Reconciling work and family life: Korean policy challenges in an

international perspective Presentation:

Chung-Ang University 19 February 2008, Seoul

Willem AdemaHead, Asian Social and Health Outreach, OECD

(www.oecd.org/els/social/family)

• OECD work on family policy• Context and outcomes underlying family

policy challenges in Korea• What are family policy objectives across the

OECD area? • How does Korea compare in terms of policy

response and workplace practices?• Options for policy development

Presentation outline

- Babies and Bosses - Fertility studies- Employment Outlook - Starting Strong- Work on child well-being

- The OECD Family database

OECD work on family policy

• Structure of families• Labour market position of families• Public policies towards families• Child outcomes

www.oecd.org/els/social/family

The OECD Family database

• Under three’s policy package• Child well-being and sole parenthood• Child well-becoming (e.g. parental

employment, intergeneration equality), • Distribution of public spending, over time

and across family types • Child outcomes and child policy

Child Well-being project

The Korean public support profile over the early lifecourse reflects education spending patterns.

• Rapid ageing and low fertility

• How to increase effectiveness of public policy support?

• Address “family-unfriendly” workplace practices

Family policy challenges in Korea

Reviews of 13 OECD countries feeding into synthesis issue- Key outcomes- tax/benefit systems - childcare- Workplace practices

Babies and Bosses reviews of policies towards the reconciliation of work and family life.

In international comparison, Korea scores badly in terms of key Work and Family outcomes

Total fertility rateEmployment

population ratio Employment

population ratio

Childcare enrolment

(aged 0 - 3) Child poverty Gender pay gap2005 Women, 2006 Sole parents, 2005 or

latest year 2004 or latest year around 2000 2004

OECD Average (intervals)

1.63 (+/- 0.16) 56.8% (+/- 5.73) 70.6% (+/- 7.09) 22.9% (+/- 8.21) 12% (+/- 3.19) 18.5% (+/- 4.07)

AustraliaFranceGermanyJapanKorea .. ..

NetherlandsSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States

Better than the OECD average Around the OECD average Worse than the OECD averageCountries are categorised in high or low groups if they are half a standard deviation above or below the OECD average.

Korea will age more rapidly than most other OECD countries…

Population aged 65 and over, relative to the population aged 20-64, 2000 and 2050

Source: OECD (2007), Society at a Glance: OECD Social indicators.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SWE JPN FRA UK DEU NL USA AUS KOR

2000 2050 OECD-2000 OECD-2050

…in part, because parents have fewer children than they would like and birth rates have fallen...

Desired and observed total fertility rates, 1981, 1990 and 2000

Source: D'Addio and Mira d'Ercole (2005), Trends and Determinants of Fertility Rates in OECD Countries: The Role of Policies.

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

Desired fertility Total fertility rate1990

2000

1981

…and countries with high female employment rates now also have the highest fertility rates.

1980 Female employment rates, and total fertility rates 2005

AUS

AUT

BEL

CHEDEU

ESP

FIN

FRA

GBR

GRC

IRL

ITAJPN

KOR

NLD

NZL

PRT

SWEUSA

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

20 30 40 50 60 70Employment rates of women

TFR

ISL

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

40 50 60 70 80 90

AUS

AUT

BELCAN

CZE

DNKFINFRA

DEU

GRCHUN

ISLIRL

ITA JPN

KOR

LUX

MEX

NLD

NZL

NOR

POLPRT

SVK

ESP

SWE

CHE

GBR

USA

OECD

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

40 50 60 70 80 90Employment rates of women

TFR

(200

4)

NB Different scales on the horizontal axis of the panels; female employment has increased everywhere

• Increasing female employment to sustain economic growth and pension systems

• Tackling child poverty • Promoting child development • Gender equity

Fertility concerns may drive the family policy debate in Korea, but in other OECD countries

different policy objectives play a key role

Policy responses also differ across countries: public family support is limited in Korea…

Public spending on family benefits, per cent of GDP, 2003

Public support included here only concerns items that are exclusively for families (e.g. child payments and allowances, parental leave benefits and childcare support). Spending recorded in other social policy areas as health and housing support also assist families, but not exclusively, and is not included here.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Cash Services Tax breaks towards family OECD

• Public spending covers: – Extensive health, housing and education support– Paid parental leave for around one year or more – Public childcare and early education– Out-of-School-Hours care

• The policy model is expensive; in Denmark and Sweden tax-to-GDP ratio is 50%.

• Therefore, many countries income-test support or leave ‘gaps’ in public family support

…by contrast, Nordic countries provide a continuum of care and employment supports

to families with children

For example, Iceland frontloads investment in families with children

In terms of childcare participation, Korea is not doing all that badly…

0102030405060708090

100

3 - 5 years 0 - 2 years

… it seems that Workplace cultures rather than childcare policy are the main barrier to better

work/family balance in Korea

• Women are often expected to leave work on marriage/childbirth

• Regular employment, pursuing a career and motherhood seem difficult to combine – workplace cultures don’t support work/family balance– Female labour market outcomes are unfavourable

Working hours in Korea leave little time for family commitments…

Share of workers by distribution of usual working hours, by gender, 2005

KOR

USA

JPN

SWE

DEU

AUS

GBR

FRA

NLD

WomenMen

87

84

80

70

59

54

53

34

47

020406080100

40 and over

30 to 39

20 to 29

1 to 19

77

64

48

40

27

23

17

16

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

1 to 19

20 to 29

30 to 39

40 and over

Female labour market outcomes are unfavourable: for example, Korea has the

largest gender pay gap in the OECDGender gap in median earnings of full-time employees, 2004 or latest year available, percentages

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

KOR JPN GER USA UK SWE AUS FRA

OECD-21 average (18%)

The share of women working in temporary employment is very high

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

KO

R

SW

E

NLD JPN

DEU

FRA

OEC

D

DN

K UK

AU

S

USA

%Men and women Women

Educational attainment in Korea has improved markedly for both sexes…

Females Aged 25-34 Aged 45-54 Males

Korea

Japan

Sweden

United States

Germany

France

Netherlands

Australia

United Kingdom

Source: OECD Education database

Percentage of population that has attained at least an upper secondary education, by gender and age group, 2004

72

78

79

79

87

86

90

92

97

0 20 40 60 80 100

68

75

81

82

84

88

93

96

97

020406080100

…but employment among high-skilled women is relatively low in Korea. Female employment rates by educational attainment, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

SWE UKM NLD AUS GER USA FRA JPN KOR

Employment rate (%) Compulsory education University education

Lower female employment rate with university

education

Parental educational attainment is positively associated with literacy of youngsters, PISA 2003…

Educational attainment of student's motherEducational attainment of student's father

Mean score on the reading literacy scale 400500600

KOR

JPN

DEU

AUS

UK

NLD

OECD

DNK

US

SWECompulsory schooling

University degree

400 500 600

Compulsory schooling

University degree

25

...as is maternal employment, although the effect of FT/PT employment varies across countries.

360

410

460

510

560

Finland Korea Canada Australia New Zealand Belgium Ireland Netherlands Sweden UK Germany Poland Norway Japan US France Switzerland Czech Austria Denmark Iceland Hungary Luxembourg Portugal Spain Italy Slovak Republ Greece Turkey Mexico

mea

n sc

ore

Father FT Father PT Father NW

360

410

460

510

560

Finland Korea Canada Australia New Zealand Belgium Ireland Netherlands Sweden UK Germany Poland Norway Japan US France Switzerland Czech Austria Denmark Iceland Hungary Luxembourg Portugal Spain Italy Slovak Republ Greece Turkey Mexico

mea

n sc

ore

Mother FT Mother PT Mother NW

0102030405060708090100

Difference in mean score-40 -20 0 20 40 60

UK

US

FRA

SWE

DEU

AUS

JPN

KOR

NLD

Difference in mean score

Difference between mother working full-time and out of work

Difference between mother working full-time and part-time

Korea also needs to better use its ‘female capital’ to avoid shrinking of the labour force

Total labour force from 1980 to 2000, and projections from 2005 to 2030, in thousands

‘Constant rates’: assumes constant labour force participation rates for men and women from 2000 to 2030; ’Gender equity in participation rates’: assumes that female participation rates reach current male participation rates in each country by 2030.

80

90

100

110

120

130

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

• More investment in quality formal childcare support through a mix of direct investment and money to parents

• Mould parental leave and childcare policies into a coherent system

To increase employment and birth-rates, Korea needs better family-friendly policies..

• More opportunities for women/mothers to stay/return to regular employment.

• Increase the role of performance-related pay • Maintain employer/employee relationship during

parental leave • There is not a ‘one-size-fits all solution’, but

‘right to request workplace flexibility’ could help find employers and employees solutions that suit them both

…but above all Korean workplaces practices need to change

More informationhttp://www.oecd.org/els/social/familyD'Addio, A-C. and M. Mira d'Ercole (2005), “Trends and Determinants of Fertility Rates

in OECD Countries: The Role of Policies”, Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 27, OECD, Paris (www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers).

OECD (2002), Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life, Vol. 1, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands.

OECD (2003), Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life, Vol. 2, Austria, Ireland and Japan.

OECD (2004), Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life, Vol. 3, New Zealand, Portugal and Switzerland.

OECD (2005), Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life, Vol. 4, Canada, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

OECD (2006), Starting Strong, Early Education and Care.OECD (2007), Facing the Future, Korea’s health, Family and Pension Policy Challenges. OECD (2007), Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life: A Synthesis of

findings for OECD countries.