1、 中文 3070 字 本科毕业设计（论文） 外文翻译 外文题目： Income, Consumption, Andpoverty in Korea 出 处： Social Indicators Research,2003,no.62 作 者： Joung woo lee INCOME, CONSUMPTION, AND POVERTY IN KOREA JOUNG-WOO LEE ABSTRACT： This article examines changes in economic welfare within Korea in terms of income, consumption, an
2、d poverty. Analyses of government statistics reveal that it has been extraordinarily successful in raising the average level of both income and consumption , while reducing the incidence of poverty during the last four decades. In reducing the unequal distribution of income during the same period, h
3、owever, the country has been much less successful. In the aftermath of the 1997 economic crises, the level of poverty has risen due to sharp increases in unemployment. The lives of the poor are at risk since the social safety net system in Korea is only minimal. The heavy concentration of land and w
4、ealth in a few hands is a major obstacle to the further enhancement of the quality of economic life among the Korean people. This paper examines the changing quality of economic life especially among Korean workers with systematic analyses of time series data on income, consumption, and poverty. The
5、 analyses are based on two assumptions. The first is what John Rawls characterizes as “maximin principle,” i.e., the quality of life in a given society cannot be regarded as satisfactory when some of its citizens are in a miserable state of life. The second premise is that Korean workers have yet to
6、 receive their fair share of economic development, although it is internationally regarded as more equitable than what is observed in other developing countries INCOME GROWTH Korea has displayed unprecedented rapid economic growth from themid-1960s up until the late 1990s, when an abrupt economic cr
7、isis hit the country. Per capita national income increased 80-fold fromU.S.$125 in 1966 to over U.S.$10000 in 1995. This kind of rapid economic growth could be found only in few East Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Another notable feature of economic growth in Korea is that it
8、 has not been accompanied by a worsening distribution of income, as witnessed in many Latin American countries INCOME DISTRIBUTION Individual scholars and research institutes have reported that income distribution in Korea has improved during the last couple of decades. The Korea National Statistica
9、l Office (hereinafter the NSO) (2000) and Dr. Hak chung Choo (1982, 1992) of the Korea Development Institute are in agreement that income inequality has been lowered in both rural and urban areas since the late 1970s. According to the Farm Households Economic Survey (hereinafter the FHES, which is c
10、onducted annually by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery, the Gini coefficient was estimated to be 0.324 for 1967, and 0.288for 1988. This strongly suggests a lowering of income inequality in rural areas over the past decades. When combining the urban and rural income survey data, it is evident
11、hat income distribution in Korea has been moving in the direction of lesser inequality before the economic crisis hit the country in 1997. Nonetheless, the Gini coefficients based on these survey data have recently been called into question (Ahn, 1995； Lee and Whang, 1998). These surveys were not ca
12、pable of properly incorporating the unearned incomes stemming from the soaring prices of land, houses, and stocks. The windfall gains from those sources occur only once or twice in life, so that people tend to regard them as “abnormal” income, that should not be counted as income in the social surve
13、ys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that occasional income surveys could capture the vast amount of unearned income, which explored in the late 1980s. This is one reason why there is a lingering doubt about the findings of improving income distribution, even though existing. For 1988 alone, for exa
14、mple, the realized capital gains from land were around 20 percent of the Gross National Product (here in after the GNP), and those from the stock market added another 5 percent. The Gini coefficient of 1988, reported by the NSO, was given as 0.336. However, the Gini coefficient is actually estimated
15、 to be0.388, one the capital gains arising from land in the late 1980sare taken into account (Lee, 1991). The gains from the booming stock market in the late 1980s further raised the coefficient to 0.412, a figure that is significantly higher than what the NSO originally estimated the coefficient to
16、 be. In reality, therefore, it is highly probable that income inequality in Korea is much higher than what is known from the governmental household surveys, and it has been worsening during the past decade. CONSUMPTION PATTERN How does the working class compare with the non-working class in terms of
17、 what they consume on a daily basis? The present study addressed this question with the Urban Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (hereinafter the UHIES) conducted by the NSO for the period of 19632000. Table IV compares the relative levels of consumption of three working classes blue collar, w
18、hite collar, and laborers with that of non-laborers. In addition, the table provides the Engel coefficient, i.e., the ratio of food consumption as a part of total consumption, for these four classes. There is no strict criterion, but often an Engel coefficient over 70 percent means “extremely poor,”
19、 and over 50 percent “poor.” According to the Engel coefficients reported in Table IV, both the working and non-working classes were poor during the 1960s. They had to spend more than half of their living expenses on food items. In 2000, however, they were spending less than one-third of those expen
20、ses for the same purpose. Their Engel coefficients have declined to the high 20s, by as much as 50 percent over the past four decades. This indicates a remarkable improvement in the standard of living among all classes of the Korean population. Of the three classes surveyed, blue-collar workers rema
21、in the least well off, still spending the most on food items, the same as they did four decades ago. When improvements in the overall levels of consumption are considered, however, it is the blue-collar workers, who have achieved the greatest level of improvement in their standard of living. In 1963
22、, they were 35 percentage points behind non- laborers. In 2000, however, they were only 16 percentage points behind, indicating a gain of 19 percentage points over the period in question. Table V examines changes in the consumption structure of worker households after adjusting for the housing costs
23、 that were underestimated in the analysis reported by the government. Specifically, the opportunity cost of the lump-sum deposits and the imputed rents of owner-occupied housing were taken into account in order to estimate, accurately, the percentage figures for food and other consumption items. The
24、 most notable feature of Table V concerns steady and significant declines in the Engel coefficients from 55 in 1963, to 21 in 2000. As a result of such declines in food consumption, Korean workers have been able to spend more on such items as medical care, education, transportation, and communicatio
25、ns. Of all those non-food items, the relative level of spending has increased to the greatest extent in the “other” consumption category, which covers furniture, electronic equipment, and entertainment expenses. These items are generally considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. The six-fol
26、d rise in this category from 2 to 12 percentage points is evidence of the remarkable improvement in the standard of living of the Korean working class during the past four decades. Nonetheless, it should be noted that housing costs have become the single most important item in the workers householdb
27、udget. Housing and food costs together constitute almost half of How does the Korean workers standard of living compare with what has been observed in the other developed and developing countries? The World Development Report (here in after the WDR), published by the World Bank, provides relevant da
28、ta for a cross-national comparison. Table VI summarizes the consumption structures of sixty-three countries grouped into four categories: the low-income countries； lower-middle-income countries； upper middle-income countries； and high-income countries. According to the World Bank, Korea currently belongs to the upper-middle income group. Table VI contains three separate estimates for Korea by line. Line (1)
