The Meaning of the Perception on Desirable Job in Korean Labor Market
Myoung-Jin Lee
I. Introduction
The quality or goodness of jobs held by paid workers is clearly one of the central variables in
the literatures on labor market, as it is seen to be an important determinant of living standards ofmembers in a society. There are also suggestions on the link between job quality and labormarket related individual attitudes and behaviors, such as the job commitment, job performance,
absenteeism, and voluntary turnover at the workplaces (Carsten and Spector, 1987).
Accordingly, there have been many attempts from different disciplines to measure the qualityof a job. Economists, for example, have discussed the importance of economic rewards from thejob, such as income and other economic supplements in evaluating the job quality. In sociology,
several scholars have suggested that occupational status score and socioeconomic index provide
the basic standards for the goodness or badness of a job (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Ganzeboom etal., 1989). However, these approaches offer only a very limited understanding on the quality ofa job. Occupational status is a very limited indicator of job desirability since the variation within
occupational categories was found to be as great as that between occupational categories.
Similarly, economists have no common measure of jobs‟ non-monetary benefits and costs(Jencks et al., 1998).
Therefore, another aspect that has been examined to be important in evaluating the quality ofa job is the job characteristics. For example, Loher et al. (1985) and Vroon (1964) argue that thenature of work itself and social relationship at work as well as the economic benefits from work
are important determinants in evaluating the quality of a job. Therefore, variables such as thelevel of autonomy, perceived control over the work process, complexity of the job, pay level,
and the degree of satisfaction with co-workers are used as indicators for the quality of a job(Loher et al., 1985). Additional properties of job, such as the use of skill and whether to be in aposition to exercise authority at work have also been considered as important factors todetermine the quality of a job (Vroom, 1964).
More recently, Jencks et al. (1998) developed an index of job desirability based on theweights given to different characteristics of jobs by workers. Non-monetary characteristics ofjobs (such as access to training, low risk of job loss, and characteristics of the job) and someother variables on characteristics of a job, such as the hours of work, control over work hours,
and whether the job was dirty were examined. It is found that the ranking of desirable job
characteristics differ little between men and women or by age, and that non-monetarycharacteristics of job were twice as important as earnings. A striking finding of this study was82that use of the index doubled the level of labor market inequality compared to earnings
inequality. It was also found that men‟s jobs were significantly better than those of women‟swith respect to non-compensation items, and that unionization was associated with higher job
desirability.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that there are subjective factors at play inpeople‟s evaluation on the quality of a job. For example, Smith et al. (1969) and Locke (1976)
dealt with the importance of subjective job evaluation for the definition and measurement ofgood job in the field of industrial psychology. The variety of aspects relating to job evaluationin psychology include the enjoyment of life, the amenities of home life, job security, and thepossibility of upward mobility, and so on. There are also studies, which argue that personal
traits (Staw and Ross, 1985), affective disposition during early adolescence (Staw et al., 1986),
and genetic basis (Gehart, 1987; Arvey et al., 1989) are important determinant of an individual‟sevaluation on the quality of a job. The implicit assumption underlying these studies is that job
evaluation varies because individual affective dispositions vary. Therefore, Staw and Ross
(1985) examined the job satisfaction rating of workers over various time intervals controllingfor changes in employers and occupations, and found that job satisfaction comes from thepersonological make-up of the individuals. Similarly, Staw et al. (1986) presented evidence thatthe overall job attitudes as adults are significantly predicted from affective disposition during
early adolescence. Moreover, Arvey et al. (1989) suggested that 30% of observed variance in
job evaluation could be attributed to genetic factors when controlling for job characteristics.
Considering the wide range of variables argued to be important in determining the quality ofa job, it is not surprising that researchers can not agree on a good formal definition of job
quality. In Korea, Phang and Lee (2006) built a complex index to measure the goodness of
individual‟s current jobs on the basis of three prominent dimensions; social status, financial
reward, and subjective satisfaction. This led them to argue that multi-dimensional definition ofjob quality may be a better alternative to its one-dimensional definition. Although a multidimensional definition of the job quality offer a lot of advantages for measuring the quality ofjob, its definition requires a variety of information on current jobs including social status,
financial rewards, subjective satisfaction and so on. Such detailed information is not readily
available in most social surveys. Only very preliminary information is usually available
regarding job quality. While most people want to work stable and predictable hours, detailed
information on work schedules has become available only in recent years. While most people
want to work in jobs, which are safe and healthy, information on the incidence of physicalhazards at work is surprisingly limited. Perhaps more strikingly, remarkably little is known
about the detailed characteristics of jobs in terms of meeting the needs of workers. Therefore, itis necessary to introduce a more practical conceptualization and measurement to captureindividuals‟ job quality.

83The approach that we take in this paper is to use desirable job as a simpler proxy to measurepeople‟s evaluation on the goodness of a job. Since labor market participation is a highly
competitive activity, one has to experience various sorts of complex decisions. People‟s
perception on desirable job plays an important role during such decision-making process. In
particular, understanding on dimensions along which a conceptualization on desirable jobs isformed may provide insights into the process through which evaluation on job quality is made.
In this paper, we examine three aspects of a job as they relate to a desirable and, ultimately, to agood job; firm size (large vs. medium to small firms), sector (public vs. private), andemployment status (employees vs. self-employed). 1 In analyzing these three aspects of a job,
we also examine the relationship between the current and desirable job. There are many
literatures that show that when people perceive unhappiness in the workplace, they frequently
experience a cognitive tensions and a drive to find another type of job (Carsten and Spector,
1987; Griffeth and Gaertner, 2001; Wagner and Huber, 2003). More specifically, individuals
who are satisfied with their current jobs are less likely to expect or seek another type of job.
Conversely, those who are dissatisfied with their current jobs are more likely to expect or seek
another type of job (Darity and Goldsmith. 1996). Therefore, by analyzing the relationshipbetween the current and desirable job, we may gain an understanding on the dynamics involvedin evaluating the quality of a job.
Furthermore, in analyzing the relationship between the current and desirable job, we also
include two basic demographic variables, sex and age, in our models and examine how they
operate in the relationship between the current and desirable job. These two variables areprimary variables that have bearings on an individual‟s status within the labor market. As such,their association with the current job needs to be taken care of in order to better understand theprocess through which the current job affects the desirable jobs.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we examine the three aspects of a job (firmsize, sector, and employment status) that we consider to be an important attribute in affecting
people‟s perception on a good job. Desirable job may be a subjective indicator for a good job inthe sense that it merely shows people‟s preference. However, it can also be an objective
indicator in the sense that such preference is likely to be strongly influenced by the labor market
situations and practices. Therefore, we examine both the subjective (such as job satisfaction)and objective aspects (such as earnings) of three attributes of jobs in Korea. Section 3 describes
the data set that we analyze and our analysis techniques. Results from our analyses are reported
in section 4, which is then followed by some discussions in section 5.

1

As was stated before, there are many variables that have been examined to affect the qualityof a good job. We choose these three variables primarily because the data set we analyze
contain information on these variables as they relate to a desirable job.

84

II. Firm Size, Sector, and Employment Status in Korea
1. Firm Size (Large vs. Medium to Small)
It seems to be generally true that large firms pay more than small firms. For example, in the
United States, workers in large companies earn over 30 percent more in wages than those insmall companies. There are several hypotheses on this wage premium of employees in large
firms, such as that large companies hire workers of higher quality, large companies offer higher
wages to compensate for inferior working conditions, and higher pays in large companies isused as part of union avoidance strategy. Several studies have attempted to test these hypotheses
and found evidences for some of these hypotheses, especially for the first hypothesis that large
companies hire workers of higher quality (Brown and Medoff, 1989; Green et al., 1996; Reilly,1993). However, even after controlling for these factors, the employer size premium still
remains at about 10 percent (Brown et al., 1990), leaving much to be explained further in order
to identify the reason for the large firms to pay more.
Does firm size effect in earnings exist among workers in Korea? Until the mid 1980s, firm
size effect in earnings was observed only among white-collar workers, while it was absent
among production workers (Chung, 1985; Song, 1991). It seemed to reflect the relatively
disadvantaged position of production workers in Korean labor market until that time. For
production workers as a whole seemed to be placed in an open labor market, while at least someof the white-collar workers (those in large companies) seemed to be placed in a protectedinternal labor market. However, the situation began to change after the upsurge of labor
movements in 1987. The unionization of production workers enabled them to obtain morebargaining power, and it seems to have resulted in a labor market segmentation amongproduction workers, which is similar among white-collar workers. Therefore, after 1990s, thewage premium in large firms is observed not only among white-collar workers but also amongproduction workers as well (Kim, 1997; Hwang, 1996; Song and Cho, 1994).
That a job in large firms may be a better job than that in small firms is also hinted when we
examine the subjective aspect, job satisfaction. Those in large companies exhibit a higher levelof job satisfaction than those in small firms (Park, 1996), and this seems to translate into a lower
job turnover rate of those in large firms than those in small firms (Jeon, 1996; Song and Cho,
1994). Therefore, examining both objective and subjective aspects of a job with respect to a
firm size, we can expect that jobs in large firms would be more likely to be considered as
good jobs than those in small firms.
2. Sector (Public vs. Private)85

Traditionally, the Confucian legacy in Korea places the bureaucrats at the top of ahierarchically determined society (Thomas and Postlethwaite, 1983). This perception of
government officials as upper class is further strengthened by Korea‟s unique economic
development since 1960s, as the government officials took an active lead in the development
process of economic policies. For example, the Economic Planning Board was established in
1961, and a program of rapid industrialization based on exports was launched by thegovernment. Therefore, in Korea, being a public official has been regarded to be highly
prestigious in general.
If we look into it more in detail, however, the situation seems to have been more complicated.
Although the degree of wage gap between those in the public and those in the private sector
differed by the rank of the government job and also by the educational attainment level (Kim etal., 2000), generally speaking, those in the public sector were paid less than those in the private
sector (Kim, 1996). Those in the public sector also exhibited a lower level of satisfaction overtheir lives than those in the private sector, which was interpreted to come from their long hours
of work, lower pay, and difficulty in upward mobility (Kim and Cho, 2000).
However, since the end of 1990s or so, the situation began to change. Since the economiccrisis of November 1997, Korean economy has experienced a sharp downturn. For example, arise in unemployment has been quite remarkable since the crisis. Before the crisis, theunemployment rate had been rather stable in the range between 2 percent and 3 percent. Yet it
rose sharply to 7.0 percent in 1998(KNSO, 2006). This rise in the unemployment rate waslargely due to bankruptcies of small and medium-sized firms. At the same time, corporate
restructuring in large firms has also taken place since the crisis, resulting reforms in
employment relations. Before the crisis, employment relations in Korean large companies
resembled that of a Japanese system, lifetime employment and seniority-based wage system.
Since the crisis, however, these began to change. Not only that companies began to hire moreworkers on a contract basis and as irregular workers, even the regular workers could no longer
expect to remain in the company until the retirement (Visco, 1999; Kwon, 2002; Haggard et al.,2003).
With these changes occurring in the private sector, public sector seems to have emerged as ahope for many, because jobs in the public sector are more or less protected against lay-offs until
the retirement. There are no academic analyses on this phenomenon yet, but if we examine daily
newspapers, there have been more and more articles on this phenomenon since 2001. They
report on an ever increasing competition rate of entry examination for jobs of all ranks in the
public sector. For example, the number of applicants for the lowest rank jobs doubled since
2000, from 90,000 in 2000 to 180,000 in 2005(Kyunghyang Daily News, 2006).
To sum up, the labor market situation with regard to sector seems to be more complicatedthan the firm size, and it is not clear whether people would show a preference for one over theother.

86

3. Employment Status (Employee vs. Self-employed)
As has been in most other industrialized countries, a proportion of the self-employed workers
in Korean labor market has steadily decreased since the beginning of the industrialization. For
example, while 52.8 percent of those in the labor market worked as self-employed workers in
1980, the proportion went down to 36.7 percent in 1996. For some years after the economiccrisis in 1997, however, the trend reversed and the proportion went up to 38.3 percent in 1998
and 37.6 percent in 1999. Since 1999, the proportion of self-employed workers began todecrease again and was observed to be 33.6 percent as of 2005 (Kim and Cho, 2006).
How does the self-employed compare with employees in the labor market? Here we need tobe somewhat careful because the self-employed consist of two rather distinct groups of people.
This has been shown in many studies which compare the self-employed with employees interms of individual and occupational attributes (Ahn, 2000; Jeon, 2003; Keum and Cho, 2000;
Kim, 2000; Sung, 2002). It is also evidenced in studies which basically tested the push vs. pull
hypotheses regarding entry into the self-employment, that whether self-employment is the lastresort for those pushed out of the employee status in the labor market or is a voluntary choice ofworkers who are attracted to self-employment for various reasons. Studies find that, in Korea,
the push hypothesis is generally true for the majority of the self-employed, but that there exists a
small group of self-employed workers for whom the self-employment was a voluntary choice(Kim and Cho, 2006; Ryoo, 2004).
For the sake of empirical analyses, many have used the distinction of employer (selfemployed who work with several hired employees) versus self-employed (those who work byhimself/herself) in order to separate out the two distinct groups of people within the selfemployment sector. Upon using such a distinction, studies find that employers clearly do better
than employees in terms of earnings (Ryoo, 2004; Sung and Ahn, 2002). With regard to job
satisfaction, however, researches disagree on whether employers have a higher level of job
satisfaction than employees (Kim and Kim, 2001; Koo, 2006). As for the other group of selfemployed workers, the self-employed, their earnings are found to be generally lower than thoseof employees, and their level of job satisfaction is also found to be lower than employees (Koo,2006; Sung and Ahn. 2002).
Therefore, as was the case for the sector, the situation seems to be somewhat complicated forthe employment status, and it is not certain how the employment status would fare in people‟s
perception on a good job.
III. Data and Methodology

87

Data are drawn from the 2005 round of the Korean general social survey (KGSS). The KGSS
provides the best currently available national information on stratification and other social
issues. It is the leading project to collect data from probability samples since 2003, and the
project has enabled comparative studies in various areas.
At the rounds, the KGSS asked respondents pertinent questions about their jobs: (i) types ofjobs; (ii) employment status, i.e., employment/unemployment, employee/selfemployer/employer; and (iii) where they considered the desirable jobs exist, i.e., the government,
public enterprises, public institutions, and private companies. These three questions yield basic
classification between current jobs and desirable jobs. For each respondent, we constructed acontingency table by allocating respondents according to their current situation(current jobs)
and preference(desirable jobs).
For the data analysis, two basic methodologies are used. First, the basic procedure is to
examine the percentage of respondents by their characteristics, such as gender, educational
levels, and so on. As its first step, a contingency table between current jobs and desirable job isconstructed along with several sub-tables by the characteristics. For example, suppose that weare to test the statement that there is no difference in respondents between men and women, i.e.
the response is independent of the gender of the person interviewed (which we adopt as our null
hypothesis). Now if the statement is not true, then the response will depend on the gender of theperson interviewed, and the table will enable us to calculate the degree of dependence. A table
constructed in this way (to indicate dependence or association) is called a contingency table. Itmeans dependence. Thus, the purpose of a contingency table analysis is to determine whether
dependence exists between the two qualitative variables.
Second, in order to provide a general picture on respondents‟ job preference, correspondence
analysis is employed. The correspondence analysis is a descriptive/exploratory technique toanalyze simple two-way and multi-way contingency tables. The results provide information
which is similar in nature to those produced by other data reduction techniques, such as factor
analysis, cluster analysis, and multi-dimensional scaling. The correspondence analysis allows
one to explore the detailed structure of categorical variables included in the table. In a typicalcorrespondence analysis, a contingency table is first standardized, so that the relative
frequencies across all cells sum to 1.0. One way to state the goal of a typical analysis is torepresent the entries in the table of relative frequencies in terms of the distances between
individual rows and/or columns in a low-dimensional space. There are several parallels ininterpretation between correspondence analysis and various types of data reduction analyses andsome similar concepts (Greenacre and Underhill, 1981; Greenacre, 1984).
IV. Results
1. Characteristics of Current and Desirable Job

88

Table 1 shows the distribution of frequencies and percentages of variables for the analysis. It
shows that there are 45.6 percent of males and 54.4 percent of females, and 20.5 percent of 20s,
45.3 percent of 30s and 40s, and 34.2 percent of 50s and over. As for the current job, 44.1
percent of all respondents identify themselves as the unemployed. It is the category with thehighest frequency as for the current job, and this result occurs mainly because housewives
belong to this category. 25.7 percent of respondents identify themselves as employees in theprivate sector, whereas 8.5 percent of respondents do so as employees in the public sector. 21.6
percent of respondents identify themselves as the self-employed.
In this table, we also examine the distribution of desirable jobs. Respondents were asked tomake a choice between the two characteristics of jobs with respect to the three aspects of
employment; employment status (employee vs. self-employed), firm size (large vs. medium tosmall), and the sector (public vs. private). The data indicate that 65.5 percent of respondents
desire to work as self-employed while the remaining 34.5 percent desire to work as an employee(34.5 percent). Similar pattern is found for the firm size and the sector, almost two-thirds of the
respondents desired to work in large firms (61.9%) over small firms (32.9%), and about twothirds of the respondents preferred public (67.0%) to private sector (33.0%).
<Table 1 about here>.
2. Choice of Desirable Job
In order to examine these aspects of a desirable job further, we examine associations amongsuch preferences and other variables, such as the current job, gender, and age. Log-linear
analyses are carried out to examine the associations. First, Table 2 presents a procedure to
examine an association between the preference for employment status and other variables.
Model 1 assumes no interaction of desirable job with other variables. In model 2, association
between employment status and current job is added. An association between desirable job andgender is added in model 3, and an association between desirable job and age is added in model
4. However, all these models are rejected. Model 5 includes all two-way interaction effects. This
does not reject the null hypothesis that chi-square is zero, and the improvement in fit issignificant. This result means that the preference for employment status is not simply
determined by the current job. It is also affected by other demographic background variables,such as gender and age.
Second, we explore the association between the preference for firm size and other variables.
Again, a series of log-liner models are employed. The variables included in these models are
firm size, current job, gender, and age. Table 3 demonstrates the procedure of selecting loglinear models. In model 1, no association between firm size and other variables is assumed.

89Models 2 through 5 allow two-way association. The model including the two-way association ofgender and age as well as the current job is accepted.
Finally, the preference for sector is examined. Again, independence model and the model
including only the association between the sector and current job are rejected. Two-way
interactions are assumed in models 2 though 5. These models are accepted. However,considering the degree of freedom and l-square, model 3 is selected as the best model. Thismodel indicates that the preference for the sector is affected by gender and the current job.
<Table 2 about here><Table 3 about here><Table 4 about here>
To elaborate more on these findings, another step is introduced to show a detailed
relationship between the current and desirable job. In this step, a series of joint-correspondence
analysis is used to explore the data. The analysis is mainly intended to reveal the features ineach category of related variables. Especially, the joint-correspondence analysis is primarily
applicable to a contingency table where the associations between more than two categoricalvariables are of interest.
To begin with, we compare the current and desirable job involving four variables: current job,
employment status, firm size, and the sector. The variables have 4, 2, 2, and 2 levels,
respectively. Let us suppose that one of the four variables, say current job, can be considered as
describing variable where as others described variables. A correspondence analysis is performedon the multiple tables to display a relationship between each of the three aspects of a desirable
job and the current job.
Figure 1 shows a relative position of each category of the variables. Table 5 and Table 6
present the distance of each category of current job and desirable job. Combined together, theseresults show the followings. First, employees in the public sector exhibit a strong preference forwork as employees, in large firms and in the public sector. Second, while employees in theprivate sector also prefer to work in large firms, they tend to prefer to work in private sector andtheir preference as for the employment status seems to lean towards the self-employment. Third,
the self-employed prefer to work as self-employed, and to work in small firms and in private
sector. Fourth, the unemployed show a strong preference for working in the public sector.
Implications on dimensions of good job obtained from these findings may be summarized asfollows. First, people‟s perception on desirable job seems to be closely related to his/her current
job. While employees generally prefer to work as employees, the self-employed prefer to workas the self-employed. Second, despite such continuity between the current and desirable job,
there seems to be certain dimension along which people do exhibit certain preference. To workin the public sector is generally desired more over to work in the private sector, and to work in90

large firms seems to be desired more to work in small firms. Moreover, those who desire towork in the public sector desire to work in large firms and vice versa, which suggests that large
firm and public sector are perceived to be an attribute for a good job. Third, people‟s perception
on a desirable job seems to be formed not only from their desire for a good job but also from amore realistic judgment on their relative position in the labor market. While there is generally ahigh level of preference for work in large firms and in the public sector, those who prefer towork in self-employed prefer to work in small firms and in the private sector. Similarly, those
who prefer to work in small firms or to work in the private sector prefer to work as the selfemployed. We think this illustrates the „bounded rationality‟ of people, that people do form aperception on a good job with a fairly good understanding on their own competitiveness in thelabor market.
<Figure 1 about here><Table 5 about here><Table 6 about here>
V. Discussion
This research has examined several issues concerning the evaluation of the quality of a job.
Its basic assumption is that examining a desirable job will contribute to a fuller evaluation on
the quality of a current job. Major findings from our studies may be summarized as follows.
First, speaking for the desirability, we find that self-employment, jobs in large firms, and jobs
in the public sector are generally considered to be desirable over working as employees, jobs inmedium to small firms, and jobs in the private sector. More than 65 percent of respondents
preferred to work as the self-employed, about 62 percent of the respondents reported thepreference for jobs in large firms, and about 67 percent reported a preference for jobs in the
public sector.
Second, as shown in the log-linear analysis, the process through which such preferences areformed seems to be multi-dimensional in nature. Current job is central to understanding suchpreference, but gender and age also seem to play an important role. Especially, age is more
important in the preference for jobs in the public sector.
Third, among these three sets of preferences, we find that the preference for self-employment
needs to be interpreted rather differently from preferences for large firms and for the public
sector. This is because we find that firm size and sector go together in the dimension of being agood job, for example, those who prefer large firms prefer to work in the public sector and viceversa. That is, jobs in big firms and in the public sector seem to be perceived as a factor that
constitutes a good job. However, story for the employment status is quite different. For example,
those who prefer to work as the self-employed are the ones who prefer to work in small firms

91and in the private sector. This is also evidenced when looking at how the current job affects thedesirable job. While current employees in the public sector prefer to work as employee in the
public sector, current self-employed prefer to work as self-employed and in small firms, andcurrent employees in the private sector seem to lean towards the current self-employed.
So what do these imply in terms of the goodness of jobs in self-employment? We think thatthese show the „boundedness of preference for self-employment‟ among the labor force in
Korea. As was discussed before, there have been several studies, which tried to explain whether
the self-employed workers in Korean labor markets are pushed or pulled into that sector, and thegeneral agreement from those studies so far has been that workers are mostly pushed into theself-employment sector. The general picture that arises from our study is also that selfemployment may be a factor that constitutes a good job for some people, but that such people
are likely to be the ones who are rather disadvantaged in the labor market.
Although we interpreted such finding in terms of „bounded rationality‟ of people, that people
do form a perception on good job considering their competitiveness in the labor market, we only
have limited understanding on what produces such competitiveness of an individual. While itcan come from the respondents themselves (i.e., subjective evaluation on individual‟scompetitiveness in the labor market), it may also come from more structural features in the labormarket (i.e., discrimination against women and the old, as evidenced by the interaction effect ofgender and age). As long as the issue of „goodness of job‟ is an important issue not only for anindividual well-being but also for its implications on social stratification, identifying sourcesthat produce such boundedness in preference among certain group of people seems to be an
important task that we need to work on in the future.

92

References

Ahn, Joo-Yup. 2000. “Economy Cycles and Durations of Job Search: Choosing the
Employment Status.” Studies in Labor Economics. 23: 109-132. [in Korean]
Arvey, Richard D. Thomas J. Bouchard Nancy L. Segal and Lauren M. Abraham. 1989.
“Job Satisfaction Environmental and Genetic Components.” Journal of Applied
Psychology Vol. 74, No. 2: 187-192
Blau, Peter M., and Otis D. Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New
York: Wiley.
Brown, Charles and James Medoff. 1989. “The Employer Size-Wage Effect.” Journalof Political Economy. 97: 1027-1059.
Brown, Charles, James, Hamilton, and James Medoff. 1990. Employers Large andSmall. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carsten, J. M., and Spector, P. E. 1987. “Unemployment, Job Satisfaction, andEmployee Turnover: A Meta-Analytic Test of the Muchinsky Model. Journalof Applied Psychology 72(3): 374-381.
Chung, Songkee. 1985. The Structure of Labor Market and Wages of Large and Small
Firms in Korea. Thesis for Master‟s Degree. Seoul: Seoul National University[in Korean]
Darity, William Jr. and Arthur H. Goldsmith. 1996. “Social Psychology, Unemployment
and Macroeconomics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 10, No. 1: 121-140.
Ganzeboom, B. G., H De Graaf, D. Treiman. 1989. “A Standard International
Socioeconomic Index of Occupations.” Revised version of a Paper Presented
at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association. San
Francisco.
Griffeth, Rodger W and Stefan Gaertner. 2001. “A Role for Equity Theory in the
Turnover Process: An Empirical Test.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
31: 1017-32.
Green, Francis, Stephen Machin, and Alan Manning. 1996. “The Employer Size-Wage
Effect: Can Dynamic Monopsony Provide an Explanantion?” Oxford Economic
Papers. 48: 433-455.
Greenacre, Michael. 1984. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis.
London: Academic Express.
Greenacre, Michael and Leslie G. Underhill, 1981. "Scaling a Data Matrix in a LowDimensional Euclidean Space." Pp. 183-266 in Topics in a Applied
Multivariate Analysis. Edited by Douglas M. Hawkins. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haggard, Stephan, Wonhyuk Lim, and Euysung Kim. 2003. Economic Crisis andCorporate Restructuring in Korea: Reforming the Chaebol. Cambridge
University Press: New York.
Jencks, C., Perman, L. and Rainwater, L.1998. “What is a Good Job? A New Measureof LaborMarket Success.” American Journal of Sociology. May 93:1322-57.
Jeon, Byung-Yoo. 2003. “Determinants of Employment Status.” Studies in Labor
Economics. 26(3): 149-179. [in Korean]93Jeon, Chan-Yeul. 1996. “A Comparative Analyses on Job Mobility of Workers in Large
and Medium to Small Firms.” Research in Productivity (Sengsansung Nonjeep).
10(2): 239-263. [in Korean]Kim, Jae-Hong. 1996. “Causes of Wage Differentials in the Private and Sector.” Studies
on Korean Public Policy (Hankook Hengjung Hakbo). 30(3): 89-104 [inKorean]Kim, Ki-Seung and Cho, Joon-Mo. 2006. “Testing the Push and Pull Hypotheses for the
Self-Employed Workers.” Studies in International Economy. 12(2): 163-189.
[in Korean]Kim, Mee-Sook and Cho, Kyung-Ho. 2000. “Life Satisfaction of Workers in the Privateand Public Sectors.” Studies on Korean Public Policy (Hankook Hengjung
Hakbo). 34(1): [in Korean]Kim, Pan-Suk, Kim, Tae-il, and Kim. Min-Yong. 2000. “Analyses on Wage
Differentials in the Private and Public Sector.” Studies on Korean Public
Policy (Hankook Hengjung Hakbo). 34(4): [in Korean]Kim, Seung-Kon. 1997. “Wage Differentials by Firm Size.” Sankyung-Nonchong. 15:
89-99.[in Korean]Kim, Woo-Young. 2000. “Analyses on the comparative advantage and determinants of
employers.” Studies in Labor Economics. 24(2): 1-34. [in Korean]Kim, Woo-Young and Kim, Eung-Kyoo. 2001. “Job Satisfaction of the Self-employed
and Employees.” Studies in Medium to Small Firms. 23(3): 29-54. [in Korean]Keum, Jae-Ho and Cho, Joon-Mo. 2000. “Theory and Empirical Analyses on Choice of
Employment Status.” Studies in Labor Economics. 23: 81-108. [in Korean]Koo, Hearan. 2006. “Job Satisfaction of the Self-Employed.” KGSS Symposium. [inKorean]Korean National Statistical Office(KNSO). 2006. Annual Report on the Economically
Active Population Survey. KNSO. [in Korean
Kwon, Huck-Ju. 2002. “Unemployment and Public Work Project in Korea, 1998-2000.”
The ADBI Seminar on Social Protection for the Poor in Asia and Latin
America. October, Manila.
Kyunghyang Daily News. 2006. March. 3.
Locke, E. A. 1976. “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction.” Pp. 1297-1349 in
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Edited by M. D.
Dunnette. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A Meta-Analysisof the Relation of Job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology 70: 280-289.
Park, Young-Bae. 1996. “Empirical Analyses on Job Commitments and Attitudes ofWorkers in Large and Medium to Small Firms.” Studies in Medium to Small
Firms (Choongso Kiup Yeonkoo). 18(2): 21-51. [in Korean]
Phang, Hanam and Song Ho Lee. 2006. “A Study of Conceptualization andMeasurement of “Good Job.” Korean Journal of Sociology 40 No.1: 93-126.
[in Korean]
Reilly, Kevin T. 1993. “Human Capital and Information: The Employer Size-Wage
Effect.”The Journal of Human Resources. 30(1): 1-18.
Ryoo, Jae-Woo. 2004. “Income Opportunities and Selectivity among the Self-Employed
Workers.” Journal of Economics. 52(2): 5-33. [in Korean]94

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Song, Ho-Keun. 1991. Korean Labor Politics and Markets. Seoul: Na-Nam [in Korean]Song, Chong-Rae and Cho, Young-Chul. 1994. “Efficient wages and Labor Market
Segmentation by Firm Size.” Studies in Labour Issues (Rhodong Moonjae
Nonjeep). 11(1): 1-25. [in Korean]
Staw, Barry M and Jerry Ross. 1985. “Stability in the Midst of Change: A Dispositional
Approach to Job attitudes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 469-80.
Staw, Barry M, Nancy E Bell, John A. Clausen. 1986. “The Dispositional Approach to
Job
Attitudes: a Lifetime Longitudinal Test.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 31: 56 – 77
Sung, Jee-Mee. 2002. “Determinants of Female Employers and the Possibility of Career
Interruptions.” Studies in Labor Economics. 25(1): 61-182. [in Korean]Sung, Jee-Mee and Ahn, Joo-Yup. 2002. “Determinants of Economic Achievements
and Subjective Evaluation of Self-Employed Workers.” Reviews in Labour
Policies. 2(3): 101-136. [in Korean]
Thomas, R. Murray and T. Neville Postlethwaite. 1993. “Describing Change andEstimating Its Causes.” Pp. 1-36 in Schooling in East Asia, edited by Murray R.
Thomas and T. Neville Postethwaite. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Visco, Ignazio. 1999. “Structural reform in Korea after the 1997 Economic Crisis: theagendaand the implementation.” Paper presented in Economic Crisisand Restructuring in
Korea.
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wagner, Cheryl, Diane L. Huber. 2003. “Catastrophe and Nursing Turnover: Nonlinear
Models.” Journal of Nursing Administration. 33(9):486-492.
Whang, Ho-Young. 1996. “Causes of Wage Differentials by Firm Size.” Research inIndustrial Relations. 6(1): 391-417. [in Korean]

95

Table 1. Gender, Age, Current Jobs, and Desirable Jobs
Variables

Value

Frequenci

Percentage

Male

736

45.6

Female877

54.4

Less and 29

331

20.5

30 – 49730

45.3

50 and over

552

34.2

Employee (private)

415

25.7

Employee (public)

137

8.5

Self-Employed

349

21.6

Unemployed

712

44.1

Employee

534

34.5

Self-Employed

1,012

65.5

Small Firm

530

32.9

Large Firm

999

61.9

Private sector

502

33.0

Public sector

1,020

67.0

es
GenderAge

Current Job

Employeevs.
SelfEmployed
Small
vs.
Large
Privatevs.
Public sector

96

Table 2. Model of Desirable Job (Employee vs. Self-Employed), Gender, Age, and Current Job
Model

L2

Degree of Freedom

P-Value

1. [E][C][G][A]115.66423.000

2. [EC][G][A]67.18720.000

3. [EC][ES][A]50.74019.000

4. [EC][EA][G]41.94518.001

5. [EC][ES][EA]

21.48917.205

E: Employee vs. Self-employed; S: Gender; A: Age; C: Current Job
Table 3. Model of Desirable Job (Large vs. Small Firm), Gender, Age, and Current Job
Model

L2

Degree of Freedom

P-Value

1. [F][C][G][A]67.47323.000

2. [FC][G][A]56.23820.000

3. [FC][FG][A]54.51219.000

4. [FC][FA][G]21.46318.071

5. [FC][FG][FA]25.00417.095

F: Small vs. Large Firm; G: Gender; A: Age; C: Current Job
Table 4. Model of Desirable Job (Private vs. Public Sector), Gender, Age, and Current Job
Model

L2

Degree of Freedom

P-Value

1. [P][C][G][A]61.15123.000

2. [PC][G][A]28.26020.000

3. [PC][PG][A]12.69319.854

4. [PC][PA][G]21.46318.078

5. [PC][PG][PA]11.533

17.828

P: Private vs. Public Sector; G: Gender; A: Age; C: Current Job

97

Table 5. Euclidian distance among desirable job (for All Axises)
Empl

Self-

Small

Large

PrivatePublicoyee

Employed

Firm

Firm

Sector

Sector

Employee

0.000

0.270

0.250

0.110

0.280

0.130

Self-

0.270

0.000

0.080

0.180

0.120

0.200

0.250

0.080

0.000

0.190

0.180

0.160

0.110

0.180

0.190

0.000

0.170

0.130

0.280

0.120

0.180

0.170

0.000

0.260

0.130

0.200

0.160

0.130

0.260

0.000

Employed
Small
Firm
Large
Firm
PrivateSectorPublicSectorTable 6. Euclidian distance among current jobs (for all Axises)

Employee

Employee

Employee

Self-

Unemploy(private)(public)

Employed

ed

0.000

0.250

0.240

0.230

0.250

0.000

0.340

0.100

0.240

0.340

0.000

0.260

0.230

0.100

0.260

0.000

(private)
Employee(public)
SelfEmployed
Unemployed98Figure 1. The Joint-Correspondence Analysis of the Current Job and Desirable Job.

99