Beyond the Policy Rhetoric: The Limitations of Gender Mainstreaming in South Korea Relating to Women and Childcare

Abstract

This article examines the limitations of the gender mainstreaming discourse regarding the issue of childcare by women in South Korea, an area of responsibility that was transferred from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) to the Ministry of Gender Equality (MGE)1 in 2003. Through employing a discursive institutionalism approach, this article articulates that whilst the gender mainstreaming discourse has been interpreted at the surface level of politics, it has been formulated differently behind the scenes due to various policy interests. I argue that the discourse has remained at the level of superficial political rhetoric with underdeveloped understanding about the relationship between childcare and gender, thus retaining a stereotypical view of women as caregivers.

A Way Forward for South Korea’s Demographic Policy: Re-Thinking of Early Childhood Policy

“…It could be said that South Korean governments are trying to reverse the demographic trend that which country currently rolled in and spend enough time with the implementation of them to achieve positive results. However, due to certain issues, they could not reach their deserved achievements 2016;Lee, 2020;Lee, 2021]. When we make a brief analysis of this point we can see that several factors prevent them to reverse the demographic trends.…”

“…Like many governments around the world South Korean are also emphasizing providing monetary support to families. Starting from the mid-2000s the demography policies of the country gave more importance to early childhood care where between 2006-2010 years under the Roh Moo-hyun government "Sprout Plan" set a target to increase the rate of state-supported child care centers to 30% in total 2016;Lee, 2020;Lee, 2021]. However, we can see that this policy did not reach its goal in the following years since the share of private childcare centers stood at over 90% [Ministry of Health and Welfare of South Korea, 2013].…”

Rwanda's Determining Factors for Equality in Women Leadership

“…It involves neither support nor endeavor in influential partners of its noteworthiness. Additionally, significant increase of the arranged methodology is that it encourages in requesting of needs for sex-based commitment just as intercession (Lee, 2016). The subject is then picked and sexual orientation know-how is needed to spread out a game-plan.…”

“…According to Grigorian (2017), the Asian states for example, South Korea, India, Japan, Thailand and China has included sex equality and has been acknowledged to be an important dynamic force at inspiring both female and male to discover the need of gender equality thus working together to overcome the obstacles. "In South Korea, the gender equality in leadership lobby group was acknowledged as an essential approach of ensuring women's enlightenment through issuance of the Gender equality in the platform for Action Statement at the 4 th World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 by the United Nations" (Lee, 2016).…”

Ideas, Coalition Magnets and Policy Change: Comparing Variation in Early Childhood Education and Care Policy Expansion across Four Latecomer Countries

“…Notable was the founding of the Ministry of Gender Equality (MGE) in 2001 under the Kim government, which institutionalized 'femocrats' (that is, female bureaucrats) and played an agenda-setting role to which the Roh government in particular responded. This was especially the case from 2005, when the fertility rate hit a new 'lowest low' of 1.08 (S-H. Lee 2017Lee , 2020: the policy goal of 'investing in children's development and work-family reconciliation' was associated with a proliferation of ECEC policies and programmes (Kim et al 2007). The Presidential Committee on Ageing and Future Society announced four policy goals: to 'boost fertility rates and foster superb children', to 'alleviate the cost of childcare for parents', to 'increase women's working participation' and to 'create new job sectors' (Presidential Committee on Ageing and Future Society 2004).…”