This study examines the composition of social security programs
in terms cash and in-kind benefits and analyzes the effects
of the two type of benefits. Through such analyses, this study
aims to provide the basic information necessary for a comprehensive
design of social security system focusing benefit types.
To analyze the composition of social security
policy in terms of cash and in-kind benefits, we look at
public social spending using OECD SOCX and public social
spending on education. Korea is generally thought to have
spent more on in-kind benefits than on cash transfers, but this
is a kind of illusion caused by a high proportion of expenditure
for medical service among low total public social expenditures.
The international comparison shows that the difference between
in-kind benefits is smaller than are difference between
cash benefits across the countries.
Our examination of changes in cash and in-kind benefit programs
in selected welfare states find that these countries have
experienced a transition from public assistance-type cash support
to a universal in-kind support (housing, education, child
care, etc.). After a certain point, the difference among the policies selected by various countries becomes apparent. The selection
of cash or in-kind income varied based on the social
values, the differences of composition of cash and in-kind programs
also led to difference in outcomes. With a focus on family
policy (child welfare), which is the subject of the most intense
value arguments, the mix with cash and in-kind benefits
correspond to policy stances based on social values of the
countries and that these resulted in differences in outcomes
such as child poverty, birth rate, and employment of women.
An assessment of the effects of cash and in-kind support suggests
that low life satisfaction was meaningfully correlated with
high household burden in areas related to basic needs low
housing quality. The adjusted disposable income poverty rates
after housing, medical, and educational costs are worse than
disposable income in Korea and the gaps are bigger than it in
other welfare state.
Our projection showed that increased cash support would result
poverty rate by 0.77%p, while increased in-kind support
led to a 0.96%p-decrease in the poverty rate. Based on current
government’s plan, the alleviation of poverty and inequality
through in-kind support (housing, medical care, child/senior
care, etc.) is estimated to be higher than the effect of cash
support. Based on comparative analysis of social expenditure
of the welfare states they show high level of life expectation,
Korea must reinforce more in-kind support for seniors, both
cash and in-kind support for people with disabilities, and cash
support for families.
Abstract ················································································································1
Ch. 1. Introduction ·························································7
A. Research Background and Purpose ·················································································9
B. Research Scope and Method ··········································································21
C. The Trigger for the Discussion: The Meanings of Cash and In-Kind Benefits ······················································25
Ch. 2. Changes in Cash and In-Kind Benefits: An Analysis of Public Social Sepnding ···························35
A. Changes in Cash and In-Kind Benefits in Their Composing the Social Security Program ···································································37
B. Characteristics of the Composition ···································································42
Ch. 3. History of Cash and In-Kind Support Policies ·····················································49
A. Overview and Method of the Analysis ···············································································51
B. Case Study in Germany ··················································································58
C. Case Study in the UK ··················································································63
D. Case Study in the USA ··················································································69
E. Case Study in Sweden ···············································································75
F. Summary and Implications ······················································································80
Ch. 4. Debate on the Values of Cash and In-Kind Support Policies: Focusing on Family Policy 85
A. Purpose of the Analysis and the Logical Basis ···································································87
B. Typology of Family Policy ·················································································91
C. Method of Analysis ····························································································101
D. Outcome of Family Policy and the Impact of Benefit Types ·····················································103
E. Chapter Conclusion ·····································································································119
Ch. 5. Effects of Cash and In-Kind Benefits ···························································129
A. Method of Analysis ····························································································131
B. Analyzing the Effects of Cash and In-Kind Support 1: Focusing on the Outcome of Policy Groups···················139
C. Analyzing the Effects of Cash and In-Kind Support 2: Focusing on Disposable Income Minus Spending on Housing, Health and Education· 161
D. Estimating the Effects of Cash and In-Kind Support ·································································169
Ch. 6. Conclusion ··························································177
A. Summary and Interpretation ·························································································179
B. Policy Implications ······························································································182
References ···························································································189