CLASSIFYING WELFARE STATESBASED ON ELDERLY LABOR FORCEPARTICIPATIONPark Hyebin
The 3rd Seminar on East Asian Social Welfare
Doshisha Univ. and Chung-Ang Univ.
Seoul, 25 June 2011

INTRODUCTION (1) Low birth rate and aging population are consequences ofeconomic development and the improvement of the living
standards and medical care(Seike 2006).
 It is also predicted that the increase of elderly population

would lead into the rising of socio-economic cost, callingfor a measure to reduce it.
 The main problems would be how to design the life ofelders in the graying societies and find a way to supportthem.
2INTRODUCTION (2) The old-age income is more than a problem of individuals

but rather a matter of the entire society and its governingstate.

 I recommend Labor Force Participation of Old-age

People as one of the solutions.

3

INTRODUCTION (3) Many studies demanding the protection and invigorationof elder people’s labor force participation.
 Studies on finding factors pertaining to the retirement andlabor market participation of the elders are of utmostfrequency.
 Among the factors considered in precedent studies are:pension, retirement age, vocational status prior to theretirement, health condition, technological progress inworkplace, respect to active aging and productive aging.

4

CONTENTS OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION Meaning of an international comparative study Other studies on classifying welfare states

 Methods and fact findings

 Conclusion

5

AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY An international comparative study could be one option

for studying the matter.
 Finding unique features of a specific state by examiningcases in other countries and making
comparisons(Uzuhashi 1998).
 Grasp the global tendency on the policies, broadening

the available options for future policies(Park 2005).

6

STUDIES ON CLASSIFYING WELFARE STATES(1) Studies on classifying welfare states have advantages onunderstanding the flows of welfare policies and servicesof the targeted country at large.
 To find tendency in a series of policies.

 De-commodification and stratification are the mostrepresentative indexes(Esping-Andersen 1990)

7

STUDIES ON CLASSIFYING WELFARE STATES(2) Social investment strategy(Kim 2008)

according to employment rate, female employment rate,unemployment rate, gini coefficient Dedomestication (Kröger 2011)

suggest a new index to international comparisons ofchild care and service provision
 Relationship between Welfare and employment (Miura2003)
employment rate of males of age from 55 to 64 andsocial expenditure

8

THIS RESEARCH’S SUGGESTION
 Suggest a new index for studies on welfare states,

based on the reality of labor force participation ofelderly and indicators pertaining to it.
 The suggestion is believed to be a new axis ofinternational comparative studies on labor force
participation of elder people, and to broaden thescope of such areas.

9METHODS (1)

Labor
force
participate

Pull factor(pension, unemployment benefits, desire to do moreleisure activities or switch to other non-occupationaljobs)
Retirement
Push factor(unemployment rate, the technological progress inworkplace, health condition, mandatory retirement
system, a preference for job to youth)

10source: Ebbinghaus(2006) ,OECD(2006)

METHODS (2) Use three indexes for classification .

(1) Pull factor：Public expenditure on
pension/aging rate(2)Push factor：entire unemployment rate(3) Independent variable:
labor force participation rate of both sexes age
from 55－64
11

FACT FINDINGS Pension expenditure and unemployment rate arenegatively related to labor force participation rate of elderpeople.

 4 Groups

Group A(Sweden, Norway, Japan, USA)Group B(Korea, Canada, Ireland, UK)
Group C(Finland, France, Spain, Germany)Group D(Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Luxemburg)
12

FIG. 2 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON PENSION AND LABORFORCE PARTICIPATION RATE AGED 55-64
90.00
ISL80.00

ALabor Force Participation age 55-64

SWENZL

70.00

NOR

CHE
JPN

DNK

B

USA

KOR

60.00

CAN

GBR

AUS
IRL

MEX

FIN
OECDC
DEU

50.00
CZE

NDL

ESP
GRC
FRA

40.00

Dy = -0.5653x + 76.131
R² = 0.3966

SVK

HUN

BEL
LUX

30.00
102030

40

ITA
5060

AUT

POL

7080

Public Expenditure on Pension /Ratio of population aged 65

Source: OECD (2010)

9013

FIG. 3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND LABOR FORCEPARTICIPATION AGE 55-64
90.00
ISL

Labor force Participation aged 55-64

80.00

A
SWE

NZL

70.00

NOR
JPN

CHE

USA

DNK
60.00

KOR

B

GBR
AUS
IRL50.00

CAN

FIN

COECD

MEX

DEU
CZE

NDL

ESP
GRC
FRA

40.00

y = -2.3065x + 68.22
R² = 0.3139
HUND
LUX
30.00
2.0

4.0

AUT
6.0

SVK
BEL

ITA
8.0

POL
10.0

Unemployment rate

Source: OECD (2010)

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

14

CONCLUSION (1) - GENERAL TREND
Socialdemocratic
regime-type

A

Liberalregime-type

B

Corporatist
regime-type

C

Lower labor participation of elderly

D15

CONCLUSION (2) - GENERAL TREND The trend does not always fit the data.

 Classifying

welfare states has a purpose to see ageneral trend among the targeted countries.

 Not every uniqueness of each state is to be taken in

to account.
It is assumed that there exist differences in culture,
economic situation and the perspective on theelder`s labor force participation.

16

CONCLUSION (3) – CHARACTERISTIC
COUNTRIES(SWEDEN, USA) Sweden has the highest labor force participation rates of

elderly, despite the higher unemployment rate and pension
expenditure rate than those rates of other countries in thegroup A.
 High degree of entire employment rate and expenditure ofactive labor market policies

 USA belongs to group A, although it is a liberal regime-typestate.
 prohibit the age discrimination in employment byADEA(Age Discrimination in Employment Act)high entire employment rate17

CONCLUSION (3) – CHARACTERISTIC
COUNTRIES(GERMANY) Since the 1970s, a political scheme to spur early

retirement has been settled in the European states
including Germany. However ,Germany havehigher labor market participation rate of the elderly
than Italy, France, which are the same Corporatist
regime-type countries.
pension reform, create new Act for elderly parttime jobs to be combined with partial pensions(Altersteilaeitgesetz, ATG)

18

CONCLUSION (4) – CHARACTERISTIC
COUNTRIES(KOREA, JAPAN)
 Korea and Japan is classified in different groups, while

in many Research studies, Korea and Japan fall in thesame category.
A view about sources of income in the elder’s life is oneof the reasons. Japan has higher sense of self-reliancethan Korea. In Korea, there are higher expectations forsocial security and stronger opinions calling for thefinancial support from family.
The practical mandatory age in Korea is around late 50and that of Japan is around early 60. This fact can be
another explanation for such difference of Japan andKorea.

19

NEED FURTHER RESEARCH

 To analyze the background of other countries and thecharacteristic of each group with the labor market
theory.

20

REFERNCESAtsusi SEIKEI (2006), Living in Age-free Society, NTT Publishing.

Bernhard Ebbinghaus (2006), Reforming Early Retirement in Europe, Japan , and the USA, Oxford University Press.

Byunghyun PARK (2005), Comparing the Welfare states, Community.

Delsen and Reday－Mulvey (1996), Gradual Retirement in the Netherlands, Lei Delsen and Gneviève Reday－Mulvey.(eds.), Gradual retirement on the OECD countries: macro and micro issues and policies, Ashgate Publishing,pp. 111－132.



Gøsta Esping－Andersen (1990), The Three World of Welfare Capitalism, Policy.



Gøsta Esping－Andersen (2008), Trois leçons sur l'ètat－providence Bruno , Palier.

Hisakazu KATOU(2007), Demographic Economics, Nihon Keizai Shimbun Publishing.

Hyebin PARK (2011), A Review of Elderly Work, Doshisha University Graduate Course Collection of essays , Vol.25,
pp. 56－64.

Japanese Cabinet Office (2007), The 6th International survey on Living and Consciousness of Senior Citizens.

Jonathan Gruber and David A. Wise. Eds. (2010), Social Security Programs and Retirement Around the World: TheRelationship to Youth

Employment, The University of Chicago Press.

Kyoseong KIM (2008), Classifying Welfare States Based on the social Investment Strategies, Social Welfare Policy,Vol. 35, pp. 29-59.

Mary MIURA (2003), ‘labor market regulation and Welfare States－ International Comparative and Japan’s position’,in Takahumi UZUHASHI (Ed.), Welfare states in Comparing. Minerva syobou, pp. 109－133.

OECD (2006), Live Longer, Work Longer, OECD.

OECD (2010), OECD Factbook 2010: Economic，Environmental and Social Statics, OECD.

Teppo KRÖGER (2011), Defmilisation, Dedomestication, and care policy: Comparing Childcare Service Provisions ofWelfare States, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 31.
21

Takahumi UZUHASHI (1997), A Comparative Study of Welfare States – features and prospects of Japanese Model,Nihon hyoronsya．

THANKS FOR
LISTENING22