Research 2017
Study on Korean-type Youth Guarantee System
Changkyun Chae, Youngsup Choi, Hoyoung Oh, Jaeho Chung
The European Youth Guarantee(YG) System aims to provide young people under 25 years of age with continuing education, apprenticeship, training or employment opportunities within four months of being unemployed or having completed formal education. The EU YG System provide the following implications for solving the problem of youth employment in Korea.
First, NEET is important as a policy target. Second, it is important to improve access to MEET as a policy target. Third, an integrated approach is needed. Fourth, expansion of PES and strengthening of their role are important. Fifth, partnerships between related stakeholders should be established to effectively deliver policies. Sixth, an evidence- based policy should be pursued through the construction and utilization of policy monitoring and evaluation systems. Seventh, the EU YG System is not separate from active labor market policy, but is a more active form of active labor market policy. Therefore, specific policies can not help but make full use of existing active labor market policy instruments. Eighth, since the labor market and education system have a great influence on the performance of the YG System, continuous reform efforts of these systems are required. Ninth, it seems that a huge budget will be needed, and it is necessary to worry about how to prepare it.
Considering the implications derived from the review of the EU YG System, it is necessary to consider the difference between the socio- economic environment of Korea and European countries, It is necessary to differentiate the design and delivery method of YG System. The core of the ‘Korean-type’ YG System is to guarantee the appropriate employment and training opportunities within a certain period of time while simultaneously providing a certain amount of income support, instead of restricting policy targets compared to the EU. To do that, it is necessary to establish a new policy delivery system that greatly innovated existing ‘Employment Success Packages’.
Under this recognition, the main contents of the Korean YG System summarized in this study are as follows.
First, while the EU YG System considers NEET as a policy target, it seems
inappropriate for us to target all of the NEET in accordance with the OECD definition. If a highly educated youth is preparing for a large company or a public sector job, all of them are classified as NEET, but the nature of the problem they face is not a lack of education or training opportunities but a structural problem of mismatch. In order to become the YG System that can provide substantial benefits to the most vulnerable young people with limited resources, it may be desirable to focus policy on vulnerable specific classes. In this regard, targets of the Korean YG System are divided into four groups: ① a young man from low-income families preparing for employment, ② a high school graduate, ③ a job seeker who wants to give up preparation for employment in a large corporation or public sector, ④ married women to seek a job.
Policy delivery should complement and develop the framework of existing ‘Employment Success Packages’. The complementary and development direction of the ‘Employment Success Packages’ framework is as follows.
First, it is necessary to prohibit the participation of college students in the ‘Employment Success Packages’. It is also necessary to consider whether it is appropriate to participate in the ‘Employment Success Packages’ of young people who want to work in a large corporation or public sector.
Second, it is necessary to establish a ‘Youth Guarantee Center’ (tentative name) to complement and develop the ‘Employment Success Packages’. At present, it is inappropriate for a ‘Employment Success Packages’ organization to be located in a university, and it should be located in a region with high liquidity of young people, such as a densely populated area in the middle of the city or a public official examiner.
Ultimately, the ‘Youth Guarantee Center’ should be an institution that counsels and assists in a wide range of counseling, employment arrangements, and all the problems of young people (such as housing, welfare, and culture). It is reasonable.
Third, it is important to exclude the burden of linking counseling activities to employment in order to find vulnerable NEET, to induce meaningful activities, and to support practical career design of college graduates. If the counseling and employment placement are carried out in the same institution under the situation emphasizing the employment performance as it is now, the counseling is likely to pass the ritual for employment and the quality of the job matching with the youth can not be good.
Fourth, it is not desirable to leave all the functions such as counseling, job placement, and training organizations to one private trusting organization like the current ‘Employment Success Packages’. In order to provide various support to young people, from counseling to employment, to the quality of life in the future, a separate commissioning agency with expertise in each area is needed. In the end, networking and partnership building among these various stakeholders is key. To this end, a common consultation / education /
23. Study on Korean-type Youth Guarantee System
training / employment support / welfare support platform that can share service participant information between institutions should be provided. They should also be located in one place.
In order for the Korean YG System to be successfully implemented, as in the case of the EU YG System, in-depth analysis and consultation on the individual situation, presentation of alternatives appropriate for each situation, and actual implementation should be carried out. First, we should make efforts to expand counseling capacity in consideration of the fact that counseling competency has an important influence on the
‘Employment Success Packages’ service. Particularly, in the selection of actual counseling personnel, the conditions for admission such as job counseling / social welfare qualification are essential, but full consideration should be given to how rich the social experience is.
The abundant and sober understanding of the reality of the labor market has a significant impact on the actual employment potential. Next, the competence of counseling agencies should be taken into consideration. In particular, services should be entrusted to institutions with a deep understanding of local labor market and a wide network.
In Korea, unemployment benefits do not function properly as social safety nets. Among the unemployed youth, the ratio of unemployed people receiving unemployment benefits(unemployment assistance) is only 3.1% as of 2014 (one-tenth of the OECD average of 28.2%), and the proportion of unemployed income support young people(including housing benefits), the only breakthrough that can be made, is only 2%(OECD average 15%). In this situation, the need for income support for young people is raised. The four groups mentioned above should be provided with a certain amount of allowance during the policy support period to promote their participation and support their smooth transition to the labor market. Young people from low-income households who are seeking jobs should be able to relieve difficulties in preparing for employment due to financial difficulties, if they pass the fixed asset standard regardless of whether they are preparing for employment in large corporations or the public sector. The remaining three groups, such as high school graduates, a job seeker who wants to give up preparation for employment in a large corporation or public sector, and married women to seek a job, are supported also. However, as Korean labor market which is characterized by a mismatch due to a lack of decent jobs, the support period must be within a certain period (maximum 4 months if the guarantee period is 4 months). At this time, it is desirable to set the level of the allowance to be lower than the unemployment benefit received by young people who are working diligently but unemployed in terms of equity within the youth.