韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文.docx

韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文.docx

《韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文.docx（11页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文

中文3070字

本科毕业设计（论文）

外文翻译

外文题目：

Income,Consumption,AndpovertyinKorea

出处：

SocialIndicatorsResearch,2003,no.62

作者：

Joungwoolee

INCOME,CONSUMPTION,ANDPOVERTYINKOREA

JOUNG-WOOLEE

ABSTRACT：

ThisarticleexamineschangesineconomicwelfarewithinKoreaintermsofincome,consumption,andpoverty.Analysesofgovernmentstatisticsrevealthatithasbeenextraordinarilysuccessfulinraisingtheaveragelevelofbothincomeandconsumption,whilereducingtheincidenceofpovertyduringthelastfourdecades.Inreducingtheunequaldistributionofincomeduringthesameperiod,however,thecountryhasbeenmuchlesssuccessful.Intheaftermathofthe1997economiccrises,thelevelofpovertyhasrisenduetosharpincreasesinunemployment.ThelivesofthepoorareatrisksincethesocialsafetynetsysteminKoreaisonlyminimal.TheheavyconcentrationoflandandwealthinafewhandsisamajorobstacletothefurtherenhancementofthequalityofeconomiclifeamongtheKoreanpeople.

ThispaperexaminesthechangingqualityofeconomiclifeespeciallyamongKoreanworkerswithsystematicanalysesoftimeseriesdataonincome,consumption,andpoverty.Theanalysesarebasedontwoassumptions.ThefirstiswhatJohnRawlscharacterizesas“maximinprinciple,”i.e.,thequalityoflifeinagivensocietycannotberegardedassatisfactorywhensomeofitscitizensareinamiserablestateoflife.ThesecondpremiseisthatKoreanworkershaveyettoreceivetheirfairshareofeconomicdevelopment,althoughitisinternationallyregardedasmoreequitablethanwhatisobservedinotherdevelopingcountries

INCOMEGROWTH

Koreahasdisplayedunprecedentedrapideconomicgrowthfromthemid-1960supuntilthelate1990s,whenanabrupteconomiccrisishitthecountry.Percapitanationalincomeincreased80-foldfromU.S.$125in1966tooverU.S.$10000in1995.ThiskindofrapideconomicgrowthcouldbefoundonlyinfewEastAsiancountrieslikeHongKong,Singapore,andTaiwan.AnothernotablefeatureofeconomicgrowthinKoreaisthatithasnotbeenaccompaniedbyaworseningdistributionofincome,aswitnessedinmanyLatinAmericancountries

INCOMEDISTRIBUTION

IndividualscholarsandresearchinstituteshavereportedthatincomedistributioninKoreahasimprovedduringthelastcoupleofdecades.TheKoreaNationalStatisticalOffice（hereinaftertheNSO）（2000）andDr.HakchungChoo（1982,1992）oftheKoreaDevelopmentInstituteareinagreementthatincomeinequalityhasbeenloweredinbothruralandurbanareassincethelate1970s.AccordingtotheFarmHouseholdsEconomicSurvey（hereinaftertheFHES,whichisconductedannuallybytheMinistryofAgricultureandFishery,theGinicoefficientwasestimatedtobe0.324for1967,and0.288for1988.Thisstronglysuggestsaloweringofincomeinequalityin

ruralareasoverthepastdecades.Whencombiningtheurbanandruralincomesurveydata,itisevidenthatincomedistributioninKoreahasbeenmovinginthedirectionoflesserinequalitybeforetheeconomiccrisishitthecountryin1997.

Nonetheless,theGinicoefficientsbasedonthesesurveydatahaverecentlybeencalledintoquestion（Ahn,1995;LeeandWhang,1998）.Thesesurveyswerenotcapableofproperlyincorporatingtheunearnedincomesstemmingfromthesoaringpricesofland,houses,andstocks.Thewindfallgainsfromthosesourcesoccuronlyonceortwiceinlife,sothatpeopletendtoregardthemas“abnormal”income,thatshouldnotbecountedasincomeinthesocialsurveys.Therefore,itishighlyunlikelythatoccasionalincomesurveyscouldcapturethevastamountofunearnedincome,whichexploredinthelate1980s.Thisisonereasonwhythereisalingeringdoubtaboutthefindingsofimprovingincomedistribution,eventhoughexisting.For1988alone,forexample,therealizedcapitalgainsfromlandwerearound20percentoftheGrossNationalProduct（hereinaftertheGNP）,andthosefromthestockmarketaddedanother5percent.TheGinicoefficientof1988,reportedbytheNSO,wasgivenas0.336.However,theGinicoefficientisactuallyestimatedtobe0.388,onethecapitalgainsarisingfromlandinthelate1980saretakenintoaccount（Lee,1991）.Thegainsfromtheboomingstockmarketinthelate1980sfurtherraisedthecoefficientto0.412,afigurethatissignificantlyhigherthanwhattheNSOoriginallyestimatedthecoefficienttobe.Inreality,therefore,itishighlyprobablethatincomeinequalityinKoreaismuchhigherthanwhatisknownfromthegovernmentalhouseholdsurveys,andithasbeenworseningduringthepastdecade.

CONSUMPTIONPATTERN

Howdoestheworkingclasscomparewiththenon-workingclassintermsofwhattheyconsumeonadailybasis?

ThepresentstudyaddressedthisquestionwiththeUrbanHouseholdIncomeandExpenditureSurveys（hereinaftertheUHIES）conductedbytheNSOfortheperiodof1963–2000.TableIVcomparestherelativelevelsofconsumptionofthreeworkingclasses–bluecollar,whitecollar,andlaborers–withthatofnon-laborers.Inaddition,thetableprovidestheEngelcoefficient,i.e.,theratiooffoodconsumptionasapartoftotalconsumption,forthesefourclasses.Thereisnostrictcriterion,butoftenanEngelcoefficientover70percentmeans“extremelypoor,”andover50percent“poor.”

AccordingtotheEngelcoefficientsreportedinTableIV,boththeworkingandnon-workingclasseswerepoorduringthe1960s.Theyhadtospendmorethanhalfoftheirlivingexpensesonfooditems.In2000,however,theywerespendinglessthanone-thirdofthoseexpensesforthesamepurpose.TheirEngelcoefficientshavedeclinedtothehigh20s,byasmuchas50percentoverthepastfourdecades.ThisindicatesaremarkableimprovementinthestandardoflivingamongallclassesoftheKoreanpopulation.

Ofthethreeclassessurveyed,blue-collarworkersremaintheleastwelloff,stillspendingthemostonfooditems,thesameastheydidfourdecadesago.Whenimprovementsintheoveralllevelsofconsumptionareconsidered,however,itistheblue-collarworkers,whohaveachievedthegreatestlevelofimprovementintheirstandardofliving.In1963,theywere35percentagepointsbehindnon-laborers.In2000,however,theywereonly16percentagepointsbehind,indicatingagainof19percentagepointsovertheperiodinquestion.

TableVexamineschangesintheconsumptionstructureofworkerhouseholdsafteradjustingforthehousingcoststhatwereunderestimatedintheanalysisreportedbythegovernment.Specifically,theopportunitycostofthelump-sumdepositsandtheimputedrentsofowner-occupiedhousingweretakenintoaccountinordertoestimate,accurately,thepercentagefiguresforfoodandotherconsumptionitems.ThemostnotablefeatureofTableVconcernssteadyandsignificantdeclinesintheEngelcoefficientsfrom55in1963,to21in2000.Asaresultofsuchdeclinesinfoodconsumption,Koreanworkershavebeenabletospendmoreonsuchitemsasmedicalcare,education,transportation,andcommunications.Ofallthosenon-fooditems,therelativelevelofspendinghasincreasedtothegreatestextentinthe“other”consumptioncategory,whichcoversfurniture,electronicequipment,andentertainmentexpenses.Theseitemsaregenerallyconsideredtobeluxuriesratherthannecessities.Thesix-foldriseinthiscategoryfrom2to12percentagepointsisevidenceoftheremarkableimprovementinthestandardoflivingoftheKoreanworkingclassduringthepastfourdecades.Nonetheless,itshouldbenotedthathousingcostshavebecomethesinglemostimportantitemintheworker’shouseholdbudget.Housingandfoodcoststogetherconstitutealmosthalfof

HowdoestheKoreanworkers’standardoflivingcomparewithwhathasbeenobservedintheotherdevelopedanddevelopingcountries?

TheWorldDevelopmentReport（hereinaftertheWDR）,publishedbytheWorldBank,providesrelevantdataforacross-nationalcomparison.TableVIsummarizestheconsumptionstructuresofsixty-threecountriesgroupedintofourcategories:

thelow-incomecountries;lower-middle-incomecountries;uppermiddle-incomecountries;andhigh-incomecountries.AccordingtotheWorldBank,Koreacurrentlybelongstotheupper-middleincomegroup.

TableVIcontainsthreeseparateestimatesforKoreabyline.Line

（1）containstheoriginalfiguresreportedinthe1990WDRinwhichKoreawaslistedasanupper-middle-income-economy.Line

（2）liststhefiguresderivedfromthe1985UHIESdata,whichcoverthesameperiodastheWDR.Line（3）,ontheotherhand,reportsthefiguresadjustedforhousingcosts.Ofthesethreeestimates,thethirdiswidelyconsideredthemostrealisticone.Intermsofhousingcosts,Koreatopscountriesintheuppermiddleincomegroup,andjoinstheranksofthehighincomegroup（12.5%versus12.9%）.Intermsoffoodcosts,Korealooksmoreliketheupperincomegroup（34%versus31%）thanthehighincomegroup.Intermsofexpensesforluxuryitems,listedinthe“other”category,Korearesemblesthelowmiddleincomegroup（21.6%versus22.4%）morethantheupperincomegroup.ThisfindingmakesitclearthatKorea’sappearanceasahighoruppermiddleincomecountryishighlydeceptiveasfarastheoverallqualityofeconomiclifeamongworkersisconcerned.Ascomparedtotheirpeersinaffluentcountries,Koreanworkershaverelativelylesstospendforitemsotherthanbasicnecessities.Inthissense,thequalityofeconomiclifeorstandardoflivingofKoreanworkersdoesnotcomparefavorablywiththatofothercountrieswithsimilarandhigherlevelsoftheGDPpercapita.

Table1：

TheConsumptionStructureofWorkerHouseholds（afteradjustingthe

housingcost）

Source:

Nati