복지급여와 정책학습: 한부모에게 지급된 준보편적 현금급여와 공공부조 경험 비교 (Lessons of Welfare Policy: Qualitative Analysis Comparing the Experiences of Single Mothers Receiving a Semi-Universal Benefit and Public Assistance Benefits)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사회정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사회정책 / 30권 / 2호 / 87 ~ 125페이지
· 저자명 : 정이윤, 전미양

초록

복지정책을 평가하는 기준 중 정책 결과로서 담론 차원은 잘 고려되지 않고 있다. 본 연구는 코로나19 기간 범주적이며 준보편적인 민간급여 20만원을 수령한 한부모 11명을 목적표집하여 급여의 사용과 의미해석을 탐구했고, 그 과정에서 상술한 급여 경험이 동일인의 과거 공공부조 급여 경험과 비교해 경험 해석 측면에서 대조되는 것을 발견하였다. 두 가지 다른 형태의 급여 경험은 특히 근로의욕 및 사회 연결감과 관련된 정책학습 측면에서 두드러진 차이점을 드러냈다. 공공부조의 엄격한 자격기준과 보충급여 방식은 참여자들에게 일하지 말라거나 위법을 조장하는 정책 메시지로 해석되었고, 건강한 시민성 함양을 저해하는 모습이 나타났다. 반면 까다롭지 않게 제공된 정액 급여는 경제적 도움의 의미를 넘어 사회적 인정과 격려로 해석되었고 사회참여 확장으로 연결되는 모습이 관찰되었다. 저소득만을 엄격히 선별해 급여를 제공하는 공공부조가 소득과 관계없이 제공하는 보편급여에 비해 저소득 한부모에게 유리할 것이라는 다수 정책전문가들의 주장에 반하여, 본 연구 결과는 공공부조가 의도하지 않게 시민성을 저해하는 정책학습 과정을 통해 한부모에게 부정적 영향을 미칠 가능성을 제시한다. 본 연구는 일회성 민간급여를 통한 정책 실험이라는 한계가 있으나 정책설계와 평가에서 정책학습의 고려 중요성에 대한 경험적 근거를 제시한다는 의의가 있다.

영어초록

The literature evaluating welfare policy has predominantly focused on economic outcomes, while the symbolic dimension of policy outcomes has received relatively less attention. This study aims to explore the alternative policy messages learned by middle- and low-income single mothers while applying for or receiving a semi-universal benefit and means-tested public assistance benefits, respectively. In-depth interviews were conducted with 11 single mothers who recently received a uniquely designed semi-universal benefit of 200,000 won distributed by an NGO during the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. All of the women also had previous experience of applying for welfare benefits. The collected data underwent thematic analysis. The findings of the study suggest that, due to the low-income eligibility and subsidiarity principle of public assistance benefits (i.e., an additional won earned reduces benefits by a won), the participants received policy messages discouraging them from engaging in paid work and, in some cases, even encouraging illegal work. Despite the original intention to encourage work, the current design of means-tested public assistance benefits seemed to undermine the autonomy of the participants to engage in paid work and develop healthy and active democratic citizenship. In contrast, the semi-universal flat-amount benefit with fewer huddles during the application process was perceived as a social message that recognized and valued the efforts of single mothers raising children on their own. It also encouraged their social participation. Notably, three of the eleven research participants donated to or volunteered for organizations that benefit society as a direct response to receiving the semi-universal benefit.While it is commonly believed in academic and public spheres that means-tested benefits are more beneficial for low-income individuals than (semi)universal benefits, the results of this study suggest that the disempowering policy messages produced by the design of means-tested benefits can be harmful to policy targets in a discursive and symbolic manner. The study has limitations in establishing a causal relationship partly due to the comparison of two distinct types of benefits, which also differ in other aspects such as their funding agency and delivery system. However, it offers valuable empirical evidence that underscores the significance of incorporating policy learning and policy messages in policy design and evaluation, while also paving the way for future research.

참고자료

· 없음