The Clash between Social Policy and Traditional Values: Unmet Welfare Needs Sustained by the Culture of Familism in South Korea

Abstract

Drawing from a wider study of the ideas of poverty and inequality in South Korea, this paper reports on the lived experiences of disadvantaged South Koreans and their relationship to the National Basic Livelihood Security System (NBLSS), a flagship social assistance program aimed at addressing poverty and inequality. Utilizing a cultural approach to understanding and analysing policy responses to poverty, the impact of familism in the application of the NBLSS safety net is examined. Research data is presented through the testimonies, obtained through qualitative research interviews, of disadvantaged research participants and those who work with them, as well as policy‐makers' perspectives, revealing key flaws in the current NBLSS policy objectives. It is clearly evident that, by clinging to outdated Confucian conceptualizations of familial piety as a justification for highly selectivist access to what is no more than a subsistence level of financial support for poor people, the proposition of a poverty safety net is compromised and is widely missing its aim of reducing poverty and inequality in contemporary South Korea.

Varieties of familialism: Comparing four southern European and East Asian welfare regimes

“…The term was later adopted also by scholars of East Asian welfare regimes (e.g. Estevez- Abe and Kim, 2014;Jones, 1993;Phillips and Jung 2013 and, from a specific gender perspective, Peng, 2002).…”

“…However, a recent reform has limited them to reciprocal responsibilities between parents and children (including daughters-in-law and sons-in-law), excluding siblings and other relatives, even when cohabiting. This reform was intended to increase the access to social assistance, although it seems to have had only a limited effect, since family obligations remain substantial (Phillips and Jung, 2013).…”

End of an Era? China's One‐Child Policy and its Unintended Consequences

“…A considerable number of papers published recently feature Confucian in the title or as a central point of reference in the content (Canda, ; Garon, ; Karim, Eikemo & Bambra, ; Phillips & Jung, ; Solinger, ; Yu, Chau & Lee, ). This, in part, reflects China's 11th five‐year‐plan for 2006–2010, which focused on building a harmonious (socialist) society by, among other things, emphasizing the expansion of welfare policies (Fan, ).…”

‘Let the King Save the Poor’: The Discursive Mechanism Underlying the Under‐exercise of Social Rights in South Korea

“…Peng (: 162) noted that main cultural elements featured in East Asian welfare regimes were a ‘strong sense of work ethics and self‐discipline, emphasis of education, filial piety, gendered role of division, respect for the elders and authority’. Similarly, familism is a traditional value and key sustaining feature of South Korea's welfare state (Phillips and Jung ; Song ).…”

“…Welfare benefits are provided in a way that recipients can be easily identified. Welfare recipients were conscious of being the subject of social blame and thus many individuals may be reluctant to apply for welfare benefits due to the shame that accompanies the receipt of such benefits (Phillips and Jung ). Social workers also expressed their discontent with the number of disadvantaged individuals claiming welfare benefits.…”