□ Purpose of Study

• The purpose of this study was to offer a comprehensive analysis of the changing trends of the Korean income structure after the Financial Crisis and to view such changes from various perspectives as well as to understand their causes.

□ Changing Trends of Income Inequality

• Korea's income inequality (Gini Coefficient), according to the "Report on Income and Expenditure Trends of Urban Salary and Wage Earners' Households (RIE)" by the National Statistical Office (NSO), which was 0.284, 0.291, and 0.283, respectively during the years of 1995-1997, rose to 0.316, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively during the years of 1998-2000, and further rose to 0.319 in 2001.
   
• However, the Annual Survey does not include the unemployed, self-employed and single-person households. Therefore, we used the statistics that include these factors as found in the "National Survey of Household Income and Expenditure (NSIE)," a five-year interval survey by NSO, and computed corresponding Gini Coefficient with the following results:
  
  - For 2000, Gini Coefficient of salary and wage earners' households, as in the NSIE criterion, was 0.293 only, somewhat lower than 0.317 using the RIE criterion. However, the coefficient for entire households including self-employed, unemployed and single-person households came out to a rather high value of 0.389.
  
  - Also, the Gini Coefficient for 1995 and 2000 using the RIE criterion was 0.284 and 0.317, respectively, while using the NSIE criterion yielded 0.332 and 0.389 respectively for the same years. This indicates that the increase in income inequality between the pre- and post-crisis periods as computed using the NSIE criterion was higher than that using the other criterion (RIE).

□ Changing Trends in Income Classes

• As for the 'collapse of the middle class' often cited after the Financial Crisis, Table 2 shows that 1) the middle class began its decline from the pre-crisis period, 2) continued to decrease till 1999, but showed a modest increase in 2000, then decreased again in 2001. This pattern denotes a declining trend of the middle class but we cannot affirm that this trend implies to the 'collapse' of the middle class.
  
  - However, the 'Upper-middle Class (70-150% of median income)' are shrinking in size as does the income of the middle class and this phenomenon is usually accompanied by an increase of the 'High Income Class,' the possibility of polarization of income distribution may be in progress.
   
• On the other hand, the proportion of Low Income Class at first showed an increasing trend after the Financial Crisis, but has been static since 2000.
  
  - Also, the proportion of Lower-middle Class (with an income of 50-70% of median value) shows a similar increasing pattern as the Low Income Class.
  
  - Furthermore, the size of Low Income Class, which has been stable since 2000, seems to validate the income redistribution effects from the expanded social safety net measures such as the "National Basic Livelihood Security Act," which has been implemented since October 2000.

□ Measuring the Effect of Income Redistribution Policy

• We estimated the effect of income redistribution policy on the economy in terms of equality improvement and labor supply fluctuation from the viewpoint of general equilibrium theory. The effect of transfer payments on income equality improvement has in fact improved the Gini Coefficient by approximately 1.6 percent. However, this measure could possibly reduce the labor supply of the applicable class.
  
  - These results were obtained from a simulation exercise using limited samples and therefore, are not a direct estimation of redistribution policy using the actual data.
  
  - The results show that the decrease in labor supply under the hypothesized redistribution policy was concentrated in the Low Income Class which is the beneficiary class because 1) it is the main target of income redistribution policy 2) it has a high proportion of female participants in economic activities, and 3) in general, the female's wage elasticity is estimated to be much higher than that of males.
  
  - This result indicates that a greater-than-expected budget amount might be required to implement the income redistribution policy in reality. That is, the Low Income Class could respond by elastically reducing their labor supply as they receive government subsidy, which is an income support benefit under the income redistribution policy.
  
  - Therefore, proper 'work-promoting incentives' must be suggested as a prerequisite for income redistribution policy.

발간사

요 약

제1장 서 론

제2장 소득분배구조의 현황 및 변화추이
　1. 서 론
　2. 소득분포의 현황 및 변화 추이
　　가. 가구별 소득분포의 현황
　　나. 가구 소득분포의 결정요인
　　다. 소비 및 효용에의 효과
　3. 소 결

제3장 소득 변동과 계층간 소득 이동
　1. 서 론
　2. 소득 변동(earnings fluctuation)의 측정
　3. 소득계층간 이동(earnings mobility)과 소득 이동의 요인 분석
　　가. 소득 이동성의 측정방법 및 결과
　　나. 소득 이동의 결정요인
　4. 소 결

제4장 소득재분배 정책의 효과
　1. 서 론
　2. 이론적 모형
　3. 재분배 정책 효과의 추정
　　가. 노동공급의 임금 및 소득 탄력성의 추정
　　나. 소득재분배 정책 효과의 추정(calibration)
　　다. 실제 정책과의 비교
　4. 소 결

제5장 결 론

참고문헌

<부록> 소득분포 분석에 사용된 자료에 대한 설명