韩国的收入消费及贫困外文翻译学士学位论文.docx

1、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, Andpoverty in Korea 出 处： Social Indicators Research,2003,no.62 作 者： Joung woo lee INCOME, CONSUMPTION, AND POVERTY IN KOREAJOUNG-WOO LEEABSTRACT： This article examines changes in economic welfare within Korea in terms of income, c

2、onsumption, and poverty. Analyses of government statistics reveal that it has been extraordinarily successful in raising the average level of both income and consumption , while reducing the incidence of poverty during the last four decades. In reducing the unequal distribution of income during the

3、same period, however, the country has been much less successful. In the aftermath of the 1997 economic crises, the level of poverty has risen due to sharp increases in unemployment. The lives of the poor are at risk since the social safety net system in Korea is only minimal. The heavy concentration

4、 of land and wealth in a few hands is a major obstacle to the further enhancement of the quality of economic life among the Korean people.This paper examines the changing quality of economic life especially among Korean workers with systematic analyses of time series data on income, consumption, and

5、 poverty. The analyses are based on two assumptions. The first is what John Rawls characterizes as “maximin principle,” i.e., the quality of life in a given society cannot be regarded as satisfactory when some of its citizens are in a miserable state of life. The second premise is that Korean worker

6、s have yet to receive their fair share of economic development, although it is internationally regarded as more equitable than what is observed in other developing countriesINCOME GROWTHKorea has displayed unprecedented rapid economic growth from themid-1960s up until the late 1990s, when an abrupt

7、economic crisis hit the country. Per capita national income increased 80-fold fromU.S.$125 in 1966 to over U.S.$10000 in 1995. This kind of rapid economic growth could be found only in few East Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Another notable feature of economic growth in Korea

8、 is that it has not been accompanied by a worsening distribution of income, as witnessed in many Latin American countriesINCOME DISTRIBUTIONIndividual scholars and research institutes have reported that income distribution in Korea has improved during the last couple of decades. The Korea National S

9、tatistical Office (hereinafter the NSO) (2000) and Dr. Hak chung Choo (1982, 1992) of the Korea Development Institute are in agreement that income inequality has been lowered in both rural and urban areas since the late 1970s. According to the Farm Households Economic Survey (hereinafter the FHES, w

10、hich is conducted annually by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery, the Gini coefficient was estimated to be 0.324 for 1967, and 0.288for 1988. This strongly suggests a lowering of income inequality inrural areas over the past decades. When combining the urban and rural income survey data, it is

11、evident hat income distribution in Korea has been moving in the direction of lesser inequality before the economic crisis hit the country in 1997. Nonetheless, the Gini coefficients based on these survey data have recently been called into question (Ahn, 1995; Lee and Whang, 1998). These surveys wer

12、e not capable of properly incorporating the unearned incomes stemming from the soaring prices of land, houses, and stocks. The windfall gains from those sources occur only once or twice in life, so that people tend to regard them as “abnormal” income, that should not be counted as income in the soci

13、al surveys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that occasional income surveys could capture the vast amount of unearned income, which explored in the late 1980s. This is one reason why there is a lingering doubt about the findings of improving income distribution, even though existing. For 1988 alone,

14、 for example, the realized capital gains from land were around 20 percent of the Gross National Product (here in after the GNP), and those from the stock market added another 5 percent. The Gini coefficient of 1988, reported by the NSO, was given as 0.336. However, the Gini coefficient is actually e

15、stimated to be0.388, one the capital gains arising from land in the late 1980sare taken into account (Lee, 1991). The gains from the booming stock market in the late 1980s further raised the coefficient to 0.412, a figure that is significantly higher than what the NSO originally estimated the coeffi

16、cient to be. In reality, therefore, it is highly probable that income inequality in Korea is much higher than what is known from the governmental household surveys, and it has been worsening during the past decade.CONSUMPTION PATTERNHow does the working class compare with the non-working class in te

17、rms of what they consume on a daily basis? The present study addressed this question with the Urban Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (hereinafter the UHIES) conducted by the NSO for the period of 19632000. Table IV compares the relative levels of consumption of three working classes blue col

18、lar, white collar, and laborers with that of non-laborers. In addition, the table provides the Engel coefficient, i.e., the ratio of food consumption as a part of total consumption, for these four classes. There is no strict criterion, but often an Engel coefficient over 70 percent means “extremely

19、poor,” and over 50 percent “poor.”According to the Engel coefficients reported in Table IV, both the working and non-working classes were poor during the 1960s. They had to spend more than half of their living expenses on food items. In 2000, however, they were spending less than one-third of those

20、expenses for the same purpose. Their Engel coefficients have declined to the high 20s, by as much as 50 percent over the past four decades. This indicates a remarkable improvement in the standard of living among all classes of the Korean population.Of the three classes surveyed, blue-collar workers

21、remain the least well off, still spending the most on food items, the same as they did four decades ago. When improvements in the overall levels of consumption are considered, however, it is the blue-collar workers, who have achieved the greatest level of improvement in their standard of living. In

22、1963, they were 35 percentage points behind non- laborers. In 2000, however, they were only 16 percentage points behind, indicating a gain of 19 percentage points over the period in question.Table V examines changes in the consumption structure of worker households after adjusting for the housing co

23、sts that were underestimated in the analysis reported by the government. Specifically, the opportunity cost of the lump-sum deposits and the imputed rents of owner-occupied housing were taken into account in order to estimate, accurately, the percentage figures for food and other consumption items.

24、The most notable feature of Table V concerns steady and significant declines in the Engel coefficients from 55 in 1963, to 21 in 2000. As a result of such declines in food consumption, Korean workers have been able to spend more on such items as medical care, education, transportation, and communica

25、tions. Of all those non-food items, the relative level of spending has increased to the greatest extent in the “other” consumption category, which covers furniture, electronic equipment, and entertainment expenses. These items are generally considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. The six-

26、fold rise in this category from 2 to 12 percentage points is evidence of the remarkable improvement in the standard of living of the Korean working class during the past four decades. Nonetheless, it should be noted that housing costs have become the single most important item in the workers househo

27、ldbudget. Housing and food costs together constitute almost half of How does the Korean workers standard of living compare with what has been observed in the other developed and developing countries? The World Development Report (here in after the WDR), published by the World Bank, provides relevant

28、 data for a cross-national comparison. Table VI summarizes the consumption structures of sixty-three countries grouped into four categories: the low-income countries; lower-middle-income countries; upper middle-income countries; and high-income countries. According to the World Bank, Korea currently

29、 belongs to the upper-middle income group.Table VI contains three separate estimates for Korea by line. Line (1) contains the original figures reported in the 1990 WDR in which Korea was listed as an upper-middle-income-economy. Line (2) lists the figures derived from the 1985 UHIES data, which cove

30、r the same period as the WDR. Line (3), on the other hand, reports the figures adjusted for housing costs. Of these three estimates, the third is widely considered the most realistic one. In terms of housing costs, Korea tops countries in the upper middle income group, and joins the ranks of the hig

31、h income group (12.5% versus 12.9%). In terms of food costs, Korea looks more likethe upper income group (34% versus 31%) than the high income group. In terms of expenses for luxury items, listed in the “other” category, Korea resembles the low middle income group (21.6%versus 22.4%) more than the u

32、pper income group. This finding makes it clear that Koreas appearance as a high or upper middle income country is highly deceptive as far as the overall quality of economic life among workers is concerned. As compared to their peers in affluent countries, Korean workers have relatively less to spend

33、 for items other than basic necessities. In this sense, the quality of economic life or standard of living of Korean workers does not compare favorably with that of other countries with similar and higher levels of the GDP per capita.Table1：The Consumption Structure of Worker Households (after adjusting thehousing cost)Source: Nati