1. Head, Asian Social and Health Outreach, OECD
An overview of work within the OECD Social Policy Division, with a focus on work and family policy
Hallym University
21 February, 2008, Chuncheon
Willem Adema
Head, Asian Social and Health Outreach, OECD (

2. Presentation outline The OECD Social Policy Division
Pension policy
Re-integration of people with disabilities
Tax/benefit systems
Income distribution and poverty
Social indicators and social expenditure
Families and Children
Reconciling work and family life

3. Pensions at a Glance: Public Pension Reform is an Ongoing Process
The nature of reform packages
The pace of reform
Changes in entitlements
Maintain financial soundness, improve social sustainability and change labour market position of older workers

4. Pension reform packages
Parametric
Systemic
Pension age
Retirement
Calculation
Indexation
Life M F
incentives
measure
revaluing DC
NDC
Expectancy
Austria 
Finland
France
Germany
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
Sweden
United Kingdom

5. Pensions at a Glance, Asia/Pacific
The Joint OECD Korea Regional Centre for Health and Social Policy
Pensions at a Glance Asia/Pacific: Comprehensive descriptive information on support system for the retired population.
Comparison of pension systems, considering gross and net replacement rate and gross pension wealth (the pension promise accounting).
Asian pension systems: coverage is the main area of concern

6. Gross pension benefit replacement rates against 50 % of average earnings

7. Sickness and Disability: promoting inclusion
Reducing barriers to work
Control public spending
Fighting poverty among disabled
Addressing mental health conditions
Strengthening co-ordination across agencies
Benefits and Wages; tax/benefit systems modelled to view financial incentives to work (e.g., replacement rates, effective tax rates).
Comprehensive descriptive information on support system for the working age population; family benefits, rental support, unemployment, social assistance systems.

8. Disabled persons face a relatively high poverty risk
Equivalised incomes of disabled relative to non-disabled people, 2004 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Australia
United
Kingdom
Poland
Spain
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Norway

9. Employment rates of disabled persons in countries with and without quota system10 20 30 40 50 60
Canada
Sweden
Switzerland
Luxembourg (2-5%)
United States
Denmark
France (6%)
Mexico
Germany (5%)
Korea (2%)
United Kingdom
Norway
Portugal (2% p)
Austria (4%)
Netherlands
Australia
Spain (2%)
Belgium (2-5% p)
Italy (7%)
Poland (6%)
country with quota
country without quota

10. Rights and responsibilities: tax benefit systems
Balancing adequacy with financing incentives to work:
- benefit payments
- relatively low wages
- high tax rates levels
- high childcare fees
- tax/benefit calculator:
Benefits and Wages; tax/benefit systems modelled to view financial incentives to work (e.g., replacement rates, effective tax rates).
Comprehensive descriptive information on support system for the working age population; family benefits, rental support, unemployment, social assistance systems.

11. An indication of generosity of income support payments to unemployed persons, 2005.
After tax and including unemployment benefits, social assistance, family and housing benefits. Unweighted averages over 60 months of unemployment, for earnings levels of 67% and 100% of average earnings and four family types (single persons, lone parents, one-earner couples with and without children).

12. A new report on redistribution of resources, including Korea, will be released in 2008: preliminary conclusions on recent trends
Countries with wider income distributions generally also have higher poverty
In most OECD countries, inequality and poverty have risen slightly over the last decades
Rise in the number of single adult households
Work is an effective anti-poverty device
The number of persistently poor people is relatively small
Relative poverty concept: 50% of equivalised median income
Trend data since the 1980s every 5 to 10 years, for about 28 countries

13. Income redistribution and poverty:
Children often face an elevated poverty risk 0% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
AUS
CAN
DEN
FRA
GER
JPN
MEX
NLD
SPA
SWE UK US
OECD
child poverty rate
overall poverty rate
Mid-1990s
2000
Relative poverty concept: 50% of equivalised median income
Trend data since the 1980s every 5 to 10 years, for about 28 countries
New data, including for Korea, will be released in 2008 in a comprehensive report on redistribution of resources across OECD countries
Poverty thresholds at 50% of median income for the entire population

14. OECD Social Indicators
Policy effectiveness is assessed using three types of indicators:
Context indicators -- what constraints are there?
Social Status indicators -- how well/badly are countries doing?
Societal response indicators -- what policies are being used?
SAG Asia/Pacific is being developed

15. The OECD social indicator framework
Context indicators: national income, population ageing, fertility rates, marriage and divorce, sole parent families, migrants and refugees
The context within four broad social policy objectives are pursued (in brackets indicator examples):
Promote Self-Sufficiency: employment, unemployment, joblessness, and educational attainment.

16. The OECD Social Indicator Framework (contd.)
Equity: relative poverty, income inequality, low paid employment, gender pay gaps, child poverty, and poverty persistence.
Health: life expectancy, infant mortality, low-birth weight, and long-term care recipients.
Social Cohesion: suicides, substance abuse, crime, prisoners, strikes, and voter participation.

17. The OECD Social Expenditure database
Detailed programme data for 30 countries since 1980
Spending data grouped by social policy area and the nature (public/private) of support
The effect of the tax system:
Taxation of benefit income and the provision of fiscal support

18. Most spending is on pensions and health care
Public social expenditure, per cent of GDP, 2003

19. Gross and Net public social spending, in 2003
Gross public spending overestimates public social effort in many countries, but not in the US
Gross and Net public social spending, in 2003 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
SWE
DNK
FRA
DEU
NOR
GBR
NLD
USA
Average
% GDP at factor costs
Gross
Net

20. Social spending after tax, in %GDPfc, in 2003
‘After tax’, Public AND Private levels of social spending are similar in many OECD countries.
Social spending after tax, in %GDPfc, in 2003 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FRA
DEU
SWE
GBR
USA
NLD
DNK
NOR
Average
% GDP at factor costs
Private
Public

21. OECD work on family policy
- Babies and Bosses
- Fertility studies
- Employment Outlook
- Starting Strong
- Work on child well-being
- The OECD Family database

22. The OECD Family database
Structure of families
Labour market position of families
Public policies towards families
Child outcomes

23. Child Well-being project
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

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

25. Family policy challenges in Korea
Rapid ageing and low fertility
How to increase effectiveness of public policy support?
Address “family-unfriendly” workplace practices

26. Babies and Bosses reviews of policies towards the reconciliation of work and family life.
Reviews of 13 OECD countries feeding into the synthesis issue:
- Key outcomes
- tax/benefit systems
- childcare
- Workplace practices

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

28. 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

29. 1980 Female employment rates, and total fertility rates 2005
..and Korea ranks among the countries with low female employment rates and low fertility rates.
Female employment rates, and total fertility rates
NB Different scales on the horizontal axis of the panels; female employment has increased everywhere

30. Fertility concerns may drive the family policy debate in Korea, but in other OECD countries different policy objectives play a key role
Increasing female employment to sustain economic growth and pension systems
Tackling child poverty
Promoting child development
Gender equity

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

32. …in particular, Nordic countries provide a continuum of care and employment supports
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

33. For example, Iceland frontloads investment in families with children

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

35. … and it seems that workplace cultures are the main barrier to achieving a 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

36. Working hours in Korea leave little time for family commitments…
Share of workers by distribution of usual working hours, by gender, 2005

37. Female labour market outcomes are unfavourable: for example, Korea has the largest gender pay gap in the OECD
The proportion of women with supervisory responsibilities is 8%, against 20-30% in many OECD countries.
One third of female workers (and 40 of female workers of childbearing age) are in temporary employment, compared to 18% on average across the OECD

38. The share of women working in temporary employment is very high

39. …and while educational attainment in Korea has improved markedly for both sexes…

40. …employment among high-skilled women is relatively low in Korea.

41. Korea 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.

42. Korean workplaces practices need to change
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 ‘one-size-fits all solution’, but ‘right to request workplace flexibility’ may help employers and employees find solutions that suit them both.

43. More information http://www.oecd.org/els/social
OECD (2007), Pensions at Glance, Public policies across OECD countries
OECD (2007), Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers, Vol. 2, Australia, Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom.
OECD (2007), Benefits and Wages, 2007
OECD (2007), Society at a Glance, OECD Social Indicators
OECD (2007), The OECD Social Expenditure database, Interpretative guide of SOCX
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.