In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community recognized the need to strengthen international health security systems to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the spread of infectious diseases, with the result that negotiations for a pandemic treaty are underway. A major focus of these negotiations is the establishment of a system of pathogen access and benefit-sharing, in connection with which discussions have been ongoing, informed by assessments of COVID-19 situations, about the need to ensure equitable access to vaccines. While several frameworks exist regarding access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits derived from their use―including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources, and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP Framework)―no system is in place for sharing non-influenza pathogen samples, related genetic sequence data, and benefits arising from their use. Such a system could be modeled on the genetic sequence sharing mechanism used during the COVID-19 pandemic or the PIP Framework’s Standard Material Transfer Agreements (SMTA). However, further discussions are likely needed before the international community can implement this system.
To better respond in the future to such large-scale economic crises as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, strategies should be developed based on a thorough assessment of the pandemic’s effects on income and poverty and a precise evaluation of the extent to which disaster relief payments and the National Basic Living Security Scheme mitigated these effects. The pandemic in its early stage had negative effects on market income levels and the poverty rate; however, by 2021, these effects had diminished. COVID-19’s impact on market income did not lead to a disposable income shock, thanks to public transfers. Our analysis suggests that to respond effectively and efficiently to future economic crises, the policy focus should shift from the traditional, targeted income protection approaches―such as those concentrating support on older persons and those in poverty―to a universal application of social insurance, specifically a major expansion of employment insurance coverage.
From the early 1980s to 2007, spanning about thirty years, Korea’s sex ratio at birth remained higher than the natural ratio, having first exceeded it in the 1970s. This study arose out of concerns that those born during these years of imbalanced sex ratios at birth could, upon reaching reproductive age, engender imbalances in the sex ratio at marriage. For the analysis, I calculated the sex ratio of the current unmarried population, the hypothetical matching index for the unmarried population, and Schoen’s (1983) S-index. The results reveal that imbalances in the sex ratio at birth, while nonexistent in the early 1990s, worsened from the mid-2000s onward, to the extent that by 2021, there were 19.6 percent more unmarried men than unmarried women nationwide. Over the years, imbalances in the sex ratio at marriage have become much more severe in non-capital areas than in the capital region.
Implemented in September 2018 pursuant to the Child Benefits Act, the Child Benefit was initially paid to families in the bottom 90 percent of the countable-income distribution for children under 6 years of age. The Child Benefit was made universal in January 2019 and extended further in January 2022 to cover children up to 7 years old. Survey findings suggest that families primarily allocate the child benefits they receive toward expenses such as food and snacks, followed by purchases of baby-and-child items, savings, insurance, investment, and stocks for the child, as well as fees for private early education. Recipients gave the Child Benefit an overall satisfaction score of 5.7 on a 10-point scale, slightly above the midpoint. In addition, over 50 percent of respondents reported that the Child Benefit had a positive influence on their decision to have children. For the Child Benefit to better serve as a means of promoting the fundamental rights of children and as an effective response to low fertility situations, it should be made available to children over a wider age range and paid in increased amounts.
The importance of education welfare is growing as a means of preventing the education gap from widening as a result of the educational environment and socioeconomic inequalities deteriorating following the Covid-19 pandemic. It is crucial that no one, in a time of crisis or otherwise, be put in a disadvantageous position in education because of their socioeconomic disadvantage or lack of access to resources. In this regard, it is essential that education welfare projects are designed and delivered so as to provide equal opportunities for education to students and outside-of-school adolescents alike. This study examines the concept of education welfare as presented in relevant legal frameworks and municipal ordinances, analyzes the education welfare projects implemented by the central and municipal governments and local offices of education, and presents improvement options.
In 2020, Korea spent 0.83 percent of its GDP on disability policies, just over one-third of the OECD average. Disability benefits in kind as a share of GDP have approximated the OECD average, but disability cash benefits constituted less than a quarter of the OECD average as a share of GDP. Despite Korea’s overall public social expenditure fast approaching the OECD average, spending on disability increased only at such a relatively moderate pace that it is hard to expect that it will soon reach a proportion anywhere near considered in balance with the rest of public social expenditure. Korea’s spending on disability policies remaining at such low levels as a share of GDP is attributable to disability assistance programs remaining low in both coverage and benefit level. Unless substantial changes are made to disability cash assistance, which as a share of GDP still falls far below the OECD average, Korea’s overall spending on disability policies is likely to remain low compared to the OECD average.
