandatory school education, job training or general education after mandatoryeducation, higher education such as college education, adult education etc. ② Unofficial education such as on-the-job trainingoffered at corporate level and publicly-offered labor market skills training ③ Experience built through special activities such asservices in many different organizations and R&D (The level of skills earned through job experience can be one of the strongestdetermining factor for the creation of net human capital.) ④ Significant amount of connected learning that takesplace in more ‘informal settings’such as family, community and interest networks. Learning and preparation forlearning acquired within family and in infant & child-raising environment forms the important basis for the creation of futurehuman capital. Learning experience within family can potentially be richer as the access to media and information networksexpands. Informal learning environment becomes more and more important as individual countries shift to a more diverse andindividual way of learning.

<Diagram 5-1> Integrated Approach to Human Capital Enhancement

Cognitive Ability Emotional Ability Physical Ability Technical Ability

MandatoryEducation

Extra-CurricularActivities

(Child Rearing/Educational

Policy)

Opportunity Creation Welfare Program

Family/Women/Adolescent Policy

Public HealthPolicy

Medical CareGuarantee

Industrial Safety

Day-to-DayPhysical Activity

Policy

Self-help Program

Employment SkillDevelopment

Program

(EmploymentPolicy)

Parental Training

Mental Health &Counseling Service

Interpersonal RelationsTraining

(Culture &Welfare Policy)

Human Capital Enhancement

ⅥConclusion and Prospects

a calculated investment in children and women-oriented programs. Such policy decisions can

be seen as categories of social investment strategy. The recent enactment of Child

Development Account (CDA) can also be understood in this context (MoHW, 2007). Of course

there are skeptical views toward the development of social investment strategy in Korea. The

reason for it is that because social investment strategy has come to symbolize the No's

government, such programs and related programs may suffer a significant reduction once a

new political party comes into power. It is important to note that the tendency toward

economic and labor market bipolarization and the rapid drop in birthrate and aging population

might seriously limit the political decisions available to us. As was noted earlier, the cause for a

rapid rise in social investment strategy in Korea was the rapid changes in socio-economic shift,

such as labor market bipolarization, low birthrate and aging population. As such, unless the

problems of labor market bipolarization, low birthrate and aging population are resolved,

regardless of political party affiliation, social investment strategy will occupy a prominent place

in social policy strategy in Korea.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

economic growth and social welfare, social investment policy that emerged to respond to the

shortcomings of neo-liberal social policies, can be judged to have sufficient value and to be

promoted as a new social policy paradigm for Korea.

Although with some problems and faults, the Korean welfare system continued to expand

since 1987. Further, it can be argued that Korea did take on the appearance of an early stage of

a welfare state during the Dae-Jung Kim's government. (Edition Yeon-Myung Kim, 2002).

However, social welfare programs within social investment strategy are actually in its early

stages. Table 6-1 shows the information that can be classified as a program of social investment

strategy, showing positive labor market policy and family related expenditure comparison.

Korean expenditures on active labor market policy, such as job training and employment

service in 2003 was 0.2% of GDP, 6% below the member state average. As for OECD member

state expenditure ranking, Korea was 26th, the lowest. Family-related expenditures, such as

child rearing, maternity and infant care for Korea was 0.1% of GDP, which was well below the

OECD member state average of 2.1%.

Table 6-1 reflects data up to 2003. Because data collection began half way into President

Moo-Hyun Roh's administration coming into power, it might not reflect the administration's

strengthened investment in social policy. President Roh's government has stressed the need for

a new social policy in the face of the changes emerging in the post-industrial society, especially

the necessity of social investment (The Presidential Committee on Policy Planning, 2006a,

2006b). The administration also advocated investing in active labor market policy and making

90


Ratio Rank Ratio Rank

Sweden 1.3 2 3.5 3

Germany 1.1 4 1.9 15

France 1.1 4 3.0 9

UK 0.5 15 2.9 11

Japan 0.3 20 0.7 27

USA 0.1 27 0.7 27

Korea 0.2 26 0.1 29

OECD Average 0.6 - 2.1 -

Active Labor Market Policy Family-related Expenditure

<Table 6-1> OECD Member State's Family and Active Labor Market Policy Expenditure vis- -vis GDP (2003)(Unit: %, Rank)

Out of 30 OECD member countries, Turkey was not included in the survey.Source: OECD, Social Expenditure Database, 2007

Yeon-Myung Kim. 2007. "Points of Contention in Our Country's Discussion of Social Investment Theory."

Economy and Society. 2007, Fall Issue (No. 75). Hanul Publishing.

Yo-Chul Choi, Eun-Young Kim. 2007. "Per Industry Human Resource Estimate And Analysis of Economic

Growth Factors." Monthly Statistics Review. 2007. February Issue. Bank of Korea.

Young Lee. 2005. "(Troubled) Realities of Bipolarization From the Point of View of Education Mobility and

Resolution: Toward Higher Education." Korean Educational Development Institute. Educational Policy

Forum. 2005, December. Volume No. 118.

Young-Soon Kim. 2007. "Is Social Investment State Our Alternative? : Recent Social Investment State Discussion

in Korea and Its Issues." Economy and Society. 2007 Summer Issue (Volume No. 74). Hanul Publishing.

Yun-Tae Kim. 2005. "The Great Britain's Conversion Of Welfare State: Social Policy Possibilities And Limits."

Social Welfare Policy. Volume No. 21. Korea Association of Social Welfare Policy.

<English>

Dufour, Pascale and Ian Morrison. 2005. “The State of the Social Investment State in the Field of Employment

Policy.”Canadian Journal of Career Development. Volume 4. Number 1. special issue - welfare to

work. pp.1-9.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2002c. “A New Gender Contract.”in Esping-Andersen, Gosta. et.al, Why We Need a

New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2002a. “Towards a Good Society. Once Again?”in Esping-Andersen, Gosta. et.al,

Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2002b. “A Child-Centred Social Investment Strategy.”in Esping-Andersen, Gosta.

et.al, Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

European Commission. 2001. Social Policy Agenda.

Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Polity Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 2000. The Third Way and Its Critics. Polity Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 2004. Future Of Labor. Kwang-Yong Shin, Transtaor. Ul You Press. (2002. Where Now for

New Labour. Polity Press).

Kim, Yeon-Myung (2006), Towards a Comprehensive Welfare State in South Korea, Working Paper No.14, Asia

Research Centre, London School of Economics,

Lister, Ruth. 2003. “Investing in the Citizen-Workers of the Future: Transformations in Citizenship and the State

under New Labour.”Social Policy and Administration. 37(5).pp427-433.

Lister, Ruth. 2004. “The Third Way's Social Investment State.”Jane Lewis and Rebecca Surender eds. Welfare


2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

<Korean>

Byun-You Jun et. al. 2006. Labor Market Bipolarization and Policy Alternatives. Korea Labor Institute.

Chae-Won Im. 2006. Beyond Neo-Liberal State and Toward Social Investment State. Hanul Publshiing.

______. 2007. Social Investment State : New Path for New Korea. Hanul Publishing

Government and Citizen Cooperative Works. 2006. Korea Vision 2030.

Hong-Shik Yun. 2007. "Social Investment's Family/Women Policy And Korean Social Investment Stae." Yun-

Myung Kim et. al. A Research on Application Plans of Social Investment Strategy in Korea. Ministry of

Health Welfare, Department of Social Welfare, Chung-Ang University.

Jae-Jin Yang, Young-Soon Kim, Jae-Heung An. 2007. Fundamental Research On Model Design of Korean-Type

Social Investment State. Ministry of Finance and Economics, Korean Social Science Research Council.

Jae-Jin Yang. 2007. "Social Investment State Is Our Alternative : Criticism on the Criticism of Social Investment

State."Economy and Society. 2007 Fall Issue (No. 75). Hanul Publishing.

KNSO(Korea National Statistical Office). 2004. Social Indicators in Korea

Kyung-Soo Choi, Hyug-Pyo Moon, Han-Suck Shin, Jin-Hwe Edition. 2003.Responding Themes On The

Economic Effects Of Demographic Structure Shift And Aging Population (I). Korean Development

Institute.

(MoL)Ministry of Labor. 2003. Survey Report on Labour Cost of Enterprise

MoHW(Ministry of Health Welfare). 2007. Social Investment and Health Care Policy (Plan).

National Economic Advisory Council. 2006. New Strategy and Vision for the Balanced Growth : Paradigm Shift

for Job Creation. Kyobo Press

Soon-Woo Park. 2007. "Social Policy Change And Social Investment Strategy : Great Britain's Experience."

Yeon-Myung Kim et. al. A Research on Application Plans of Social Investment Strategy in Korea.

Ministry of Health Welfare, Department of Social Welfare, Chung-Ang University.

The Presidential Commission on Policy Planning. 2006a. Vision And Strategy For An Advanced Welfare State.

Dong Do Won.

________. 2006b. Social Vision 2030.

Yu-Jin Yeo, Mi-Gon Kim, Tae-Wan Kim, Shi-Hyun Yang, Hyun-Soo Choi. 2005. Trends of Poverty and

Inequality. Korean Institute for Health Social Affairs.

Yeon-Myung Kim (ed), 2002, Debates on the Characteristics of the Korean Welfare Regime. Human and

Welfare Press

92


#References

State Change: Towards a Third Way? Oxford University Press.

Midgley, James. 1999. “Growth, Redistribution, and welfare: Toward Social Investment”. Social Service Review.

March. 1999.

OECD. 1998. Human Capital Investment: An International Comparison.

OECD. 2005. Extending Opportunities: How Active Social Policy Can Benefit Us All. OECD.

OECD, 2007. Social Expenditure Database, 2007

Palier, Bruno. 2006. “The Re-orientation of European Social Policies toward Social Investment.”(unpublished

paper) (www.cprn.org).

Perkins, Daniel., Lucy Nelms and Paul Smyth. 2004. Beyond neo-liberalism: the social investment state?. Social

Policy Working Paper No. 3. Brotherhood of St Laurence and Center for Public Policy (University of

Melboune).

Pierson, Paul. 2001. “Post-Industrial Pressures on the Mature Welfare State.”in Pierson, Paul ed., The New

Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Powell, Martin and Martin Hewitt. 2002. Welfare State and Welfare Change. Open University Press.

Sherraden, Michael. 2002. Asset and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy “From the Social Welfare State

to the Social Investment State.”

Sherraden, Michael. 2003. “From the Social Welfare State to the Social Investment State.”Shelterforce Online.

Issue #128. March/April 2003. National Housing Institute.

Sherraden, Michael. 2006. “Asset for All : Toward Universal, Progressive, Lifelong Accounts.”Workshop Report

on New Social Policy Paradigm, Korea Labor Institute

Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2004. “New Risks and Social Change.”Peter Taylor-Gooby ed. New Risks, New Welfare:

the Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2006. “European Welfare Reforms : The Social Investment Welfare State. Presented at

“Social Policy at a Crossroad : Trends in Advanced Countries and Implications for Korea.”Organized by

the The East-West Center and KDI.

Vandenbroucke, Frank. 2002. “Foreword : Sustainable Social Justice and 'Open Co-ordination in Europe.”

Gosta Esping-Andersen, et. al. Why we need a New Welfare State. Oxford University Press.

94


Topic 2Li-chen Cheng

Professor of Social WorkNational Taiwan Universtity

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py


초록

만은1960년 동아시아지역에서급속히성장하는‘네마리호랑이’중한국가가되었다. 1997년아

시아외환위기로인해 만은1990년 중반이후경제침체를겪어왔다. 이로인해경제성장은둔화되었고

자산가치는급감하여, 실질임금하락및실업률증가라는결과를가져왔다. 정부는수년간저소득층을위한

사회보장을소홀히함으로써경기침체기간동안소외계층, 특히저소득층및아동에게심각한 향을끼쳤

다. 본논문은경기침체이후늘어나고있는빈부간소득격차를간략히살펴보고, 저소득층을위한두건의

자산형성사업의 향에 해논한다. 정책혁신을위한시사점또한포함되었다.

1960년 이후 만은적극적인수출산업기술육성을효과적으로활용하여견실하고급속한경제성장

을유지했다. 이를통해, 단기간내농업중심사회에서산업선진국으로탈바꿈하는데성공하 다. 만의

경제성장은1965년이후평균경제성장률8.0%로 변되었다. 가계소득및자산가치는지난20년간급증

하여(표1-1: DGBAS, 2004) 만은동아시아에서급속한경제성장을보이던‘네마리호랑이’중하나로

불리었다(Dahlman & Sanaikone, 1997).

Ⅰ배경

사회통합전략으로서저소득층을위한자산형성

Li-chen Cheng

만 학교교수


Foundation

2000년이후로더욱커졌다. 더욱이눈에띄는것은2003년고소득층의자산가치가저소득층에비해428

배나컸다는것이다. 요컨 , 빈부간의격차를야기한주범은소득불평등이아닌극심한자산분포상의불

평등이었다.

동시에, 경기침체기간동안저소득층아동비율이증가하여더욱큰우려를자아냈다. Hsueh(2004)에

따르면, 만의아동빈곤율은1991년8.1%에서1999년5.3%로감소하 으나, 2000년6.7%, 2003년에

는7.6%로증가하 다(그림1-1). 빈곤생활은아동에게장단기적 향을초래한다. 이전몇몇논문에따

르면, 저소득층아동의자긍심이더낮고우울증을경험할확률이높으며이는특히청소년층에게더욱그

러한것으로나타났다(Bolger, Patterson, Thompson & Kupersmidt, 1995 Eamon, 2002 Hanson,


빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안사회통합전략으로서저소득층을위한자산형성

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

1997년태국에서시작된금융위기는아시아전지역에걸쳐연쇄적인경기침체를가져왔다. 이로인해

한 때 급속한 경제성장을 구가하던 태국의 경기도 예외 없이 둔화를 경험하게 되며(Haggard, 2001;

Kerongkaew, 2002), 이는자산가치급감, 실질임금하락및실업률증가로이어졌다(Haggard, 2001;

Lee, 2002). 표 1-2에서가계평균가처분소득, 소비및순저축증가추이가 1999년이후둔화된것을볼

수있다(DGBAS, 2004). 그러나우려스러운점은가처분소득수준이점차증가(또는유지)했음에도순저

축으로표시되는가계자산이감소추세를보 다는것이다.

아시아금융위기전, 만경제의특징은고도경제성장뿐아니라선진국 비낮은수준의소득격차라

할수있었다(Gottschalk & Smeeding, 1997). 그러나경기침체의고르지못한여파로소득격차는벌어

지게되었다. DGBAS(2004)에따르면, 소득상위20%와하위20% 사이의소득격차비율이1980년4.18

에서2003년6.07로증가하 다(표1-3). 또한, 한때더높은수준을보 던소득상∙하위10%간의소득

격차는2001년다시1980년 수준으로돌아왔다. 그러나사람들의관심을끈것은벌어지는자산격차

다. DGBAS(2004)에따르면, 저축상∙하위20% 간의자산격차는1995년훨씬이전부터증가해왔으나

98


〈표1-1〉가계평균가처분소득, 소비및순저축(net savings)

단위：백만불, 신 만달러(NT$)

1975 401,602 336,846 64,756 14.87

1980 938,648 767,742 170,906 23.17

1985 1,671,392 1,621,580 409,812 23.52

1990 2,963,628 2,358,684 604,904 28.80

1995 4,983,496 4,124,738 858,758 27.15

1995/1975 12.4 12.2 13.3 1.8

년도 가처분소득 소비 순저축 저축률(%)

〈표1-2〉1995년이후가계평균가처분소득, 소비및순저축

단위：백만불, 신 만달러(NT$)

1995 4,983,496 4,124,738 858,758 27.15

1996 5,593,368 4,539,920 1,053,448 25.65

1997 5,957,964 4,922,262 1,035,702 26.52

1998 6,390,158 5,315,074 1,075,084 25.98

1999 7,793,681 5,618,452 1,175,229 26.29

2000 7,090,185 5,955,375 1,134,810 25.66

2001 7,113,669 6,016,160 1,097,509 24.27

2002 7,212,647 6,121,771 1,090876 23.21

2003 7,244,092 6,155,948 1,088,144 24.42

년도 가처분소득 소비 순저축 저축률(%)

〈표1-3〉가계소득불평등지수

1975 4.18 14.08 3.34 16.54

1980 4.17 13.97 3.08 14.69

1985 4.50 11.35 3.12 27.77

1990 5.18 11.76 3.38 25.58

1995 5.34 9.61 3.62 23.79

1996 5.38 9.67 3.54 45.12

1997 5.41 9.29 3.53 32.87

1998 5.51 9.16 3.63 30.23

1999 5.50 9.22 3.70 25.12

2000 5.55 8.95 3.64 44.38

2001 6.39 10.32 3.88 -

2002 6.16 9.93 3.67 -

2003 6.07 9.54 3.71 428.18

년도 상∙하위20% 소득격차비율 상∙하위10% 소득격차비율 상∙하위20% 소비격차비율 상∙하위20% 저축격차비율

주) ‘-’는가계저축하위20%의마이너스저축률에 한계산착오임.

〔그림1-1〕아동빈곤율경향

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Year

Rate

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

저축행동설명을위한생애주기가설(Life cycle hypothesis)에서, 가계소비는생애기간중기 되는

자산에의해결정되며저축은평균생애자산중현소득의부족을반 한다고본다. 그러므로가계간저축

차이는구성원의나이차이때문이라여겨진다. 젊은세 의가구는높은수준의소비를위해수입이상의

지출을하며노령층가구는퇴직준비를위해저축을하는것이다. 그러나Carroll(1997)은소위저축의완

충재고모델(buffer-stock models of savings)이라는저축행동에 한다른설명을제시하 다. 그는젊

은가구및더큰소득불확실성에직면한가구는장기적연령효과를반 하기보다는단기적예방목적으

로소액의자산을축적할것이라고강조했다. Beverly와 Sherraden(1999) 교수는개인및가계저축을촉

진하는데있어저소득층의금융기관접근을향상시키는제도적틀로서 4가지변수, 즉제도적메커니즘,

수요그룹별(targeted) 재무교육, 매력적인저축유인책, 촉진책이존재한다고주장했다.

국의Whyley와Kempson(1999)은재정연구조사(Financial Research Survey)를통해 국저소득

층의56%가어느정도의저축을하고있음을발견했다. 이들중4분의1은정기저축을, 3분의1은어딘가에

투자를하고있는것으로드러났다. 이들에따르면, 정기저축을하는사람들은젊은시기에저축을시작하

여 금융정보와 투자에 관해 알게 되었다. 2001년 Bynner은 국립아동계발연구(National Child

Development Study)라는장기데이터를통해23세이전에저축및투자경험을한사람들이취업, 가족관

계, 정신건강, 사회참여및직업윤리측면에서더나은결과를보 음을발견했다. 당시이러한경험적조사

결과는차후출생이후18세때까지모든아동의자산형성을촉진하 던어린이펀드(Child Trust Fund)

개설에기여하게되었다. 이를통해어린이들은저축한목돈을이용해성인생활을시작할수있었다.

다시말해, 자산은여러면에서가정의복지를향상시킬수있으며저소득층이겪는빈곤의악순환을끊

을수있다. 그러나저소득층의자산축적을촉진하는데있어개개인및가계의저축을장려할수있는적절

한제도적촉진메커니즘이필수적이다.

2000년7월17일, 새로선출된 마잉치우(Ma, Ying-Chiu) 타이페이시장은3개년빈곤퇴치사업인타

이페이가족발달계좌사업(TFDA; Taipei Family Development Accounts)을시작하여타이페이시저

소득가구에게100개의매칭저축계좌(matched saving accounts)를제공하게되었다. 이사업은문화적

전통을반 하여 Sherraden 교수가제안한‘개인발달계좌사업(Individual Development Accounts)’

신 가족 구성원의 동거 또는 공유자원의 가치를 상징하기 위해‘가족발달계좌사업(Family

Development Accounts)’이라명명하 다. TFDA는저소득층이미래에 비하여저축을하고, 금융정

보를얻으며계획된투자를하도록장려책을제공하기위해개발된Sherraden 교수의자산기반의복지이

론에주로그기반을둔 만의최초공적부조사업이었다. TFDA는3개년의실험적사업으로제도적인저



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

McLanahan & Thomson, 1997 Ho, Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1995). 또한, 경제적자원및자산축

적이거의없는가족의경우, 이들의인적자원인자녀에 한투자가적어이들아동의심리사회적발달및

장래삶의기회에제약을가하는결과를초래할수있는것이다(Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Maritato,

1997). 아동은사회의미래이다. 아동의빈곤경험이사회에미치는 향을경제성장의가치로측정해본다

면미래산업생산과혁신측면에서매우타격이클것이다.

점차벌어지는경제불평등의고비용을줄이기위한특히아동빈곤의증가추세 향에 응하기위한

새로운빈곤퇴치전략마련이시급하다.

과거정부는강력한경제발달을지속하기위해견실한재무기조를유지하는반면, 국민을위한암묵적사

회안전망제공을위한사회계약은제한적으로시행하 다(Haggard, 2001). 그리하여2000년이후, 경기

침체기간동안저임금, 고실업및직업능력의불균형(mismatched job skill) 등으로인해 2000년근로

저소득층(working poor)의비율이 1990년 비 14.53% 증가하 다. 한부모가정및고등학교교육을

마친저소득층의수가늘어나고령의병든장애저소득층을 신하게되었다. 그러나 만의저소득층이최

소한의소득을유지할수있도록하기위한빈곤퇴치방안인공적부조(public assistance)는저소득층의

생활수준향상에는효과가없는반면이들을복지의존성(welfare dependency)이라는악순환의고리에

가둬둔다는비난을오랫동안면치못했다. 1998년타이페이시장선거당시늘어나는근로저소득층수로

인해도시빈곤타파를위한복지개혁에 한필요성이주요선거쟁점중하나 다(Cheng, 2000).

1991년 Sherraden 교수는자산기반의복지이론을통해자산보유가삶의몇몇측면에서사람들에게

긍정적인 향을끼친다고주장했다. 그는가계의경제적자원축적이라는측면에서자산과소득을구분하

다. 자산이란가계의저축, 투자및여타축적을포함한부의축적을일컫는다. 인적자원및유형자산모

두를합법적으로보유할수있으며특정목적을위한소득흐름을창출할수있다. 반 로소득이란가계로

들어오는자금자원의흐름을말한다. Sherraden 교수는공식∙비공식적으로제도적메커니즘이저소득

층의자산축적을위한유인책을제한하고장벽을세운결과로빈부간자산분포에극심한불평등이존재한

다고설명한다. 2단계복지제도는중산층으로하여금역진세(regressive tax system) 제도를통해투자를

위한저축을장려하 으나, 저소득층가구에는자산보유를허락하지않는공적부조를제공했다. 그래서

그는특정용도를위해저소득층의저축을촉진하기위한도구로서‘개인발달계좌사업(IDA: Individual

Development Account)’을자산축적의정책적틀로서제시했다. Midgley(1999)에따르면, 재분배적사

회복지에서저소득층을위한자산형성은저소득층을경제발달의주류로통합시킬수있는가장진보적인

방식중하나이다.

100


Ⅱ저소득층을위한자산형성에 한핵심논쟁

Ⅲ타이페이저소득층을위한시정부의자산형성지원사업：TFDA와 TYDA

마찬가지로TYDA 참가자들은각각매달신 만달러2,000불(US$1 = NT$33)에서4,000불에이르기

까지(연간총24,000불에서48,000불) 본인이선택한수준의최초저축액을예치하면동일금액이매칭적

립되는계좌가개설되었다. 3년의저축기간이끝나면매칭된이적립액을고등교육또는취업준비와같은

지정된투자목적에사용할수있었다. 본사업의목적이참여자의저축을돕는것뿐아니라자긍심및교육

적열망을증 시키고, 이들의자기효능감증진및부모-자식간관계향상에있었기때문에매칭적립지원

을하는것이외에도모든참가자들은금융지식과사회참여를늘리기위해연간총78개의신용금융수업을

수강하고26시간의공공서비스를수행해야만했다. 방학기간중에는파트타임또는정규직(풀타임) 취업

기회또한주어져참가자들이신청할수있도록하 다.

1. 평가용자료수집

두사업의진행기간중그리고종료후에참가자들에게미친 향을관찰하 다. 평가를위해사업기간중

참가자들이저축행동측면에서어떻게사업구조에반응하는지그리고사업을통해무엇을배웠는지를관찰

하기위해몇몇소스로부터자료를수집하 다. 시정부는연2회타이페이후본은행으로부터모든TFDA

및TYDA 참가자들의저축계좌내역을입수하 으며, 각각의참가자는가족상황, 고용상태, 투자계획을묻

는자기보고설문지를완성해야했다. 일부참가자는심층인터뷰에참여하여해당사업에 한주관적경험

을묻는질문에답하기도했다. 사례매니저는교육수업을상시모니터하 으며참가자들의참여활동, 그룹

토의및사회적인맥형성에 해기록하 다. 중간낙오자에 한정보는분석에포함되지않았다.

2. 참가자특성

TFDA 사업에서는2000년7월총184개의저소득가구가등록하 으나100개의계좌에 해서만매칭

지원이제공되었다. 무작위로선별된참가자들중에서2000년말까지68명이 탈락하 다. 이들중간탈락

자 신등록한참가자를포함하여75명이2001년말까지12개월동안정기저축을유지했다. 72명이2년

동안지속하 고나머지3명은가족의갑작스런사망및질병등의긴급한가족위기로인해프로그램을중

단하게되었다. 최종적으로는 69명의참가자가3년내내TFDA를지속하 다. 부분의TFDA 참가자는

41세에서 50세사이의중년여성으로한부모가정의가장이많았으며학력수준은고등학교졸업으로타

이페이의근로복지수혜자와그특성이매우유사했다.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

축유인책이어떤방식으로빈곤층이매칭저축액(matched savings) 및사업을통해얻게된금융정보를

활용하여미래를계획하는데도움이되는지를알고자의도된프로그램이었다.

표3-1의사업구조에따르면계좌를신청할수있는자격을갖기위해서는현복지혜택의수혜자이자최

소3개월이상고용된사람이어야만했다. 표에서알수있듯이TFDA는타이페이시의근로저소득층을겨

냥한사업이었다. 참여는저축을장려하기위해의무가아닌자발적참여원칙으로진행되었다. 각각의참여

자는신 만달러2,000불에서4,000불(US$1=33)에이르기까지본인이선택한수준의최초금액을예치

함으로써매칭계좌를개설했다. 일단고정예치금수준이결정되면, 3년간(36개월) 동일금액이매칭적립

되었다. 참여기간동안참여자가최 3개월간실직한상태라면직업적보조 상이되는사회노동자

(social workers for occupational assistance)라일컬어졌고그시점이후로는매칭지원이제공되지않

았다. 또한모든참여자들은3주에1회교육강좌를수강해야했는데이는3년총135시간에달했으며이를

통해신용( 출), 예산편성, 은행업, 투자, 주택구매방법, 창업방법및교육계획방법등을배웠다. 매칭

저축계좌는3년간의저축및강의수강을마칠때까지는접근할수없었고완료시적립펀드는고등교육,

소규모창업또는최초주택마련등의일련의지정된투자목적에사용될수있었다.

TFDA 사업이종료될시점에타이페이시정부는저소득가구가이들의매칭적립금을어린자녀의교육

비로지출하고자하는점을발견했다. 그리하여당시저소득가구의자녀를위한새로운자산기반사업을

시작했다. TFDA 사업의구조를그 로활용하여소위타이페이청소년발달계좌사업(TYDA; Taipei

Youth Development Accounts)을만들어청소년들이제도적저축메커니즘에어떻게반응하는지를살

펴보기로했다. 타이페이후본은행재단이매칭펀드지원을하게되자, 시정부는등록된저소득가구에서

16세에서22세까지의청소년을모집하 다. 프로그램시작당시총106명의유자격청소년이참여하 다.

102


〈표3-1〉2가지타이페이자산형성지원사업구조

2000년7월17일~ 2003년7월17일

저소득가구

자발적참여

사회봉사국 (The Bureau of Social Services)

폴라리스증권재단 (Polaris Securities Group

Foundation)

타이페이은행(Taipei Bank)

1:1

NT$2,000, NT$3,000, NT$4,000

참가자는135시간의수강완료필수

주택마련, 소규모사업및고등교육

시 기

지 원 자

참 여

정 부 기 관

지원 금융기관

연 계 은 행

매 칭 비 율

예 금 수 준

경 제 수 업

지 정 용 도

2003년7월1일~ 2006년6월30일

저소득층청소년, 16~22세

자발적참여

사회봉사국 (The Bureau of Social Services)

타이페이후본은행재단 (Taipei Fubon Bank

Foundation)

타이페이후본은행(Taipei Fubon Bank)

1:1

NT$2,000, NT$3,000, NT$4,000

참가자는78개의신용관련수업과26시간의공공서비스

완료필수

고등교육및취업준비

타이페이가족발달계좌사업(Taipei Development Accounts)특징

타이페이청소년발달계좌사업(Taipei Youth Development Accounts)

ⅣTFDA와 TYDA의 향

사업종료시참가자들의저축금액사용계획을묻는질문에 해 부분의 TFDA 참가자중 부분

(43%)은자녀의고등교육투자, 37%는소규모창업, 나머지 20%(15명)는주택마련을계획하고있었다

(표4-3). 실제로TFDA 종료시 부분의참가자는지정투자용도에저축액을사용코자했던이전계획을

상당부분따르고있었다. 타이페이의높은부동산시세와관련하여일반 중의관심을끌었던사실은13

명의TFDA 참가자가사업종료시저축액을주택소유를위한계약금으로사용했던점이었다. 31명의참

가자는자녀학비로지출하 으며이들자녀100%가사업종료시 학생신분이었다. 참가자21명은독자

적으로또는투자파트너와소규모사업을시작하 다.

TYDA 사업에서 부분의청소년(87%)이사업저축액을자신의고등교육학비로투자할계획을갖고

있었으며나머지13%는첫1년이지난후직업훈련에사용할계획이었다. 사업종료시, 참가자의80%가

목돈을컴퓨터, 책, 과외수업, 자전거등자신의학비로사용하기시작했다. 70명중14명이 학에입학하

다. 학업성취면에서놀라운점은고등교육을저축의목표로삼았던거의모든참가자가프로그램종료

시 학에진학한점, 특히나8명이 학원에진학하 다는점이다.

3. 두사업의경제적 향

두사업의참가자들은참여를통해직접적인혜택을입었다. 일례로, 3년후 69명의참가자들이적립한

금액은 만달러로총19,735,311불(매칭금액9,831,026불포함)로, 계좌당평균286,019불을저축하

다. 생계유지를위해공적부조에의존했던복지수혜자들에게이적립금액은의미있는액수 다. TYDA

사업종료시, 70명의참가자는총18,908,996불(매칭금액9,318,000불포함)을저축하 다. 가계생활비

에보태기위해일을했던청소년복지수혜자들에게적립금액은상당한의미가있는금액이었다.

은행에서제공한반년계좌명세에근거한아래〈표4-4〉에서는시간이지남에따라각기다른저축수준

에서보이는저축패턴의변화를보여준다. 2000년말까지프로그램에남아있던TFDA 참가자들의사업

시작당시저축규모를보면75명중21명이NT$2,000, 7명이NT$3,000, 47명이NT$4,000을선택했다.

그러나이들은매6개월마다자신들의저축규모를조정할수있는더많은자유를원하며보다융통성있는

저축패턴을요구했다. 2000년12월사업구조를자유화한이후, 상당수의참가자들이그다음해더많은

매칭금액을받고자저축액을NT$2,000 또는NT$3,000에서NT$4,000으로상향조정하 다. 분명한것



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

반면, TYDA 프로그램에는총 109명의청소년이등록하여 97명의청소년이첫 12개월간정기저축을

하 다. 2004년7월까지9명이가족의경제위기로인해그리고사업의요건을충족시키지못하여중간탈

락하 다. 사업초기에TYDA의참가자연령은 16세에서 22세로평균연령은 18.3세 으며 부분여성

이었다. 모든참가청소년이사업시작시학생신분임에도불구하고70.2%가근로경험이있었다. 근로경

험이있는청소년가운데절반가량이가계생활비마련을도왔다. 본프로그램에참가하기전약40%가저

축을하고있다고보고하 다. 표4-2에서볼수있듯이 부분의청소년이프로그램첫해고등학생이었으

나70명중67%가 학에, 8명이 학원에진학하 다. 2005년6월참가자14명이저축금액을활용, 취업

준비를하여정규직근로자가되었다.

104


성별 남성 18(18%) 8(11%) 8(11%) 8(11%)

여성 82(82%) 67(89%) 64(89%) 61(88%)

연령 30세미만 7(7%) 2(3%) 2(3%) 2(4%)

31~40 29(29%) 18(24%) 15(21%) 14(19%)

41~50 49(49%) 46(61%) 46(64%) 45(65%)

50세이상 15(15%) 9(12%) 9(12%) 8(12%)

교육수준 초등학교 19(19%) 12(16%) 12(17%) 12(17%)

중학교 25(25%) 18(24%) 18(25%) 16(23%)

고등학교 46(46%) 31(41%) 29(40%) 28(41%)

학 10(10%) 14(19%) 13(18%) 13(19%)

혼인여부 미혼 8(8%) 6(8%) 4(6%) 3(4%)

기혼 30(30%) 18(24%) 17(24%) 16(23%)

이혼 39(39%) 23(31%) 24(33%) 24(35%)

사별 19(19%) 24(32%) 24(33%) 23(33%)

별거 4(4%) 4(5%) 3(4%) 3(4%)

참가자수(명) 100 75 72 69

변수 구분 2000.9.30 2001.6.30 2002.6.30 2003.6.30

〈표4-1〉TFDA 참가자특성

고등교육 32(43%) 31(45%)고등교육 84(87%) 56(80%)

소규모사업 28(37%) 25(36%)직업훈련 13(13%) 14(20%)

주택구입 15(20%) 13(19%)

72 69 97 70

TFDA 목표 2001.6.30 2003.6.30 TYDA 목표 2001.6.30 2003.6.30

〈표4-3〉3년동안의저축목표변화

〈표4-2〉TYDA 참가자특성

성별 남성 22(23%) 20(23%) 17(24%)

여성 75(77%) 66(77%) 53(76%)

교육수준 고등학교 50(52%) 43(49%) 1(0.1%)

학교 47(49%) 45(51%) 47(67%)

학원 8(11%)

참가자수 97 88 70

변수 구분 2003.7.01 2004.7.01 2005.6.30

절반정도(48.1%)가이들과정이매우도움이되었으며수강이즐거웠다는 답을하 다. 이들중52%가

재무관리정보에관한과정이가장큰도움이되었다고 답했다.

본논문은자산형성에기반한빈곤퇴치계획수립의배경및타이페이저소득층을위한2건의자산형성

지원사업의 향을연구하 다. 조사결과사업의참가자들은경제적이득그리고주관적느낌측면에서두

사업에 해상당히긍정적인의견을갖고있는것으로드러났다. 참가자의연령과무관하게기회나동기가

주어진다면저축금액을늘리는쪽으로선택하 다. 또한저축계좌에입금하기위해기꺼이근로를지속하

다. 이뿐아니라이들의재무지식이관련경제수업수강을통해늘어가면서목표기반의투자계획달성

을위해열심히노력하 다. 주관적으로참가자들의사업참여는이들삶의개인적및사회적측면에긍정

적 향을끼쳤다.

정책차원에서2건의자산기반사업의아이디어는주로미래경제안정의한방법으로저소득층의자산

형성장려및촉진을중점적으로추진하는Sherraden 교수의자산기반복지이론(1991)에근거한것이다.

사업실행은 만의공적부조원칙을확 시켜저소득층을위한국가의사회안전망은단지이타적으로이

들의기본소비수준을유지시켜주는것이아니라이들로하여금경제적활동을장려하고미래지향적인구

체적자원을창출해가거나복지자산을축적하도록유인함으로써구축할수있다는원칙을포함하게되었

다. 사회통합차원에서자산기반프로그램의설립은혁신적이며그어느때보다진보적인행동으로사회

및경제발달을통해저소득가구를주류사회에포함시킴으로써평등과사회통합으로이르는 안적기회

를추진한것이었다.

TFDA 사업의시행후저소득층으로하여금자산을축적하도록장려하는것은새롭게개정된2005년사

회부조법(Social Assistance Act of 2005)의한규정으로포함되기에이르 다. 이법에따르면지방정부

는등록된저소득층을돕기위해종류를불문한빈곤퇴치계획을적극적으로수립해야한다. 또한모든종

류의빈곤퇴치사업에참여하는어떤참가자라도이들의가계수입이공식적빈곤선(official poverty

line)의1.5배로늘어날때까지복지혜택을여전히받을수있다. 법이시행된후15개이상의지방정부가

금융자산기반의구조에서사회자본기반의설계에이르기까지각자저소득층을위한빈곤퇴치사업을시

작하게되었다. TFDA 사업의경험은자산기반의빈곤퇴치사업을구상하는데구체적인예를제공했을

뿐아니라사람들의삶에경제및사회적으로긍정적 향을미쳤다.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

은, TFDA 참가자들이사업초기에는적은금액으로조심스럽게시작했으나기회나유인책이주어지자더

많은매칭금액을위해저축액을늘려갔다는것이다. 마찬가지로소수의TYDA 참가자들도적은금액으로

저축을시작하 으나스스로의저축능력에보다자신감을갖게되자매칭금액을늘리기위해저축액을높

여갔다(표4-4). 이는충분한동기와좋은촉진메커니즘만있다면참가자들이저축구조에적극적으로반

응하 음을보여준다.

4. 두사업에 한주관적느낌

TFDA 참가의주요매력요인은1:1 비율의매칭저축인것으로심층인터뷰를통해밝혀졌다. 저축관련

하여이들은저축관리를위해가족구성원의소비관리, 불필요한지출절감, 나이든자녀들의근로소득부

담책임등의몇가지전략을사용한것으로드러났다. 이들상당수는학교를떠난지오랜기간이지났기때

문에경제수업수강이도움이되었다고말했다. 수업을통해이들은특히투자, 예산, 주택구입및인적자원

개발학습에많은관심을가졌다. TFDA 사업이의도했던효과이외에도참가자들은프로그램참가를통해

권한이강화된듯했다는주관적인느낌을지적했다. 또한참가자들사이에취업기회, 소규모사업투자추

세, 주택마련경험등서로정보를공유하고인간관계를형성해나가는 상으로인식했다. 수강이나그룹

토의등을통해형성된관계는이들의고립된생활을동료나친구와의네트워크를통한보다외향적인생활

로변모시켰다. 또한마지막으로저축을하고계획을세우기위해가족이어떻게하나가되어서로협력하

는지, 그리고나이든자녀가TFDA 사업에참가후고등교육을받기위해어떤노력을하 는지에 해

언급했다.

TYDA에서우리는참가자들이본프로그램에참가한후자긍심, 직업의사결정효능, 부모-자식간관계

및학업성취에서개선된점이있는지를살펴보았다. 상관실험을통해1차및2차참가자들의점수차를비

교해본결과, 2차참가자들의직업의사결정효능및부모- 자식간관계가현저히향상되었음을발견할수

있었다(각각 t = 3.58, p <0.001; t=2.05, p<0.05). 그러나응답자들의자긍심및학업성취는개선되지않

았다. 설문조사에서참가자들은프로그램참가유지를위해사용한전략을밝혔는데응답자의약 3분의 2

가량이저축을하기위해파트타임으로일해야했다. 관련된교육과정에 한의견을묻는질문에서는약

106


〈표4-4〉3년동안의저축패턴변화

시기 2000. 12. 31 2003. 6. 30 2003. 12. 31 2005. 6. 30

NT$2,000 21 4 12 6

NT$3,000 7 3 29 4

NT$4,000 47 62 56 60

참가자수 75 69 97 70

예금수준 TFDA TYDA

Ⅴ결론


Abstract

Taiwan became one of the fast-growing "four tigers" in the East Asian area during 1960s. Since

the mid-1990s, Taiwan has suffered sluggish economic growth as a result of an economic

breakdown in 1997. Consequently, the economic growth was slowed down and a sharp

decline in asset values, falling real wages, and rising unemployment rates were witnessed. Years

of neglect in providing social security to the needy citizens by the government have

devastatingly impacted the disadvantaged citizens, for example the poor and the children,

during this staggering economic recession. This paper outlines the growing economic disparity

in assets between the rich and the poor after the economic recession and discusses the impacts

of two programs that building assets for the poor. Implications for policy innovation were

included.

Since 1960s, Taiwan had maintained a strong and rapid economic growth by effectively

taking advantage of an active export industrial technology development, which successfully

ⅠBackground

Building Assets for the Poor as aStrategy to Social Inclusion

Li-chen Cheng

Professor of Social Work

National Taiwan Universtity

Beverly, S. G. and Sherraden, M.(1999). Institutional determinants of saving: Implications for low-income

households and public policy, Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(4): 457-473.

Bolger, K. E., Patterson. C. J., Thompson, W. W., & Kupersmidt, J. B.(1995). Psychosocial adjustment among

children experiencing persistent and intermittent family economic hardship. Child Development, 66,

1107-1129.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G., & Furstenberg, F.(1993). Who drops out of and who continues beyond high school?:

A 20-year follow-up of black urban youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(3), 271-294.

Bynner J.(2001). The effects of assets on life chances, p. 17-35, in Bynner, J. and Paxton, W.(2001). The Asset-

Effect, London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Carroll, C. D.(1997). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis, Quart. J. Econ. 12(1):

1-55.

Cheng, L. C.(2000). The Report on Feasibility Evaluation of Taipei Development Accounts for Low-Income

Families. Taipei: Taipei City Government Printing Office.

Dahlman, C. J. and Sanaikone, O.(1997). Taiwan, China: Policies and Institutions for rapid growth. In D. M.

Leipziger(ed.) Lessens from East Asia, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics(DGBAS), Executive Yuan, Republic of China,(2004).

http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/three/

Eamon, M. K.(2002). Influences and mediators of the effect of poverty on young adolescent depressive

symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(3), 231-242.

Gotschalk, P. and Smeeding, T. M.(1997). Empirical evidence on income inequality in industrialized countries.

Mimeo, Boston College.

Haggard, S.(2001). Institutions and globalization: The aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. American Asian

Review, 19(2), 71-98.

Hanson, T. L., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E.(1997). Economic resources, parental practices, and children's

well-being. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn(Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor(pp.190-238).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ho, C. S., Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S.(1995). Effects of economic hardship on adolescent self-

esteem: A family mediation model. Adolescence, 30, 117-131.

Kerongkaew, M.(2002) Social consequences of the East Asian economic crisis, in K. T. Lee(ed.) Globalization

and the Asia Pacific Economy. London, UK: Routledge.

Lee, K. T.(2002). "Introduction" in K. T. Lee(ed.) Globalization and the Asia Pacific Economy. London, UK:

Routledge.

Midgley, J.(1999). Growth, redistribution, and welfare: Toward social investment, Social Service Review, 77(1), 3-21.

Mueller, E. J. and Schwartz, A.(1998). Leaving poverty through work: A review of current development

strategies, Economic Development Quarterly, 12(2): 166-170.

Sherraden, M.(1991). Assets and the Poor: A new American Welfare Policy, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Whyley, C. and Kempson, E.(1999). Understanding Small Savers: Volume one, Pearl Assurance.

108


#참고문헌

Before the Asian economic recession, Taiwan was marked not only by its high economic

performance but also by its modest income disparities when compared to the developed

countries in the world(Gottschalk and Smeeding, 1997). However, the economic gap was

widened due to the uneven impacts as a result of the economic recession. According to the

DGBAS(2004), the income gap between the rich(the highest 20%) and the poor(the lowest

20%) has increased from a ratio of 4.18 in 1980 to 6.07 in 2003, indicated in table 1-3. And the

once higher income disparity between the highest 10% of disposable income to that of the

lowest 10% in 2001 came back to that of 1980s. However, it was the widening assets disparity

that raised the public attention. According to the DGBAS(2004), the assets gap between the

highest 20% of savings share and the lowest 20% has increased even earlier before 1995, but

grew wider after 2000. But even more notably, the value of assets of the rich was 428 times that

of the poor in 2003. In short, it was the sharp inequality in assets distribution that divided the

rich and the poor, instead of income disparity.

At the same time, the percentage of children living in poverty increased along with the

economic recession which raised even more concern in the public. According to Hsueh(2004),

children poverty rate in Taiwan was decreased from 8.1% in 1991 to 5.3% in 1999, but

increased to 6.7% in 2000 and escalated to 7.6% in the year of 2003, as showed in figure 1.


Social Investment Model For Poverty PreventionBuilding Assets for the Poor as a Strategy to Social Inclusion

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

transformed Taiwan from an agricultural society into industrialized country in a short period of

time. The economic success was marked by an average 8.0% economic rate since 1965.

Household income and assets values increased dramatically in the past two decades, as

indicated in table 1-1(DGBAS, 2004), which included Taiwan then as one of the fast-growing

'four tigers' in the East Asian area(Dahlman and Sanaikone, 1997).

In 1997, the financial breakdown started from Thailand which ignited a chain reaction of

economic recession all over the Asian area. With no exception, the recession has slowed down

the once rapid sustained economic growth in Taiwan(Haggard, 2001; Kerongkaew, 2002), and

witnessed a sharp decline in asset values, falling real wages, and rising unemployment

rates(Haggard, 2001; Lee, 2002). As indicated in table 1-2, a sluggish growing trend of average

household disposable income, consumption, and savings was noticed after 1999(DGBAS,

2004). However, what raised concern was the downturn trend in household assets growth in

terms of net savings, when the level of disposable income was maintained and improved

gradually.

110


<Table 1-1> Average household disposable income, consumption, and net savings

Unit : million New Taiwan dollars.

1975 401,602 336,846 64,756 14.87

1980 938,648 767,742 170,906 23.17

1985 1,671,392 1,621,580 409,812 23.52

1990 2,963,628 2,358,684 604,904 28.80

1995 4,983,496 4,124,738 858,758 27.15

1995/1975 12.4 12.2 13.3 1.8

Year disposable income consumption net saving ssaving rate%

<Table 1-2> Average disposable income, consumption, and net savings after 1995.

Unit : million New Taiwan dollars.

1995 4,983,496 4,124,738 858,758 27.15

1996 5,593,368 4,539,920 1,053,448 25.65

1997 5,957,964 4,922,262 1,035,702 26.52

1998 6,390,158 5,315,074 1,075,084 25.98

1999 7,793,681 5,618,452 1,175,229 26.29

2000 7,090,185 5,955,375 1,134,810 25.66

2001 7,113,669 6,016,160 1,097,509 24.27

2002 7,212,647 6,121,771 1,090876 23.21

2003 7,244,092 6,155,948 1,088,144 24.42

Year Disposable income consumption net savings saving rate%

<Table 1-3> Household income inequality indexes.

1975 4.18 14.08 3.34 16.54

1980 4.17 13.97 3.08 14.69

1985 4.50 11.35 3.12 27.77

1990 5.18 11.76 3.38 25.58

1995 5.34 9.61 3.62 23.79

1996 5.38 9.67 3.54 45.12

1997 5.41 9.29 3.53 32.87

1998 5.51 9.16 3.63 30.23

1999 5.50 9.22 3.70 25.12

2000 5.55 8.95 3.64 44.38

2001 6.39 10.32 3.88 -

2002 6.16 9.93 3.67 -

2003 6.07 9.54 3.71 428.18

Year Income share Income share Consumption share Saving shareRatio highest 20% Ratio of highest 10% Ratio of highest 20% Ratio of highest 20%

to lowest 20% to lowest 10% to lowest 20% to lowest 20%

Note : '-' indicated an mathematically error for a negative savings for the lowest 20% of household savings share.

wage payment, high employment rate, and mismatched job skill during the economic

recession. More single parent families and more high school graduates had replaced the old

poor who were disabled, older, and sick. However, public assistance, as a major antipoverty

measure in Taiwan intended to maintain minimum income for the poor, was long criticized for

its ineffectiveness in enhancing the living standards of the poor, but trapping them in a vicious

cycle of welfare dependency. In 1998 Taipei City Mayor election, a call for welfare reform to

tackle the issues of urban poverty became one of key campaign agendas due to a growing

working poor population in Taipei(Cheng, 2000).

Sherraden(1991) proposed an asset-based welfare theory, suggesting that holding assets have

positive impacts on people in several aspects of their lives. He made a distinction between

income and assets in terms of household economic resources accumulation. Assets were

referred to the stock of wealth in a household which is savings, investments, and other

accumulations. Both human capital and tangible assets were legally held and could generate

flow of income for specific purpose. In contrast, income refers to the flow of cash resources

into household. He explained the sharp inequality in assets distribution between the rich and

the poor as a result of institutionalized mechanism, formal as well as informal, that limited

incentive and fostered barriers to asset accumulation for the poor. The two-tiered welfare

system encouraged the middle class to save for investments through regressive tax system, but

provide public assistance to the needy households with no assets holding allowed. Therefore,

he proposed 'Individual Development Account' as a tool to facilitate the poor to save for

designated purpose of use as a policy framework of assets accumulation. According to

Midgley(1999), in re-distributive social welfare, building assets for the poor is one of the most

progressive ways to integrate low-income families into the mainstream of economic

development.

In explaining saving behaviors, the life cycle hypothesis posited that household consumption

was determined by the anticipated lifetime resources and savings reflected the shortage of

current income from average lifetime resource. Therefore, saving among households was

believed as a function of age differences. Young households were expected to de-save for high

consumption level and older households had positive saving for retirement preparation.

However, Carroll(1997) proposed an alternative explanation of saving behavior, the so-called

buffer-stock models of savings. He emphasized that young households and households facing

greater income uncertainty would accumulate small stocks of assets for a short-term

precautionary motive, instead of reflecting a long term of age effects. In promoting individual



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Living in poverty has short and long-term consequences for children. Previous literature

indicated that children living in poverty were more likely to have lower self-esteem and suffer

from depression, and this was especially true for adolescent(Bolger, Patterson, Thompson, and

Kupersmidt, 1995 Eamon, 2002 Hanson, McLanahan, and Thomson, 1997 Ho, Lempers, and

Clark-Lempers, 1995). Also, families with few economic resources and assets accumulation

could invest less in their children human capital which might place constraints on their

psychosocial development and future life chances(Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Maritato, 1997).

Children are the future of a society. The stake of children's poverty experience to a society

valued economic growth much would be staggering in promoting its industrial production and

innovation in the future.

There is an urgent need for new anti-poverty strategies to reduce the high costs of growing

economic inequality, especially counter the effect of the upturn growing trend of children

poverty.

In the past, in order to continue a strong economic development, the government

maintained a strong fiscal position on promoting economic growth, but undertook limited

social contracts to provide implicit social safety nets for its citizens(Haggard, 2001). Therefore,

since 2000, the working poor increased by 14.53% in 2000 than that of 1990 due to the low

112


[Figure 1-1] Children Poverty Rate Trend

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Year

Rate

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

ⅡCore Arguments for Building Assets for the Poor

make investment in a planned way. TFDAs was designed as an three year experimental

program to know how institutional arrangements of saving incentives could facilitate the poor

to plan for the future using matched savings and financial information gained in the program.

According to the program structure(Table 3-1), applicants who eligible to open accounts had

to be current welfare recipients and employed for at least three months. As indicated, TFDAs

was intended to target the working poor in Taipei City. The participation was voluntary,

instead of mandating it, to encourage savings. Each participant opened an account for matched

saving by making the first deposit at a selected saving level, ranging from NT$2,000 to

NT$4,000(US$1=33). Once the fixed deposit level was selected, savings were matched for 36

months at the same level for three years. During participation, if savers were unemployed for

up to three months, they would be referred to social workers for occupational assistance and

no savings would be matched after that point of time. All the savers were also required to

attend educational classes every three weeks, totaling 135 hours in three years, where they

learned about credit, budgeting, banking, investment, how to buy a home, how to start a

business, and how to make educational plans. The matched savings accounts could not be

accessed until completing the three-year period of saving and attending educational classes.

The accumulated saving funds could be then used for a range of designated investment

purposes, such as higher education, small business, or first home purchase.

At the completion of TFDAs, Taipei City Government found that low income households

preferred to use their matched savings to pay for their youngsters' higher educational

expenses. They then created another assets-based program for the youth from low-income

families, using the same program structure of TFDAs, so called as the Taipei Youth

Development Accounts(TYDAs), to examine how youths responding to the saving institutional

mechanism. TYDAs started at July of 2003 and would end three years later. After matching

funds were funded by the Taipei Fubon Bank Foundation, the City recruited the youth aged 16

to 22 from registered low income households. A total of 106 eligible youth participated in the

program at the beginning.

Similarly, each participant of TYDAs opened an account for matched saving by making the

first deposit at a selected saving level, within the range of NT$ 2,000(US$1 = NT$33) to

NT$4,000 every month(i.e. NT$24,000 to NT$48,000 annually). After completing a three year

saving period, they could use the matched savings after three years in designated investment

purposes on either higher education or employment preparation. Since this program did not

only intend to help participants save money, but to increase their self-esteem and educational



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

and household savings, Beverly and Sherraden(1999) suggested four variables, including

institutional mechanisms, targeted financial education, attractive saving incentives, and

facilitation, as institutional framework of improving low income household access to financial

institutions.

In UK, using the Financial Research Survey, Why ley and Kempson(1999) found that 56% of

low income household in the UK more or less had savings. Among them, one fourth of them

kept regular savings and one third even made investment in something. According to them,

people who saved regularly started to save in their younger age and got aware of financial

information and investment. Bynner(2001) used a longitudinal data set, the National Child

Development Study, found that people had experiences in financial savings and investment

before 23 years old would did better in employment, family relationship, mental health, social

participation, and work ethics. The empirical findings then made contribution to the latter

establishment of the Child Trust Fund accounts which facilitated every child to build assets

from their birth to eighteen years old. So the children could a lump sum of savings to start with

their adult life.

In short, assets may improve household well-being in a number ways and break the vicious

cycle of poverty among low income households. However, in promoting the poor to

accumulate assets, a proper institutional mechanism of facilitation is necessary to promote

individual and household's savings.

On July 17, 2000, the newly elected Taipei City Mayor, Ma, Ying-Chiu, announced to launch

a three year anti-poverty program, Taipei Family Development Accounts(TFDAs, in short),

which was to provide 100 matched saving accounts for low-income families in the City.

Adopting a cultural tradition, the program was named 'Family Development Accounts,' instead

of 'Individual Development Accounts' as suggested by Sherraden, to symbolize the value of co-

residence or shared resources of a family. TFDAs were the first public assistance initiative in

Taiwan which drew heavily on Sherraden's asset-based welfare theory that was developed to

provide incentives for the poor to save for future, to gain access to financial information, and to

114


Ⅲ Building Assets for the Poor in Taipei City Government :TFDAs and TYDAs

about the programs. A case manager monitored on-going educational classes and kept records

on activities attended, group discussion, and social networking among participants.

Information about dropouts was not included in the analysis.

2. Participants' Characteristics

In TFDAs, 184 low-income households enrolled in July of 2000,but only 100 savings accounts

could be matched. For those randomly selected participants, 68 dropped out of the program by

the end of 2000. Including the enrollers that replaced these dropouts, 75participants made their

regular deposits for twelve months by the end of 2001. Seventy-two continued for another

year, with only three leaving the program due to emergency family crises(e.g. suddendeath and

sickness of family members). Finally, sixty-nine participants have stayed in TFDAs for the

whole three years. Most participants in TFDAs were females, mid-aged(41 to 50), single

parents, and high school graduates, which closely resembled the profile of working welfare

recipients at Taipei.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

aspirations, enhance their career self-efficacy, and improve the parent-child relationship.

Therefore, in addition to the matched savings, all participants are required to attend 78 credit

financial classes and 26 hour public services per year to improve their financial literacy and

social participation. During school breaks, part-time or full-time jobs opportunities were also

available for participants to apply for.

1. Data Collection for Evaluation

The impacts on the participant were observed during and after the implementation of the

TFDAs and TYDAs. In evaluation, the data was collected from several sources during the

program period to examine how the participants responded to the program structure in terms

of saving behavior sand what they learned from the program. The City received savings

account statements of all TFDAs and TYDAs participants from the Taipei Fubon Bank every

half-year. And each participant was required to complete self-report questionnaires before and

after the program, asking about family condition, employment status, and investment plan. A

few participants were invited for an in-depth interview, asking about subjective experiences

116


<Table 3-1> Program structure of two assets building program at Taipei

July 17th, 2000 to July 17th, 2003

Low income household

Voluntary participation

The Bureau of Social Services

Polaris Securities Group Foundation

Taipei Bank

1:01

NT$2,000, NT$3,000, NT$4,000

Participants must complete 135 hours classes.

House purchase, micro enterprise, and higher

education

Time Period

Applicants

Participation

Administration

Funder

Affiliated Bank

Matching rate

Deposit levels

Economic

classes

Designated

purpose for use

July 1st, 2003 to June 30th, 2006

Low income youth, 16-22 years old

Voluntary participation

The Bureau of Social Services

Taipei Fubon Bank Foundation

Taipei Fubon Bank

1:01

NT$2,000, NT$3,000, NT$4,000

Participants must complete 78 credits classes and

26 hours public services.

Higher education and employment preparation

Taipei Development AccountsCharacteristics Youth Development Accounts

Ⅳ Impacts of TFDAs and TYDAsGender Male 18(18%) 8(11%) 8(11%) 8(11%)

Female 82(82%) 67(89%) 64(89%) 61(88%)

Age Under 30 7(7%) 2(3%) 2(3%) 2(4%)

31~40 29(29%) 18(24%) 15(21%) 14(19%)

41~50 49(49%) 46(61%) 46(64%) 45(65%)

Over 50 15(15%) 9(12%) 9(12%) 8(12%)

Education Primary school 19(19%) 12(16%) 12(17%) 12(17%)

Junior school 25(25%) 18(24%) 18(25%) 16(23%)

High school 46(46%) 31(41%) 29(40%) 28(41%)

College 10(10%) 14(19%) 13(18%) 13(19%)

Marital status Single 8(8%) 6(8%) 4(6%) 3(4%)

Married 30(30%) 18(24%) 17(24%) 16(23%)

Divorced 39(39%) 23(31%) 24(33%) 24(35%)

Widowed 19(19%) 24(32%) 24(33%) 23(33%)

Separate 4(4%) 4(5%) 3(4%) 3(4%)

Participants 100 75 72 69

Variable Label 9.30. 2000 6.30. 2001 6.30. 2002 6.30. 2003

<Table 4-1> Participants' Characteristics of TFDAs

into their own school expenses, such as computers, books, tutoring hours, motor bicycles, etc.

Fourteen out of 70 participants went to college for a high education degree. What impressed in

terms of educational achievements, almost every participant pursuing higher education as a

savings goal went to college at the end of the program. Especially, eight participants became

graduate students then.

3. Economic Impacts of two Programs

The savers from two programs benefited directly from the participation of the programs. For

example, A total sum of NT$19,735,311(including matched amount of NT$9,831,026) was

saved by these 69 savers by the end of the third year, an average of NT$286,019 per account.

For welfare recipients who depended on public assistance to maintain the living, the amount

of saving accumulated in the accounts was valuable to be noted. For TYDAs' savers, a total

sum of NT$18,908,996(including matched amount of NT$9,318,000) was saved by these 70

savers at the end of the program. For young welfare recipients who worked for supplementing

household expenses, the amount of saving accumulated in the accounts was valuable to be

noted.

Based on the half-year account reports provided by the bank, Table 4-4 describes the

changes in savings patterns at different saving levels across time. By the end of 2000, 21 out of

75 TFDAs' savers who stayed in the program chose to start at NT$2,000, seven chose NT$3,000

and 47 chose NT$4,000. However, the savers demanded more flexible saving patterns,

requesting more freedom to adjust their deposit levels every six months. After the liberation of

the structure at December of 2000, a large group of participants changed their saving levels

from NT$2,000 or NT$3,000 to NT$4,000 for higher matched savings in the following year.

Obviously, participants of TFDAs cautiously started their savings at a lower level, but when

given opportunities or incentives, they moved to higher deposit levels for matched savings.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

A total of 109 adolescents enrolled in the TYDAs, however, 97 adolescents made regular

deposits for the first twelve months. By July of 2004, nine dropped out of the program due to

family economic crisis and unable to meet the program requirements. In the initial phase, the

TYDAs' participants ranged in age 16-22 years, with a mean of 18.3 years. most participants

were female adolescents. Though all participants were in school when joining this program,

70.2% have some working experiences. Among those who worked, about half have helped

with household expenses. Prior to participating in this program, 40% reported that they have

some savings. As indicated in Table 4-2, most adolescents were in high school in the first year

of the program, but 67% out of 70 participants went to college and 8 participants got admitted

into the graduate program. In June of 2005, fourteen participants used the savings for

employment preparation and found full time jobs.

When asked about participants using the savings at the end of the program, most

TFDAs(43%) planned to invest for their children's higher education, 37% planned to use it for

starting up a small business, the rest 15 participants planned to use for home purchase, as

indicated in Table 4-2. At the end of TFDAs, most participants pretty much followed the

previous plan to use the savings for designated investment goals. In high cost of real estate in

Taipei, what raised public attention was the 13 TFDAs' participants used the savings as

downpayment to become homeowners after the completion of the program. Thirty-one

participants spent their savings to pay for their children's school expenses and all their children

were in college at the end of the program. Twenty-one participants started up a small business

either on their own or with an investing partner.

In TYDAs, most adolescents(87%) planned to invest for their own higher education expenses

and the rest(13%) planned to use it for jot trainings in the end of the first year program.(see

Table 4-3).At the completion of the program, 80% of participants started to use their savings

118


Higher education 32(43%) 31(45%)Higher education 84(87%) 56(80%)

Micro enterprise 28(37%) 25(36%)Job training 13(13%) 14(20%)

Home purchase 15(20%) 13(19%)


TFDAs Goals 6.30.2001 6.30.2003 TYDAs Goals 6.30.2001 6.30.2003

<Table 4-3>The change in goals for savings across years

<Table 4-2> Participants' Characteristics of TYDAs

Gender Male 22(23%) 20(23%) 17(24%)

Female 75(77%) 66(77%) 53(76%)

Education High school 50(52%) 43(49%) 1(0.1%)

College 47(49%) 45(51%) 47(67%)

Graduate 8(11%)

Participants 97 88 70

Variable Label 7.01.2003 7.01.2004 6.30.2005

be significantly improved in wave 2(t = 3.58, p <0.001; t=2.05, p<0.05, respectively). However,

respondents' self-esteem and academic performance did not improve. In a questionnaire,

participants reported about the strategies used for maintain participation. About two third of

respondents had to work part-time in order to save. As for their opinions toward the related

educational courses, about half(48.1%) thought these courses were very helpful to them, and

they enjoyed taking these courses. Among them, 52% thought that the courses related to

financial management information were most helpful.

This paper describes the background of developing anti-poverty programs based on assets

building and the impacts of the two assets-based programs on the poor households at Taipei.

The findings indicated that the participants had quite a positive picture of two programs in

terms of economic gains and subjective feelings. No matter the young or elder participants,

they would choose to save more, if given opportunities or incentives. They also willingly

stayed employed to put money into their savings accounts. And, they worked hard toward to

achieve their goal-oriented investment plans, as their financial literacy advanced from

attending related economics classes. Moreover, subjectively, the participation had positive

personal and social impacts on their lives.

At the policy level, the idea of two assets-based programs drew largely on Sherraden's(1991)

asset-based welfare theory, focusing on encouraging and facilitating the poor building assets as

a way to future economic security. The actions have broadened the principles of public

assistance in Taiwan that the nation's social safety net for low-income families can be built by

encouraging them to be economically active actors and generate future oriented material

resources or accumulate welfare assets, and not just altruistically maintaining their basic

consumption levels. At the social integration level, the establishment of assets-based programs

was innovative, more progressive than ever and promotedan alternative opportunity to

equality and social inclusion by integrating low-income families into mainstream society

through social and economic development.

After the implementation of the TFDAs, encouraging low-income families to accumulate

assets was to be included as a clause of the newly revised Social Assistance Act of 2005.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Consistently, few TYDAs' participants started their savings at a lower deposit level, but as they

are more confident about their ability to save, they moved to higher deposit levels for matched

savings, as indicated in Table 4-4. This indicated that savers actively responded to savings

structure if enough incentive and friendly facilitation mechanisms were designed.

4. Subjective Feelings about the Programs

Based on the in-depth interview, the main attraction for participating in TFDAs was said to be

the 1:1 matched savings. In terms of saving, they reported several strategies they used to

manage savings, ranging from managing family consumption, cutting down unnecessary

expenses, and older children sharing part of their earned incomes. Many of them agreed that

attending economic classes was beneficial since they left school a long time ago. In the classes,

they especially enjoyed learning about investment, budgeting, home purchasing, and human

resource development. Besides the intended effects of TFDAs, the savers pointed out that they,

subjectively, felt empowered by participation in TFDAs. They perceived the participants as a

group for networking and information exchanging where they shared job opportunities,

current trend of small business investment and home purchasing experiences. The relationship

they built through attending classes or group sessions had transformed their isolated lives to a

more outward networked circle of friends or colleagues. And, lastly, they mentioned how the

family worked together as a team to save more money or make a plan, and how older children

worked harder for higher education after they participated in TFDAs.

In TYDAS, we examined if participants' self-esteem, career decision-making efficacy, parent-

child relationship, and academic performance improved after participating in this program.

Correlated t tests were conducted to compare score differences between wave one and wave

two. Participants' career decision-making efficacy and parent-child relationship were found to

120


<Table 4-4> The changes in saving patterns across years

Time period 12.31.2000 6.30.2003 12.31.2003 6.30.2005

NT$2,000 21 4 12 6

NT$3,000 7 3 29 4

NT$4,000 47 62 56 60


Deposit Levels TFDAs TYDAs

ⅤConclusion

Beverly, S. G. and Sherraden, M.(1999). Institutional determinants of saving: Implications for low-income

households and public policy, Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(4): 457-473.

Bolger, K. E., Patterson. C. J., Thompson, W. W., & Kupersmidt, J. B.(1995). Psychosocial adjustment among

children experiencing persistent and intermittent family economic hardship. Child Development, 66,

1107-1129.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G., & Furstenberg, F.(1993). Who drops out of and who continues beyond high school?:

A 20-year follow-up of black urban youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(3), 271-294.

Bynner J.(2001). The effects of assets on life chances, p. 17-35, in Bynner, J. and Paxton, W.(2001). The Asset-

Effect, London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Carroll, C. D.(1997). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis, Quart. J. Econ. 12(1):

1-55.

Cheng, L. C.(2000). The Report on Feasibility Evaluation of Taipei Development Accounts for Low-Income

Families. Taipei: Taipei City Government Printing Office.

Dahlman, C. J. and Sanaikone, O.(1997). Taiwan, China: Policies and Institutions for rapid growth. In D. M.

Leipziger(ed.) Lessens from East Asia, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics(DGBAS), Executive Yuan, Republic of China,(2004).

http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/three/

Eamon, M. K.(2002). Influences and mediators of the effect of poverty on young adolescent depressive

symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(3), 231-242.

Gotschalk, P. and Smeeding, T. M.(1997). Empirical evidence on income inequality in industrialized countries.

Mimeo, Boston College.

Haggard, S.(2001). Institutions and globalization: The aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. American Asian

Review, 19(2), 71-98.

Hanson, T. L., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E.(1997). Economic resources, parental practices, and children's

well-being. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn(Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor(pp.190-238).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ho, C. S., Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S.(1995). Effects of economic hardship on adolescent self-

esteem: A family mediation model. Adolescence, 30, 117-131.

Kerongkaew, M.(2002) Social consequences of the East Asian economic crisis, in K. T. Lee(ed.) Globalization

and the Asia Pacific Economy. London, UK: Routledge.

Lee, K. T.(2002). "Introduction" in K. T. Lee(ed.) Globalization and the Asia Pacific Economy. London, UK:

Routledge.

Midgley, J.(1999). Growth, redistribution, and welfare: Toward social investment, Social Service Review, 77(1), 3-21.

Mueller, E. J. and Schwartz, A.(1998). Leaving poverty through work: A review of current development

strategies, Economic Development Quarterly, 12(2): 166-170.

Sherraden, M.(1991). Assets and the Poor: A new American Welfare Policy, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Whyley, C. and Kempson, E.(1999). Understanding Small Savers: Volume one, Pearl Assurance.


2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

According the Act, local governments should actively develop any kind of anti-poverty

program for their enlisted low income families. And whoever participates in any anti-poverty

program is allowed to receive still welfare benefits until family income increase over 1.5 times

of the official poverty line. After the Act enacted, it was cheerful that more than 15 local

governments have started some sort of anti-poverty programs for their low income families,

ranging from financially assets-based structure to social capital based design. The experience

of the TFDAs provided not only a concrete example to set up an anti-poverty program based

on assets, but also had positive impacts on people in economic as well as social aspects of their

lives.

122


#References

Panel Presentation 1Sang-hoon Ahn

Professor of Seoul National University

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py


Foundation


20세기의후반부를통하여전세계가깜짝놀랄만한경제성장의기적, 소위‘한강의기적’을이루어낸한

국사회도나름의그늘을가지고있다. 그것은성장의과실을적절하게나누지못한‘반쪽짜리성장’혹은

‘복지국가의저발전’으로요약되는현상이다. 국가수준의평가를위한잣 로주로사용되는OECD국가

들의비교자료만보아도경제부문의양호한성적과는달리, ‘사회적질’과관련된각종지표는최하위권을

맴돌고있다. 아무리부자라도졸부는항상손가락질을받는다. 경제선진국도졸부가따로있다. 자국의이

익에만몰두하고, 경제성장의과실을모든국민에게고루나누지못하는나라는졸부의나라이다. 자고로

‘동방군자의나라, 예와덕을중시하는민족’의전통에서보자면, 지난반세기의성취가마냥즐거운풍악

만은아닌것이다.

하지만최근몇년의변화를보면이러한 쓸한성공의그늘에도모종의변화가기 된다. 바야흐로우

리사회에서도‘분배’와‘복지국가’에관한사회적논의가본격화된것을보면졸부의환골탈태를알리는

한편의드라마가막을올린것으로보인다. 각종사회조사를통해분명하게확인되는사실로서국민의 다

수가제 로된복지국가를갈망하는것이작금의현실이고, 지난지자체선거와목하진행중인 선과정

에서정파의이념을떠나복지관련공약들이쏟아지고있음을보면, 자못격세지감에휩싸이게된다.

지난1년간한국사회에서진행된복지관련담론은‘사회투자’라는개념을중심으로전개되었고, 강조하

는분야의상이성에도불구하고모든정파가유사한종류의공약들을내놓고있음을보면, 이제‘사회투자’

의개념은초이념적으로탈정치화되었다고도볼수있다. ‘사회투자’가화두이기에, 김연명교수의오늘

발제는이러한상황에서보다비판적으로재평가되어야할필요가있다는생각이다. 사실, 한국에서‘사회

Ⅰ서론

사회투자론, 한국복지국가의나침반인가?

안 상 훈

서울 학교사회복지학과교수

한모호함은여전히남는다. 첫째, 사회투자는‘사회’와‘투자’의합성어인것으로생각되는데, 도 체여

기서‘사회’는무엇이고‘투자’는어떤것인가? 물론복지다원주의에관한자유주의적논평이후, 복지국가

와복지사회를구분하는경향이있지만김연명교수의발제를보면, ‘사회’가‘국가’가되기도하고, 보다

작은의미의포스트모던한‘새로운공동체’가되기도하며때로는‘시장’이되기도한다. 이와관련된질문

은사회투자전략의주체가과연누구여야하고, 상은누구여야하는가하는점이다. 덧붙이자면, 김교수는

‘보편적복지’를여전히이야기하고있는데, 사회투자의‘사회’의범위는어디까지냐하는점이다. 특히,

소득보장의 체체가아닌보완체로서사회투자를말하면서도예로드는소득보장프로그램은공공부조의

현금급여에머물고있다. 적어도오늘의발제를보면, 연금, 산재, 실업보험과같은보다보편적인소득보장

은논외로하고있는바, 사회투자에서‘사회’의범위는(신)자유주의적인처방으로서빈곤한사람들을중

심으로하고있는것인지궁금하다. 물론, 돌봄이나보건등서비스와관련된부분은전국민을 상으로하

고있다는점을밝히고있지만, 적어도소득보장의범위는매우좁게보고있다는생각이다.

사회투자론은기본적으로냉전시 의좌파적이데올로기추구에서이탈한실용주의의색채를입은것으

로평가할수있다. 실용이화두가된현실정치에서적극적으로수용되고있음을보면알수있는사실이다.

그렇다면, 김연명교수발제에서나타난사회투자전략은실용주의의덕목을고스란히담고있는가? 실용주

의의요체를‘현실적인’상황인식과‘실현가능한’ 안의제시로나누어, 김교수가제안한사회투자전략을

평가해보자.

먼저, 현실인식에관한사회투자론의특징을보자. 후기산업화, 신자유주의적세계화등거시적인차원

에서진행되고있는정책환경의변화와그와맞물려표면화되고있는인구∙사회학적변화에따른새로운

사회적위험은‘사회투자론자들’로하여금전통적복지국가의‘기능적위기’를선고하게만드는근본적이

유이다. 이상적인복지국가의건설을과감하게주장하던과거의좌파와는달리, 주어진환경을흔쾌히수용

하는데서출발하되시장의실패를보정하려고노력한다는점에서실용주의노선이라고평가할수있는견

해가사회투자론이다. 따라서사회투자론이현실인식의실용성을담보한다는점은부인할수없다.

다음으로는, 실현가능한 안의제시라는면에서김교수가제안한사회투자론의특징을보자. 김교수는

기존의소득보장을남겨둔채사회투자를부가하는방식의‘변화’를제시하고있고, 복지학자중좌파로분

류되어온김교수의정체성을유지하고있는것으로보인다. 하지만재정조달에관한명쾌한밑그림이없다

는점에서설득력이떨어진다. 정책의실현가능성은재원마련에관한확실한처방전이없이는확보되지못

한다는점에서실용주의를표방하고있으나여전히이상론에경도된감이없지않다.


투자’의개념을수입하고논의의중심으로부상시킨데가장큰기여와책임을느낄분이김연명교수일테

지만, 이제복지정치와복지정책의현장에서하나의화두가되어버린‘사회투자’에 한진단과처방의몫

은우리모두의것이라는생각이다.

요컨 , 본토론자는사회투자론이진단하는상황인식에깊이공감을하면서도구체적인정책과관련된

김연명교수의제안들에관해서는다소고개를갸웃거리고있음을밝힌다. 이제, ‘사회투자’로명명된‘한

국형복지국가의비전’에관한김연명교수의논의에관한본토론자의궁금증과비판을하나씩짚어보도록

하자.

사회투자라는용어가이미학술적인개념을넘어정치적수사로사용되는감이있지만, 사회투자에관한

보다정치한논리의개발과일관성있는정책 안의확보를위해서는개념의타당성을따져보아야한다. 이

미각종학술토론을통해김 순교수를필두로한여러학자들이사회투자국가, 사회투자모형, 사회투자전

략이라는, 얼핏보기에 동소이한개념을놓고찬반으로갈려갑론을박한바있다. 이러한과정에서오늘

김연명교수가채택한개념은‘사회투자론’이라는용어사용으로요약된다. 개념을깊이고민할시간이없

을때, 학자들이주로사용하는방책일것이다.

하지만여전히‘사회투자론’으로묶어내는것은여러가지종류의‘사회투자+알파’를용인하는것이기

에개념적모호성을고스란히답습한다. 무엇보다문제가되는개념은‘사회투자국가’라는것이다. 비단김

순교수의비판과김연명, 양재진교수의반박을재론치않더라도, ‘사회투자국가’라는용어의사용은무

리가있다는판단이다. 특히이개념은암묵적으로복지국가유형화와결부되어있으며, 이경우사회투자

국가와복지국가는동어반복이되고만다. 굳이차이를찾자면사회투자국가가‘기존복지국가가사회투자

를강화한다’는점을강조한다는면에서의보다현 적인용어일수있다는점이다. 그럼에도불구하고자

유주의, 사민주의, 보수주의등등의명칭이부가될경우,1) 복지국가의전반적변화를에둘러표현하는수사

에다름아니다.2)학술적개념화도명확한의사소통에근거한이론화를염두에두어야한다. 이런점에서

보자면이미보편적용어로자리잡은‘복지국가’를제쳐두고실체가모호한새로운개념을첨가하는것은

사회과학적인논의의간명화에도움이되지못한다. 결론적으로말하자면복지국가의‘사회투자전략’으로

용어를통일해서사용할것을다시한번제안한다.

‘사회투자+알파’와관련된개념적혼란을‘사회투자전략’으로단순화한다고해도사회투자자체에

128


빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안사회투자론, 한국복지국가의나침반인가?

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅱ‘사회투자론’의개념적모호성

1) 물론, 사회투자국가라고하는순간우리는무언가다른복지국가를상상할수밖에없기도하다.

2) 예컨 , 계급과지위는매우명확한실체적차이를반 한다. 과연사회투자국가와복지국가도이러한정도의차이를반 하는가?

Ⅲ사회투자, 그실용주의적딜레마

첫째, 생애주기별균형의창출을기해야하며이는김교수의논의에도포함된사항이다. 복지국가위기

이후서구선진국에서제기되기시작한새로운균열의지점은세 간갈등(inter-generational conflict)

의문제와직간접적으로연결되어있다. 현시점세 간갈등의가장중요한균열요인은저출산과고령화로

인한근로세 의부양부담확 의문제이며, 이는경제적으로생산의감축요인이될뿐만아니라정치적으

로근로세 가복지국가의지지를철회하는효과를지니게된다. 새로운세 간계약(new generational

contract)의창출을위한가장중요한개혁방향은노인을중심으로한노동시장은퇴그룹중심에서노동시

장참여그룹인근로연령층까지수혜 상을넓히는정책적전환이다.

둘째, 전국민 상의수혜균형이필요하다. 국민적인지지를확보하고있는복지국가의가장큰특징은

수혜 상의보편주의에서찾을수있다.3) 보편주의의정치적강건성은조세저항감축효과와관련된다. 잘

알려져있다시피복지국가의정치적강건성을계측하는가장중요한잣 는‘조세저항을얼마나낮출수있

는가’로요약할수있다. 상식적인예상과는달리조세저항의정도는복지국가지출수준과반비례하는경

향이있는데, 복지조세에 한저항이복지혜택과의상호적함수관계에있기때문에발생하는현상이다. 같

은지출수준을보이는나라들이라고해도소수의취약계층에만혜택이집중된다면전체납세자의정치적

지지를확보하기힘들다. 반 로, 높은수준의복지지출과국민부담수준을가진나라에서도복지프로그램

의수혜계층을전국민으로확장하는경우에는납세자와수혜자의분리현상을최소화함으로써결국조세

저항을줄일여지가확보된다고할수있다. 현재우리나라사회보험의보편주의화는상당한정도로진척되

어있지만, 사회서비스는여전히취약계층을중심으로한선별주의에머물고있어이를개선할필요성이다

분하다. 취약계층중심의정책적표적화는 상효율성(target efficiency)이높기때문에양극화개선의가

장효율적인 안인것처럼인식되고있으나, 이는복지국가의정치를간과한경제학적단순화에불과하다.

보편주의를택하는경우에양극화해소와재분배달성이오히려높아지고, 선별주의를택하는경우에표적

집단인취약계층의주변화가더욱촉진된다는‘복지재분배의정치적패러독스(Korpi and Palme, 1998)’

는이미유명한현상이다. 복지재정확보가단기간에충분히이루어지기힘들다는예산제약의현실을감안

할때, 사회서비스는하위계층에서상위계층으로확 해나가는전략을취할필요가있다. 사회보험이상위

계층에서하위계층을포괄하는방향으로발전한것과반 방향의확장방식이지만, 사회보험의경우에도

재원마련때문에부득이한측면이있었음을기억할필요가있다.

셋째, 현금이전과사회서비스의균형을확보하여야한다. 복지국가의사회정책을구체적인프로그램의

종류에따라크게구분하면, ‘현금이전(cash transfer)’형프로그램과‘사회서비스(social service)’형프

로그램으로 별된다. 사회정책의프로그램 안이현금이전과사회서비스를망라하고있지만 부분의

전통적복지국가의주된목표는소득보장에치우쳐있는것이사실이다. 하지만20세기말부터시작된복지

국가의위기와그에따른개혁과정에서중요한화두로등장하고있는것이사회서비스를강화하는전략이


<표3-1>는사회투자와관련된구체적인프로그램들을조합하여추후발생할재정규모를추산한것이다.

참고로고위시나리오조차소득보장의 규모비중감축을전제로한것임에도불구하고2040년기준GDP

의 20%에육박한다. 다른연구에의하면, 만약현재상태의소득보장을유지하면서사회서비스를부가할

경우발생할재정소요는 2030년까지국민소득 비사회보장지출규모가 25.5%로네배이상증가하고,

2050년까지는우리나라사회보장지출이국민소득 비42%로증가할것으로전망된다(예산처, 2007).

이런상황인식에서본토론자의경우, 소득보장의일정정도 체체로서사회서비스강화전략을제안한

바있다. 물론소득보장과서비스보장을모두선진수준으로발전시키는것이가능하기만하다면환 할만

한일일것이다. 하지만우리사회가감당할수있는총량차원의복지국가수준에관한논의가없이는어떠

한무지갯빛논의들로탁상공론에그칠수있다. 김교수가진단한바, 노동의쇠퇴나저출산∙고령화등과

같은사회변화만보더라도연금이나실업보험등기존소득보장체계에 한 규모수술없이는지속가능

한‘사회투자전략’을확보하기가쉽지않을것으로예상된다. 이에관한정책분야별재정투여의우선순위

설정과구체적인재원마련전략을제시할필요가있다는판단이다.

사회투자론의총론차원에서의공감에도불구하고몇가지사항에 한추가적인고려사항을다소비판

적인어조로제기하 다. 요컨 , 현재김교수가제안하는방식의사회투자전략은구체적인면에서의보

충, 특히재원과관련된보다세련된우선순위설정과개혁안이필요하다고판단된다. 우선순위설정을위

해서는원칙이필요하며이에관한본토론자의보충적제안은다음과같다. 다음의내용은경제적, 정치적

변수를고려한기존의실증연구를통해얻어진결과에의거한것이며이론적아이디어차원을넘어선다.

130



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

3) 김교수의발제내용을보면부문에따라보편주의와선별주의가혼재한다. 소득보장은주로선별주의적인관념에의거한반면, 서비스관련내용은

보편주의를담는것으로판단된다.

Ⅳ사회서비스강화전략과원칙

노후생활보장 장애인생활보장 건강생활보장 고용생활보장 총계

저위 고위 저위 고위 저위 고위 저위 고위 저위 고위 저위 고위

2007 1.91 1.94 0.03 0.11 1.01 2.57 2.68 0.70 1.05 0.76 0.76 5.97 7.55

2010 2.34 2.44 0.11 0.31 1.10 2.70 2.78 0.70 1.19 0.73 0.73 6.58 8.5

2015 2.86 3.01 0.17 0.40 1.13 2.74 3.05 0.77 1.35 0.71 0.74 7.25 9.68

2020 3.57 3.83 0.29 0.57 1.19 2.83 3.16 0.64 1.29 0.69 0.72 8.02 10.76

2025 4.60 5.08 0.52 0.91 1.30 2.90 3.23 0.68 1.39 0.71 0.74 9.41 12.65

2030 6.13 7.06 0.99 1.60 1.42 2.95 3.30 0.85 1.61 0.76 0.79 11.68 15.78

2040 8.95 10.70 1.08 1.74 1.56 3.06 3.42 1.00 1.78 0.91 0.95 15.00 20.15

2050 11.66 14.24 1.14 1.83 1.84 3.17 3.53 0.92 1.72 1.03 1.09 17.92 24.25

〈표3-1〉복지재정추계(GDP 비%, 복지부, 2007)

연도아동.가족.여성

생활보장

기초생활/주거생활보장

리형국가역할’의기본방향이다. 김교수가제안한인프라의구축에서공공의역할에관한보다구체적인

복안도이러한방향으로재구성되길고 한다.

복지국가의지속가능성에관한기존의학술적결론은두가지로요약된다. 첫째, 자유주의적처방이경

제적활성화를결과하는것은분명하다. 고성장과저실업의가장빠른열쇠는시장을강화하는자유주의전

략이다. 하지만자유주의적전략이지니는명백한한계는분배의악화라는사회적결과이다. 둘째, 정치경

제적으로동시에지속가능한전략은사회서비스를강화하는것이며, 적어도현금이전을중심으로하는전

략은피해야한다.

이러한면에서보면, 사회투자론이란것은일견신자유주의의연장선상에위치하고있다고볼수도있고

북유럽의사민주의와도맥이닿아있다고할수있다. 현실적으로평가컨 두전략모두의미가있지만, 가

장피해야할전략안은두가지의‘잡종’을만드는것이다. 기존우리복지체계의가장큰문제가세계각국

의복지프로그램을백화점식으로나열한잡탕식정책화 다고할때, 사회투자전략의지향부터프로그램

까지이르는일관된정책구조화가가장시급한현안이된다. 오늘발제내용에서가장아쉬운구석이‘시장’

과‘사회’에관한혼란스러운개념규정인데이로인해일관된정책이실종될가능성이우려된다. 남겨진그

림을완성하는것은우리모두의몫이다.


다. 또한, 이전략의정치경제적지속가능성이상 적으로높다는점이여러경험연구들을통해서속속밝

혀지고있다. 본보고서에서도보다정교한실증적분석을통해계량적인증거들을제시한다. 사회투자적인

의미가강한복지국가의목표는소득보장과사회서비스보장을아우르는개념인‘생활보장’으로확장되어

야한다. 기초적보장이라는면에서사회투자적의미가있는현금이전형프로그램은유지하면서이와동시

에사회서비스보장을균형적으로강화하는전략을추진하여야한다. 예컨 , 일반적욕구혹은위험으로분

류되는문제에 한사회서비스를강화하되근로능력자나노인, 장애인, 아동등요구호집단의기본생활보

장에필요한현금이전형프로그램은일정정도유지할필요가있다.

넷째, 김교수도지적하고있는바, 소극적∙적극적보장의균형을도모하여야한다. 복지국가의재정적

기반이탄탄했던자본주의황금기에는복지국가의지출분야가주로사회적위험(social risks)에 한사후

적구제에치중되었다. 복지국가의재정적위기가현실로부각된최근상황에서는노동시장에서의실패에

빠지지않도록하거나노동시장으로의복귀를보다적극적으로돕는방식의정책적 안들이주목받고있

다. 복지국가의재정적위기현상, 국가간의경쟁심화와같은자본주의의체제적변화를넘어설근본적 안

이없다고한다면, 사용가능한정책의범위와한계는명확하다. 노동시장에서의성공을보장하는적극적기

제의활용으로정책적방향을선회할필요가있다. 기든스이후제3의길에서표방하고있는사회투자국가

(social investment state), 능력개발국가(enabling state) 등을 차용한 각국의 개혁과정이 때

로는워크페어(workfare)류의신자유주의적인처방으로비판받는배경에노동시장활성화전략이있는것

은사실이다. 복지국가의축소전략으로서사용되는워크페어가아니라면적절한소극적기제와합리적으

로연결된적극적기제의활용을통한인적자본의활성화전략이라면개인의성취를통한복지의제고방안

은인간의존엄성차원에도부합하는정책적선택이될수있다.

다섯째, 균형적공사역할분담을도모하되어디까지나공공주도를강조할필요가있다. 최근복지국가재

편의과정에서하나의이슈로떠오른것은복지다원화와관련된논쟁이다. 국가간경쟁의심화와지구적경

제의침체로인한개별국가의재정적압박은자본주의황금기가담보한재정확보의자신감을바탕으로시

장이나가족을일방적으로 체하면서발달하 던전통적국가복지가더이상지속가능할수없게만드는

상황적변화이다. 한편, 민 화와상업화를통한국가복지의축소전략으로이어지는무분별한복지다원화

전략은새롭게 두되는다양한사회적위험들로부터국민을무방비상태에노출시키고새로운사회적위

험을확 하는결과를낳고있다. 공부문과사부문의적절한역할분담의내용과수준을정할필요성이있으

며이는기계적인업무분담이아닌유기적인역할의재조정이어야하고, 사회적감독하에국가의책임이

여전히강조되는방식으로재정과전달체계상의거버넌스를재구조화하여야한다. 공사역할분담원칙의핵

심역시, 공공책임성강화와사회투자전략수혜계층의보편화를기반으로설정되어야한다. 이러한전제위

에국가-시장-제3섹터의적절한역할분담이설계되어야한다. 비 리조직의경우시설투자를위한적극적

재정지원을부가할필요가있으며, 사회서비스시장에신규진입하는 리기업에도이에상응한유인을제

공할필요가있다. 결국, 직접공급(provision)은 리∙비 리부문모두를포함하는민간이, 사회서비스

의기본적인프라의구축과관련시장을형성∙지원∙감독하는것은공공의역할로설정하는것이‘통합관

132



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Ⅴ결론

unequivocally confirmed that the majority of the citizens currently desire a new welfare state.

But if we were to overlook the political factional ideology of the last local by-elections and the

general election process currently underway and hear all the promises made on public welfare,

one can very easily get wrapped up in extreme political bipolarization.

Social welfare discourse carried out in Korea for the last year has been centered on the

concept of "social investment." Seeing that each political faction in Korea makes similar

promises based on social investment, in spite of the feedback from the people in the

emphasized fields, it can be argued that social investment has become a super-ideological

political facade. With this in mind, because today's topic of Professor Yeon-Myung Kim's

presentation is social investment, it seems that there is a need to examine the presentation

critically and reevaluate the concept of "social investment." Although it is Professor Kim who is

responsible for importing the concept of "social investment" to Korea and contributed greatly

in bringing it up to the forefront of discussion, it is the role of others to carry out its diagnosis

and issue prescriptions on the concept of "social investment"that has become the topic on

current welfare politics and welfare policy discussions.

In short, in spite of being highly sympathetic to the circumstances diagnosed by "social

investment," it should be made clear that this presenter can't help but to shake his head on

some of the specific policy suggestions made by Professor Kim. Let us now proceed to

enumerate questionable points and points of critique of Professor Kim's discussion on "The

Vision of Korean Style Welfare State" named "Social Investment."

There is a sense that the term "social investment" has transcended academic circles and is

utilized in political inquiries. However, in order to secure a policy alternative that has a more

developed political theory and conceptual coherence than social investment, it is necessary to

question the appropriateness of the concept. There is the precedence of a number of scholars,

with Professor Young-Soon Kim in the lead and through various academic discussions, having

taken sides and discussed pros and cons of the concept of "social investment state," "social

investment model," "social investment strategy"which all seem very similar. In this context, the

concept that Professor Kim chose for today's discussion can be summed up as "social


Social Investment Model For Poverty PreventionSocial Investment Theory: A Compass for Korean Welfare State?

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Korea, with its miraculous economic growth in the latter half of the Twentieth Century so

called "the Miracle of the Han" that surprised the whole world, has its own societal downside.

It's known as "the half-spilt growth" or "less-developed welfare state," and they refer to the

current failure to adequately share the fruits of that growth. If we were to use the yardstick of

comparative OECD data that evaluates the level of member states' levels of overall

development, in contrast to its well-protected economic sector, Korea hovers around the

bottom in terms of "social-type" and related indices. Regardless of his or her wealth, an

overnight millionaire always gets pointed out. Developed countries have their own "overnight

millionaires." That country is a country that concentrates on maximizing its own profit while

failing to fairly distribute the fruits of its economic growth to all of its members, i.e., an

overnight millionaire country. If we were to view Korea's accomplishments in the context of

the ancient tradition in which Korea is referred to as "the people of propriety in the East who

value decorum and virtue," the last half-century was certainly not all happy song and dance.

Nevertheless, the events of the last few years offer expectations of changes to the rather

bittersweet successes. If we look at how sociological discussions are seriously focused on

"sharing" and "welfare state,"it seems to signal the curtain going up on the drama of the

changes the overnight millionaire is going through. Various types of social research have

Ⅰ Introduction

ⅡConceptual Vagueness of "Social Investment"

134

Social Investment Theory: A Compass for Korean Welfare State?

Sang-hoon Ahn

Professor,

Seoul National University

today's presentation, universal income guarantee, such as pension, asset building and

unemployment insurance are discussed on the one hand, while the scope of "society" in social

investment refers to the poor, as with the (neo-) liberal prescription. So, which is the case?

Although it is made clear that care giving, health and related services target all citizens; the

scope of the income guarantee program is quite narrow.

At the fundamental level, social investment theory can be judged as having the pragmatic

breakaway tint of the Cold War era leftist ideological pursuit. That can be seen in the fact of its

active use in real-life politics where pragmatics has become the main topic. If that's the case,

does "social investment strategy" in Professor Yeon-Myung Kim's presentation contain all the

pragmatic virtues? Let us evaluate social investment strategy advocated by Professor Kim along

the lines of the cardinal points of pragmatics of factual situation recognition and possibility of

actualization.

Firstly, let us look at the special characteristics of social investment theory vis-?-vis factual

recognition. Post-industrialization, neo-liberalist globalization, etc. are policy climate change

operating at the macroscopic level and the new society's dangers of corresponding expressions

of demographic and sociological changes were cited as the fundamental cause signaling the

"functional crisis"of the traditional welfare state through social investment theory and such.

Unlike the leftist factions that boldly advocated constructing an ideal welfare state, social

investment theory is an interpretive tool that, although it starts from the given "happy-to-

receive"environment, makes its pragmatic path in the way of trying to correct the failures of the

market system. As such, that social investment theory meets the pragmatics of factual

recognition cannot be denied.

Next, let us examine the practicality of the special characteristics of Professor Kim's proposed

social investment as an alternative plan. Professor Kim presented a proposed "change" in

which social investment supplements the existing income guarantee program. As such

Professor Kim seems to preserve his/her leftist characterization. However, the persuasiveness

of the presentation falls short due to the lack of a clear picture of public financial procurement.

Although it has been mentioned that political pragmatism advocates that the practicality of a



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

investment theory."It appears to be the plan that scholars use when they don't have a lot of

time to mull over the concept.

However, because it makes use of many types of "social investment + x" and bundles them

up as "social investment theory,"it has all the conceptual vagueness contained in all of them.

The most problematic concept is "social investment state." Even if we were to not revisit

Professor Kim's criticism and Professors Yeon-Myung Kim and Jae-Jin Yang's response, it is

judged that the use of the term "social investment state" is unreasonable. In particular, this

concept is tacitly linked to the concreteness of a welfare state, and, in this context, "social

investment state" and "welfare state" become equivalent terms. If a strict difference were to be

pointed out, from the point of view that the term "social investment state" puts emphasis on

"the existing welfare state strengthening its social investment," it can be a better contemporary

linguistic choice. In spite of this, when the term is supplemented with terms such as "liberal,"

"egalitarian," conservatism," etc., Of course, as soon as we mention "social investment state" we

can only imagine other welfare states. it's no better than a mere roundabout rhetoric associated

with the overall changes within a welfare sate For example, rank and title reflect a clear actual

difference. Then, does "social investment sate" and "welfare state" reflect this type of

difference?. It is important that academic concepts must also be based on communication of

clear concepts. From this point of view, introducing a vague new concept instead of using the

established term of "welfare state"within a sociological discussion does not clarify the content

of the discussion. In short, this speaker suggests unifying the language of the discussion to

"social investment strategy of a welfare state."

Even if we were to simplify "social investment + x" and other related concepts to "social

investment strategy,"the conceptual vagueness of "social investment" still remains. Firstly,

"social investment" is thought of as a compound term of "social"and "investment," but just what

is meant by "society" and "investment"? Of course there is this tendency of making the "welfare

state" and "welfare society"distinction ever since the liberal criticism of the welfare

diversification. However, in Professor Kim's presentation, "society" takes on the meaning of (i)

"state," (ii) more specifically, postmodern "new public institution" and, (iii) at times, "market." A

question on this point is exactly who is the subject of "social investment" and who or what is

being targeted? Furthermore, Professor Kim also still speaks of "universal welfare," but what is

the precise scope of "society"in this case? In particular, in speaking of social investment as a

supplement to, but not as a substitute for an income guarantee program, the cited example of

income guarantee program is still within the public assistance of a cash grant. At least for

136


Ⅲ Social Investment and Its Pragmatic Dilemma

In spite of this presenter being sympathetic to the overall dimension of social investment

theory, a few critiques have been made on a few items and additional items for consideration

offered. In short, it is judged that a more refined priority selection process and reform program

than the details suggested by Professor Kim through social investment theory is needed, vis-?-

vis supplemental programs and financial resources. Priority selection process requires a

principle, and this presenter's suggestion is stated below. Next is data obtained through

existing factual research that took economic and political factors into account and transcended

the theoretical and ideal dimensions.

Firstly, we need to devote thought to life-phase balance creation programs, as noted in

Professor Kim's discussion. The post-welfare-state-crisis crack that began to appear in

advanced Western countries is directly linked to the issues of inter-generational conflict. The

most important cause of the crack in the contemporary generational conflict is a low birthrate

and aging population that puts an additional strain on the working population. Not only is this

a cause of a decline in economic output, it would also result in the working population

wishing to withdraw their political support for this welfare state. The most important direction

to carry out a reform vis-?-vis creation of a new generational contract is a policy conversion in

which the age range of the beneficiary is, although concentrated on the retired population,

extended to some of the working population.

Secondly, a receivership balance to target the entire population is needed. It is important to

note that the most important characteristic of a welfare state that receives public support is the

universality of benefit reception If we look at Professor Kim's presentation, in places, we see

the blurring of universality and targeting. Income guarantee tend to lean toward targeting;

whereas, service and related content lean toward universality.. The strength of universality

politics is linked to the downplaying of the opposition to taxation. As is well known, the most

important yardstick for measuring the strength of a welfare state can be summed up as "how

far can you downplay the opposition to taxation?" Contrary to common sense expectation,

there is an inverse proportional relationship between the level of taxation resistance and the

level of a country's welfare expenditures, and it's because there is a reciprocal relationship

between welfare taxation resistance and welfare benefit Even for the countries with a similar

level of expenditures, benefit concentrating on a small number of vulnerable will be a political



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

policy cannot be secured without a definite prescription on financial resources, as before, there

seems to an idealist leaning.

The Table shows the calculated expected future public expenditures for the detailed

programs collected in relation to social investment theory. In spite of the relative importance

given to the income guarantee program in the above scenario, it also approaches 20% of the

GDP for the year 2040. According to other research, maintaining the current level of income

guarantee and supplementing it with further social services would increase the social service

expenditure (i) four fold to 25.5% of the total citizens' income up to the year 2030 and (ii) to

42% by the year 2050. (Budget Department, 2007). Having seen this situation, this speaker

advocated a strategy to strengthen social services as an alternate to maintaining the standard

level of income guarantee. Of course, if it is feasible to develop our income guarantee and

social service programs to be on par with those of developed countries, it is something that

would be welcomed. However, if a social service theory includes no discussion on the level of

a total welfare state that our society can afford to maintain, it would just end up being an

armchair theory. As Professor Kim noted, without a large operating means to maintain the

existing income guarantee program to counter and cope with such issues as labor market

deterioration, declining production, low birthrate, aging population, etc., "social investment

theory"cannot be expected to be secured easily. Thus, it is judged that financial grants,

spending priority selection and a detailed financial resource preparation strategy suggestion

are necessary.

138


Ⅳ Social Service Fortification Principle

<Table 3-1> Welfare Financial Estimate (GDP Comparison %, Department Of Welfare, 2007)

Elderly LivingExpense

Guarantee

Living ExpenseGuarantee forthe Disabled

HealthcareCost

EmploymentInsurance

Basic LivingExpense/

Housing CostTotal

Living ExpenseGuarantee for

Children,Family, Women

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

2007 1.91 1.94 0.03 0.11 1.01 2.57 2.68 0.70 1.05 0.76 0.76 5.97 7.55

2010 2.34 2.44 0.11 0.31 1.10 2.70 2.78 0.70 1.19 0.73 0.73 6.58 8.5

2015 2.86 3.01 0.17 0.40 1.13 2.74 3.05 0.77 1.35 0.71 0.74 7.25 9.68

2020 3.57 3.83 0.29 0.57 1.19 2.83 3.16 0.64 1.29 0.69 0.72 8.02 10.76

2025 4.60 5.08 0.52 0.91 1.30 2.90 3.23 0.68 1.39 0.71 0.74 9.41 12.65

2030 6.13 7.06 0.99 1.60 1.42 2.95 3.30 0.85 1.61 0.76 0.79 11.68 15.78

2040 8.95 10.70 1.08 1.74 1.56 3.06 3.42 1.00 1.78 0.91 0.95 15.00 20.15

2050 11.66 14.24 1.14 1.83 1.84 3.17 3.53 0.92 1.72 1.03 1.09 17.92 24.25

Year

Fourthly, as Professor Kim pointed out, work needs to be done in balancing out

conservative/generous guarantees. During the golden age of capitalism when the financial

foundation for a welfare state was solid, its expenditure was concentrated mostly on social risk

groups. The recent situation where there is a dip of welfare state financial crisis, plans that

actively prevent the failure of and reinstating the labor market are getting much attention. If

there is no fundamental plan to overcome the changes within the capitalist system, such as the

current welfare state financial crisis, intensification of international competition, this clearly

limits the scope of applicable policies. There is a necessity to turn to the policy direction

toward an activation mechanism that guarantees the success of the labor market. The reform

process of the countries that borrowed the post-Giddens third way that advocates social

investment state and enabling state, etc. have their labor market activation policies of workfare

type programs that are criticized as a neo-liberal prescription. If workfare is not a strategy of

welfare state reduction but an adequate income earning mechanism actively linked to a

mechanism that activates human resources, it can be a choice policy that promotes individual

accomplishment and preserving human dignity.

Fifthly, although a balanced public role should be sought, there is a need to emphasize a

public lead as far as possible. A recent issue that came out of the welfare state reorganization

process is the discussion vis-?-vis welfare diversification. The financial pressures of each

country due to intensification of international competition and global economic stagnation has

created a situation in which the financial security during the golden age of capitalism that gave

rise to the welfare state that took over the responsibilities left to the market or families are no

longer sustainable. However, reckless welfare diversification as a means of welfare state

reduction through privatization and commercialization can expose the citizens to a new variety

of dangers, make them defenseless and can result in increasing new society dangers. There is a

need to clearly define the appropriate roles to be played and tasks performed by public and

private sectors, and this needs to be carried out through an organic restructuring, not just a

mechanical task distribution. Furthermore, under social supervision and as a way of

emphasizing the traditional role of the government, a new system of financial and social

service delivery mechanism governance needs to be established. The public tasks and roles

should also be based on the fundamental premise of strengthening public responsibility and

on the basis of universality of benefit of social investment strategy. The roles and tasks of the

government, market and the third sector need to be designed upon this premise. In the case of

non-profit organizations for this task, there is a need to provide active financial support for



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

hard-shell to all taxpayers. On the contrary, even in a country where there is high level welfare

spending and taxation, expanding the scope of welfare benefit to all citizens reduces the

taxpayer vs. welfare recipient distinction and affords room to minimize tax resistance..

Although Korea's universal social insurance is quite advanced, social services are on the weak

side and need much improvement. The vulnerable class policy has a concentrated target and

has high target efficiency, so it is recognized as the most effective counter plan to improving

the effects of bipolarization. However, this is mere simplified economics to attack welfare state

politics. The political paradox of welfare redistribution (Korpi and Palme, 1998) is a well-

known fact: i.e., choosing the path of universality increases the possibility of bipolarization

resolution and redistribution; and choosing the path of target selecting furthers the existing

condition of the vulnerable class. Taking into account the budget restrictions that make welfare

public finance procurement difficult, it is necessary to adapt the strategy of beginning social

services from the lowest class and expand themupward. Although beginning social insurance

from the upper class and expanding them downward to include the vulnerable class is an

opposite expansion strategy, it is important to remember that it might be an inevitable strategy

to procure public financial resources.

Thirdly, cash transfer and social service balance needs to be secured. Concrete social policies

of a welfare state can be classified into "cash transfer" type programs and "social service" type

programs. Although a social policy program plan contains cash transfer and social service

programs, it's a fact that most welfare states lean toward targeting an income guarantee

program. However, regarding the welfare state crisis that began in the end of the 20th Century

and the most discussed strategy out of all the related reform measures discussed is the social

service strengthening strategy. Furthermore, that this strategy has a relatively high merit of being

sustained politically and in terms of economics has been shown in research after research For

the purpose of providing more elaborate and factual data analysis for this presentation,

quantitative evidence is presented. . The target of a strong welfare state with the intent of social

investment should move towards a "living expense guarantee" program that combines income

guarantee and social service guarantee. There is a need to maintain a cash transfer program as a

basic guarantee program while promoting a strategy of moving towards balancing in a

strengthened social service guarantee. But although the programs that are classified as

"generally desired" or "at risk" must have their services augmented, there is a need to maintain a

certain level of cash transfer programs for living expense guarantee programs for the people in

need, such as some working people, elderly, people with disabilities, children, etc.

140


Panel Presentation 2Tae-jin Lee

Ph.D., Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py

their initial set-up cost. There is also a need to provide a similar corresponding inducement to

enterprises entering the social service delivery market. In the end, the basic policy direction of

an "integrated management type governmental role"is defining "public role" as the services

rendered by both for profit and non-profit organizations to form the basic social service

infrastructure, create, support and supervise a related market. Reconstruction of a more

concrete plan for a public role in infrastructure construction along this line than the one

suggested by Professor Kim is eagerly awaited.

The existing academic work on the subject of the possibility of sustaining the welfare state

can be summed up in two types. Firstly, it is clear that the neo-liberal prescription will result in

economic revitalization. The key to high growth and low employment is the neo-liberal

strategy that puts emphasis on strengthening the market. However, the clear limitation of the

neo-liberal strategy is that it would result in a worse distribution, a negative social situation.

Secondly, a strategy that can be maintained both economically and politically is the one that

can strengthen social services. Furthermore, at the least, a cash transfer centered strategy

should be avoided.

Form this aspect, it can be argued that social investment theory (i) gives an appearance of a

status quo strategy to prolong neo-liberalism and (ii) share the same vein as Northern

European egalitarianism. Although the two strategies both have significance, the strategy plan

that must be avoided is one that creates a mongrel out of the two. In the event that Korea's

biggest existing welfare system problems were resolved by a department-store line-up type

hotchpotch policy drawn from welfare programs from many countries, the most urgent and

significant unresolved problem would be the establishment of a coherent policy framework

stemming from the direction of social investment strategy. The most regrettable issue in

Professor Kim's presentation today is the rather unclear conceptual parameters of "market" and

"society." This can be a cause for worry vis-?-vis the possibility of a non-forthcoming coherent

policy. This presenter humbly suggests that completing the rest of the picture is a task left for

the rest of us.

142


ⅤConclusion


한국은국민의최저생계를국가가책임지도록하는국민기초생활보장법이 2000년제도시행이래우리

나라저소득층에게많은도움을주어왔음. 많은예산이투입되었고특히국민의정부및참여정부는분배에

초점을맞추어더불어사는사회건설에진력하 음. 그러나 IMF 경제위기이후경제및사회의양극화현

상이심화되어부의분배가그전에비해훨씬왜곡되어가고있는실정이고. 표적인공공부조제도인국민

기초생활보장제도는보충급여방식을택하고있고재산은소득으로환산되어급여의기준선에포함됨으로

써저소득계층의저축동기를박탈하여자산을축적할기회가원천봉쇄되어있음. 즉, 빈곤의악순환또는

물림구조가고착될수있는한계가있음. 위와같은인식이확산되면서현행소득중심의복지정책이단

지생계를유지할수있는정도이기때문에이를극복할여지를자산형성에서찾고자근로능력이있는저소

득계층이스스로저축습관을고취하고자산형성을통해서미래를 비할수있는제도의필요성이제기되

어2004년도에도입방안에 한검토가있었음.

미국, 국, 캐나다등다른나라의경험이완결성있게평가가되지못한상황에서자산형성지원제도시

행의우려도만만치않았음. 구체적으로빈곤층에 한자산형성지원정책에도입함에있어주로지적되는

부분은크게세가지로구분될수있음. 첫째, 과연자산적립의수준이탈빈곤가능한수준인가하는현실성

과관련된논의이며, 둘째자산형성보다는더시급한소득보장및사회복지서비스보강이아닌가, 마지막

으로정치적∙국민적지지를얻어낼수있는가이었음.

본토론자는사회구성및운 의근간중하나는사회의연 성이며, 더불어사는사회건설은장기적으로

사회안정의비용을감소시키며가난이 물림되는사회가아니라노력여하에따라빈곤으로부터벗어나

Ⅰ토론에앞서

사회투자론, 한국복지국가의 만자산형성제도도입의의의및평가

이 태 진

한국보건사회연구원

기초보장평가센터장


Foundation

이러한제도들의시사점을정리하면,

○저소득빈곤층이빈곤으로부터탈출할수있는계기를국가가제공함.

빈곤층에게최저생계가유지될수있는정도의소득보장프로그램외에그들이빈곤으로부터탈피할

수있도록저축습관을장려하고, 교육기회를제공하며주거구입및창업을돕는국가적제도가운

중임.

○캐나다는인적자본에투자할수있는기회를, 미국은물적자산이형성되도록, 국은저축습관의향

상을위하여유사한제도를운 하고있지만최종목적은빈곤탈출을돕는것이고각국의제도상이성

은빈곤의원인이무엇인지에 한인식이다르다는데서출발하고있음.

○자산형성프로그램은다른복지제도의수혜와상관없이운 되고있음.

IDA 프로그램에참여하는동안다른공공부조프로그램, 특히TANF 수급자의경우는중복수급의문

제가발생하는데, 이는중복수급원칙과배치됨. 즉, 자산형성지원정책을실시함에있어소득과의상

관관계에 해엄격한기준을제시하지않겠다는의지를보이는것으로판단됨.

○자산형성지원정책은단순한소득지원보다는저축및자산적립을통해스스로의미래를설계하고준

비할수있다는믿음을갖게하는심리적인측면에서중요한접근임.

결론적으로, 빈곤에서탈출한다는것은단순히물질(소득), 보육시설, 고용기회만으로한정하는것은

빈곤문제를해결하는데큰도움이되지못함. 이러한접근은이미오래전부터실시되어왔지만, 그럼에도불

구하고여전히많은사람들이빈곤상태에빠져있다는것은빈곤정책에새로운패러다임이필요하다는것

을단적으로보여준다고할수있음.

자산형성지원정책은경제적, 정치적측면에서도전에직면하게되는데, 자활할수있을정도의자산을

형성시켜주기위해서는국가의예산부담이과중하며, 국민이부담하는세금이재원으로사용될수밖에없

기때문에Median-Vote 법칙에의한정치적인도전에직면하게됨.

모든사회복지제도는경제적, 정치적도전에직면하는데, 이제도와관련해미국의경우자산형성지원

정책이보수진 과좌파진 에서환 받게된배경은자산형성제도가그동안의소득보장지원정책에많은

예산을투입했음에도불구하고빈곤문제가해결되지않음에따라기존의AFDC, TANF, EITC제도와연계

하면서상승효과를나타낼것이라는경제적, 정치적판단이있었기때문에가능했음.


빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안사회투자론, 한국복지국가의 만자산형성제도도입의의의및평가

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

향후사회를도울수있는계층으로탈바꿈할수있다는점에자산형성제도의의의를두며, 본토론 에서

도먼저다른나라들의자산형성지원제도들의특성비교와시사점을정리하고발제자의 만의자산형성지

원제도의의및평가를중심으로논하도록하겠음

미국의 IDA, 국의Saving Gateway, 캐나다의LearnSave는그개념및운 상에서매우유사한제도

임. 그러나큰틀에서의유사점에도불구하고각제도는다음과같은차이점을갖고있음.

○첫째, 미국의 IDA는많은주정부차원에서다양하게이루어지지만, 국의Saving Gateway는국가

차원에서제도가운 되어지며, 미국처럼다양한기관에서업무를수행하기보다는 국은단일한제

공기관(single provider)에서만관련업무를수행하고있음. 반면캐나다의 LearnSave는미국의

IDA에유사하게정부조직, 비 리조직, 그리고지역사회여러자선조직들을중심으로프로그램을운

하고관리를하고있음.

○둘째, IDA는참여자들자신들이적립한금액에 한사용처를주택구입, 창업등과같이법적으로엄

격하게제한하고있는반면, Saving Gateway는프로그램참여가종결되면, 적립된금액에 해수급

자의 욕구에 따라 다양하게 사용할 수 있도록 허가하고 있다는 점에서 다르다고 할 수 있음.

LearnSave에서는적립금에 한사용목적을참여자를위한재정관리교육훈련, 사례관리서비스제

공에중점을두고있어 IDA와Saving Gateway보다는허용가능한사용내역이매우제한적임.

○셋째, 저축습관과관련된교육이의무사항이아님.

IDA 지원을받기위해서는교육이수가의무적인데반해, SG는교육프로그램은있으나가입자가원

하는경우에실시하며, SG프로그램참여에따른조건은아님.

○넷째, 계좌입금방식의차이

IDA는개인계좌에넣는방식이아니라관리자들의통장에넣고, 사용과관련해서도 IDA 리인이

거래자에게직접돈을지불하는방식이라면, SG는개인명의의계좌로돈을입금하고, 개인이직접사

용하는방식으로운 됨.

○다섯째, 도중하차에 한징벌의차이

IDA는중도하차하는가입자에게매우강한penalty를부여하고있음. 심한경우는matching 했던

지원금을전액몰수하는방식을취하기도함. 하지만 SG는가입기간도중언제든지포기할수있으

며, matching했던지원금은가입기간에비례하여그 로지원하는방식을취함.

146


Ⅱ각나라별제도비교

오히려빈곤자들의최저한의삶을보장하는목적이아닌가. 따라서자산형성에 한근거를제시함에있어

서공적부조를한계를자주사용하는데, 안타깝게도이러한한계는공적부조개념이만들어지고오늘날까

지제도자체가그러한목적과한계를동시에갖도록만들어지고있는게아닌가? 따라서이것을자산형성

도입근거로사용하는것이적절한가?

3. 타이페이저소득층을위한시정부의자산형성지원사업: TFDY와 TYDA

1) 지원자격

복지혜택의수혜자이자최소3개월이상고용된사람들이라고제시되었는데, 이들은누구?

<표3-1> 저소득가구란? 개념자체가불명학하다고생각됨. 즉현재근로하고있지않아도빈곤자? 또는

한국식의차상위계층? 까지포함하는것인가? 아니면수급자이면서근로하고있는사람만을말하고있는

건가? p. 104와p. 105에개념이상이하게표시되어기술되고있음.

2) 참여

이러한프로그램에자발적참여가과연적절한가? 즉앞선논의에서기존의공공부조제도는제도가갖

는한계로인해복지의존성문제제기하면서새로운접근이필요하다는논리를전개하면서자산축적프로

그램의당위성을위한근거를제기했는데, 만약자산형성프로그램역시자발적으로운 된다면이는자칫

전시효과는있을뿐실질적인효과가없는제도로전락할가능성이큼. 필자는저소득층및빈곤자들이강

요를하지않아도모든사람들은스스로근로할의지가있는믿음을갖고있는것으로생각됨. 그러나복지

라는개념이도입되어수많은제도가시행된지금까지이러한믿음은잘못되었다는것이역사적으로증명

된바있음. 따라서타이페이의자산축적프로그램이본래의목적을달성하기위해서는과정만을엄격하게

요구하는것이아니라잠재적 상자중에서적격의 상을엄격하게선정해야만참여율및성공을장담할

수있다고생각됨.

3) 재원

일반적으로미국의 IDA도그렇고타이페의 IDA도마찬가지로재원을지역사회민간금융에서지원하

도록하고있음. 그러나이는우려스러운점이아닐수없음. 국가의보조금이없이민간자원에서전적으로

재원을충당한다면, 거시적인경제지표및은행의상황변화에따라적립액및매칭율이안정적으로유지되

지못할개연성이있다고생각됨. 따라서단순히민간재원만으로충당하기보다는정부에서일정정도부담

하여기존의은행과개인이1:1 이었다면, 이제는국가가개입되어1:1:1 등의방식으로국가기일정정도의

재정부담을해야함. 이는단순히재정안정화측면에서끝나는것이아니라정부가재정적으로개입함으로



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

1. 배경으로서제시된근거의타당성및신뢰성

<표1-3>를제시한필자는상하위20%의저축격차비율이1975년16.54배에서2003년428.18배로증

가한자료를통해빈부격차의주범이소득불평등이아니라자산분포때문이라주장하고있음. 그러나필자

가제시된자료에신뢰성이의심스러운점은2003년428.18배는상식적으로이해가힘든수치임. 그럼에

도불구하고 2003년도제시된수치를그 로수긍한다고하더라도이러한수치에 한신뢰성을심어줄

수있는경향이2003년도전후에이와비슷한수치오는증가추세를나타낼수있는제시되어야한다고생

각함. 다시말해서1975년도에서2000년까지는저축율비율은완곡한증가를나타내다가TFDA와TYDA

가실시된 2001과 2002년자료가제시되지않은상태에서급작스럽게저축율이 400배이상으로뛰었음.

이는단순한상식차원의빈부격차논의가아니라정치, 경제적등과거시적인외부요인에의해서기인한다

고생각됨. 따라서이러한통계치에 한설득력을얻기위해서는2004년의자료도제시되어야한다고생

각됨. 따라서소득증가율, 소비증가율이크게변동하지않은상황에서저축율지수만이급작스럽게변했다

는사실에 해서는이해할수있는충분한근거제시및논의가필요하다고생각됨.

필자는<그림1-1> 자료를통해아동빈곤율과자산이인과관계가있을것으로추정하고있음. 이러한논

리에는비약이있다고생각됨. 먼저, 필자는자원및자산이거의없는가족은아동의인적자본및심리사회

적투자에소홀하게되고따라서이것이삶의기회를제약하는요소로보고있음. 이논리를역으로정리하

면, 자원및자산이많은가족의아동은삶의기회를얻을가능성이높다고할수있는데, 과연자산과아동

빈곤이이러한인과관계를갖는지의심스러움. 동시에필자는이러한논리에 한근거를아동빈곤율표를

제시하고있지만, 제시된표는단순히빈곤지표일뿐이표를통해자산과아동빈곤, 더나아가는삶의기회

측면까지이해할수없음. 따라서필자의논리를위해서는오히려빈곤가구의자산증감율을시계열적으로

세시함과동시에아동의빈곤율을시계열적으로제시하는것이필자의논리를좀더튼튼하게만들것이라

생각됨. 둘째, 필자는p. 100 상단에“점차벌어지는~ 전력마련이시급하다”고기술하 는데, 이역시경

제불평등의고비용과아동빈곤증가추세에 한구체적인논의가없는상황에서이러한선언적진술은독

자로하여금“어떠한근거에서이런말을할수있을까?”하는질문을갖게할것으로생각됨.

2. 저소득층을위한자산형성에 한핵심논쟁

필자는p. 100에중간에“공적부조는~ 비난을오랫동안면치못했다”라는기술을하고있는데, 정치적

수사어또는실제적인관점에서볼때공공부조는빈곤자들의삶의질을개선하는것이목적이라고보다는

148


Ⅲ본원고에 한궁금점및의견

업자를양산하는통로가될수있음. 따라서프로그램참여목표설정시제한된기간내에많지않은돈을

적립한다면, 그리고그것이현실적으로건실한점포를개설한다는것이어렵다고판단된다면이에 한현

실적인판단이필요할것이라생각됨.

또한필자는사업의성과의지표중프로그램참여를통해자긍심, 부모-자식간관계및학업성취에서향

상되었는지를분석하 음. 이는필자는사업의성과를양적평가와질적평가를모두보겠는의지가반 된

것인지?, 만약그렇다면, 부모-자식간관계및자긍심과같은심리적인요소들을어떻게과학적으로측정했

는가? 필자의평가방법에 해무지한상태에서토론자가짐작컨 , 필자는단일사례연구와유사한방법으

로평가한것으로예상됨. 그렇다면, 일반적으로이러한설계가갖는한계, 즉프로그램실시전후의결과를

인관과계를보고자한다면, 외생변수에 한엄격한통제가필요한데, 현실적으로그러한과정이어렵다고

하더라도이에 한단서및주의가제시되어야한다고생각됨. 따라서단순히주관적느낌들을그래도보

여주기보다는보다엄격한통제아래서분석된결과를제시되어야만, 변수의속성이비수량화지수이기

때문에타당성에 한비판을비해갈수있지않을까생각됨.

사업의평가에있어서주관적느낌들을평가지표로제시하는것이적절한가? 만약그렇다고생각한다

면, 어떻게합리적이고과학적으로측정할수있는가?

5. 결론

필자는자산축적축적프로그램을통해사회통합을이룰수있다는식의논지를펴고있음. 그러나과연

자산축적을통해저소득층이사회와통합될수있는지는여전히의문스러움. 필자는프로그램실시를통해

저소득가구를주류사회에포함시키고평등과사회통합을이루겠다는이상을제시했으나, 이는이상에불

과하다고생각함. 즉본토론자는 IDA를통해서주류사회진입, 평등, 사회통합과같은명목적이고거시적

인논의보다실제적인논의, 즉 IDA를통해빈곤자들이저축하는습관을기르고, 소비에 한교육, 그리고

그것을통해자산을축적하는경험하게함으로써제한된자원에서규모의경제를할수있는능력을길러

주는목적이더현실적이라생각됨.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

써국민들로하여금제도에 한신뢰성을갖도록해주는2중효과를노릴수있다고생각됨.

4) 매칭비율

매칭비율은일반적으로1:1이최소부담적정부담으로많이받아들여지고있는것이사실임. 그러나이

것이과연그사회의물가처럼현실을잘반 하는매칭율인지?

4. TFDA와 TYDA의 향

1) 평가용자료수집

사례메니져가프로그램모니터를했다고했는데, 사례메니져는어떤성격과어떤역할을했는지? 이는

제도의안정성및연속성, 그리고현실성차원에서매우중요한요소가아닐수없음. 이발표문에서는사례

메니져에 해지나치게약술되었음. 구체적으로이들은누구이며, 어떤배경. 어떤역할을했는지설명이

구체적으로필요하다고생각됨.

2) 참가자특성

TFDA 시행후등록자184개가구가등록했는데68명이탈락한것으로나타났는데, 이들은어떠한이유

에서탈락했는가? 이는매우중요한통계치라할수있음. 제도에끝까지참여한사람들도중요하지만, 중

간에이탈한사람들에 해서도더구체적인설명이있고, 그가운데패턴이존재하는지, 그들의공통된특

성은무엇인지에 한충분한논의가필요하다고생각됨.

3) 사업의성과

필자는프로그램참여한청소년이프로그램종료후당초에설정한고등교육진학목표를달성했고, 이를

마치프로그램의참여때문이라는식으로기술하고있음. 그러나이는단순히추정일뿐정확한인관관계가

존재하고볼수없음. 따라서이런식의논의를위해서는보다구체적인분석이필요할것으로생각됨.

그리고프로그램에참여한성인들주 37%가창업을했다고제시하고있는데, 그렇다면이들이창업한

업종, 자산규모, 종업원규모등에 한구체적인논의가필요할것으로생각됨. 이들이창업을했다고그것

을단순히성공이라고본다는것은매우근시안적인생각임. 그이유는노동시장의구조상이익을창출하는

좋은기업또는점포를운 하기위해서는높은경쟁력이있어야함에도불구하고일반적으로저소득층이

창업하는업종들은이미노동시장에강력한기업및점포들이존재함으로인해높은경쟁력을잦고우위를

점하기어렵다는일반적인지적임. 따라서프로그램참여를통해서창업을지원한다는것은자칫 세자

150


Given that there were no definite evaluation criteria available of the experiences of other

countries such as the U.S, the U.K and Canada, there was a great deal of concern over the

proposed asset building support system. Specifically, the proposed importation of an asset

building support system for the poor can be divided into three main areas. The first area is

related to the discussion of whether the proposed asset saving program is in fact practical

enough to lead the poor out of their poverty. The second discussion is not centered on asset

building, but whether the urgent income guarantee program and other social welfare services

should be fortified. The last area to be discussed is whether such a program could earn

political and public support in Korea.

This presenter begins the discussion with the view that (i) collective responsibility is the basis

of social organization and operation and (ii) the purpose of such social planning is to reduce

the expenses associated with maintaining social stability. Moreover, the significance of an asset

building support system is in not having a hand-out poverty society but a poor individual

having an opportunity to get out of poverty and move up to a position where he or she can

make his or her contribution to society. With such background assumptions, this presenter

would like to begin with (i) examining the special characteristics of asset building support

systems of other countries, (ii) enumerating the relevant issues and (iii) discuss this presenter's

assessment of the significance and merit of the asset building support system of Taiwan.

In terms of their concept and operations, IDA of the U.S., Saving Gateway of the U.K. and

Learn Save of Canada are similar programs. However, in spite of their similarities in overall

framework, each system has the following differences :

Firstly, IDA of the U.S. is carried out in a variety of ways at the level of many state

governments, but Saving Gateway of the U.K is a system operated by the national government.

Rather than having a number of organizations carrying out the program as in the U.S., the U.K

program has a single provider (i.e., the national government) carry out the program. Similar to

the U.S., Canada operates its system through government organizations, non-profit

organizations, regional governments and other volunteer organizations.


Social Investment Model For Poverty PreventionThe Significance and Assessment of Taiwan's Asset Building System

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Since the implementation of the National Basic Living Expense Guarantee Legislation in 2000

in which the government assumed the responsibility of its citizens' minimum standard of living,

much assistance was given to the low-income class citizens of Korea. Much of the national

budget was invested for that purpose. In particular, various levels of government participation

were focused on sharing the wealth and, thus, all endeavored to establish an integrated

society. However, since the IMF crisis, economic and social bipolarization intensified and the

notion of sharing wealth has become more perverted than before. The citizens' basic living

expense guarantee system, the premier public assistance program, was made to focus on the

method of supplying supplement grants. This "asset" was classified as income, got included in

the taxable income category and taxed. This in turn has deprived the poor of any incentive to

save their money and has blocked accumulating any assets. In other words, this approach has

the limit of stagnation, i.e., perpetuating the cycle of poverty and increasing generational

poverty. As this understanding spread, and because the current income-centered welfare

policy is geared toward maintaining just basic living expenses, there was a need to overcome

this situation and find a way for the poor to build assets. So, in 2004, there was a suggestion of

and reviewing importing plans to encourage the work-capable low-income class to develop a

habit of saving their money and to prepare for the future through it.

Ⅰ Preliminary Discussion

The Significance and Assessment ofTaiwan's Asset Building System

Tae-jin LeeDirector of Basic Security Evaluation CenterKorea Institute for Health and Social Affairs

152

ⅡComparison of Each Country's Systems

* Canada offers the poor an opportunity to invest in human resources.

The U.S. offers an opportunity for the poor to accumulate an asset. The U.K. operates a

program to encourage the poor to develop a habit of saving. The similarity of these programs is

that their final goal is to help the poor escape poverty, and the differences among these

programs stem from their different recognition of the cause of poverty.

* Asset building programs are indifferent to the receiving of other welfare benefits.

A recipient of another public support program such as TANF participating in IDA could bring

up the issue of receiving double support, but this problem can be resolved by the basic

regulations dealing with double support. In other words, it appears that they exhibit the intent

of not imposing strict regulations regarding the issues associated with income levels vis-?-vis

the asset building support program.

* Rather than being a simple income support program, an asset building support system has

an important psychological approach where a participant has faith in himself or herself and

voluntarily prepares for his or her future through savings and asset accumulation.

In conclusion, simply limiting public support to providing material means (e.g., income

support), childcare and employment opportunities, does not have a significant impact on the

issues related to poverty relief. The fact that many people are still in poverty in spite of the

approaches that have been carried out in the past for many years directly shows us that there is

a need for a new poverty policy paradigm.

It's true that an asset building support program has to confront economic and political

concerns. So, any asset-building program allowing a participant to achieve a self-supporting

level would require a significant portion of a state's budget. Further, because the only available

resource for it would be public taxation, such a program would have to directly confront the

politics of Median-Vote principle and such. It is true that all social welfare systems must

confront the politics of the state. In the case of both conservative and leftist factions of the U.S.

politics welcoming the asset building support policy has to do with their economic and

political realization that (i) devoting a significant portion of their budget on other social

programs in the past has not resolved the poverty problem and (ii) the asset building support

program in conjunction with other existing programs such as AFDC, TANF and EITC systems

could have an increased effect toward resolving the poverty problem.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

Secondly, whereas IDA has strict legal restrictions on using the savings for purchasing a

home or starting a business, Saving Gateway allows its participants unrestricted use of their

savings at the conclusion of the program. By having its focus on financial management,

education and providing case management services, it has a much stricter limit than both IDA

and Saving Gateway on how the participant may use his or her savings.

Thirdly, training on developing a habit to save is not a mandatory condition.

IDA requires its participant to go through a training program on developing a habit to save in

order to become eligible for the program. Although SG has such a training program, its

participation is voluntary and is, thus, not a mandatory condition for participation in the

program.

Fourthly, the differences in the deposit method:

In the case of IDA program, the money doesn't go directly into the participant's account but

is held in the program administrator's account. When the money in the account is taken out,

the money is taken out of the account of the participant by the agent and paid to the

participant. However, for SG, the program is operated in such a way that the money is given to

a participant who puts it into his or her own account and has direct access to his or her

account.

Fifthly, difference in attrition penalty:

IDA imposes a severe penalty on a participant who drops out in the middle of the program.

In the worst case, the entire matching support fund can be seized. However, SG allows a

participant to drop out of the program at any point in the program, and the method of paying

out matching funds only for the duration of participation is used.

Enumeration of the suggestions made by the above systems is as follows :

* The state operates programs that offer an opportunity for the poor to escape poverty.

In addition to the income guarantee program that maintains a minimum standard of living for

the poor, the state operates savings encouraging programs that allows the poor to escape

poverty, opportunity to receive an education, purchase a home, start a business, etc.

154


family's asset increase rate vis- -vis the child's poverty rate change over time would strengthen

the author's line of reasoning. Secondly, the author states, "gradually widening strategy

preparation is urgently needed" at the middle of page 112. However, without a detailed

discussion on the high cost of economic inequality and child poverty increase rate, it leaves a

reader wonder "on what basis can such a declaration be made?"

2. Core Discussion on Asset Building for the Low-Income Class

On the top of page 113, the author wrote, "public assistance was not able to escape criticism

for a long time."However, from apolitical investigation and from a practical point of view, isn't

the purpose of public assistance to provide a minimum standard of living for its recipients

rather than improving the quality of life for the poor? The limitations of public assistance are

often used as a basis for asset building. But regrettably, isn't this limit created by the very

concept of the system since its inception, to have such a purpose and limit it at the same time?

Then, can that be used as a basis for importing asset building?

3. TFDY and TYDA: Taipei Civic Government's Support Project for the Low-

Income Class

1) Eligibility

It states "a welfare recipient who is employed for at least 3 months," but to whom does it

refer?

"Low-income family" in Table 3-1, the very notion itself is unclear. Does the term refer to "the

currently working poor" or "high-position class" as in Korea? Or does it refer only to those who

work and receive welfare? The concept is used differently on page 117 and page 118.

2) Participation

Is voluntary participation in such a program realistic? In other words, the discussion above

presented the need for an asset-building program on the basis of limitations of the existing

welfare system, welfare dependence and, hence, suggesting the need for a new approach.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

1. The Appropriateness and Reliability of the Basis of the Background

Suggestions

Table 1-3 shows that the savings rate differential for the top and bottom 20% of the

population in 1975 was 16.54 times and the differential increased to 428.13 times in 2003.

Through this data, the author insists that the main culprit for the rich-poor gap is not the

uneven distribution of income but differences in asset distribution. However, what is difficult to

rely on in the author's data in terms of common sense is the 428.15 times gap in 2003 is a

difficult number to comprehend. What we need in order to have a degree of reliability for the

above numbers is to see the post-2003 numbers that show the follow up trend since the 2003

figures. In other words, a direct increase in the savings rate differential was shown between the

years 1975 and 2000. However, without presenting any data since the initiation of TFDA and

TYDA, i.e., the years 2001 and 2002, the figure suddenly increases to over 400 times in 2003. It

appears that this has little to do with the common sense explanation of the internal rich and

poor gap but more to do with the external macroscopic economic and political causes. As

such, in order to gain statistical persuasiveness, it is believed that the 2004 data needs to be

presented. Therefore, the fact that there was a sudden change only in the rate of savings

differential for the two groups without any significant changes in the income increase rate and

expenditure increase rate presented is something that needs further adequate discussion.

Through Figure 1-1, the author makes the assumption that there is a cause and effect

relationship between assets and the child poverty rate. However, this appears to be a huge

theoretical jump. Firstly, the author claims that families with virtually no resources and assets

neglect to (i) invest in the child psychologically and socially and (ii) this becomes the cause of

life's restrictions placed on the child. In terms of the roles family play, it can be said that

families with more resources and assets have a greater possibility of increasing the child's life

opportunities. However, it is doubtful whether there exists a direct human correlation between

assets and child poverty. Although the author presents the child poverty rate and the basis for

this line of reasoning, the table presented is just a poverty index. As such, there is no way to

infer the causal relationship among assets, child poverty rate and eventual life opportunities

available to the child through this table. On the contrary, it is believed that presenting the poor

156


ⅢConcerns Regarding the Report and Suggestions

managers. The questions of who they were, their background and the precise role they played

needed to be explained in detailed.

1) Participant Information

184 households were initially enrolled in the TFDA since its implementation, but 68

individuals dropped out. What was the reason for their dropping out of the program? It can be

argued that this is an important statistical factor. It is important to mention the number of

people who finished the program, but a more detailed explanation about the people who

dropped out of the program is needed. For example, an adequate discussion on whether there

is a dropout pattern and what the dropouts have in common, etc. needed to be provided.

2) Program Results

The author (i) states that the adolescents who participated in the program accomplished the

objective of matriculating to the high schools picked out at the beginning of the program and

(ii) claims it was due to the merit of the program. However, this is a mere assumption on the

part of the author and it does not provide any proof of the existence of such human causal

factors. Thus, rather than pursuing this type of discussion, what is needed is a more detailed

analysis.

Moreover, it is stated that 37% of the participants of this program started their own

businesses, but it is necessary to include a more detailed discussion of the type of business,

asset size, number of employees, etc. It would be a nearsighted judgment to declare the

program victorious just on the basis of some of the participants starting their own businesses.

The reason for this is that, generally, in spite of the need for an adequate business or a shop to

compete successfully in the market place to create adequate profit, many low-profit generating

businesses and shops lose out to more competitive ones and have a difficult time of gaining

dominance in the market place. As such, starting a business through the program may very

well fall into creating a path to mass petty self-employment. So if a participant did not save the

initially-targeted sum of money at the conclusion of the program, it would actually make it

difficult to establish and sustain an adequate business or a shop. Therefore, there is a need to

conduct a realistic assessment of this program.

Moreover, through the nature of the business started and its index, the author has analyzed

the extent of the program improving the participants' self-pride, parent-child relationship and



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

However, it can be argued that if an asset building program, too, were operated voluntarily,

there is a high probability that it would only have an outward appearance of success and could

actually become an ineffective strategy. It seems that the author assumes that low-income

people and the poor have a will of their own to work when not forced to do so. However,

numerous examples since the inception of the welfare system provide historical proof of the

incorrectness of this assumption. As such, in order to achieve the intended purpose of Taipei's

asset building program and assure proper participation rate and guarantee success, rather than

putting strict demands on the program process itself, it is necessary to put strict controls on

eligibility criteria by way of determining the latent tendencies of a prospective recipient.

3) Financial Resources

As it is with IDA of the U.S. and Taipei, the financial resources of the programs are supported

by private sources. However, this can only be a troubling point. If no government financial

input is made and the only source is private, it isbelieved that there is a probability that the

changes in macroscopic economic index and banking situations could make the matching rate

unstable and make it difficult to sustain. So if the bank and individual recipient contribution

ratio is 1:1 with just the private sector contributing, then the ratio could be 1:1:1with the

government contributing a fixed amount. Therefore, government contribution should be made.

In addition to this approach of providing financial stability for the program, a 2-level effect by

government participation could offer general reliability to the program.

4) Matching Ratio

It is a general fact that most programs use the minimum match ratio of 1:1 as the appropriate

contribution. However, one can ask whether this ratio is one that properly reflects changes that

can occur in the way of general price increases and living expenses.

4. The Effects of TFDA and TYDA

It is reported that a case manager monitored the program, but what type of monitoring was

carried out and what role did the case manager play? This is a very important requisite for the

system's stability, sustainability and practicality. The report had too brief a summary of the case

158


academic achievement, etc. Does this reflect the author's intension of assessing the qualitative

and quantitative evaluation of the business success due to the program? If so, what scientific

method was applied to quantify and qualify the psychological factors such as improved self-

pride and parent-child relationship, etc.? This is something that those who are engaged in the

discussion have to just guess. It seems that the author has used a single case study and the

related method to arrive at the conclusion. The study design limit of this approach is that a

strict statistical control of the external causal factors is needed to adequately examine the

relevant human factors prior to and after the program. So even if we were to acknowledge that

this is a very difficult task to carry out, a related proviso and caution should have been given.

Therefore, rather than this aspect of the report sounding like a mere subjective impression, one

wonders whether an analysis conducted with strictly controlled comparison of the non-

numerical variables would be more appropriate for a more critical evaluation and comparison.

Regarding the evaluation of the businesses started by the program participants, is it

appropriate to present a subjective evaluation index? If not, could such variables be rationally

and scientifically assessed?

5. Conclusion

The author advocates the view that social integration could be achieved through an asset

accumulation program. However, it is still doubtful whether the low-income class could be

successfully integrated into the rest of the society. The author has presented a proposal to

integrate low-income households with the rest of society and achieves social equality by

carrying out an asset-building program, but this appears to be no more than a subjective ideal.

Rather than engaging in macroscopic and nominal discussions of mainstreaming, achieving

equality and social integration through IDA, this presenter proposes that engaging in a more

practical discussion of inculcating the poor with a habit of saving, providing consumer

education, leading the poor to begin their asset accumulation through them and fostering the

poor to maximize their economic power with their limited resources would be more realistic.

160


Panel Presentation 3Sung-suk Song

General Manager,Seoul Welfare Foundation

Make

all th

e ten

m

illion

citizens

of S

eoul

hap

py


○제56회국정과제회의(일을통한빈곤탈출지원정책)에서자산형성지원사업도입을위한시범사업실시

(’06~’08년, 2천명) 결정(’04.11.10)

○’05년하반기경제운용방향(’05.7), 경제상황점검회의(’05.7)에서자산형성지원사업도입필요성제기

○한국보건사회연구원, “저소득층자산형성지원프로그램시행방안연구”(’04.12~’05.7)

○보건복지부, 자산형성지원사업도입추진단구성(’05.10)

○보건복지부, 아동발달지원계좌계획발표(’06.8)

- 상：요보호아동3만3천여명

- 내용：요보호아동(보호자∙후원자)과국가의매칭비율1:1(월3만원이내)로18세미만까지운

- ’07년4월시작

○서울복지재단, 저소득층자산형성지원시범사업계획발표(’07.2.14)

○국민기초생활보장법시행령개정, 공포를통해수급자의자활을위한자산형성지원법적근거마련(’07. 7)

○서울복지재단희망통장출범(’07.11)

Ⅰ우리나라자산형성지원프로그램도입경과

서울형저소득층자산형성지원사업“희망통장”

송 성 숙

서울복지재단사업지원부장


Foundation

소득이증가할때가장크게지출을희망했던항목은주거(35.4%), 교육(21.5%), 의료(13.4%)순으로나타

남(한국보건사회연구원, 2003년저소득층자활사업실태조사, 2004)

2) 사업기간：가입일로부터3년(2007-2010)

3) 사업 상

○차상위계층및차차상위계층

�차상위계층：국민기초생활보장법제2조및동법시행령제3조에의거, 소득인정액이최저생계비의

100~120%이하인자

�차차상위계층：최저생계비의120~150%로적용

○모부자복지시설생활인, 자활후견기관의자활사업단(자활공동체) 참여자, 서울시에서추진중인‘노

숙인일자리갖기프로젝트’에참여한노숙인등일부그룹을포함함

○성실하게저축하고적극적으로자산의소유자가될준비가되어있는자

4) 저축및매칭방안

■저축액납입

○매월근로소득에서20만원씩저축

○3회이상미납시중도해지

■매칭펀드

○내용：참가자월저축액의1.5배(30만원)에해당하는매칭펀드지원

○방법：계약만료일저축액에상응하는매칭펀드총액지급

■지원절차


빈곤예방을 위한 사회투자 모델과 발전방안서울형저소득층자산형성지원사업“희망통장”

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

1. 추진배경

■사업배경

○서울특별시는 도시라는성격상근로빈곤층이많다는특성을감안함

○기존의소득보장형태의빈곤층지원사업및자활지원사업에한계가나타남

○서울특별시에서는’06.2월부터노숙인일자리갖기사업이라는일종의매칭펀드를지원하는사업을

추진하고있음

�매칭방법：서울시건설현장에노숙인일자리연계하여1:1 매칭지원

(1일5만원지급, 시비2만5천원/업체2만5천원)

○“희망통장”은근로빈곤층을 상으로최초로시행하는자산형성지원사업이라는데의의가있음

2. 주요내용

1) 사업목적및목표

■목적：저소득층의효과적인빈곤탈출지원

■목표

○자산축적(asset development)：저소득층인적∙물적∙사회적자산축적

○행동변화(behavior changes)：저축습관배양, 소비양식변화와같은특정행동변화에초점

○태도변화(attitude changes)：현재및미래에 한시각및태도를긍정적으로변화시키고삶에 한

자신감(self-confidency) 고양

○금융지식및기술(financial knowledge and skill)：성공적인자산획득을위해더나은방법을찾

는능력배양

○자립(Self-sufficiency)：자산축적을통해스스로벌어서생계유지가가능하도록함

■세부목표

○주거：주거관련고금리 출에 한의존도를줄임

○교육：교육기회확 를통해빈곤의세습을차단하여빈곤탈출촉진

○창업：수익창출을통해자활도모

※근로빈곤가구 부분목돈이필요한분야에 해지출욕구가큼. 실제근로빈곤층가구의 91.8%가

164


Ⅱ서울복지재단자산형성지원사업“희망통장”

1단계 2단계 3단계 4단계 5단계

접수

및

선정

�금융교육

�저축�및�

��매칭펀드

��지원시작

� 상자

��사례관리

�자조그룹

��운

�각종

��정보제공

�사업종결�및

��사후관리

�관련기관

��연계∙지원

약정

체결

8) 관리체계

9) 사후관리및연계

■사후관리방안

○ 상자가사업종료후적립금을적절히활용하여빈곤탈출을시도하고있는지에 해정기적으로점검

■사용처에따른사후관리방안

○주거관련

�국민임 주택, 국민주택기금등건설교통부주거복지사업에 한연계 -생애최초주택마련 출등

기존금융권이용에 한안내

○직업훈련관련

�노동부의한국폴리텍 학, 한국산업인력공단의학습미디어센터등과연계

�서울시립한남직업전문학교및서울종합직업전문학교직업훈련연계

○소규모창업관련

�서울신용보증재단, 소상공인지원센터, 사회연 은행등과창업 출, 컨설팅지원연계

�한국창업의전당등과같은소규모창업컨설팅기관연계



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

5) 교육지원

■방법

○시범사업기간(2007~2010년) 동안다양한금융관련교육실시예정

�계좌개설전교육, 계좌개설후교육, 사업종료전교육실시

○금융교육효과성측정

�개인별점수를채점하여, 금융교육전후비교후점수변화율을통해효과성검증

�금융교육만족도조사실시

■내용

○금융교육

�예산수립과성공적인저축방법마련을위한교육, 정보전달

�자산의중요성에 한이해및신용관리, 부채관리

�합리적인소비생활

○특화교육

�주택구입및임 , 소규모창업, 직업관련교육

6) 사례관리

○정기적인저축을위해지속적인관심및독려

○가계자산운용및법률지원등전문가상담

7) 자조모임운

○저소득상태에서장기적인저축을도전하는직접적인경험을통해참가자들스스로서로를이해하고

강한인간적유 감으로서로지지할수있도록함

○문제해결및자원공유(resource sharing)를위한가치있는토론장이되도록함

166


�기부기업,�

��정책∙평가∙법률자문가,

��언론계�인사�등

희망통장사업

� 상자선정�및�사례관리

�금융교육,�자조그룹운 ,�

��창업지원서비스�연계�등

�기금�및�통장관리

�고이율�상품개발

�매월�저축액�통보

�금융교육�지원�등

�매칭펀드�기금지원

�창업교육�등�관련

��프로그램�지원

사업관리

운 자문단

계좌운 후원

서울복지재단 협약은행 민간기업

○유사사업에적용혹은연계를통해효과극 화

�희망통장참가자의신용을인정하여마이크로크레딧과연계, 추가 출

�여성가장창업지원사업등기존의저소득층지원프로그램에자산형성지원성격을접목, 시행

○국민운동으로발전

�희망통장참가자가자립에성공한후일정액을자발적으로기부하고이를기금화하여다음참가자를

지원하는방안검토

�이는공동체정신을강조하는한국형 IDA모델이될수있음 - 매칭펀드에개인및가족의참여를유

도할경우저소득층의반곤탈출및예방을위한국민운동으로의발전가능성



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

3. 사업평가

■시범사업효과성파악

○ 상자별사업참여정도

�저축액납입및교육참여도등

○ 상자별, 가구형태별자활성공율

�주거：전∙월세자금으로활용하여주거비부담경감여부

�교육：본인∙자녀의교육비로활용하여취업∙진학성공여부

�창업：소규모창업비로활용하여생계유지및수익창출성공여부

■시범사업설계의적절성파악

○사용용도별효과성비교

○금융문해해소정도, 자아존중감향상정도등사업시작전후차이비교

○매칭율, 지원기간, 지원액, 사용처등에 한적절성파악

○정부의저소득층자산형성지원사업확

�저소득가정의아동에게로의CDA 확

�계획중인 IDA 실시관련, 예산확보문제가관건인바, 기업사회공헌연계방안검토

○서울특별시등지방정부도기업과협력방안검토

○유관기관들의협력네트워크를마련

�관계부처, 창업지원기관, 직업훈련기관, 투자자문기관, 소비자단체, 사회복지기관등유관기관의네

트워킹이요구됨

○YDA(Youth Development Accounts) 추진검토

�저소득층자녀(16세~23세) 상

�근로청소년의저축에 해정부, 민간의매칭펀드지원

�고등교육비, 창업등미래를위한투자자금으로사용유도

○지역사회의비 리시설이나사회복지시설에서추진

�싱가폴의경우, 화상장애인협회에서직업재활시설을통해소득이있는장애인들을위해자산형성지

원프로그램실시

�기업, 재단, 교회, 개인의펀딩가능

168


Ⅲ자산형성지원프로그램관련제안

○ The amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the National Basic Livelihood Security Act

laid the legal foundation for asset building efforts to help the poor support themselves(Jul.’

07)

○ The Seoul Welfare Foundation launched the "Seoul Family Development Account"

project(Nov.'07)

1. Background

■ Project background

○ Seoul is a large city where a lot of the working poor live.

○ The existing projects for the poor and self-support projects, which guarantee certain

amounts of income, have shown limited effects.

○ The Seoul Metropolitan Government has been implementing a matching fund program

named "Homeless Employment Project" since Feb.'06.

- Method: matching fund for homeless people who work for the construction projects of

the Seoul Metropolitan Government

(daily wage of KRW 50,000 supported by the government and a construction company at

a matching ratio of 1:1)

○ The “Seoul Family Development Account”is the first asset building project for

the working poor in Korea.

2. Overview

1) Purpose and Goals

■ Purpose : To support low-income households to get out of poverty

■Goals

○ Asset development : build human, physical and social assets


Social Investment Model For Poverty Prevention"Seoul Family Development Account": An Asset Building Project for Low-Income Families in Seoul

2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

170

○ Decided at the 56th national task meeting(policies to help the poor out of poverty through

work) to launch a pilot program for building assets(’06~’08, 2000 participants)(Nov.10,’04)

○ Raised the need to introduce asset building projects in the government's report on "the

direction of economic policies for the second half of ’05"(Jul.'05) and at the "meeting for an

update of the economic situation"(Jul.’05)

○ Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, “Study on measures to implement asset

building programs for low-income households"(’04.12̃’05.7)

○ The Ministry of Health and Welfare formed a working group to introduce asset building

projects(Oct.’05)

○ The Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a plan for Child Development

Account(Aug.’06)

- Target : 33,000 children in need of protection - Operation : The amount of money

contributed by a supporter or guardian of a child in need(up to KRW 30,000 a month) is

matched one for one by the government until the child reaches 18 years of age.

- Started in Apr.’07

○ The Seoul Welfare Foundation announced an asset building pilot project for low-income

families(Feb.14,’07)

ⅠDevelopment of Asset Building Programs in Korea

"Seoul Family Development Account":An Asset Building Project for Low-Income Families in Seoul

Sung-suk Song

General Manager,

Seoul Welfare Foundation

Ⅱ "Seoul Family Development Account", an Asset Building Project ofthe Seoul Welfare Foundation

4) Saving and Matching Method

■Deposit payment

○ Deposit KRW 200,000 a month from the earned income

○ A failure to pay deposits at least three times would terminate the savings account contract

■Matching fund

○ Details: match 1.5 times the amount of monthly savings(KRW 300,000) of each participant

○ Method: provide the matching fund in proportion to the total amount of savings as of the

date of contract termination

■ Process

5) Educational Support

■Method

○ Plan to provide a wide range of financial education programs during the period of the

pilot project(2007~2010)

- Education before/after opening an account and before the end of the project

○ Evaluate the effectiveness of financial education

- Evaluation on the effectiveness: comparing scores of each participants before and after

the financial education

- Survey on the satisfaction of participants with financial education

■Details

○ Financial education

- Education on budgeting and tips for successful saving



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

○ Behavior changes : focus on behavioral changes such as development of saving habits

and changed consumption patterns

○ Attitude changes : change the mindset and attitude of low-income families about their

present and future and boost self-confidence in their lives

○ Financial knowledge and skill : develop the ability to find a better way for successful asset

building

○ Self-sufficiency: enable low-income families to make a living on their own through asset

building

■Detailed goals

○ Housing: reduce dependency on high interest rate loans for housing

○ Education: break the transmission of poverty from one generation to another and help

low-income families out of poverty by providing more educational opportunities

○ Starting-up in business: encourage self-support through profit generation

※ Most of the working-poor families want to spend money on items requiring a large

amount of money. In a survey, 91.8% of working-poor families responded that they would

like to spend money on housing(35.4%), education(21.5%) and medical care(13.4%) if

their income increased.(Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs(2004). Research on

Self-support Projects for Low-income Families in 2003)

2) Period : 3 years from the date of participation(2007-2010)

3) Targets

○ Second-lowest income and third-lowest income households

- Second-lowest income households: those whose recognized amount of income is

between 100~120% of the minimum cost of living pursuant to Article 2 of the National

Basic Livelihood Security Act and Article 3 of its Enforcement Decree

- Third-lowest income households: 120~150% of the minimum cost of living

○ Persons living in welfare facilities for single mother families, participants in self-support

communities and homeless persons who have been participating in the "Homeless

Employment Project" of the Seoul Metropolitan Government

○ Persons who are ready to develop good saving habits and actively build assets

172


1st step

Application and selection

Signing a contract

-Financial education-Starting saving and matching fund support

-Keeping track of progress-Operating self-help group -Providing various information

-Completing the project and post-project monitoring-Networking among relevant organizations

2st step 3st step 4st step 5st step

9) Post-project Monitoring & Partnership

■ Post-project monitoring

○ Monitor on a regular basis whether participants are making efforts to break away from

poverty by utilizing their Seoul Family Development Accounts after the project is

terminated.

■ Post-project monitoring by support type

○ Housing Support

- Link the project with the Ministry of Construction & Transportation's Housing Welfare

Projects including the National Rental Housing Project and the National Housing Fund

- Provide to project participants the guidelines on utilizing financial products such as First

Home Buyer Loan

○ Vocational Training

- Partner with the Ministry of Labor to link the project with Korea Polytechnic Colleges,

the Learning Media Center of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, etc.

- Link the project with vocational training programs of Hannam Vocational School and

Seoul Vocational Training Institute.

○Support for staring a small-sized business

- Provide loans and consulting to help participants start their own business in partnership

with Seoul City Credit, Small Business Service Center, and Social Solidarity Bank

- Partner with consulting companies for small business such as Korea Hall of

Entrepreneurship

3. Project Evaluation

■ Evaluation on the effectiveness of the trial project

○ Project Participation

- Savings, participation in educational programs, etc.

○ Success rate of self-sufficiency by support type/residence type

- Residence: whether the burden of housing expenses has been reduced through utilizing

the Seoul Family Development Account to pay key money for house rent or monthly

house rent fees.

- Education: whether participants have helped themselves or their children to get a job or



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

- Understanding of the importance of assets, credit management, debt management

- Reasonable consumption

○ Specialized education

- House purchase/lease, starting-up of small business, vocational education

6) Keeping Track of Progress

○ Pay continued attention and encourage participants to keep saving on a regular basis

○ Provide expert counseling such as household asset management and legal support

7) Operation of Self-help Group

○ Offer an opportunity for participants to understand themselves and others, build strong

ties and support each other through hands-on experience in long-term savings

○ Serve as a venue for discussion of problem solving and resource sharing

8) Management System

174


�donation companies,

policy∙evaluation

∙legal consultants,

journalists, etc.

Seoul Family Development Account Project

Consultative�Group

Project�Management

Seoul Welfare Foundation

Selecting participants

and keeping track of

progress

Financial education,

operation of a self-

help group,

support for starting

one's own business,

etc.

�

�

Project Support

Project�Management

Providing support

for Matching Fund

Providing support

for related programs

including education

for starting one's

own business

�

�

Partner Bank

Bank�Account�Management

Managing funds and bank accountsDeveloping high-interest productsNotifying participants of their account balance on a monthly basisSupporting financial education, etc.

�

�

�

�

asset building program for the disabled with income through its vocational rehabilitation

facilities.

- Fund can be raised from companies, foundations, churches, and individuals.

○ Maximize the effect of the program by relating the program with other similar businesses

- Provide micro credit or additional loans to participants in the Hope Account Project

- Link the Asset Building Program with existing programs for supporting low-income

households such as the program for supporting women heads of households to start

their own businesses.

○ Develop the program into a nationwide public campaign

- Consider establishing a fund through the donation of the participants in the Seoul Family

Development Account Project, who succeeded in standing by themselves, so that next

participants can be supported through the fund.

- This can be developed into a Korean IDA model with the emphasis on communitism

- If individuals and families are induced to participate in the Matching Fund, it could be

developed into a nationwide public campaign to help low-income households to break

away from poverty.



2 0 0 7


국 제 학 술

심 포 지 엄

to go on to a higher level of education through the Seoul Family Development Account.

- Starting one's own business: whether participants earn their livelihood or create profit by

starting their own small business through the Seoul Family Development Account.

■ Evaluation on the appropriateness of the design of the trail project

○ Evaluation on effectiveness by support type

○ Comparison between before and after project: resolution of financial problems,

enhancement of self-esteem, etc.

○ Evaluation on the appropriateness of matching rate, support period, the amount of

support money, the use of money, etc.

○ The government's expansion of the Asset Building Program for low-income households.

- Expand CDA into children of low-income households

- Consider partnering with companies for their contribution to IDA to secure the required

budget.

○ Consider Seoul Metropolitan Government and other local governments' partnership with

companies

○ Establish network among related organizations to facilitate their cooperation

- The networking among related organizations such as related public agencies, small

business supporting organizations, vocational training institutes, investment consulting

companies, consumer groups, social welfare organizations, etc.

○ Review YDA(Youth Development Accounts)

- Target: children of low-income households(ages of 16~23)

- The government and private sector's support for matching funds for savings of working

youth

- Induce youth to utilize the account as their investment funds for going on to a higher

level of education, starting their own business, etc.

○ Consider non-profit organizations or social welfare organizations' leading the program in

their regional communities.

- In the case of Singapore, the Association for the Disabled with Burn is implementing an

176


Ⅲ Proposals related to Asset Building Program

빈곤예방을위한

사회투자모델과발전방안

발행일 2007년 11월

발행처 서울복지재단

발행인 이성규

편집인 박재용

주 소 서울시 종로구 신문로 2가 1-43

전 화 02. 2011. 0400

팩 스 02. 2011. 0500

www.welfare.seoul.kr

이책의저작권은재단법인서울복지재단에있습니다.무단전재와무단복제를금합니다.

ISBN：978-89-91939-60-8

Design _MK커뮤니케이션 02.919.9481

2 0 0 7 I n t e r n a t i o n a l A c a d e m i c S y m p o s i u m o f S e o u l W e l f a r e F o u n d a t i o n

2007 서울복지재단 국제 학술 심포지엄

서울복지재단 2007 연구-4

Documents

Keynote Speech - 사회투자지원재단 · 한제도들을도입시행하고있다. 예를들어, 미국에서는소유주택에대한세금혜택, 사업투자세금혜택, 예를들어,