History shows that technological transformation has often triggered growth and contributed to improvements in the quality of human life. Meanwhile, the processes of industrialization and urbanization―also driven by technological change―have led to the national recognition of unemployment, retirement, and poverty as social risks. This article examines the emergence of “third-generation social risks,” arising in the wake of rapid advances in digital technologies―particularly artificial intelligence―including the lack of social protection for global digital platform workers, cyber-related social risks, the decline of the traditional labor market, and a crisis of human identity. The article reviews 14 social policy areas across five categories. In industrial policy, attention is given to antitrust regulations targeting big tech. In the category of employment and labor policies, the article explores measures such as labor market adaptation, job retraining, a job guarantee scheme, decent public job initiatives, and the protection of atypical workers’ rights. In terms of social security, this article considers digital technology-assisted administrative innovations and income-based social insurance schemes. In taxation, robot taxes, digital taxes, and data taxes are considered. Alternative concepts are also suggested for future social assistance options, including basic income, participatory income, basic service, and basic assets. From these analyses, the article moves on to suggest eight policy directions.
Demographic, technological, and climate changes are interacting in ways that increase uncertainty about society’s future. Moreover, these shifts are progressing at such an accelerated rate that they leave an increasingly limited window of time to understand, reflect on, and formulate responses to the challenges they pose. This situation, while it does dampen the modern conviction that reason-guided choices can still shape a better society, gives us more reason to reinvigorate the spirit of institutional engineering and redouble our efforts to turn these crises into opportunities.
This month’s issue of the Health and Welfare Forum, with its four feature articles, addresses the theme “The Great Transformation and Responses to Its Challenges for a Sustainable Welfare Society.” The first article provides an overview of the unfolding changes across the three domains―population, technology, and climate―and of how they are discussed and what alternative approaches are suggested within the context of sustainability discourse. The articles that follow take up these major changes ongoing in the three domains in turn, discussing the social risks that ensue at length and exploring potential social policies in detail. We hope that our discussions will inform future dialogue and support the development of effective policy responses.
Changes are unfolding at a daunting pace and on an unprecedented scale across population, technology, and climate, exposing society to insecurity, uncertainty, and new forms of social risk. As welfare states around the world show their limitations as they take on these challenges, it becomes increasingly clear that alternative solutions must be explored. Sustainability discourse, which emerged in the 1980s against the background of concerns over industrial advancement wreaking havoc on the environment, has evolved into a multi-dimensional framework whose relevance now extends to trans-spatiotemporal domains, calling for a reconceptualization of how human needs can be met sustainably. Within this discourse, pragmatic green growth approaches vie with normative degrowth perspectives. Sustainability discourse provides a promising framework for exploring alternatives and therefore merits further attention.
While population remains, as in the past, a factor of primary importance for any nation or society, childbirth, a key determinant of population size, is predominantly an individual choice and therefore difficult to control at a communal or social level. That said, it should also be noted that individuals’ decisions about having children do get affected by the socioeconomic environment, much of which is a central concern for population policies. Across welfare states around the world, including Korea’s, responses to population change can be broadly categorized into either adaptive or mitigative. In Korea, both types of policies have been introduced and expanded since the 2000s, but they have largely failed to produce meaningful results. What matters for a welfare state in its response to population change is that it reorients the focus and paradigm of economic and social policies from growth to balanced quality-of-life enhancement. As “shrinking” becomes a reality across social, economic, and cultural domains, it is essential to respond with targeted and focused measures. In these times of contraction―a structural transition a society as a whole must navigate as it grapples with long-term demographic challenges―it behooves us to turn adversity into opportunity, and doing so will require a paradigm shift that redirects society away from the growth-first imperative toward stability, sustainability, and quality of life.
History shows that technological transformation has often triggered growth and contributed to improvements in the quality of human life. Meanwhile, the processes of industrialization and urbanization―also driven by technological change―have led to the national recognition of unemployment, retirement, and poverty as social risks. This article examines the emergence of “third-generation social risks,” arising in the wake of rapid advances in digital technologies―particularly artificial intelligence―including the lack of social protection for global digital platform workers, cyber-related social risks, the decline of the traditional labor market, and a crisis of human identity. The article reviews 14 social policy areas across five categories. In industrial policy, attention is given to antitrust regulations targeting big tech. In the category of employment and labor policies, the article explores measures such as labor market adaptation, job retraining, a job guarantee scheme, decent public job initiatives, and the protection of atypical workers’ rights. In terms of social security, this article considers digital technology-assisted administrative innovations and income-based social insurance schemes. In taxation, robot taxes, digital taxes, and data taxes are considered. Alternative concepts are also suggested for future social assistance options, including basic income, participatory income, basic service, and basic assets. From these analyses, the article moves on to suggest eight policy directions.
The impacts of climate change and the green transition are wide-ranging, affecting society, the economy, employment, and quality of life, and may lead in turn to what is known as “double and triple injustice.” Socioecological responses can be explored in several policy dimensions. Industrial policies such as emission trading schemes and carbon credit programs may prove effective. Labor market policies will need to focus on a “just transition,” while social welfare policies should prioritize support for those who are energy-poor or particularly vulnerable to climate change. At the taxation level, carbon and plastic taxes may be pursued. Basic allowance, participation income, and renewable-energy revenue sharing can be considered as forward-looking eco-social policy measures. Advancing responses to climate change will require a more comprehensive and systematic eco-social policy approach, the development of balanced governance and policy networks, broader public participation and communication, and continued evidence-building from research.
