최근 자원으로서의 시간에 대한 개인의 인식은 인간의 생활을 영위하는 기초적 단위로서 시간의 가치활용도를 높이고 인간관계의 맥락을 심화시키며, 그들의 「삶의 질」을 극대화하는 핵심적인 가치를 부여하는데 초점을 맞추고 있다. 그렇지만 어느 누구에게나 정해져 있는 시간의 양(quantity)을 어떻게 효율적으로 사용하고, 필요한 분야 및 항목에 얼마나 배분하는가에 따라 시간의 질(quality)을 증대시킬 수 있다. 본 연구는 1999년 통계청에서 처음으로 실시한 자료를 심층 분석하는 것이다. 연구목적은 기혼여성의 혼인상태 및 사회경제적 특성에 따라 생활시간 배분이 어떻게 상이한지를 분석하고 문제점을 찾으며, 아울러 효율적 시간활용방안을 제시하고 정책적 지원방안도 함께 모색하는데 있다. 주요 결과는 우리나라 기혼여성의 생활시간 배분은 혼인상태에 따라 현저한 차이가 있었다는 점이다. 아울러 기혼여성의 경제활동여부도 생활시간 배분에 영향을 크게 미치고 있었다. 특히 이혼부인은 생계유지를 위하여 경제활동에 적극 참여해야 하기 때문에 적절한 시간배분에 문제점을 노출시키고 있었다. 이와 같은 일련의 분석연구는 우리나라 부인의 혼인상태, 연령, 경제활동참여 및 직업유형 등의 특성에 따라 생활방식과 삶의 질을 파악하고, 시간자원을 효율적으로 활용하는 데 필요한 기초자료로 제공될 수 있을 것이며, 궁극적으로 여성의 「삶의 질」을 향상시키는 데 기여할 것으로 사료된다.;Individual's view of time as resource has recently been geared toward making the best use of time as the basic unit of human life in order to deepen the context of interpersonal relationships and maximize quality of life. The quality of one's time can be enhanced depending on how efficiently one allocate, manage, and spend the quantity of time. The present study aims to conduct an in depth examination of the first time-allocation survey carried out in Korea by the National Statistical Office in 1999 and analyze differences and identify problems in time allocation among married women according to their marital status and socioeconomic characteristics. Along the way, strategic plans and policy implications are suggested for improving the efficiency of time allocation. Major findings can be summarized as follows. Patterns of time allocation among married women in Korea vary widely depending on their marital status. The largest portion of their time in general is spent on ‘self-care’ which includes time allocated for sleep. However, divorced women are found to spend the next largest portion of their time on work, while widowed women and women with spouse spend the second largest portion their time on 'leisure and friends/acquaintances'. Divorced women are found to spend significantly more time at work than widowed women and women with spouse do. This is presumably a result stemming from the fact that divorced women, unlike women with spouse present, are highly responsible for household livelihood not only because they do not have income-earning husbands, but also because they are generally younger than their widowed counterparts and therefore are less likely to have income-earning children. Divorced and widowed women in their thirties/forties as compared with other groups are found to spend much more time on work. This may be not only because they unlike women with spouse present－must fulfill their responsibilities and role as the main breadwinner for the family, but also because they are more likely to have school-aged children and are responsible for earning money for bringing up and educating them. Unemployed women, regardless of their marital status, are found to spend more time on household and family care than employed women. This implies that there is an accentuated policy need for paying particular heed to social support toward helping divorced women balance their work and family lives. Koreans in general－irrespective of socio-demographic factors such as gender, age, educational level, marital status, and employment status－are found to devote little time to voluntary activities, even during weekends or holidays. Non-working women and elderly people, in particular, spend very limited amount of time participating in voluntary activities despite having relatively much spare time. Divorced and widowed women as compared to women with spouse are found to suffer from lack of time to care for their preschool children due to other obligations. This calls for more policy attention to be placed on the protection of physical and emotional health of children in these female-headed households. For instance, the availability/accessibility of desired services should be ensured through the expansion of home-helper programs, educare centers, and financial aid programs. Based on these results, the following time management strategies and policy options can be considered. First, more time needs to be allocated, especially in the case of married non-working women, to voluntary activities. This can be made possible by reducing time spent on friends/acquaintances, leisure activities, and self-care. Second, it is hard for many divorced and widowed women to allocate much time to household and family care because they are responsible for engaging in income-earning activities. Therefore, social support should be provided to enhance the availability and accessibility of home-helper programs and daycare services. Third, cultural/leisure programs should be developed for working married women who generally have little or no time for leisure and interpersonal relationships. Forth, the longstanding inequalities in gender roles must be redressed. To do this would require men to escape from their traditional ‘male gender role’ and assume an increased, if not equal, role in household tasks and family care.
본고는 공산주의 이후 러시아 복지개혁의 핵심인 연금개혁의 과정과 과제를 고찰하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 소비에트 복지시스템, 소비에트 시기 연금실태와 문제점, 연금개혁의 과정과 그 배경, 개혁과정에서 노정된 여러 과제들을 분석하였으며, 이를 토대로 대안을 제시하고 개혁의 성공여부를 전망했다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공산주의 이후 동유럽과 구 소비에트연방 국가는 연금개혁을 조기에 성공시킨 반면 러시아는 실패했다. 옐친정부의 급진적이고 비타협적인 경제개혁으로 실업, 빈곤, 불평등과 같은 심각한 부작용이 발생했고, 이로 인한 비토세력과의 갈등으로 정책적 교착상태에 빠져 연금개혁이 무산되었기 때문이다. 옐친정부의 무능으로 실패한 연금개혁은 옐친을 계승한 푸틴의 강력한 정치리더십과 경제호전에 힘입어 2002년에야 이루어졌다. 둘째, 러시아 연금개혁이 푸틴정부의 공이긴 하지만, 옐친정부의 1991년 연금공단 신설과 1998년 연금개혁안이 있었기 때문에 비교적 용이하게 추진되었다. 푸틴정부의 2002년 연금개혁은 공산주의 이후 러시아 연금개혁의 연속선상에 있다. 셋째, 2002년 개혁으로 연금시스템은 기존의 부과방식과 새로운 적립방식이 혼합된 3층 구조, 즉 기초연금, 명목확정기여연금, 개인계정으로 재편되었다. 이러한 정책결정에는 월드뱅크의 조언과 권고가 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 넷째, 연금개혁의 성공을 위해 해결되어야 할 주요 과제로는 연금수급연령의 상향조정, 지나치게 관대한 조기퇴직의 통제, 연금 수준의 현실화, 연금혜택 불평등성의 개선, 개인계정 적립금 투자수익의 증대 등이 있다. 다섯째, 러시아 연금개혁에는 고령화, 인플레, 저임금, 실업, 제도개혁에 필요한 추가지출 등 재정에 부정적인 변수와 연금수급연령의 상향조정, 조기퇴직의 개선, 적립금 투자수익률의 향상을 통한 재정안정과 같은 긍정적 변수가 공존해 있다. 연금개혁의 성공여부는 경제성장과 같은 거시경제에 달려있는데, 석유수출의존형 경제는 그 전망을 흐리게 만든다.;This paper aims at reviewing the process and the issues of the Russian pension reforms in the Post-Communism. For the purpose, the soviet welfare system, the conditions and problems of the soviet pension system, its process and background of the pension reform, and its critical issues were analysed. On the analysis, some alternatives were proposed, and the future was prospected. The results are as follows. First, the russian pension reform in the post-communism was failed contrary to the success of the Eastern European and the former Soviet Federation States in the welfare reforms including the pension. A critical reason of the failure was Yeltsin government’s incompetency. Yeltsin’s economic reform was too radical that it made serious social problems such as unemployment, poor and inequality. Because of these reverse effects, the veto forces were organized, and political conflicts with them resulted in the reform stagnation and the failure of the pension reform. After all, Putin who had strong leadership and achieved economic recovery could reform the russian pension system in 2002. Second, it is not true that the success of the pension reform is totally Putin’s even though Putin could reform the pension system Yeltsin has failed. Because Putin’s success of the 2002 pension reform owed the establishment of the Pension Fund of Russia(PFR) in 1991 and the pension reform proposition in 1998 which were made by Yeltsin government. This means that Putin’s pension reform succeeded Yeltsin’s efforts. Third, according to the pension reform 2002 of Putin government, the russian pension system was restructured to the three-tier system composing of the basic pension, the nominally defined contributory pension and the individual accounts. This policy determination was influenced by the World Bank’s advices. Fourth, the future of the russian pension reform has many issues such as upward adjusting the age of pension benefit, controlling too much generous early-retirement, realizing the level of pension benefits, improving the inequality of pension benefits, and increasing the interest rate of the individual accounts. Fifth, there are negative as well as positive variables in the russian pension reform. Negative ones are ageing society, inflation, low income, unemployment, and additional expenditure for institutional improvement of the pension system. Positive ones are institutional improvements in the age of pension benefit, the early-retirement, and the pension fund management. And the success of the pension reform depends on the russian macro economy. However, the oil and gas export economy of russia makes the perspective of the pension reform not clear.