가족이 우선인게 맞나요? Families First?

한국과 미국의 유급 육아휴직 및 병가 정책 문화 비교

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Paid Parental and Medical Leave Policy in South Korea and the United States

Master, University of Southern California Price School of Public Policy
Elizabeth Stanfield
estanfie@usc.edu

Master, KAIST Graduate School of Science, Technology, and Policy
Taylor De Rosa
taylorderosa@kaist.ac.kr

Introduction

Regardless of where you live, the decision of whether to have a child in the 21st century is complicated. No families today are immune from what scholars have called the “work-family challenge,” a balancing act of work and family obligations that is exacerbated by the rising shares of women in the workforce and of single-parent households[1]. In the United States, material difficulties like low wages, rising rents, and unreliable jobs give child-bearing-age adults pause, especially given their exposure to extreme economic instability during the 2008 financial crisis[2]. In South Korea, long commute and work hours, high education costs, and delayed marriages coupled with a culture that discourages childbirth outside of marriage has strong implications for birth rates[3]. In both of these countries, child-bearing-age adults are overrepresented in the workforce and, in the absence of viable caretaking options, face increasingly fewer incentives to start a family[4].

These challenges are reflected in sharply declining birth rates in both Korea and the United States. Korea has the lowest total fertility rate amongst all OECD countries at 0.81 as of 2021[4]. According to the National Statistical Office, South Korea’s population aged 65 or older will reach 37% in 2045, making it the world’s most aged population[5]. The U.S. is following this trend with the Census Bureau predicting that the population of older adults will outpace that of children by 2034[6]. By 2060, the Census Bureau estimates that one out of every four Americans will be of retirement age, and the sub-population of 85+ year-old adults will triple[7]. As populations age, the number of adults needing care rises, translating to a greater number of adults in need of personal medical leave. Moreover, the number of those able to provide care will shrink, implying that future generations of caretakers will have a greater need to take family leave[8].  This dynamic in turn heightens the “work-family challenge,” adding yet another juggling act for future child-bearing-age adults who will have to choose between work and family obligations[9]. 

These demographic trends signal an urgent need for policy that allows people to care for children as well as older family members. Family and medical leave policies are intended to address the fundamental problem of job demands conflicting with personal responsibilities for working adults. Paid family and medical leave is defined as “partially or fully compensated time away from work for specific and generally significant family caregiving needs (paid family leave) or for the employee’s own serious medical condition (paid medical leave),” such as tending to a newborn child or taking care of an ailing relative[10]. Although robust paid family and medical leave policies are essential for promoting individual health and family stability as well as mitigating looming labor force decline, enacting and implementing such policies presents many challenges[11]. By looking into case studies of the United States, which lacks a national paid family and medical leave policy, and South Korea, which has some of the most comprehensive yet underutilized paid family leave policies in the world, we find that meeting the needs of working families goes beyond simply enacting policy. In order to ensure that policies are equitably accessible and that workers feel empowered to actually utilize leave programs, all actors within this social ecological system–policymakers, employers, unions, and wider society–must play a role in the solution.

United States Case Study 

The United States is the only wealthy nation in the world without universal paid parental leave[12]. The proposed Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act), first introduced in 2013, which would expand paid family and medical leave benefits via a social insurance program that guarantees employees up to 60 days of monthly payments for qualified caregiving, has failed to be enacted numerous times since first introduced[13]. This repeated failure is in part due to the unique American political climate. The U.S.’s outlier status on paid leave fits within a larger American cultural framework of rejecting the “affirmative responsibility of the state to provide assistance to persons in need” seen in European countries[14]. Strong cultural priorities like individual achievement and social mobility help to illustrate how mandating paid leave nationally can be construed in the U.S. as a regulatory overstep that hurts businesses and impedes productivity, or as an infringement upon state sovereignty[15]. Employers continue to promote arguments that put business’ bottom lines first, including the concern that mandating paid leave would prevent employers from obtaining a competitive advantage with paid leave benefits[16]. Moreover, stakeholders opposing national paid leave contend that employers are best suited to provide customized leave benefits packages to their employees because employers are more flexible and cost-effective than the federal government is capable of being[17]. This cultural climate, coupled with pro-business lobbyists and politicians, presents one challenge to enacting federal paid family and medical leave policy in the U.S.

Beyond finding the political will to enact pro-family policies, how to equitably implement such policies is an additional consideration. Although the U.S. does not have a universal paid family leave policy, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) mandates twelve weeks of unpaid leave for working Americans. However, only a mere 50% qualify for the benefit due to the program’s strict eligibility criteria[18]. Eligibility exclusion falls disproportionately on low-income adults, who are more likely to be working part-time jobs or transitioning from welfare to work, employment realities that do not meet FMLA’s minimum threshold of 1,250 hours worked within twelve months[19]. Furthermore, going without pay for an extended period is financially infeasible for many: an estimated seven million FMLA-eligible people reported needing but not taking leave between 2000-2012, and by far the most commonly reported reason was that respondents could not afford it[20]. Studies have demonstrated that while FMLA has prompted increased leave-taking and longer leave periods among eligible workers, these benefits are largely enjoyed by advantaged parents, who can afford unpaid time off from work[21]. In fact, an analysis of the 1987-1993 Current Population Survey indicated that the observed increase in maternal leave taken within 90 days of childbirth at that point in time was attributable solely to married and/or highly educated mothers[22]. Another longitudinal study confirmed that “low-income women are less likely to be eligible for legally mandated parental leave, less likely to have employer-provided paid and unpaid leave, and less likely to utilize their leave even if they are eligible.”[23]

<Figure 1> Decision Tree for Parental Leave in the United States Sources: “Family and Medical Leave Act”, H.R.1, 103rd Congress (1993-1994);

Leave-taking responsibilities in the U.S. fall inequitably along racial, gender, and socioeconomic lines[24]. Low-income individuals and people of color are more likely to experience life events that qualify for family and medical leave due to health inequities resulting from systemic racism and discrimination[25]. These target group members experience poor health more often, yet they are also the least likely to be covered by existing leave policies, as well as the least likely to be in a position to afford leave[26]. Although a national paid leave policy has the potential to advance racial, gender, and socioeconomic equity in the American workforce, certain aspects of the program’s design must be considered to avoid exacerbating inequality. For example, the National Partnership for Women & Families and others have advocated for a progressive wage replacement rate because advocates and opponents of paid leave have argued that a flat rate taxpayer-funded program could harm low-wage workers by garnishing their income for a partial wage replacement rate they could not afford to take[27].

<Figure 2> Target Experiences Analysis of Paid Leave in the United States Source: Ballantyne et al., “Meeting the Promise of Paid Leave.” 

Congressional legislators have made several failed attempts to expand FMLA benefits since 1993, although paid family and medical leave continues to gain some traction at the federal level, surfacing as a key policy issue in former President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address and in both Hillary Clinton’s and former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns[28]. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act), first proposed by Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) in 2013 and reintroduced in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, would expand paid family and medical leave benefits via a social insurance program that guarantees employees up to 60 days of monthly payments for qualified caregiving[29]. However, the most recent draft of the FAMILY Act has been under committee review in both the House and Senate since February 2021 and did not become law during the most recent legislative session[30]. A different national paid leave program was close to becoming law under the Build Back Better Act following passage in the House of Representatives thanks to successful lobbying efforts by the National Partnership and the Paid Leave Coalition, but the Democrats’ reconciliation bill effort (opposed by all Republican senators) was killed after centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) withdrew his support, citing concerns about fiscal irresponsibility and program abuse[31].

Given the recent and repeated failures of national paid family and medical leave policy in the United States, the road ahead for policy implementation remains unclear. More and more states are adopting their own paid leave policies, which surfaces as both a “win” and a “loss” for paid leave advocates. On the one hand, each new state program increases access and reinforces the government’s role of administering paid leave benefits. Conversely, advocates also argue that each new state program further reduces the likelihood that a national policy could ever successfully streamline all state paid leave programs into one federal benefit. Therefore, in the continued absence of federal intervention, Americans may gain access to guaranteed paid leave only if their state of residence chooses to follow the trend and adopt its own policy. 

South Korean Case Study

The U.S. case study shows the structural and political barriers to enacting a universal paid family leave policy, as well as the ways in which eligibility requirements can exacerbate inequity. However, even when a universal paid family leave policy does exist, it is not guaranteed that workers will be able to utilize the policy in practice. Since the mid-2000s, Korea has enacted a broad range of policy initiatives to address the decline in birth rates and rapidly changing population distribution, including a paid parental leave policy[32]. Originally introduced in 1988 as an unpaid leave program for mothers, the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (EEO-WFBA Act) has been expanded several times to provide both mothers and fathers their own entitlement to up to one year of parental leave up until the child’s eighth birthday. Additionally, mothers are entitled to 90 days of paid maternity leave and, as of 2012, fathers are entitled to three days paid paternity leave directly following childbirth[33]. Combining maternity/paternity leave and parental leave policies, Korea’s package of statutory paid leave support is extensive in comparison to other OECD countries[34]. Mothers are entitled to up to 65 weeks of leave, which is slightly higher than the OECD average, and fathers can take almost 53 weeks of leave which is almost the longest amongst OECD countries and significantly longer than the 2018 average of 8 weeks[35]. Despite these extensive policies, paid parental leave in Korea is generally underutilized. In 2019, only 22.8 parents of every 100 live births claimed parental leave, with mothers accounting for roughly 80% of claimants and fathers for only 20%[36].

Several factors help illustrate why paid parental leave benefits in Korea remain underutilized compared to other countries with similar programs. For one, although Korean parents are compensated throughout the entire leave period, the compensation amount is not enough to cover actual living expenses. As of a 2019 amendment to the EEO-WFBA Act, the payment rate is 80% of ordinary earnings for the first three months of leave with a minimum of 700,000 KRW (557 USD) and a maximum of 1,500,000 KRW (1194 USD). For the remaining nine months, the payment rate is 50% of ordinary earnings with the same minimum and a lowered maximum of 1,200,000 KRW (955 USD)[37]. This rate is lower than some other OECD countries, equivalent to about 31% of previous earnings for the average Korean worker in 2019[38]. In a highly competitive labor and housing market where young Koreans are already struggling to establish themselves, taking parental leave may not be economically feasible despite a relatively long paid parental leave period[39]. 

Additionally, many Korean mothers exit the workforce upon getting married or having a child, a cultural phenomenon that also contributes to underutilization of Korea’s paid leave program. In 2018, around 38% of women aged 15-54 reported they were not working[40]. Almost half reported they were taking a break because of marriage, childbirth, or because they were caring for a child or family member. As seen in Figure 3, the employment rate for women in Korea sharply decreases during childbearing years, especially when compared to the OECD average.

<Figure 3> Motherhood has a strong effect on women’s employment in Korea

Source: OECD (2019), Rejuvenating Korea: Policies for a Changing Society, OECD Publishing, Paris.  

Korea, like Japan and China, has historical roots in the traditional Confucian notion of family life where women are expected to take on the bulk of household and child-rearing duties[41]. Although attitudes about family expectations and gender roles have been shifting in recent years (for example, according to the 2018 Korean Social Survey, 82% of 20-29 year-olds believed that housework should be shared equally which was up from 53% in 2008[42]), many Koreans still believe that men’s careers should take priority over women’s. According to the 2018 Survey on Fertility, Family Health and Welfare, 45.8% of married women agreed that “it is more important for a wife to help her husband develop his career than to develop her own career.” Additionally, the 2016 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families found that 59% of women agreed that mothers working while having a preschool age child would have a negative effect on the child. These cultural values, coupled with the fact that Korea has the highest gender pay gap amongst OECD countries, contributes to mothers leaving the workforce altogether rather than utilizing parental leave benefits.

Even when mothers and fathers would like to take parental leave and later return to the workforce, Korea’s work culture makes it difficult to take leave without consequences. Described by Moon and Shin (2018) as a culture of “work devotion,” Korea has the one of the highest average annual number of working hours worked per worker amongst OECD countries and workers are often expected to participate in social events with their colleagues outside of working hours[45]. This work-oriented culture discourages parents from taking leave due to missed opportunities for career growth and even fear of retaliation by their employers. In fact, according to the Southwestern Seoul Working Mom Support Center, 78 people requested consultations at the center after being penalized by their employers in 2017. In 2020, the number of requested consultations grew by a factor of nearly four to 362 claims, despite the fact that parental leave users grew only 19% during this period[46]. Fathers are even more impacted by the culture of “work devotion.” Although the number of fathers taking parental leave increased more than 3 times from 2018 to 2019, the overall utilization is abysmally low at 1.3 fathers taking leave per 100 live births in 2019[47]. In a culture where so few men utilize their parental leave benefits, doing so may have negative impacts on their career development. This trend suggests that despite expanding work-family policies in Korea, unsupportive workplace culture remains a major barrier to actual utilization.

<Figure 4> Parental Leave Consultations at Southwestern Seoul Working Mom Support Center

Source: Hye-In Yoon. and So-Yeon Yoon. (2021, Oct 13) Taking parental leave is easier said than done, civic group claims. Korea JoongAng Daily.

Despite the overall underutilization of parental leave benefits in Korea, the overall rate of parents taking leave has more than doubled in the last decade, from 12.4 parents per 100 live births in 2011 to 26.8 parents in 2020[48]. Regardless, insufficient parental leave compensation maximums, gendered parental role expectations, and unsupportive workplaces all impede parents from fully utilizing their benefits in Korea. Moreover, the hesitation to take parental leave in-practice may also contribute to young peoples’ decision to not have children at all. These trends suggest that effective family policy in Korea relies not only on institutional and policy changes, but requires a targeted focus on cultural change and acceptance. 

Conclusion

Young adults in the 21st century face increasingly greater challenges to starting a family. Moreover, population aging places an even greater burden of care for seniors on young adults. Paid family and medical leave programs surface as a critical policy tool that can combat the trend of declining birthrates, but as the above case study analyses make clear, effective leave policy remains elusive in the United States and South Korea. Whereas the United States lacks a national leave program, forcing leave-seeking Americans to navigate a patchwork of inequitable options and face impossible tradeoffs between work and family, leave-seeking Koreans must combat staunch cultural barriers and gender inequities to access the program despite successful policy enactment.

Although the political, structural, and cultural contexts of the United States and South Korea differ, the current realities of paid leave in these two countries align in two important ways. First, the status quo of family leave in both countries allows only those in more privileged positions to take leave. In the U.S., lack of national paid leave and strict eligibility requirements to take unpaid leave prevent those with lower incomes or in part-time or nontraditional work arrangements from taking leave. Similarly, in Korea, low maximum payments that do not reflect actual cost of living prevent many from taking leave. Family leave policy has the potential to advance socioeconomic and gender equity in the workforce, but this potential remains untapped in the United States and South Korea. In order to ensure that family leave policy does not exacerbate existing inequalities, reforms should focus on how to meet the needs of those already in more vulnerable positions. Second, encouraging and incentivising workplaces to offer family and medical leave benefits may be a pragmatic path forward in both the U.S. and Korea given the current realities of political gridlock and cultural norms. One longitudinal study in Scotland found that companies with higher participation in programs designed to support working parents had higher employee retention and job satisfaction[49]. Quantifying and communicating these benefits to employers may encourage some U.S. workplaces to offer benefits; however, this strategy may not be as successful in Korea’s harsher work culture. The same study also found that workplace culture, line manager relationships, the ‘modeling’ behavior of peers and gendered leave practices all impact on how fathers feel about using work-family balance policies. Therefore, reform in Korea should first focus on how to encourage utilization, potentially by creating incentives for upper and middle management to model the behavior and penalizing workplaces that discriminate against leave takers.

While the United States and South Korea have struggled to move forward with effective paid leave policy on a national scale, progressive leave policy reforms have been globally on the rise in recent decades. According to The World Bank’s Women, Business and the Law project, the number of leave days granted to mothers increased substantially between 1970 and 2021, with most economies (118 countries) guaranteeing at least 14 weeks of paid maternity leave for the birth of a child, the minimum standard recommended by International Labor Organization Convention No. 183[50]. During that same period, paternity leave grants have also increased but at a significantly lower rate to an average of 19.7 days of paid paternity leave in 2021. Although research has not reached consensus on the optimal amount of family leave, scholars agree that time granted to care for a newborn, young child, or ailing relative is crucial to familial and societal stability[51]. This global context of paid leave reform reinforces the importance of having effective family and medical leave policy in countries like the U.S. and South Korea should these countries desire to “keep up” with their international counterparts in the 21st century. As the above case study analysis has demonstrated, however, no silver bullet solution exists for enacting equitable family and medical leave policy for Americans, nor for Koreans. Any path forward will require policymakers, employers, unions, and wider society to play a role in the solution. 


[1] Sara McLanahan and Jane Waldfogel, “Work and Family: Introducing the Issue,” The Future of Children 21, no. 2 (2011): 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289627.

[2]Tom Whyman, “Why, Despite Everything, You Should Have Kids (if You Want Them),” NY Times, April 13 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/opinion/baby-bust-covid-philosophy-natalism.html  (accessed May 5, 2022).

[3] OECD (2019), Rejuvenating Korea: Policies for a Changing Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c5eed747-en.  

[4]  Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS).

[5] Ibidem

[6]  Jonathan Vespa, “The U.S. Joins Other Countries With Large Aging Populations,” United States Census Bureau (2018), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/03/graying-america.html  

[7]  Jonathan Vespa, “The U.S. Joins Other Countries With Large Aging Populations,” United States Census Bureau (2018), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/03/graying-america.html.

[8]  Amanda Ballantyne, Katherine Eyster, Sarah F. Fink, Dr. Sarah J. Glynn, Heather Koball, Dr. Jessica Mason, Laura Meyer, Stephen Michael, Vasu Reddy, Suma Setty, and Cynthia W. Wikstrom. “Meeting the Promise of Paid Leave: Best Practices in State Paid Leave Implementation,” National Partnership for Women & Families (2020): 8, https://www.nationalpartnership.org/ our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-leave/meeting-the-promise-of-paid-leave.pdf

[9]  McLanahan and Waldfogel, “Work and Family,” 3. 

[10]  Sarah A. Donavan, Barry F. Huston, and Molly F. Sherlock, “Paid Family Leave and Medical Leave:  Current Policy & Legislative Proposals in the 116th Congress,” Congressional Research Services R46390 (2020), 1, https://heinonline-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/HOL/Page?collection=congrec&handle=hein.crs/govdbut0001&id=1&men_tab=srchresults   

[11]  Meejung Chin, Jaerim Lee, Soyoung Lee, Seohee Son, and Miai Sung. “Family policy in South Korea: Development, current status, and challenges.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 21, no. 1 (2012): 53-64.

[12]  Mallory Campell, “Family Leave: Comparing the United States’ Family and Medical Leave Act with Sweden’s Parental Leave Policy,” Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 9, no. 2 (2019): 119, https://heinonline-org.libproxy2 

[13]  Ibidem; Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, S.248, 117th Congress (2021-2022); FAMILY Act, H.R.804, 117th Congress (2021-2022). 

[14] Christina Neckermann, “An International Embarrassment: The United States as an Anomaly in Maternity Leave Policy in the Industrialized World,” Harvard International Review, vol. 38, no. 3, Harvard International Review, 2017: 42, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26528681.

[15] Ibidem

[16] Brent N. Coverdale and William C. Martucci, “California’s New Paid Family Leave Law May Start a Trend,” Employment Relations Today 30, no. 4 (2004): 81, https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/californias-new-paid-family-leave-law-may-start/docview/237065169/se-2?accountid=14749

[17]  U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Paid Leave for Working Families: Examining Access, Options, and Impacts, 117th Congress, 2021, May 18, 2021, https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/paid-leave-for-working-families-examining-access-options-and-impacts; House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, Examining the Need for Comprehensive National Paid Family and Medical Leave.

[18]  “Family and Medical Leave Act”, H.R.1, 103rd Congress (1993-1994); Efe Atabay, Michelle C. Dimitris, Alison Earle, Sam Harber, S. Jody Heymann, Deepa Jahagirdar, Jay S. Kaufman, Jeremy A. Labrecque, Arijit Nandi, Erin C. Strumpf, and Ilona Vincent, “The Impact of Parental and Medical Leave Policies on Socioeconomic and Health Outcomes in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature,” The Milbank Quarterly 96, no. 3 (2018): 436, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29738985

[19]  Kerr, “Parental Leave Legislation and Women’s Work: A Story of Unequal Opportunities,” 138; Lauren J. Asher and Donna R. Lenhoff, “Family and Medical Leave: Making Time for Family Is Everyone’s Business,” The Future of Children 11, no. 1 (2001): 118, https://doi.org/10.2307/1602814.

[20]  Ballantyne et al., “Meeting the Promise of Paid Leave,” 7. 

[21]  Maya Rossin-Slater and Jenna Stearns, “Time On with Baby and Time Off from Work,” The Future of Children 30, no. 2 (2020): 36, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27075014 

[22]  Wen-Jui Han, Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel, “Parental Leave Policies and Parents’ Employment and Leave-Taking,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28, no. 1 (2009): 30, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29738985

[23]  Kerr, “Parental Leave Legislation and Women’s Work,” 138. 

[24]  Jane Waldfogel, “The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18, no. 2 (1999), 281–282, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3325998 

[25]  Ballantyne et al., “Meeting the Promise of Paid Leave,” 17. 

[26]  Kerr, “Parental Leave Legislation and Women’s Work,” 118. 

[27]  Abby McCloskey, Angela Rachidi, and Peyton Roth, “Designing a paid leave policy to support our most vulnerable workers,” American Enterprise Institute, October 7, 2020 (accessed May 3, 2022), 3, https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/designing-a-paid-leave-policy-to-support-our-most-vulnerable-workers/ 

[28]  Campbell, “Family Leave,” 127.

[29]  Ibidem; Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, S.248, 117th Congress (2021-2022); FAMILY Act, H.R.804, 117th Congress (2021-2022). 

[30]  FAMILY Act, H.R.804, 117th Congress (2021-2022); S.248, Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, S.248, 117th Congress (2021-2022). 

[31]   Build Back Better Act, H.R.5376, 117th Congress (2021-2022); Emily Cochrane and Jonathan Weisman, “A paid family leave program is likely to be dropped from the social policy bill at Manchin’s urging,” New York Times, October 27, 2021 (accessed April 27, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/politics/paid-family-leave-manchin.html.

[32]  OECD (2019), “Rejuvenating Korea” 22.  

[33]  Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act 2016. https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?chrClsCd=010203&lsiSeq=180140#0000  

[34]  OECD (2019), “Rejuvenating Korea” 23.  

[35] Ibid

[36]  Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS).

[37]  Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act 2016.  

[38]  OECD (2019), “Rejuvenating Korea” 26. 

[39]  OECD (2018), Towards Better Social and Employment Security in Korea, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288256-en

[40]  Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS).

[41]  Insook Han Park and Lee-Jay Cho. “Confucianism and the Korean family.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 26, no. 1 (1995): 117-134.

[42]  Statistics Korea, Korea National Survey on Fertility, Family Health and Welfare, 2018.

[43]  Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (2016), Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families, Korea Women’s Development Institute, http://klowf.kwdi.re.kr/content/report/annual_list.jsp

[44]  OECD Employment Database, http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm.

[45]  OECD Time Use Database, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TIME_USE

[46]  Hye-In Yoon. and So-Yeon Yoon. (2021, Oct 13) Taking parental leave is easier said than done, civic group claims. Korea JoongAng Daily. (accessed June 3, 2022) https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2021/10/13/business/industry/parental-leave-workers-maternity-leave/20211013191844943.html    

[47]  Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS)

[48]  Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS).

[49]  Jessica Moran, and Alison Koslowski. “Making use of work–family balance entitlements: how to support fathers with combining employment and caregiving.” Community, Work & Family 22, no. 1 (2019): 111-128.

[50]  World Bank. (2020). Women, business and the law 2020. The World Bank.

[51]  Elena Del Rey, Andreas Kyriacou, and José I. Silva. “Maternity leave and female labor force participation: evidence from 159 countries.” Journal of Population Economics 34, no. 3 (2021): 803-824; Yusuf Emre Akgunduz and Janneke Plantenga. “Labour market effects of parental leave in Europe.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 37, no. 4 (2013): 845-862; Daniela Del Boca, Silvia Pasqua, and Chiara Pronzato. “Motherhood and market work decisions in institutional context: a European perspective.”

읽을거리  Recommendation for readings

Heather Boushey, Ben Gitis, Ron Haskins, Doug Holtz-Eakin, Harry J. Holzer, Elisabeth Jacobs, Aparna Mathur, Abby M. McCloskey, Angela Rachidi, Richard V. Reeves, Christopher J. Ruhm, Isabel V. Sawhill, Betsey Stevenson and Jane Waldfogel. 

“Paid Family and Medical Leave: An Issue Whose Time Has Come.” AEI Brookings Working Group on Paid Family Leave, June 6, 2017.

This report, developed by the AEI-Brookings Paid Family Leave Working Group, discusses the status of existing state and federal leave laws in the United States and offers eight principles to guide policymaking in this area.

OECD (2019), Rejuvenating Korea: Policies for a Changing Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c5eed747-en.

his report builds on the OECD’s body of data and policy work on families and children. It takes a close look at families and family policy in Korea, at a time when both are undergoing wholesale change. It reviews the many recent developments in Korean family policy and asks where Korean policy should go next to promote family and child outcomes

답글 남기기

아래 항목을 채우거나 오른쪽 아이콘 중 하나를 클릭하여 로그 인 하세요:

WordPress.com 로고

WordPress.com의 계정을 사용하여 댓글을 남깁니다. 로그아웃 /  변경 )

Twitter 사진

Twitter의 계정을 사용하여 댓글을 남깁니다. 로그아웃 /  변경 )

Facebook 사진

Facebook의 계정을 사용하여 댓글을 남깁니다. 로그아웃 /  변경 )

%s에 연결하는 중

WordPress.com 제공.

위로 ↑

%d 블로거가 이것을 좋아합니다: