이 연구는 통일독일의 교훈을 통해 한반도의 통일과정에서 제기될 사회보장부문별 과제를 예상해 보고, 남북한 사회보장제도 통합을 위한 ‘로드맵’을 제시하고자 하였다. 통일독일 정부는 통일 직후 ‘사회연대협약’에 의해 동서독 양 지역 간 소득, 생산성, 생활수준 격차 해소를 위해 동독지역에 대한 많은 지원을 하였다. 그러나 동독지역에서 장기간 고실업 상태가 지속되었고 서독지역 주민들이 당초 예상보다 훨씬 큰 규모의 사회통합을 위한 통일비용을 장기간 부담해야 하는 문제점이 나타났다. 통일독일은 노동시장과 사회보장제도의 일시 통합에 따라 동독지역의 임금이 너무 빨리, 너무 많이 상승했고, 상대적으로 저소득수준 지역인 구 동독 사회보장비용에 대한 보조 때문에 통일비용의 많은 부분을 소비성 지출로 사용하였다. 또한 통일독일의 경험은 실업률의 차이가 소득격차보다 더 주요한 이주의 원인임을 시사하고 있다. 남북한의 경우도 급속한 노동시장 통합의 단행은 남북한 간 임금격차의 존재, 북한지역의 낮은 취업기회 등으로 북한지역 주민의 ‘대량 남하이주’를 초래할 가능성이 크다.

한반도 통일 시 체제전환으로 초래되는 북한지역의 과도기적 물가 상승, 경제성장률의 둔화, 대량 실업과 같은 경제적 마찰을 어떻게 최소화할 수 있을 것인지에 대해 주목해야 한다. 통일 후 북한지역에 시장경제화 과정의 기본이 되는 가격자유화와 산업구조조정이 본격화될 경우, 북한의 소득분배 및 사회보장 시스템도 시장경제의 필요에 부합하도록 새롭게 개편되어야 할 것이다. 통일한국의 사회보장은 남한의 ｢사회보장기본법｣(1995. 12. 제정) 제2조의 기본이념에 따라 모든 국민이 인간다운 생활을 할 수 있도록 최저생활을 보장하고 국민 개개인이 생활수준을 향상시킬 수 있도록 제도와 여건을 조성해야 한다는 기본원칙에 따라 이루어져야 한다. 그러나 남북한 통일 시 2015~55년 기간 중 북한지역 주민의 사회보장을 위한 남한지역으로부터의 연평균 이전지출 규모는 정책선택에 따라 2013년 남한 총조세수입 (약 255.7조원)의 12~48.6% 수준에 달할 것으로 추정된다.

통일과정에서 하방경직성(downward rigidity)을 가지는 북한지역에 대한 사회보장비용의 확대는 점진적으로 이루어져야 한다. 또한 통일과정에서는 남북한 사회보장제도의 한시적 차등 적용도 불가피할 것으로 보인다. 충격요법(shock therapy)에 의한 사회보장제도의 급속한 통합은 통일한국 경제의 성장잠재력을 하락시킬 수 있기 때문이다. 통일의 초기단계에는 빈곤⋅실업 대책, 이주민대책 등의 사회보장정책을 통하여 북한지역의 노동력을 보호하고 남한의 대북지원 재정능력을 유지하도록 하며, 장기적으로는 남북한의 사회보장제도가 완전 통합될 수 있도록 추진하는 것이 바람직하다. 통일 초기 북한지역 주민들에 대한 생활보호정책은 본격적인 사회보장체계 내에서의 비용증가 요인을 사전에 감소시킨다는 차원에서 직업의 제공을 통한 ‘근로복지제도(workfare)’의 확립을 염두에 두고 추진되어야 한다. 그러나 남한 주도의 경제⋅사회 제도 통합과정은 남한 내부의 사회적 평등과 형평의 제고를 기반으로 가능한 것이므로 통일 이전 남한사회의 사회보장제도 확충과 기본생활수요의 보장, 소득과 부의 편중 시정 등 제도개선 노력이 지속되어야 할 것이다.

This research intends to examine the social and economic consequences of German Unification, and to conduct a comparative analysis to draw general lessons and policy implications for Korea, particularly focusing on the way forward to integration of social security and welfare systems. In the first part of this study, with a review of the literature on German unification in mind, we hope (1) to help achieving a better understanding of the ‘German Economic, Monetary and Social Union’ (GEMSU) with a focus on Social Union, and (2) to generate lessons that are specific enough to be useful, but general enough to be applicable even to a Korean unification process that will differ from the German experience.

We summarize the main findings of our analysis of integration of social security and welfare institutions in the process of German unification, and offer a few careful suggestions for consideration to Korean policy makers and planners of social security integration building programs.

First, in Germany, within a short period of time, an existing and established social and economic system had to be replaced. In the transitory phase, the state owned, centrally planned economy had to be privatized and transformed towards efficiency. To mitigate the side effects, the West German system of social security and welfare had to be expanded to the East. Although this seems obvious, we also find it is necessary to once more warn against the attempt of a too direct application of Germany’s experience to the case of Korea. In addition to historical, social and cultural factors or the fact that the German unification of 1990 took place in a global technological environment that has meanwhile changed significantly, we should also consider a few key peculiarities. These have led to very specific problems and solutions that have little, if any, direct relevance for Korea. This had been discussed in more detail in the text.

Second, two decades after German unification, initial optimistic expectations have made room for more cautious assessments: ‘what had been divided for 45 years might need another 45 years to be completely united, particularly in the case for social union’. For the concluded case of German unification, however, it is very clear that the idea of combining the two systems was just a naive illusion.

Third, the logic of power is not something that everyone likes. But denying it does not make it less valid. Overwhelming West german power was not the only reason for the relatively unquestioned adaptation of their system by the East Germans. Before unification, West Germany had the status of a “yardstick society” for the people of the East Germany(GDR). As of 2015, it is much less obvious that the ROK is playing a similarly dominant role as a yardstick society for North Koreans. It will therefore be not as easy to convince them that the way towards South Korean prosperity is closely connected to the acceptance of the South Korean system.

Fourth, we also compare points of relevance and non-relevance between the German experience with unification in the 1990s and what might occur in Korea. Finally, we briefly assessed the problems that a unified Korea would confront relating to the capital costs of unification, particularly in social security integration.

In the second part of this study, we proposed two research goals. One is examination of short-term social security support policies for the protection of basic needs of the citizens in North Korea immediately after reunification; the other is seeking mid-to long-term diverse policy alternatives on the integration of social security and welfare systems during the socio-economic transitional process in North Korea. Such discussion is based on the assumption that without the reform and transition of the North Korean economy, maintenance of basic livelihood of the citizens of the North who are in ‘leveled-down’ poverty cannot be secured. Under great uncertainty and possibly extreme internal turmoil in the beginning of unification, border-opening and massive emigration might be inevitable. Like it or not, South Korea will have to be prepared for this situation. Major issues discussed in the second part of this study are as follows.

First, instant and complete integration of all kinds of social security and welfare systems is not a prerequisite that has to be unconditionally accepted. This suggests that a hasty construction of the full-scale social security system before people’s understanding of the principles of the capitalist market economy has not formed is never desirable. We should be mindful of the fact that a rapid integration can cause delay in economic and social union. In other words, ‘separate management of social security system’ on a temporary basis is desirable until after the existing state owned enterprises(SOE) in the North are privatized. Because, the unitary integrated social insurance program can be considered at the point in time only when job creation capability and market economy in the North have developed to the level where both employers and workers can contribute to social insurance premium. The most desirable condition for the integration of the social welfare system is after the completion of integration of major macroeconomic systems and they have gone through the transitional process.

Second, emergency aid measures such as basic livelihood security and health protection for the citizens in the North right after unification should be promoted in a comprehensive frame, eschewing selective support.

Third, to prevent confusion brought about by the ‘massive migration from the North to the South expected right after unification, there is an urgent need to set up a two-track policy that induces citizens in the North to voluntarily relinquish from migrating to the South by offering attractive incentives to remain in the North. on one hand and at the same time, consider employing such policy instruments as discriminatory application of social security policy measures. Speedy recovery of the self-supporting economy in the North through such active investments as the tentatively named the ‘New Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan of Unified Korea’ and the joint annual plan can reduce the factors that induce the migration to South Korea and the cost for social welfare in North that will be a burden on the South, and also constitutes the precondition of complete integration of both sides.

Fourth, despite the inevitability of separate management in the early stage, long continuation thereof is not desirable since it will cause delay in socio⋅cultural integration as well as bringing about adverse selection, the problematic situation where only workers with high risk ratio will gather in the North. Therefore, for the pursuit of social stabilization, the period of separate management of the social security system should be decided as a certain number of years right after unification and made public announcement.

Lastly, we also estimate what the capital costs of social security union would be under differing circumstances and assumptions. Although unification of North and South Korea will impose a new economic burden such as capital, economic and social cost of unification for a considerable period of time, however, viewed from the angle of benefits, reunification of the country will open a new development possibility and offer an impetus to national socioeconomic development.

발간사
요 약

제1장 서 론

제2장 독일 통일의 이해와 교훈
　제1절 독일 통일의 전개과정과 대내외적 요인
　제2절 통일 전후 독일 경제⋅사회의 특징
　제3절 통일독일의 사회보장제도 통합
　제4절 동서독 통일과 남북한 통일의 경제⋅사회 환경의 차이
　제5절 통일독일의 교훈과 시사점

제3장 남북한 사회보장제도의 비교
　제1절 사회보장제도 통합의 범주
　제2절 남북한의 사회보장 입법체계
　제3절 공적연금
　제4절 의료보장
　제5절 고용보험 및 산재보험
　제6절 공공부조
　제7절 사회복지서비스
　제8절 북한의 사회보장수준과 통일 대비 과제

제4장 남북한 경제⋅사회공동체 구축과 사회보장제도 통합방안
　제1절 남북한 관계의 현실인식과 경제⋅사회 제도 통합
　제2절 남북한 사회보장제도 통합의 기본정책방향
　제3절 부문별 사회보장제도 통합방안

제5장 남북한 사회보장통합에 따른 재정부담과 재원조달방안
　제1절 기존 통일비용 추정에 대한 검토
　제2절 사회보장통합에 따른 재정부담
　제3절 사회보장통합 재원조달방안

제6장 결론 및 시사점

참고문헌
부 록
ABSTRACT