CASE / 1988–2008

South Korean welfare expansion, 1988–2008

Social-policy expansion after democratization and the 1997 financial crisis, with employment and distributional limits, in South Korea from 1988 through 2008.

DETAILS

What are the case boundaries and records?

Check the scope, related ideas, and institutional evidence behind the overview.

Scope, selection, freshness, and background links
Boundary: Social-policy expansion after democratization and the 1997 financial crisis, with employment and distributional limits, in South Korea from 1988 through 2008.
Why this case: Tests changing welfare institutions across democratic transition and crisis without making regime type a sufficient cause.
South Korean welfare expansion, 1988–2008 1988–2008

Social-policy expansion after democratization and the 1997 financial crisis, with employment and distributional limits, in South Korea from 1988 through 2008.

Formal design

observation

In 1998 South Korea accelerated employment-insurance expansion from firms with at least thirty workers to firms with at least one worker and eased benefit eligibility, while coverage remained incomplete.

Claim reviewed
  1. Inhoe Ku, 2007Responses of social welfare policy, paragraphs 1–4 · supports

Rules in use

Interactions

observation

South Korea's post-crisis response included temporary public-works jobs for unemployed people who were not protected by employment insurance.

Claim reviewed
  1. Inhoe Ku, 2007Responses of social welfare policy, paragraphs 3–4 · supports

observation

South Korea temporarily widened livelihood protection and cash assistance after the 1997 crisis to reach some people outside employment insurance.

Claim reviewed
  1. Inhoe Ku, 2007Responses of social welfare policy, paragraph 4 · supports

observation

The OECD's 2008 survey reported that non-regular workers and workers in small firms remained less likely to be insured and that only about one-third of unemployed people received employment benefits.

Observed outcomes

observation

Ku reports that post-crisis welfare expansion coexisted with higher measured income inequality and relative poverty than before the crisis, so institutional expansion cannot be treated as proof of equal outcomes.