°¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ ¼¼ °¡Áö Áö¿øÀ¯Çü°ú ±× Á¶ÇÕ¿¡ °üÇÑ ±¹Á¦ºñ±³¿¬±¸
A Comparative Study on Family Policy Provisions and its Configuration

»çȸº¹ÁöÁ¤Ã¥ 2014³â 41±Ç 1È£ p.213 ~ p.240

À̽ÂÀ±(Lee Seung-Yoon) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ »çȸº¹ÁöÇаú
¹Ú°íÀº(Park Ko-Eun) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ »çȸº¹ÁöÇаú
±èÀ±¿µ(Kim Yun-Young) - ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ »çȸº¹ÁöÇаú

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â OECD ±¹°¡µéÀÇ °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ ¼º°ÝÀ» ±Ô¸íÇÏ°í ±× º¯È­ ¾ç»óÀ» ÀÌÇØÇϱâ À§ÇØ, °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ ´Ù¾çÇÑ Áö¿øÀ¯Çüµé°ú ±× Á¶ÇÕ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºñ±³¿¬±¸¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áï, °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ ±Þ¿©ÇüŸ¦ ÀçÁ¤Àû, ½Ã°£Àû ¹× ¼­ºñ½ºÀû Â÷¿øÀ¸·Î ³ª´©°í, ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Áö¿øÀ¯ÇüµéÀ» Á¶ÇÕÀ¸·Î ±¸¼ºÇÏ¿© ±¹°¡º° °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÌ ¾î¶°ÇÑ À¯ÇüÀ¸·Î º¯È­ÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç(change in kind) ±× º¯È­ÀÇ Á¤µµ(change in degree)´Â ¾î´À Á¤µµÀÎÁö ÆÛÁö¼Â ÀÌ»óÇü ºÐ¼®À» È°¿ëÇÏ¿© ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼® °á°ú, 2005³â¿¡´Â ºÐ¼®´ë»ó 10°³±¹µéÀÌ 5°¡Áö À¯Çü¿¡ ¼ÓÇÏ¿´°í, 2009³â¿¡´Â ´ë»ó ±¹°¡µéÀÇ Áö¿øÀ¯ÇüÀÌ ¸ðµÎ 4°¡Áö·Î, °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ Àý´ëÀû ÁöÃ⠱Ը𰡠ū °æ¿ì ´Ù¾çÇÏ°Ô Á¤Ã¥Á¶ÇÕÀ¸·Î °¡Á¤Á¤Ã¥À» ½Ç½ÃÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. Áï, ±¹°¡µéÀÇ °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥Àº ±× Áö¿ø¹æ½Ä¿¡ ÀÖ¾î ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¸ð½ÀÀ¸·Î È®´ëµÇ¾î ¿Â °ÍÀ» È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÇÑÆí ¼¼ °¡ÁöÀÇ Áö¿ø¹æ½Ä¿¡¼­ ¸ðµÎ ³·Àº ¼öÁØÀ¸·Î Áö¿øÇÏ´Â °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ ¼º°ÝÀ¯Çü¿¡ ¼ÓÇÏ´Â ±¹°¡µé(³×´ú¶õµå, ÀÌÅ»¸®¾Æ, ¹Ì±¹, ÀϺ» ±×¸®°í Çѱ¹)Àº, °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ ÁöÃâÃѾ×Àº ±¹°¡ ³»¿¡¼­ Àü³âµµ ´ëºñ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸³ª ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ¸ðµç Áö¿ø¹æ½Ä¿¡¼­ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ³·Àº ¼öÁØÀ» À¯ÁöÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù´Â Á¡À» ÅëÇØ °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÌ ¸ðµç Áö¿ø¹æ½Ä¿¡¼­ ³·Àº °æ¿ì ´Ù¸¥ À¯ÇüÀ¸·Î °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ÀÇ Áö¿øÀ¯Çü ÀÚü°¡ º¯È­Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ´Ù¼Ò ½Ã°£ÀÌ °É¸± °ÍÀ» ÃßÃøÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
This study examines changes in family policy by investigating different types of provisions and its configuration of the policy in selected OECD countries. Family policy provision is categorized by its focus on financial support, support for time (ex, leave policy) and service provision. We examined how family policy as a configuration of the three provision types changed in kind and in degree exploiting fuzzy-set ideal type approach. We found 5 family policy type in 2005 and 4 in 2009. Countries with relatively high total spending varies in their kinds of family policy. However, for those countries (the Netherlands, United States, Japan, Italy and Korea) in low level of support in all three aspects remained in the same type suggesting that it will take more time for those laggard countries to change their family policy by kind.

Å°¿öµå

°¡Á·Á¤Ã¥, ÆÛÁö¼Â ÀÌ»óÇü ºÐ¼®, °¡Á·Á¤Ã¥ Áö¿ø¹æ½Ä, Á¤Ã¥Á¶ÇÕ
Family policy, fuzzy-set ideal type approach, provision types, policy configuration
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå