社會的不平等과 社會政策에 관한 一考

Abstract

社會的 不平等의 불가피성과 긍정적 기능을 강조하는 기능주의와, 사회적 불평등을 構造的 결함의 産物로 보아 그 緩和를 支持하는 갈등이론은 福祉理念上의 thesis와 antithesis로 作用해 왔다. 이는 개인의 선택의 自由를 우위로 보느냐, 국가의 介入을 강조하느냐로 구별된다. 韓國의 경제적 및 기회의 불평등은 과도한 경제성장의 副産物로 갈등이론적 접근이 필요하다. 所得隔差의 深化에도 불구하고 모든 國家政策이 高所得者에 유리하게 조직되어 있는 현실은 오히려 階層의 경직화를 인위적으로 조장하고 있다는 의구심마저 일으킨다. 광범위한 低所得層의 構成比로도 나타나는 불평등의 顯在는 저소득층의 인간다운 생활의 영위는 물론, 경제성장의 果實의 不均衡的 配分의 결과이므로 社會統合에도 문제가 있다. 능력의 충분한 개발과 그에 대응하는 補償의 공평한 제공이 보장되는 사회체제의 성취는 사회정책적 접근만으로는 여려운 과제이다. 그러나 분배와 재분배를 통하여 저소득층의 생활향상을 기함은 기존의 불평등 구조를 어느정도 수정할 수 있는 방안으로 고려된다. 이에 따라 교육기회의 확대, 稅制改革, 주택정책의 보완, 의료공급의 확대 및 사회보장의 擴充이 시급히 이루어 져야 한다.;The realization of social equality has been a universal ideal regardless of social system and of human race. That is to say, any kind of society has never achieved the form of utopia and inequality has ceaselessly been the object of controversy thnughtouthuman history. Historically, opinions concerning the phenomena of social inequality comprising economic and opportunity factors can be roughly divided, in sociological point of view, into two main currents; one is the functionalism or the equilibruim in the theory of social.stratification which is the modern interpretation of conservative trends beginning from Aristotle, the originator of the school and the other is in the radical trend continued from Plato. Functionalism insists that inequality is not only useful for the maintenance of functions of a society but also inevitable in connection with the role differentiation of the society. The weakness of the functionalism lies in the fact that it only deals with the superficial explanation of the existence or the phenomena of inequality without mentioning its root. Therefore, this tradition cannot but confine its viewpoint on equality into the value dimension such as the category of equal treatment and equal dignity rather than that of income or wealth distribution. On the other hand, conflict theory criticises the deleteriousness of inequality as the product of private property system and maldistribution of power which allows the explbitation of one class by another and insists that mankind has continued struggle to overcome inequality throughout history. Conflict theory thus views that the structural defect of politicoeconomic system is the source of social conflict. Ideologies of social welfare are also founded on these two different perspectives on social inequality; liberalism and revised liberalism is on the side of functionalism, social democracy shares with new conflict theory in its stress on the Government intervention, and marxism claims to stand for conflict theory. With these theoretical background this author thinks that social policy can be regarded as a kind of responses to the existence and the increase of inequality. To remove or to relieve the inequality of opportunity and wealth, social policy can be related with a variety of fields and with a. variety of means. Economic inequality in Korea is mainly generated in the course of the production and the distribution of the fruits of the recent economic development. The present wealth disparity is serious enough to predict the formation of the rigid hierarchy of stratification as goes on. This shows that the analysis of Korean inequality structure calls for an approach based on new conflict theory. Especially the existence of the vast range of low class makes the achievement of social solidarity and social justice unable. As far as the inequality of opportunity expressed by inaccessibility to education is inseparably combined with economic inequality, the alleviation of social inequality cannot be brought forth only with equa.lizip educational opportunity. Consequently, the alleviation of economic inequality should be given the first priority among all social policy measures. The limit of social policy which concerns mainly on redistribution, however, is that it cannot solve the fundamental problems caused in the process of production. That is, unless the present labor-intensive structure of industry is reorganized the low paid laborers' standard of living cannot be expedited. But such kind of big change is not possible, presently, under any circumstance. In this point of view, this author suggests the following policy measures for the purpose of enhancing the low class standard of living. First, general educational opportunity should be enlarged for low class children, and especially, vocational education for them should be emphasized. Second, tax system should be reorganized to increse its redistributive effects and to provide necessary funds for social services. Third, housing policy should be strengthened as a provision for solving basic living problems. Fourth, health service should be improved to benefit low class who need such kind of social services most. Fifth, the present social security system should be true measures for income maintenance and for founding the opportunity of equal start.