Size: px
Start display at page:

Download ""

Transcription

1

2

3 PPS Company

4

5

6 1.,.,... OECD.,..,.. OECD,,,,

7 2, , ,, 2000, 2012.,.,,,,,. 30% 30%,.,.,,.,,..,,., %. OECD , 2000, 2005, 2012, , 10%,

8 3., 10% (, ).,.,. - -,.,.,,..,.,,,....

9 4,.,,.

10 Abstract 5 Abstract This research has been conducted as the main project for establishing the groundwork for national cohesion, one of the policy goals presented by the Presidential Committee for National Cohesion. Naturally, it has the characteristics of a policy research, and its objectives are not only to develop another set of indicators, but also to contribute to the policymaking process. A number of studies have already been conducted on social cohesion or national cohesion, some of which have attempted to systemize indicators that diagnose the current situation. This research tries to both embrace and complement the results of previous studies on social cohesion or national cohesion. While this research tries to continue the legacy of previous studies as much as possible, it also attempts differentiation in certain aspects. First, this research compared data with other OECD member countries, to gain an objective insight into national cohesion in our society. Also, to get closer to the purpose of the study, which is to enhance policy utilization, policy simulations were conducted using policy variables set in the subcategory level. Meanwhile, a problem faced by many studies on indicators is that there is a considerable gap between the data and actual sentiments. To overcome such limitations this research uses surveys to compare data and sentiment, aiming to determine which policies should be given priority and which direction the policies should take. The results can be summarized as follows: a comparative study with the OECD

11 6 member countries based on the national cohesion index showed that Korea s ranking has remained low in all of the main categories (social inclusion, social capital, foundation) since In the subcategories, Korea ranks low in all but twoequity and trust. In the subcategory equity, Korea was a top-ranking country prior to 2000, but the ranking continued to fall in the 2000s, eventually settling in the mid-tier. In government capacity, Korea s ranking remains low, but has surged between 2005 and In the minor categories, the most noticeable result is the decline in Korea s ranking in digital divide, which was high until 2000 but fell to the middle in In contrast, the ranking in economic safety rose from the middle to the top, while government execution has been steadily rising from the bottom. In addition to comparing the indicators with other nations, this research examines the correlation between the rankings and each country s economic size, democracy, policy stability, government capacity and corruption control. A noticeable point was that the correlation between economic size and national cohesion was relatively weak in the top 30% and bottom 30% economies, and this trend was consistent in all periods. However, an analysis of all countries showed a meaningful correlation between economic size and national cohesion, and the correlation is continuing to grow. In general, countries that are weak in terms of democracy, government capacity and corruption control continued to show a meaningful correlation with foundation. This shows that in order to achieve national cohesion through foundation, sociopolitical factors such as democracy, government capacity and transparency are more important than economic development. One important factor that distinguishes this research from previous studies is

12 Abstract 7 policy simulation. The conclusion drawn from the policy simulations is that it takes an enormous amount of effort to improve one s status through a surge in rankings, while no effort at all will worsen conditions. This research employs two methods to conduct the policy simulations. One method raises the raw data value for 2012 of Korea s policy variables by 10% and examines what effect this has on the national rankings. Another analysis makes a prediction of Korea s rankings in 2015 and 2020, assuming that the policy variables of all 31 OECD member countries improve as much as the yearly growth rates of 1995, 2000, 2005 and According to the policy simulation, when Korea s policy variables improve by 10%, the rankings in most of the minor categories either remain unchanged or move up only a few steps. However, in indicators such as tolerance for multiple cultures, economic equity and economic freedom, a 10% improvement results in Korea s status improving in the higher categories for the respective indicators. The simulation results suggest that policy approaches will become more effective by determining which policy focus will yield the best results. Although improving international rankings or status is important, this research is unique in that it ties the analysis of indicators with subjective perception, as national cohesion is closely related to sympathizing with national sentiment. This research seeks to differentiate in terms of policy responses by linking international comparisons with perception of importance and subjective sentiments. The most important indicators from a policy perspective are those that are perceived as important but show poor results in the analyses of objective data and subjective sentiments. Indicators such as equality of economic opportunity, social safety and psychological safety are examples of such, and policies should prioritize theses areas. Indicators such as law and order and government capacity seem to be

13 8 improving but the data and sentiments remain poor. Meanwhile, in areas where the objective results are good by the subjective results are bad, there should be efforts to form a social consensus by providing accurate information, as well as through PR efforts and education. According to the analysis, economic safety, economic equity and social equity are fields where such efforts are required. Social welfare, global contribution, tolerance for multiple cultures and participation show poor objective results but are perceived positively. In these fields, an improvement in the objective indicators is expected to amplify positive sentiments. Follow-up studies should aim for the enhancement of policy utilization, instead of fixating on the index itself. In order to do so, follow-up studies should examine policy responses for national cohesion and predict the outcomes of those responses. More specifically, they need to look into the national cohesion-related policies implemented by each government ministry and classify those policies by the categories presented in this research, after which they should gauge and predict the possible impact of the policies in each category. Also, it is imperative that the index is constantly examined and analyzed. The details and the framework of the surveys conducted in this research should be constantly updated, while the indicators should be subjected to periodic research and analysis.

14 : (Social Cohesion) OECD EU UN ECLAC (2010) () (2010) (, 2011) 54

15 10 7. (2014)

16

17

18 13 < 21> 2014 OECD 38 < 22> 2014 OECD 40 < 23> EU (Berger-Schmitt ) 42 < 24> (CoE, 2005) 43 < 25> 45 < 26> UN ECLAC : 46 < 27> ECLAC 47 < 28> 50 < 29> 50 < 210> 53 < 211> 55 < 212> 58 < 31> 62 < 32> 67 < 33> : 68 < 34> : 69 < 35> : 70 < 36> : 73 < 37> : 75 < 38> : 76

19 14 < 41> OECD 85 < 42> 90 < 43>, 91 < 44>, 93 < 45>, 95 < 46> 97 < 47>, 98 < 48>, 100 < 49>, 101 < 410>, 103 < 411>, 104 < 412>, 106 < 413>, 107 < 414>, 109 < 415>, 110 < 416>, 112 < 417>, 114 < 418>, 115 < 419>, 117 < 420>, 118 < 421>, 120 < 422>, 121 < 423>, 122 < 424>, 124 < 425>, 126 < 426>, 127

20 15 < 427>, 129 < 428>, 131 < 429>, 132 < 430>, 134 < 431>, 135 < 432>, 137 < 433>, 138 < 434>, 140 < 435>, 141 < 436>, 143 < 437>, 144 < 438>, 146 < 439>, 147 < 440>, 149 < 441>, 150 < 442>, 152 < 443>, 153 < 444>, 155 < 445> 158 < 446> 161 < 51> 164 < 52> ( ) 165 < 53> (1990) 165 < 54> (2000) 166 < 55> 1 167

21 16 < 56> 168 < 57> 169 < 58> 172 < 59> 172 < 510> 173 < 511> () 173 < 512> 174 < 513> () 174 < 514> 175 < 515> () 175 < 516> 176 < 517> 176 < 518> () 176 < 519> 177 < 520> () 177 < 521> 178 < 522> 178 < 523> 179 < 524> (2015, 2020 ) 182 < 525> 184 < 526> 187 < 527> 30% 30% 189 < 528> 190 < 529> 192 < 530> 30% 30% 194 < 531> 195

22 17 < 532> 196 < 533> 30% 30% 198 < 534> 199 < 535> 200 < 536> 30% 30% 202 < 537> 203 < 538> 205 < 539> 30% 30% 207 < 540> 208 < 61> 211 < 62> 212 < 63> 214 < 64> 215 < 65> : 216 < 66> : 217 < 67> 219 < 68> 220 < 69> 221 < 610> 222

23 18 [ 11] 21 [ 21] 49 [ 22] 52 [ 23] 55 [ 24] 58 [ 31] 61 [ 41] OECD GDP 81 [ 42] OECD 81 [ 43] OECD 83 [ 44] OECD 84 [ 45] OECD 84 [ 46] OECD 85 [ 47] 88 [ 48] 89 [ 49] 89 [ 410] 90 [ 411] [ 61] - 224

24 (2014) (, 2014). 1).,,,,, (, 2014)., ''..,,, 4.. 1). (, 2013)

25 ,., (, 2010).

26 () () () () () () () () () () () * : (2014, p.21)

27 ,,., (, 2011) ,,,,.,....

28 (panacea)....,, 2). OECD (evidence-based). OECD. At a Glance Soceiety, Education, Government How's Life 3).. (People's Life Indicators, PLI).. 2) ) OECD Governance Trust.

29 ) , : 4) OECD Angel-Gurria "21 ".

30 ).,, 3. 6)...,.,,.... 5) (2009). 6) 12.

31 26.,,,.,, (,,,,,,, ). 7). 7) (Diener, 2005) Guideline for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being... ). ). targeted population. ). ). ) /.

32 1 27.,,. OECD..,. OECD ,.. OECD 1995,..,..

33

34 (Social Cohesion) 1. 21,, OECD (OECD, 2011). 1980,, (OECD, 2012),, (Council of Europe). IDA, ECLAC., (, 2012). 1990, OECD, EU,,. (social exclusion) (social capital)., (social integration), (social inclusion) (social cohesion) (, 2010).

35 30 (social integration), (social inclusion),. (social inclusion) (integration),. (social exclusion),. EU,,. (social integration) UN(1994),,,, () ().,,. (social cohesion) 10.,,.,. ECLAC

36 2 31. (Bernard, 2000) (Beauvais & Jenson, 2002),,. (process), (state).,,., ) (Jenson, 1998) 5, (belonging)/(isolation), (inclusion)/(exclusion), (participation)/ (non-involvement), (recognition)/(rejection), (legitimacy)/(illegitimacy). (Bernard, 1999) (equality)/ (inequality),, (solidarity). - (Berger-Schmitt, 2000) (ties) (, 2010;, 2014). -,. 8) (Jenson, 1998),, OECD.

37 32,. Chan et al.(2006), / (a state of affairs),. 2. (2002) 9),. (, 2011)., (, 2011)., (common values and civic culture),.., (social order and social control),. 9) (2010).

38 2 33. (social solidarity and reduction in wealth disparities),,,. OECD, EU,,,,,.,. (social networks and social capital).,, (tie). OECD,, (social inclusion), (social capital), (social mobility) (OECD, 2012).,, (social cohesion).

39 34 3. OECD(2012),,,, (inclusion),,,. (2004),. (Fair and equal access to resources), (Individual and collective dignity), (Autonomy of the individual), (Participation in community life),,,,. (Ritzen, 2001),,,,,.,. (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000),,,,.

40 2 35 (2002),,. (Stanley, 2003),,,. (Phillips, 2008). (2010), (2010),. (2010),,,,.,,..,,,,,,,,,,

41 36.,,,, (2004),,.,,,, -.,,..,.,. (2011) (2011),, ( ) (, ),..

42 (process).,. (2010),.. (GDP). 90,, (, 2010). 2000, (National Action Plan),,, (, 2009).

43 38 1. OECD 2001 OECD,,,, (Self-Sufficiency), (Equity), (Health Status) (Social Cohesion). OECD -- (Pressure-State-Response),. OECD,,,,,.,, 21. OECD OECD : OECD(2014), Society at a Glance 2014

44 () () : OECD(2014), Society at a Glance 2014 ( ) OECD. (social exclusion).,, (2009), (2001, 2005), (2001, 2005), (2003), (2001, 2003, 2005). OECD (, 2012).

45 OECD 22.,,,. 2014,, OECD,, 2007 (OECD, 2014) OECD (,, ), 0~10 (0) (10) (Gallup World Polls) 15 1~4 (binary question) (, )? (Gallup World Polls), (Gallup World Polls) (Gallup Corruption Index)

46 , : OECD(2014), Society at a Glance 2014, (Gallup World Polls) (Gallup Corruption Index)?? (Gallup World Polls) UNODC(UN Office on Drugs and Crimes) DB??? (Gallup World Polls) 2. EU 10),. EU - (Berger-Schmitt, 2000)., 10) (2010) (2012).

47 42.,.,,., (integration). 23 EU (Berger-Schmitt ), (,,,, ),,,, : Berger-Schmitt(2000), (2010) (p.70) 2005 (benchmark definition).,,,,., (, 2010).,,

48 2 43,,,,,,,, (CoE, 2005) (),, / / / : :,,, NGO,,

49 44 24 (),,,,.,, 10 (,,,,,, ), 5 (,,, ),,,., (,, NGOs ),, 8 (, /,,,,,, ),,,, (CoE, 2005).

50 , /, / (situations) / /(social cover) 20 (action) - - -, 1 (situations) / / /NGO (action) 1 // /NGO (action) : CoE(2005), Concerted development of social cohesion indicators: Methodological guide, p.110~160

51 46 3. UN ECLAC UN (ECLAC) Leaken Indicators. (Gaps), (Institutions), (belonging). Leaken, ECLAC. (UN ECLAC, 2007). (, 2010). 26 UN ECLAC : (Gaps) (Institutions) (Belonging) : UN ECLAC(2007), (2010) (eg. )

52 2 47 ECLAC () (ECLAC, 2010)... ECLAC.,,,,.,.. 27 ECLAC : ECLAC(2010), Social Cohesion in Latin America: Concepts, frames of reference and indicators, p.31

53 48 4. (2010).,,,,,,.,,,,,. ().,.,,.,,,.

54 () // / / / / // : (2010) (p.93),.,. 8,,,,,,, 7. (,,,,, ), ().

55 ( ) ( ) (, ),,,,, (, 2010) 29 ( ) 5

56 / : (2010) (p.109~112) () (/ ) 5 2, 1,. 2, -,, -,, (, 2011).

57 52 22 : (2011) (p.45) 5. - () (2010) ( ),.,,.,.,,,,,,,

58 2 53,.,,. (, 2010) ,.,, 2,,,, 1~4. OECD 39,.,, ( OECD /, G20/ ),., Index of Economic Freedom Freedom in the World Freedom of the Press GDP -

59 : (2010), p.18 WVS WDI (World Bank) WVS WVS WVS GNI ODA (/) 6. (, 2011),.,,.,,.,.,,

60 2 55 (, 2011).,.,,,., ,. 23 < > Socio-economic Security Social Inclusion Social Cohesion Social Empowerment : (2011) (p.105) < > 211, () () (14) (4) ()

61 56 211,, () () (14) (4) / 1 : (2011) (p.119)...

62 (2014) 1. 5,,,,..,, (),, ().,,,,.,,,.,,,,.

63 58 24 = = [ [ ]+[ ]+[,,, ]+[,,, ]+[,,, ] ] : (2014) (p.34) [ 24],,,,.,, (World Values Survey), (European Values Survey) OECD, , 69 38, () (33.3%) (33.3%) (33.3%) ()

64 () (33%) (33.3%) (33.3%) () (25%), (25%), (50%) (25%), (25%), (25%), (25%).,,.,,,. 8..,,....

65 ,,,.,, 3.,. SGI(2011, 2014) (status index) (management index),., OECD.. OECD. OECD.,,...

66 3 61. (Inclusive growth model)... [ 31]. (Inclusive growth model).. 31 SOCIETY ECONOMY Social Capital () Social Inclusion () Foundation () INSTITUTION

67 62,,.,, 3.,,,.,.,, 3.,,.,,.,,,, 5.,,.,.,,,. 3, 11, O O (secondary edu.) () young old O

68 O O Helping others O O O O O ODA O 2...,..

69 64. (trade-off).. (HDI). 1, HDI,, 3... OECD < 31>.,...,,,.

70 3 65,. GRDP. (World Value Survey, WVS)...,..,.,.....

71 OECD ,,., (Linear Function) 11) (Step Function) 12) (extrapolation) (interpolation). ( )., (hard data). (soft data) (left continuous) (step function)., (level variable). (linear trend regression model) 11) (fitted value). 12).

72 3 67. (trend parameter).. 32,..., 13). < 33>.. < 33>.,.,. 13) OECD OECD

73 68 33 : - World Bank World Development Indicators ( median - OECD stats median) / median Government expenditure on UNESCO Institute for education as % of GDP Statistics UNU World Institute for Gini coefficient Development Economics Research, CIA Factbook, (2008), Gross enrolment ratio, secondary, UNESCO Institute for (secondary edu.) both sexes (%) Statistics OECD Society at a Glance Old age support ratio: Number of 2014 (Source: United Nations, people of working age (20-64) per () World Population Prospects - person of pension age (65+) 2012 Revision.) young old Older people are a burden on WVS(V167-6th wave society? (49 Strongly ) agree agree ) Internet users (per 100 people) World Bank World Development Indicators Mobile cellular subscriptions (per World Bank World 100 people) Development Indicators Unemployment Rate World Bank World Development Indicators Share of temporary employment OECD stats Road fatalities(per million OECD stats, UNECE inhabitants) Intentional homicide (rates per UNODC, 100,000 population) Suicide rates (Per 100,000 OECD Factbook 2013, WHO, persons) Do you feel safe walking alone at OECD Society at a Glance night in the city or area where you 2014 (Source: Gallup World live? Poll)

74 : WVS(V16) Is the city or area where you live a good place or not a good place to live for immigrants from other countries? OECD Society at a Glance 2014 (Source: Gallup Poll) World,? WVS(V23) " ",,,,,, WVS(V113-V 118) WVS(V107),, WVS(V25-V3,, active 2; V29 ) member active member WVS(V29) Helping others OECD Society (volunteered time) Percentage of people who at a Glance have donated money to a charity in the last 2014 (Source: month, 2012(%) Gallup World Poll)

75 70 35 : Index of Economic Freedom Heritage Foundation Freedom in the World Freedom House Freedom of the Press Freedom House Rule of Law Index World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators Corruption Perceptions Index Transparency International Government Effectiveness Regulatory Quality Public pension expenditure (% of GDP) World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators OECD Factbook 2013 Public Social Expenditure In percentage of Gross OECD stats Domestic Product Health expenditure, public (% of GDP) Physicians (per 1,000 people) To what extent is the government able to Sustainable collaborate effectively in 2014 international efforts to foster global public goods? ODA ODA % GNI OECD stats World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators Governance Idicators signatory and party ENTRI

76 ,.... ( 0 1).,,,..... (ad-hoc). Osberg and Sharpe(2005) (Linear Scaling Method; LSM). Osberg and Sharpe(2005) HDI Max = global Max + global Max * 10%, Min = global Min - global Min * 10%.

77 72 LSM = (Value - Min)/(Max - Min) (, Max = global Max + global Max * 10%, Min = global Min - global Min * 10% ) [0, 1]. LSM.....

78 3 73 (t) i j k, i j k. k, t i j. 3.. OECD.,,. 36 : OECD G ) Mexico, Russia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia : 1) ) OECD.

79 74 36 OECD G20 1) - 1 Saudi Arabia - 1 Brazil () - - young old 2) Saudi Arabia Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia New Zealand, Russia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia : 1) ) OECD.

80 : OECD G20 3) 6-1) - 1 Indonesia ) ) ) 10 1 Helping others - 1 Saudi Arabia Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Saudi Arabia Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Saudi Arabia Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Saudi Arabia : 1) ) OECD.

81 76 38 : OECD G ODA - - 1) Russia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia Russia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Saudi Arabia - - : 1)

82 ,.,.,... ISSP.,.. OECD.. OECD.. PC OECD.,,.

83 78.,.....,... (World Value Survey, WVS) OECD..,,.,,. (World Value Survey, WVS).,.,,,, active member. active member

84 (World Value Survey, WVS). OECD..,,. (Index of Economic Freedom). Freedom House Freedom in the World Freedom of the Press.. World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (Rule of Law Index), Transparency International (Corruption Perceptions Index).. World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (Government Effectiveness), Regulatory Quality..,..,. SGI. ODA,.

85 OECD. OECD,. OECD World Bank WDI. 41 OECD GDP , GDP 63% , 82% 19%p. OECD. OECD % % 18 2%p , , ,700. OECD,, OECD 2%p GDP

86 %p. 41 : World Bank WDI 42 : World Bank WDI

87 82 2..,, OECD 1. 3 OECD. 1 GDP OECD 1 GDP LSM. [ 4-3],, 1 GDP..,., 1 GDP , , [ 4-4] [ 4-6] 3 OECD, < 4-1>,, 1 GDP OECD.,, 4,

88 4 83,,,,,, ,,,. ( ) (+),,, (-) ,,,,, ,, 1 GDP ,, (-). 43

89

90 OECD GDP 27,660 32,416 35,645 36, () () () () () () () ()

91 () () () () () () OECD,, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2012 (coefficient of variation).., (unit free).. [ 4-7],,, 1 GDP.,

92 , OECD GDP [ 4-8] [ 4-10] 3 < 4-2>,, 1 GDP OECD.,, OECD ,,,,, ,, (+),,.

93 88,,,,,,.,,

94

95 GDP () () () () () () () () () () () () () ()

96 ,, ,,, 3,, ,,, 16. 4,,,,,, 9. 30%, 40%, 30% ,, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

97 92 43 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Austria H H Belgium L H Canada H M Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland H H France H M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M M Iceland H H Ireland M H Italy L L Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg L M Mexico L L Netherlands H M New Zealand L L Norway H H Poland M M Portugal M L Slovakia M M Spain L L Sweden H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

98 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M H USA M L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) 2.., , , , ,,,,,,,. 44, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium L H Canada H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

99 94 44 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Chile L L Czech Rep M L Denmark H H Finland H H France H H Germany L M Greece L L Hungary H M Iceland M H Ireland L H Italy M L Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg L L Mexico L L Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland H M Portugal M M Slovakia M L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

100 4 95.,, , , , ,,,,,,,. 45 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L M Austria M H Belgium M M Canada H L Chile L L Czech Rep H H Denmark M H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M M Iceland H H Ireland M M Italy L M Japan M L Korea H M Luxembourg M H Mexico L L Netherlands H M New Zealand M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

101 96 45 Country Status Rank Level CAGR Change OECD Mean Norway H H Poland M M Portugal L L Slovakia H H Spain L L Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle).,, , , , ,,,,,,.

102 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria H H Belgium M M Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland L M France L L Germany M H Greece M L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland M M Italy M M Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H M New Zealand L L Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M L Slovakia L M Spain L L Sweden M H Switzerland H M Turkey M M UK H H USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

103 98 3.., , , , ,,,,,,,. 47, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria L L Belgium M H Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep M L Denmark H H Finland H M France H M Germany M M Greece L M Hungary H M Iceland H H Ireland L H Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

104 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Luxembourg L H Mexico L L Netherlands M L New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland H H Portugal M M Slovakia M L Spain M H Sweden H M Switzerland L L Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

105 100 48, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria H M Belgium L H Canada H M Chile L L Czech Rep M L Denmark H H Finland H H France H M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M L Iceland M H Ireland M H Italy M L Japan L L Korea L M Luxembourg L L Mexico L M Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland M M Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H M Turkey L L UK M H USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

106 , , , ,,,,,,. 49, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L M Austria M H Belgium M M Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep H H Denmark M H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece M L Hungary H H Iceland H H Ireland L L Italy L M Japan M L Korea H M Luxembourg M M Mexico L L Netherlands H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

107 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean New Zealand M M Norway H H Poland M L Portugal L L Slovakia H H Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland L M Turkey L L UK M M USA L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle).,, (young) (old) , , , ,,,,,,.

108 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria M L Belgium M M Canada H M Chile H H Czech Rep L M Denmark M M Finland M L France M L Germany M L Greece L L Hungary L M Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy L L Japan H L Korea H H Luxembourg L H Mexico L H Netherlands H M New Zealand H H Norway M M Poland M M Portugal M L Slovakia L M Spain M M Sweden L L Switzerland M M Turkey L H UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

109 , , , ,,,,,,. 411, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H M Austria M H Belgium M M Canada H L Chile L M Czech Rep L M Denmark H H Finland H H France M L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H M Ireland M M Italy M M Japan M M Korea M M Luxembourg M H Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

110 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M H New Zealand H M Norway H H Poland L M Portugal M L Slovakia L M Spain L L Sweden H H Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK M H USA H L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

111 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria H H Belgium H H Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep H H Denmark M M Finland L M France L L Germany M M Greece M L Hungary M M Iceland M M Ireland M L Italy M L Japan H M Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L M Netherlands M M New Zealand L L Norway M H Poland L L Portugal M L Slovakia M M Spain L L Sweden L M Switzerland H H Turkey L M UK H H USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

112 4 107., , , , ,,,,,,. 413, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium M L Canada M M Chile M H Czech Rep M M Denmark M M Finland H M France M M Germany M H Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland M M Italy M M Japan H H Korea L L Luxembourg L M Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

113 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands H H New Zealand L L Norway H H Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia M M Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey H M UK H H USA L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

114 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M H Belgium L L Canada H H Chile L L Czech Rep L M Denmark H H Finland M M France L M Germany H H Greece M L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland H M Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg M M Mexico M M Netherlands H M New Zealand L L Norway H H Poland M M Portugal H M Slovakia L L Spain M H Sweden M H Switzerland M M Turkey M L UK M H USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

115 ,,., ,,,, ,,,, ,,, ,. 1995, , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

116 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Belgium M M Canada H H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland M M France M L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M M Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg H M Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand M H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal L M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

117 ,, , , , ,,,,,,. 416, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria L M Belgium M M Canada H H Chile M L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland M M France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M M Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

118 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway M H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain H M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle).,, , , , ,,,,,,.

119 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium M M Canada H M Chile L L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France M L Germany L H Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland H M Italy M M Japan M M Korea M M Luxembourg M M Mexico M L Netherlands H H New Zealand M H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain L L Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L M UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

120 4 115.,, , , , ,,,,,,. 418, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria H M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile M M Czech Rep M L Denmark H M Finland M M France M L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M M Japan L M Korea M M Luxembourg M M Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

121 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Norway M H Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L M Spain L L Sweden M M Switzerland H M Turkey L L UK H H USA M H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

122 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria L L Belgium L L Canada M M Chile L M Czech Rep M L Denmark L L Finland H H France H H Germany H L Greece L L Hungary L M Iceland L L Ireland L L Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg L L Mexico L M Netherlands H H New Zealand M M Norway M H Poland H M Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK H M USA M L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

123 , , , ,,,,,,. 420, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria L M Belgium M M Canada H H Chile M L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland M M France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M M Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

124 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway M H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain H M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

125 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada H M Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland H H France L L Germany M H Greece L L Hungary L M Iceland H M Ireland M M Italy M M Japan H M Korea M M Luxembourg L M Mexico M L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain M L Sweden H H Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

126 , , , ,,,,,,. 422, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L M Austria M M Belgium M M Canada H M Chile M L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland M H France M M Germany L M Greece L L Hungary M L Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy L L Japan M M Korea M M Luxembourg H H Mexico M L Netherlands H M New Zealand L M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

127 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Norway H H Poland L L Portugal H M Slovakia L M Spain L L Sweden M H Switzerland M H Turkey H H UK M M USA M L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,. 423, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

128 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria L L Belgium L L Canada H H Chile L M Czech Rep L L Denmark L L Finland M M France H H Germany L M Greece L L Hungary M M Iceland L L Ireland L L Italy M L Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg L L Mexico L L Netherlands M L New Zealand L L Norway H H Poland M M Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK H H USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

129 , , , ,,,,,,. 424, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria L L Belgium L L Canada H H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark L L Finland L M France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland L L Ireland L L Italy M M Japan L L Korea M L Luxembourg L L Mexico H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

130 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway M M Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain L L Sweden M M Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK H H USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

131 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L M Austria L L Belgium L L Canada H H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark L L Finland L M France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary M L Iceland L L Ireland L L Italy M H Japan L L Korea M L Luxembourg L L Mexico H H Netherlands M L New Zealand L M Norway M H Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain L L Sweden H M Switzerland H H Turkey H M UK M M USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

132 (Helping others) , , , ,,,,,,. 426, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria H M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile M M Czech Rep M L Denmark H M Finland M M France M L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M M Japan L M Korea M M Luxembourg M M Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

133 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Norway M H Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L M Spain L L Sweden M M Switzerland H M Turkey L L UK H H USA M H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) 4 1.,,,, ,,,, ,,

134 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium M M Canada M M Chile L M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France M M Germany H H Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland M M Italy M L Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

135 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) 2..,, , , , ,,,,,,.

136 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria H M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile L M Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland M H France L L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H M Ireland M H Italy L L Japan M L Korea M L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands M H New Zealand H H Norway H M Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L M Spain M M Sweden M M Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

137 132., , , , ,,,,,,. 429, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada H H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H M Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg M M Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

138 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

139 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria H M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland M H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea L M Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H M Poland L L Portugal M L Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden M H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK H M USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

140 , , , ,,,,,,. 431, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L L Austria H H Belgium H H Canada M L Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland H M France H H Germany H H Greece H H Hungary M M Iceland M L Ireland L L Italy H H Japan L M Korea L L Luxembourg M M Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

141 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M M New Zealand L M Norway M M Poland M M Portugal M H Slovakia M L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M M USA L M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle).,, , , ,,,,,,.

142 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France H M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland H H Italy M M Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand M M Norway H H Poland M M Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK M H USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

143 , , , ,,,,,,. 433, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile H H Czech Rep M M Denmark M H Finland M M France M L Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland M H Italy L L Japan H M Korea H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

144 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Luxembourg H H Mexico M L Netherlands M M New Zealand H H Norway M M Poland L L Portugal L L Slovakia L L Spain L M Sweden L M Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK H M USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,, 7 24,,.

145 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria H H Belgium H H Canada H H Chile L H Czech Rep M H Denmark H H Finland H H France M H Germany M H Greece L L Hungary M L Iceland H H Ireland H H Italy M L Japan M L Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland M H Portugal H H Slovakia L H Spain M H Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M H USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

146 , , , ,,,,,,. 435, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H M Austria H M Belgium H H Canada L M Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland M H France L M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H H Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea M L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

147 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M H New Zealand H M Norway H H Poland M L Portugal M M Slovakia L M Spain M L Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

148 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H M Austria H H Belgium M M Canada M M Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg M H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

149 , , , ,,,,,,. 437, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada H H Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland H M Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg M M Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

150 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

151 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile L M Czech Rep M L Denmark H H Finland H H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland M M Italy L L Japan M M Korea L M Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M L Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey L L UK M M USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

152 , , , ,,,,,,. 439, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M H Austria H M Belgium M M Canada M H Chile H M Czech Rep M M Denmark H H Finland M H France M M Germany M M Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland H M Italy L L Japan L M Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

153 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands H H New Zealand H H Norway M M Poland L L Portugal M L Slovakia L M Spain M L Sweden M H Switzerland M H Turkey L L UK H M USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,,.

154 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L L Austria H H Belgium H H Canada L L Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark H M Finland H H France H H Germany H H Greece M H Hungary M M Iceland L L Ireland L M Italy H H Japan M M Korea L L Luxembourg M M Mexico L L Netherlands M M New Zealand M L Norway M M Poland H M Portugal M H Slovakia M M Spain M H Sweden H M Switzerland M L Turkey L L UK M M USA L M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

155 , , , ,,,,,,. 441, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia L M Austria H H Belgium H M Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep M M Denmark M H Finland M M France H H Germany H H Greece M H Hungary H L Iceland H M Ireland L L Italy H H Japan L M Korea L L Luxembourg M L Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

156 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands M H New Zealand M M Norway H H Poland L L Portugal M M Slovakia M L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK L M USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,,.

157 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H H Austria M M Belgium M M Canada M M Chile M M Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France H H Germany H H Greece L L Hungary L L Iceland M M Ireland H H Italy M M Japan M M Korea M M Luxembourg H H Mexico M M Netherlands L L New Zealand H H Norway M M Poland H H Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain H H Sweden H H Switzerland L L Turkey M M UK M M USA H H : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

158 ODA , , , ,,,,,,. 443, Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia H M Austria M M Belgium H H Canada H M Chile L L Czech Rep M L Denmark H H Finland M H France H M Germany M M Greece M L Hungary M L Iceland M M Ireland M H Italy M L Japan M M Korea M L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

159 Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Netherlands H H New Zealand M M Norway H H Poland M L Portugal M M Slovakia M L Spain M M Sweden H H Switzerland H H Turkey M M UK M H USA M M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle) , , , ,,,,.

160 , Status Rank Level Country CAGR Change OECD Mean Australia M M Austria M M Belgium H H Canada M M Chile L L Czech Rep L L Denmark H H Finland H H France L M Germany H H Greece M M Hungary M M Iceland M L Ireland H H Italy H H Japan L L Korea L L Luxembourg H H Mexico L L Netherlands H H New Zealand M L Norway H M Poland M M Portugal M M Slovakia L L Spain M M Sweden M M Switzerland M M Turkey L L UK H H USA H M : Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

161 156 5,,.,,,.. (1995, 2000, 2005, 2012) OECD OECD ( ) 2000 ( ) , OECD OECD OECD.,. OECD

162 OECD , 1 GDP OECD 3,,. OECD OECD. 1 GDP 3 OECD 1 GDP OECD 3.

163 GDP (%) OECD OECD ,660 16, ,416 20, ,645 25, ,861 31,

164 ,, OECD % 40% OECD 30%

165 160 40% OECD 1., , , 25, 23, ,,,,,, (28), (30), (25), (26), (26), (30), (28), (29).,,

166 OECD rank level (30) L L (30) L L (30) L L (31) L M (30) H M (30) H M (31) H H (31) M M (31) L L (31) L M (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L 1) (25) L L (31) L L (31) M M (31) M M (31) M M 1 ) (20) L L : 1) OECD (). 2). Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

167 rank level (31) L L (31) M M 1) (21) M L 1) (21) M L (31) M M (31) L L (31) M L (31) H M (31) L L (31) M L (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L (31) L M (31) L M (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L (31) L L (31) M M (31) L L (31) L L : 1) OECD (). 2). Level 30% H(High), 30% L(Low), M(Middle)

168 OECD 1990(1995, 2000), 2000(2005, 2012), (1995~2012)., ,,., 1990, 2000,., ,,,,. 2000,,.

169 (1995, 2000, 2005, 2012) 1990 (1995, 2000) 2000 (2005, 2012) * * * * 0.85* 1 0.7* 0.87* * 0.85* 1 *p< , ,,,.,,,,,,,,.,,..,,,, ,.

170 5 165,,, ( ) * * 0.43* * * * 0.39* 0.63* 0.56* * * 0.64* 0.55* * 0.43* 0.52* 0.63* 0.5* 0.71* * 0.33* 0.61* 0.71* 0.74* 0.77* 0.83* * 0.31* 0.59* 0.68* 0.68* 0.8* 0.86* 0.95* * 0.4* 0.31* * 0.3* 0.28* * 0.34* 0.54* 0.69* 0.7* 0.54* 0.52* 0.7* 0.67* 0.38* 1 *p< (1990) * * 0.29* * * * 0.43* 0.59* 0.5* * 0.26* 0.63* 0.58* 0.55* * 0.48* 0.48* 0.6* 0.48* 0.72* * 0.41* 0.58* 0.7* 0.72* 0.79* 0.84* * 0.36* 0.58* 0.68* 0.64* 0.83* 0.85* 0.94* * 0.28* * 0.36* 0.35* * 0.29* 0.51* 0.71* 0.72* 0.56* 0.52* 0.72* 0.69* 0.35* 1 *p<0.05

171 (2000) * * 0.52* * 0.3* 0.6* * 0.6* 0.68* 0.6* * 0.31* 0.64* 0.69* 0.55* * 0.46* 0.54* 0.69* 0.54* 0.74* * 0.52* 0.67* 0.73* 0.77* 0.76* 0.85* * 0.53* 0.64* 0.71* 0.73* 0.77* 0.9* 0.96* * 0.4* 0.33* * * 0.41* 0.56* 0.7* 0.69* 0.55* 0.5* 0.7* 0.66* 0.37* 1 *p<0.05 1, , 1, , , , 2000,. 1990,

172 *p< * 0.52* 0.52* 0.64* 0.67* 0.66* 0.71* 0.72* 0.7* 0.32* 0.27* 0.29* 0.46* 0.39* 0.48* 0.68* 0.66* 0.67* 0.54* 0.54* 0.58* 0.58* 0.58* 0.6* 0.52* 0.56* 0.54* 0.61* 0.64* 0.57* 0.63* 0.66* 0.65* 0.64* 0.69* 0.64* 0.35* 0.36* 0.28* 0.65* 0.64* 0.66* 2 1.., 2012 Raw Data 10%. < 5-6> ,, 3 3, 3, 5 1..

173 Helping others ODA : 10%, 10%.,, OECD , 2000, 2005, 2012, % OECD , 2000, 2005, 2012

174 High, Middle, Low.. 10% < 5-7> 10%., 10%. 10%.,, 10% (30) Low 25 Low (30) Low 28 Low (30) Low 29 Low (31) Middle 15 Middle (30) Middle 8 High (30) Middle 11 Middle (31) High - - (31) Midd le - - : 1). 2),. 3) High 30%, Low 30%, Middle. 4) 10%, 10%.

175 (30) Low 25 Low (31) Low 29 Low (31) Middle 20 Middle (31) Low - - (31) Low - - (31) Low 19 Middle (31) Low 22 Middle (25) Low - - (31) Low 22 Middle (31) Middle 16 Middle (31) Midd le - - (31) Middle 13 Middle (20) Low - - (31) Middle 19 Middle (21) Low - - (21) Low - - (31) Middle 19 Middle (31) Low 26 Low (31) Low 21 Middle (31) Middle 7 High (31) Low - - (31) Low - - (31) Low 23 Low (31) Low - - (31) Low 23 Low (31) Middle 21 Middle (31) Middle 20 Middle (31) Low - - : 1). 2),. 3) High 30%, Low 30%, Middle. 4) 10%, 10%.

176 (31) Low 26 Low (31) Low 29 Low (31) Low 30 Low (31) Low - - (31) Low 25 Low (31) Midd le - - (31) Low 23 Low (31) Low - - : 1). 2),. 3) High 30%, Low 30%, Middle. 4) 10%, 10%.., %, OECD,.. 10%,.

177 OECD L L L 10% ,..,. 59 OECD L M M 10% 5,.,, OECD 10%

178 OECD H M M 511 () OECD H M H, 10% , %

179 174.,,, 10%. 10%,. 512 OECD L M M 513 () OECD L L L 10% OECD

180 OECD L L M 515 () OECD L L M, 10%... 10% 3,..

181 176.,.,, 10%. 516 OECD M M M 517 OECD M M M 518 () OECD L L M

182 % % OECD H M H 520 () OECD M L M 10%.,,,.. 10%

183 OECD, OECD OECD..,. 521 OECD L L L 522 OECD L M M 10%. OECD 10%.

184 ODA 10% OECD M L L,,,.,,,,.,., 10% 1

185 180, 6, 5, % 3, 2, 3. 10% 9, 1,..,. 10%.,.. OECD 31 < 524> OECD 31,, 1995, 2000, 2005, ,,, 2012, ,

186 5 181, ,,,,, ,, , 2020, ,,, ,.,,.,.,, 2020,.,,,,.

187 OECD (2015, 2020 ) (30) 26 L 27 L 27 L 27 L 0 (30) 29 L 28 L 28 L 28 L 0 (30) 30 L 30 L 29 L 29 L +1 (31) 27 L 21 M 17 M 11 M +10 (30) 1 H 12 M 11 M 11 M +1 (30) 7 H 16 M 19 M 21 M -5 (31) 1 H 3 H 4 H 8 H -5 (31) 21 M 15 M 4 H 7 H +8 (31) 29 L 30 L 28 L 28 L +2 (31) 23 L 22 M 23 L 22 M 0 (31) 31 L 29 L 29 L 27 L +2 (31) 26 L 31 L 31 L 31 L 0 (31) 24 L 23 L 22 M 22 M +1 (31) 30 L 25 L 25 L 23 L +2 (25) 23 L 23 L 22 L 21 L +2 (31) 30 L 25 L 25 L 23 L +2 (31) 13 M 18 M 20 M 20 M -2 (31) 20 M 20 M 21 M 22 M -2 (31) 14 M 15 M 15 M 16 M -1 (20) 18 L 18 L 18 L 18 L 0 (31) 22 M 22 M 22 M 22 M 0 (21) 14 M 16 L 16 L 16 L 0 (21) 15 L 20 L 20 L 20 L 0 (31) 22 M 22 M 22 M 22 M 0 : 1) H(High) 30%, L(Low) 30%, M(Middle). 2) (+) , (-) ), ),

188 (31) 24 L 23 L 22 M 22 M +1 (31) 30 L 25 L 25 L 23 L +2 (25) 23 L 23 L 22 L 21 L +2 (31) 30 L 25 L 25 L 23 L +2 (31) 13 M 18 M 20 M 20 M -2 (31) 20 M 20 M 21 M 22 M -2 (31) 14 M 15 M 15 M 16 M -1 (20) 18 L 18 L 18 L 18 L 0 (31) 22 M 22 M 22 M 22 M 0 (21) 14 M 16 L 16 L 16 L 0 (21) 15 L 20 L 20 L 20 L 0 (31) 22 M 22 M 22 M 22 M 0 (31) 28 L 27 L 26 L 24 L +3 (31) 21 M 26 L 26 L 27 L -1 (31) 8 H 18 M 21 M 25 L -7 (31) 28 L 26 L 25 L 25 L +1 (31) 21 M 26 L 26 L 27 L -1 (31) 28 L 23 L 23 L 21 M +2 (31) 27 L 24 L 23 L 22 M +2 (31) 28 L 24 L 24 L 22 M +2 (31) 27 L 21 M 21 M 18 M +3 (31) 23 L 21 M 20 M 17 M +4 (31) 29 L 26 L 24 L 20 M +6 (31) 31 L 29 L 29 L 29 L 0 (31) 30 L 30 L 30 L 29 L +1 (31) 31 L 28 L 27 L 23 L +5 (31) 26 L 25 L 24 L 24 L +1 (31) 18 M 16 M 13 M 13 M +3 (31) 29 L 24 L 21 M 19 M +5 (31) 29 L 29 L 29 L 29 L 0 : 1) H(High) 30%, L(Low) 30%, M(Middle). 2) (+) , (-) ), ),

189 184 < 525> 10% OECD % : 10%

190 5 185, ,,., %.., %,.,,,,, %,,.,.

191 186.,,,,. 10%.,. 3,,,, World Bank WDI GDP per capita, PPP(constant 2011 international $)

192 LUX LUX LUX LUX NOR NOR NOR NOR CHE CHE USA CHE USA USA CHE USA DNK DNK IRL AUT NLD IRL DNK IRL DEU NLD NLD NLD AUT AUT CAN AUS BEL CAN AUT DEU CAN BEL ISL SWE ITA DEU SWE CAN JPN AUS BEL DNK FRA SWE AUS BEL AUS ITA FIN ISL SWE FRA DEU FIN ISL ISL ITA FRA GBR FIN FRA JPN FIN JPN GBR GBR IRL GBR JPN ITA ESP ESP ESP NZL NZL NZL NZL KOR

193 GRC PRT GRC ESP PRT GRC PRT CZE CZE KOR KOR SVK KOR CZE CZE GRC HUN HUN HUN PRT SVK SVK SVK POL CHL MEX CHL HUN MEX CHL POL CHL TUR POL TUR TUR POL TUR MEX MEX ,, ,,.,,. < 527> 31 14). 30% 30%

194 ,, % 30% *p< % 30% 0.44* * * * * * * * * * * * ) Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.

195 190 < 528> ,,,, 4,,,. 4,,,, 4,,,,. 4,, ,,,. 4,,,,,,, 4,,, ~ Australia(148) Ireland(196) Korea(2521) Poland(3127) Sweden(1510) Belgium(237) Ireland(198) Luxembourg (2111) Spain(2722) Finland(1914) N ew Zealand(1 0 3) Norway(51) Portugal (2319) Slovakia(3026) Australia (1410) Belgium(1713) Luxembourg (84)

196 ~ Belgium(913) Denmark(512) Italy(1119) Japan(1217) Canada(615) Czech Rep.(1318) France(816) Netherlands (712) Poland(1519) Portugal (2024) USA(1823) Denmark(16) France(1624) Mexico(2530) Netherlands (27) USA(1217) 2.. (World Bank) (World Governance Indicator) 6 (voice and accountability). (voice and accountability),..

197 NZL NZL DNK NOR CAN FIN FIN SWE NLD SWE NLD DNK NOR NLD NZL CHE DNK CAN NOR NZL FIN DNK IRL LUX SWE NOR ISL NLD PRT ISL CHE FIN LUX AUS SWE AUS ISL LUX LUX AUT AUT CHE AUS ISL BEL IRL CAN CAN AUS BEL FRA DEU CHE PRT DEU BEL IRL USA GBR GBR USA GBR PRT IRL DEU AUT BEL FRA ESP DEU AUT USA FRA ESP USA JPN GBR HUN CHL CHL ITA FRA HUN ESP JPN POL ESP POL POL ITA GRC PRT HUN GRC ITA SVK CZE JPN JPN CZE GRC CHL SVK ITA

198 CHL SVK POL HUN SVK CZE CZE KOR KOR KOR KOR GRC MEX MEX MEX MEX TUR TUR TUR TUR ,,, < 529> %,, ,,. < 530> 31..

199 194 30% 30% 30%. 30%. 30%. 30% % 30% *p< % 30% 0.69* * * * 0.87* * * * 0.84* * * * 0.83* * 0.82* * * < 531> (voice and accountability) 20 4

200 ,,,,,,. 4,,,,.,., ~ Australia(139) Chile(2720) Germany (1713) Slovakia(2824) Sweden(72) Switzerland (144) UK(2015) Belgium(237) Ireland(198) Luxembourg (2111) Spain(2722) Finland(1914) New Zealand(103) Norway(51) Portugal (2319) Slovakia(3026) Australia (1410) Belgium(1713) Luxembourg (84) 1995~ Canada(212) Italy(2126) Netherlands (37) New Zealand(15) Portugal(823) Canada(615) Czech Rep.(1318) France(816) Netherlands (712) Poland(1519) Portugal (2024) USA(1823) Denmark(16) France(1624) Mexico(2530) Netherlands (27) USA(1217)

201 (World Bank) (World Governance Indicator) 6 (Political Stability) NLD NLD FIN CHE NOR FIN ISL FIN SWE LUX LUX NZL CHE ISL SWE LUX DNK IRL IRL AUT FIN CHE NOR NOR AUS NOR NZL ISL AUT DNK CHE NLD LUX PRT AUT SWE IRL DEU DNK CAN ISL SWE PRT SVK NZL NZL JPN CZE PRT AUS HUN POL BEL JPN NLD AUS DEU CAN CZE JPN CAN BEL AUS IRL

202 JPN USA DEU DNK CZE GBR CHL BEL ITA ITA SVK DEU GBR HUN CAN PRT HUN AUT BEL HUN USA FRA GRC USA FRA GRC ITA FRA SVK SVK KOR ITA POL CHL FRA GBR CHL ESP POL CHL KOR KOR ESP KOR GRC CZE GBR ESP ESP POL USA GRC MEX MEX MEX MEX TUR TUR TUR TUR ,, %. 20,. < 532> ,

203 198, % % % 30% *p< % 30% 0.70* * 0.73* * * * * * * * * * * * < 534> 20 4.

204 ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,.,., ~ Canada(1610) Czech Rep.(1812) Finland(62) Iceland(117) Luxembourg (94) New Zealand (123) Poland(2513) Slovakia(2411) Belgium(237) Ireland(198) Luxembourg (2111) Spain(2722) Finland(1914) New Zealand(103) Norway(51) Portugal (2319) Slovakia(3026) Australia (1410) Belgium(1713) Luxembourg (84) 1995~ Australia(714) Belgium(1418) Denmark(517) Germany (1519) Ireland(1016) Italy(1924) Netherlands (18) Norway(26) Portugal(1320) Sweden(41) UK(2025) Canada(615) Czech Rep.(1318) France(816) Netherlands (712) Poland(1519) Portugal (2024) USA(1823) Denmark(16) France(1624) Mexico(2530) Netherlands (27) USA(1217)

205 (World Bank) (World Governance Indicator) (government effectiveness).,,,. < 535> %,, LUX FIN FIN FIN NOR NLD DNK DNK NLD CHE ISL SWE SWE ISL NLD NOR NZL DNK CAN CHE DNK SWE SWE NLD

206 CHE LUX CHE NZL CAN CAN NOR CAN GBR AUT LUX LUX AUT NOR AUS AUS FIN DEU GBR BEL DEU GBR NZL DEU BEL USA BEL AUT ISL ESP IRL IRL USA BEL AUT GBR IRL AUS FRA USA AUS FRA USA ISL ESP IRL DEU JPN FRA NZL ESP FRA CHL JPN JPN CHL PRT CHL CHL KOR JPN PRT PRT ESP HUN HUN KOR PRT ITA ITA CZE CZE GRC KOR SVK SVK POL GRC HUN POL KOR CZE GRC HUN CZE POL ITA ITA SVK SVK POL TUR MEX MEX TUR MEX TUR TUR MEX GRC

207 202 < 536> % %. 30%. 30% % 30% *p< % 30% 0.62* * * * 0.79* * * * 0.81* * * * * * 0.73* 0.83*

208 5 203 < 537> (government effectiveness) ,,,,,,. 4,,,,, , ~ Australia (1710) Czech Rep.(2824) Denmark(62) Finland(111) Japan(2218) Korea(2721) Slovakia(2925) Belgium(237) Ireland(198) Luxembourg (2111) Spain(2722) Finland(1914) New Zealand(103) Norway(51) Portugal (2319) Slovakia(3026) Australia (1410) Belgium(1713) Luxembourg (84)

209 ~ Greece(2531) Hungary (2327) Italy(2428) Luxembourg (111) Spain(1822) UK(915) Canada(615) Czech Rep.(1318) France(816) Netherlands (712) Poland(1519) Portugal (2024) USA(1823) Denmark(16) France(1624) Mexico(2530) Netherlands (27) USA(1217) 5. (World Bank) (World Governance Indicator) 6 (control of corruption).. < 5 38> 5 80%,,

210 DNK FIN FIN DNK FIN DNK ISL NZL SWE SWE DNK SWE NOR NZL NZL NOR NZL ISL CHE FIN NLD NLD SWE CHE CAN NOR NOR NLD GBR GBR AUS LUX CHE CAN NLD AUS LUX CHE AUT CAN DEU LUX GBR ISL AUT AUS CAN DEU AUS AUT DEU GBR IRL DEU LUX JPN ISL USA IRL CHL USA CHL USA BEL PRT BEL CHL IRL CHL IRL FRA FRA BEL FRA BEL USA FRA ESP ESP AUT JPN JPN JPN ESP ESP PRT PRT PRT CZE GRC HUN POL HUN ITA KOR KOR POL HUN SVK HUN

211 ITA POL CZE CZE SVK KOR ITA TUR GRC SVK GRC SVK KOR CZE POL ITA TUR MEX TUR GRC MEX TUR MEX MEX < 539> 30.,. 30%.,,.,,.

212 % 30% *p< % 30% 0.75* 0.87* * * 0.75* 0.80* 0.82* * * * 0.82* * * * 0.82* * * 0.85* 0.67* < 540> ,,,. 4,,

213 ~ ~ Finland(1914) Belgium(237) New Australia Australia(139) Ireland(198) Zealand(103) (1410) Iceland(1511) Luxembourg Norway(51) Belgium(1713) Japan(2114) (2111) Portugal Luxembourg Korea(2924) Spain(2722) (2319) (84) Slovakia(3026) Austria(1220) Portugal(1722) UK(813) Canada(615) Czech Rep.(1318) France(816) Netherlands (712) Poland(1519) Portugal (2024) USA(1823) Denmark(16) France(1624) Mexico(2530) Netherlands (27) USA(1217)

214 ,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.

215 210,, , , 42.9% ( 13)., ( 57) 26.6%, (4, ) 30.5%

216 6 211 < 61> ( ) () ( ) (7 ) 26.6% 5~7 30.5% % 1~3?.,.,.,.,,.,

217 212.,.,.,.,. < 62> (7 ) / 2.9 // 4.02 / 3.98 / 3.78 // 4.95

218 (7 ) 3.09 / `2.93 // 3.68 / 3.52 / 3.78 // ~ ~ ~ ~ , 30.,. 2...,

219 214.,.,,,,,, 7, , 4.85, 4.76, (4.60), (4.57), (4.48). 5,,,., 5. < 63> 5 (A) (B) B-A T *** *** *** *** ** *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001

220 ( - ).., ( 0.600). < 64> *** ***.656*** ***.528***.600*** ***.463***.482***.520*** ***.361***.328***.416***.430*** ***.455***.533***.461***.469***.507*** ***.440***.431***.478***.389***.415***.496*** 1 ***: p<.001

221 216 3,,, 100.,, 100, , 31.19, 33.34,.. 65 : () (100.00) ( 66) , 31.25, 33.24,

222 6 217.,,,., 30.46, 39.82, , 24.55, (21.60 ), (20.70), (18.84), (14.31). 66 : () (100.00) () (100.00) () (100.00) -

223 218,...,,. 4.,, 5. 7, 1, 4, 7. 4,. 5 paired T-test. 1.

224 6 219, 4. 5.,. 4,. 67 (A) 5 (B) *** B-A T *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001 5,,,,.,..,,

225 220,,, ( ).. 5, (A) (B) B-A T *** *** 15) *** *** *** *** *** *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001

226 ,. (). 12 (), 2014, (). (). 69 (A) 5 (B) B-A T *** *** *** *** *** *** () *** *** *** * *** ** *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p< ),,. 12, ,.

227 222 3., 7 4.,.,. OECD.,..,. KSP, ODA. 610 (A) 5 (B) B-A *** *** *** *** * T

228 (A) 5 (B) B-A *** *** *** *** *** *** *: p<.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001 T,.,. 5..,,.

229 [ 6-1],. OECD,.

Vol.266 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Vol.266 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2018.08Vol.266 C O N T E N T S 02 06 30 48 54 66 80 120 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2018.8 3 4 2018.8 1) 6 2018.8 2) 7 8 2018.8 3) 9 4) 5) 6) 10 2018.8 7) 8) 9) 10) 11 12 2018.8

More information

2040 2010 6 11 - - - - - - 03 - -,,, - 08 8 15 < > - - -,, - / 04 2040 100,, -, 05 - -- - - KOREA 2040, 06 - - - - - - - 69(2010) 88(2040) - 2.56 2.10, 65 7.6% 14.2% 18% 15%, 65 16% 25% - -,, 56.7(2010)

More information

기획7.hwp

기획7.hwp 2014 사회정책연합 공동학술대회 한국사회의 사회안전망을 점검한다 복지확대기의 조세재정정책방향: 지방재정과의 연계 1) 최 성 은 (한국조세재정연구원) 1. 서론 최근 우리나라는 복지정책에 있어서 상당한 패러다임의 변화를 맞이하며 급격하게 복지확대기로 접어들고 있다. 현 정부의 무상보육, 의료보장성 확대, 기초연금의 도입 등은 그간 저소득층 및 취약계층 위주의

More information

Main Title

Main Title 2003 5140001 IMD WCY IMD 2003 (, 54 ), Competitiveness Valuation International, Inc. Korea Partner of IMD WCY jeong@cvikorea.net page 1 2003, Jin-Ho Jeong, CVI, Korea Partner of IMD +41-25-618-0251 Fax

More information

- 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - - 15 - - 16 - - 17 - - 18 - - 19 - - 20 - - 21 - - 22 - - 23 - - 24 - - 25 - - 26 - - 27 - - 28 - - 29 - - 30 -

More information

±§ 60¡ÿ ‚±‚ ‰«•¡ˆ

±§  60¡ÿ ‚±‚ ‰«•¡ˆ 여성고용정책을 통해 본 장애인고용정책의 시사점 이 금 진(기초연구팀) I. 검토 배경 최근 우리나라에서도 교과서의 단일민족 이라는 용어가 차별로 인식될 만큼 다 양성 다문화 에 대한 관심이 증가됨 농촌지역을 중심으로 외국계 여성과의 혼인율이 35.9%로 이 늘어나고 있으며 (통계청, 2006), 코시안(Kosian)을 비롯하여 다양한 혼혈자녀, 외국인 노동자

More information

IDP www idp or kr IDP 정책연구 한국경제의구조적문제와개혁방향 민주정책연구원 The Institute for Democracy and Policies

IDP www idp or kr IDP 정책연구 한국경제의구조적문제와개혁방향 민주정책연구원 The Institute for Democracy and Policies IDP 정책연구 2011-13 www.idp.or.kr IDP 정책연구 2011-13 한국경제의 구조적 문제와 개혁방향 The Institute for Democracy and Policies 서울시 영등포구 영등포동 6가 133번지 민주정책연구원 Tel : 02.2630.0114 Fax : 02.2630.0194 민주정책연구원 민주정책연구원 IDP 정책연구

More information

#Ȳ¿ë¼®

#Ȳ¿ë¼® http://www.kbc.go.kr/ A B yk u δ = 2u k 1 = yk u = 0. 659 2nu k = 1 k k 1 n yk k Abstract Web Repertoire and Concentration Rate : Analysing Web Traffic Data Yong - Suk Hwang (Research

More information

[<1107><1169><11AB><1106><116E><11AB>] 2015<1102><1167><11AB> 7<110B><116F><11AF><1112><1169>-<110E><116C><110C><1169><11BC>.pdf

[<1107><1169><11AB><1106><116E><11AB>] 2015<1102><1167><11AB> 7<110B><116F><11AF><1112><1169>-<110E><116C><110C><1169><11BC>.pdf 21 1) 2) 22 2015.7 1981~1984 10 1982 970 1990~1994 18 1990 1,251 1995~1999 57 1996 1,249 2000~2004 41 2001 1,200 2005~2009 58 2005 1,200 2010~2014 60 2010 1,200 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 23 10) 11) 0.330 0.340

More information

09김정식.PDF

09김정식.PDF 00-09 2000. 12 ,,,,.,.,.,,,,,,.,,..... . 1 1 7 2 9 1. 9 2. 13 3. 14 3 16 1. 16 2. 21 3. 39 4 43 1. 43 2. 52 3. 56 4. 66 5. 74 5 78 1. 78 2. 80 3. 86 6 88 90 Ex e cu t iv e Su m m a r y 92 < 3-1> 22 < 3-2>

More information

2월1일자.hwp

2월1일자.hwp 제 26 권 2호 통권 570호 국가별 디지털 네이티브(digital natives) 현황과 IDI(ICT Development Index) 7) 고 흥 석 * 1. 개 요 2001년 마크 프렌스키(Marc Prensky)는 오늘날 학생들을 일컬어 컴퓨터와 비디오 게임, 각종 인터넷 등의 디지털 언어에 대해 네이티브 스피커(native speaker)와 같다

More information

2017.09 Vol.255 C O N T E N T S 02 06 26 58 63 78 99 104 116 120 122 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2017.9 3 4 2017.9 6 2017.9 7 8 2017.9 13 0 13 1,007 3 1,004 (100.0) (0.0) (100.0)

More information

- i - - ii - - iii - - iv - - v - - vi - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - 1) 통계청고시제 2010-150 호 (2010.7.6 개정, 2011.1.1 시행 ) - 4 - 요양급여의적용기준및방법에관한세부사항에따른골밀도검사기준 (2007 년 11 월 1 일시행 ) - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 -

More information

untitled

untitled 국문요약....,,... 2,,. 3.,. 4. 5. Abstract Demographic change is greatly accelerating owing to the increasingly low birth rate and aging population in Korea. In particular, the increase in the number of elderly

More information

<3136365FB4EBB1B8BDC320BAB8B0C7BAB9C1F6C5EBB0E8BFACBAB820B9DFB0A320BFACB1B85FBEF6B1E2BAB92E687770>

<3136365FB4EBB1B8BDC320BAB8B0C7BAB9C1F6C5EBB0E8BFACBAB820B9DFB0A320BFACB1B85FBEF6B1E2BAB92E687770> 연구보고서 2007 DAEGU-GYEONGBUK DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE 대구시 보건복지통계연보 발간 연구 엄 기 복 대구경북연구원 차 례 차 례 요 약 ⅰ~ⅴ 제1장 서 론 3 1.연구의 목적 및 범위 3 가. 연구배경 3 나. 연구의 목적 4 2. 연구방법 및 내용 4 가. 연구방법 4 나. 연구내용 5 제2장 보건복지통계관리현황 9 1.

More information

C.PÀÛ¾÷

C.PÀÛ¾÷ HP A/S, HP ,,,. HP. HP 3 A/S. HP.,,, HP Financing ( ).,. HP,.,,,. 24x7, 4 ( ). HP Technology@Work IT. PC.,,,,.. HP.,, HP,,. , ROI ( ).. HP 1,,. 1 HP HP. 90 HP (Post carepack). 2. Premium Service email

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.1-19 DOI: *,..,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.1-19 DOI:   *,..,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,, ( ) Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.1-19 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.26.1.201604.1 *,..,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,, ( ).,,,. * 2014. 2015. ** 1, : (E-mail: cajoo@pusan.ac.kr)

More information

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö Disability & Employment 55 Disability & Employment 56 57 Disability & Employment 58 59 Disability & Employment 60 61 Disability & Employment 62 63 Disability & Employment 64 65 Disability & Employment

More information

<BFA9BCBAC0C720C1F7BEF7B4C9B7C220B0B3B9DFB0FA20C3EBBEF7C1F6BFF820C1A4C3A5B0FAC1A62E687770>

<BFA9BCBAC0C720C1F7BEF7B4C9B7C220B0B3B9DFB0FA20C3EBBEF7C1F6BFF820C1A4C3A5B0FAC1A62E687770> 연령계층별 경제활동 참가율 추이 (여자) 참가율 (%) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 18-19 20-21 22-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ 연 령 1990 2005 남 자 단 위 : 천 명 9 0 0 0 7 6 9 6 7 0 0 0 5 9 8 1 5 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 3

More information

- iii - - i - - ii - - iii - 국문요약 종합병원남자간호사가지각하는조직공정성 사회정체성과 조직시민행동과의관계 - iv - - v - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - α α α α - 15 - α α α α α α

More information

Vol.256 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Vol.256 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2017.10Vol.256 C O N T E N T S 02 06 32 68 97 129 149 155 165 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2017.10 3 4 2017.10 6 2017.10 7 1) 2) 3) 8 2017.10 4) 9 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0

More information

Output file

Output file 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 An Application for Calculation and Visualization of Narrative Relevance of Films Using Keyword Tags Choi Jin-Won (KAIST) Film making

More information

11¹Ú´ö±Ô

11¹Ú´ö±Ô A Review on Promotion of Storytelling Local Cultures - 265 - 2-266 - 3-267 - 4-268 - 5-269 - 6 7-270 - 7-271 - 8-272 - 9-273 - 10-274 - 11-275 - 12-276 - 13-277 - 14-278 - 15-279 - 16 7-280 - 17-281 -

More information

大学4年生の正社員内定要因に関する実証分析

大学4年生の正社員内定要因に関する実証分析 190 2016 JEL Classification Number J24, I21, J20 Key Words JILPT 2011 1 190 Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of Success in Full-Time Job-Search for Japanese University Students By Hiroko ARAKI and

More information

- i - - ii - - iii - - iv - - v - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - - 15 - - 16 - - 17 - - 18 - - 19 - α α - 20 - α α α α α α - 21 - - 22 - - 23 -

More information

DV690-N_KOR_110216.indd

DV690-N_KOR_110216.indd P/NO : MFL63266772 3 1 4 1 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 7 7 r t y u i - - - -, 7 1, 8 1 1 3 6 8 10 11 13? 12 14 15 16 17 18 a 1 b B c d e f c/v g C/V h M i Z j z k l 2 4 5 7 9 m w/s/a/d n b o p x q [ ] } r?

More information

untitled

untitled Research Center Are We Different? 동양공사채 분석 21 11 11 22 22 33 33 11 글로벌위기의 11 他山之石 22 지자체 및 공사채 22 신용분석 33 33 부록_해외 지방채 부도사례 금융시장팀 Are We Different? Part 1 Market Analyst 377-3556 gaston@myasset.com (%)

More information

212년 하반기 금리전망 및 채권투자전략 그림 1 주요국 국채1년 금리 추이 (%) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Spain Italy Korea Malaysia China Australia US UK Germany Japan 27 28 29 21 211 212 자료:

212년 하반기 금리전망 및 채권투자전략 그림 1 주요국 국채1년 금리 추이 (%) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Spain Italy Korea Malaysia China Australia US UK Germany Japan 27 28 29 21 211 212 자료: 조사 연구 212년 하반기 금리전망 및 채권투자전략 신동준 / 동부증권 리서치센터 투자전략본부장 Ⅰ. 212년 하반기 금리전망 Ⅱ. 유로존 해법과 국내외 펀더멘털 여건 점검 Ⅲ. 통화정책과 물가, 외국인의 자금이탈 우려 Ⅳ. 글로벌경제와 Re-decoupling Story Ⅰ. 212년 하반기 금리전망 안전자산 선호로 글로벌 국채금리는 사상 최저치까지 하락

More information

歯1.PDF

歯1.PDF 200176 .,.,.,. 5... 1/2. /. / 2. . 293.33 (54.32%), 65.54(12.13%), / 53.80(9.96%), 25.60(4.74%), 5.22(0.97%). / 3 S (1997)14.59% (1971) 10%, (1977).5%~11.5%, (1986)

More information

04-다시_고속철도61~80p

04-다시_고속철도61~80p Approach for Value Improvement to Increase High-speed Railway Speed An effective way to develop a highly competitive system is to create a new market place that can create new values. Creating tools and

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI:   * A Study on Teache Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.149-171 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.27.4.201712.149 * A Study on Teachers and Parents Perceptions on the Introduction of Innovational

More information

<BFACBCBCC0C7BBE7C7D02831302031203139292E687770>

<BFACBCBCC0C7BBE7C7D02831302031203139292E687770> 延 世 醫 史 學 제12권 제2호: 29-40, 2009년 12월 Yonsei J Med Hist 12(2): 29-40, 2009 특집논문 3 한국사회의 낙태에 대한 인식변화 이 현 숙 이화여대 한국문화연구원 1. 들어가며 1998년 내가 나이 마흔에 예기치 않은 임신을 하게 되었을 때, 내 주변 사람들은 모두 들 너무나도 쉽게 나에게 임신중절을 권하였다.

More information

<C0CEBCE2BFEB5FBFACB1B85F323031342D32322D3528BAAFBCF6C1A4295F3135303431355FBCF6C1A42E687770>

<C0CEBCE2BFEB5FBFACB1B85F323031342D32322D3528BAAFBCF6C1A4295F3135303431355FBCF6C1A42E687770> 연구보고서 2014-22-5 동아시아 국가의 다문화가족 현황 및 정책 비교연구 변수정 조성호 이상림 서희정 정준호 이윤석 책임연구자 변수정 한국보건사회연구원 부연구위원 주요저서 저출산 고령사회 대응 국민 인식 및 욕구 모니터링 시스템 운영 한국보건사회연구원, 2013(공저) 공동연구진 조성호 한국보건사회연구원 부연구위원 이상림 한국보건사회연구원 부연구위원 서희정

More information

07_À±¿ø±æ3ÀüºÎ¼öÁ¤

07_À±¿ø±æ3ÀüºÎ¼öÁ¤ 232 233 1) 2) Agenda 3) 4) 234 Invention Capital Agenda 5) 6) 235 7) 8) 9) 236 10) 11) 237 12) 13) 14) 15) knowledge 16) 17) 238 239 18) 240 19) 241 20) 242 243 244 21) 245 22) 246 23) 247 24) 248 25)

More information

±×¸°¸®Æ÷Æ® ³»Áö5Â÷

±×¸°¸®Æ÷Æ® ³»Áö5Â÷ 04 Netherlands 1 GREEN REPORT 2010 Vol.10 05 06 GREEN REPORT 2010 Vol.10 07 08 Japan 2 GREEN REPORT 2010 Vol.10 09 10 Hong Kong 3 GREEN REPORT 2010 Vol.10 11 12 Switzerland 4 GREEN REPORT 2010 Vol.10 13

More information

06_À̼º»ó_0929

06_À̼º»ó_0929 150 151 alternative investment 1) 2) 152 NPE platform invention capital 3) 153 sale and license back 4) 154 5) 6) 7) 155 social welfare 8) 156 GDP 9) 10) 157 Patent Box Griffith EUROSTAT 11) OTC M&A 12)

More information

` Companies need to play various roles as the network of supply chain gradually expands. Companies are required to form a supply chain with outsourcing or partnerships since a company can not

More information

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006; ,,.. 400,,,,,,.,,, -, -, -., 3.. :, Tel : 010-9540-0640, E-mail : sunney05@hanmail.net ,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012).

More information

WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disabi

WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disabi WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 2004. 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disability)..,,. (WHO) 2001 ICF. ICF,.,.,,. (disability)

More information

민속지_이건욱T 최종

민속지_이건욱T 최종 441 450 458 466 474 477 480 This book examines the research conducted on urban ethnography by the National Folk Museum of Korea. Although most people in Korea

More information

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 - - i - - i - - ii - - iii - - iv - χ - v - - vi - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - 그림 1. 연구대상자선정도표 - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - 그림 2. 연구의틀 χ - 9 - - 10 - - 11 -

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA The e-business Studies Volume 17, Number 4, August, 30, 2016:319~332 Received: 2016/07/28, Accepted: 2016/08/28 Revised: 2016/08/27, Published: 2016/08/30 [ABSTRACT] This paper examined what determina

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA The e-business Studies Volume 17, Number 6, December, 30, 2016:275~289 Received: 2016/12/02, Accepted: 2016/12/22 Revised: 2016/12/20, Published: 2016/12/30 [ABSTRACT] SNS is used in various fields. Although

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI:   (NCS) Method of Con Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.181-212 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.27.3.201709.181 (NCS) Method of Constructing and Using the Differentiated National Competency

More information

Microsoft Word - NEW08_prof. Ma

Microsoft Word - NEW08_prof. Ma 한국정당의 복지정책과 선거 마인섭(성균관대학교) 1. 서론 이 글은 2010년 이후 복지가 정치의 중요한 쟁점이 된 사회경제의 구조와 정치과정에 관한 연구이다. 2010년 이후 한국정치는 복지국가담론으로 소용돌이치고 있으며 이 복지정치가 선거와 정당을 중심으로 일어나고 있다. 2012년 국회의원선거와 대통령선거를 앞두고 사회복지가 정치권의 핵심화두로 등장하고

More information

2011´ëÇпø2µµ 24p_0628

2011´ëÇпø2µµ 24p_0628 2011 Guide for U.S. Graduate School Admissions Table of Contents 02 03 04 05 06 08 09 10 11 13 15 21 LEADERS UHAK INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS SERVICE www.leadersuhak.com Leaders Uhak International Students

More information

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특 한국도시행정학회 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 2012. 12 : pp.231~251 생활지향형 요소의 근린주거공간 분포특성 연구: 경기도 시 군을 중심으로* Spatial Distribution of Daily Life-Oriented Features in the Neighborhood: Focused on Municipalities of Gyeonggi Province

More information

<C7F6B4EBBACFC7D1BFACB1B8203136B1C72033C8A328313331323330292E687770>

<C7F6B4EBBACFC7D1BFACB1B8203136B1C72033C8A328313331323330292E687770> 현대북한연구, 16권 3호(2013), C 2013 북한대학원대학교 북한미시연구소, pp.272~304. 김정은 시대의 대( 對 )러시아 정책 지속과 변화 박정민(북한대학원대학교) 이 연구는 김정일 사망 이후 북한의 대( 對 )러시아 정책이 어떻게 변화하고 있고, 어떠한 성격을 띠고 있는지를 분석한다. 특히, 김정은 체제의 대러 시아 정책이 김정일 시대의 대러시아

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI:   * A Research Trend Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.295-318 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.4.201812.295 * A Research Trend on the Studies related to Parents of Adults with Disabilities

More information

........pdf 16..

........pdf 16.. Abstract Prospects of and Tasks Involving the Policy of Revitalization of Traditional Korean Performing Arts Yong-Shik, Lee National Center for Korean Traditional Performing Arts In the 21st century, the

More information

13.11 ①초점

13.11 ①초점 11 2013 Health and Welfare Policy Forum 2 3 4 The Roles and Fiscal Responsibility on Social Security between the Central and Local Governments in Korea 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Structure

More information

... 수시연구 국가물류비산정및추이분석 Korean Macroeconomic Logistics Costs in 권혁구ㆍ서상범...

... 수시연구 국가물류비산정및추이분석 Korean Macroeconomic Logistics Costs in 권혁구ㆍ서상범... ... 수시연구 2013-01.. 2010 국가물류비산정및추이분석 Korean Macroeconomic Logistics Costs in 2010... 권혁구ㆍ서상범... 서문 원장 김경철 목차 표목차 그림목차 xi 요약 xii xiii xiv xv xvi 1 제 1 장 서론 2 3 4 제 2 장 국가물류비산정방법 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

More information

untitled

untitled Quant Analyst 3774-178 YoungJean@miraeasset.com Quant RA 3774-648 dajungky@miraeasset.com Monthly Update The Guiding Light Asia Pacific / Country Feb 26, 28 Asia Pacific Country Earnings & Valuation Asia

More information

<32382DC3BBB0A2C0E5BED6C0DA2E687770>

<32382DC3BBB0A2C0E5BED6C0DA2E687770> 논문접수일 : 2014.12.20 심사일 : 2015.01.06 게재확정일 : 2015.01.27 청각 장애자들을 위한 보급형 휴대폰 액세서리 디자인 프로토타입 개발 Development Prototype of Low-end Mobile Phone Accessory Design for Hearing-impaired Person 주저자 : 윤수인 서경대학교 예술대학

More information

Á¶´öÈñ_0304_final.hwp

Á¶´öÈñ_0304_final.hwp 제조 중소기업의 고용창출 성과 및 과제 조덕희 양현봉 우리 경제에서 일자리 창출은 가장 중요한 정책과제입니다. 근래 들어 우리 사회에서 점차 심각성을 더해 가고 있는 청년 실업 문제에 대처하고, 사회적 소득 양극화 문제에 대응하기 위해서도 일자리 창 출은 무엇보다도 중요한 정책과제일 것입니다. 고용창출에서는 중소기업의 역할이 대기업보다 크다는 것이 일반적

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA 27(2), 2007, 96-121 S ij k i POP j a i SEXR j i AGER j i BEDDAT j ij i j S ij S ij POP j SEXR j AGER j BEDDAT j k i a i i i L ij = S ij - S ij ---------- S ij S ij = k i POP j a i SEXR j i AGER j i BEDDAT

More information

12È«±â¼±¿Ü339~370

12È«±â¼±¿Ü339~370 http://www.kbc.go.kr/ k Si 2 i= 1 Abstract A Study on Establishment of Fair Trade Order in Terrestrial Broadcasting Ki - Sun Hong (Professor, Dept. of Journalism & Mass Communication,

More information

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA 최소임차기간은 2 일입니다. 최대임차기간은 14 일입니다. 제한사항은국가별로적용될수있습니다. 일반차량이용시 국가기간할인율차량픽업기간적용차량이용제한기간제한사항 미국 & 캐나다 유럽 USA ALL 15% 12/02/2018 to 23/03/2018 ALL N/A CANADA ALL 15% 12/02/2018 to 23/03/2018 ALL N/A BELGIUM

More information

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA 최소임차기간은 2 일입니다. 최대임차기간은 14 일입니다. 제한사항은국가별로적용될수있습니다. 일반차량이용시 국가기간할인율차량픽업기간적용차량이용제한기간제한사항 미국 & 캐나다 유럽 USA ALL 20% 04/01/2018 to 23/03/2018 ALL N/A CANADA ALL 20% 04/01/2018 to 23/03/2018 ALL N/A BELGIUM

More information

Microsoft PowerPoint - Freebairn, John_ppt

Microsoft PowerPoint - Freebairn, John_ppt Tax Mix Change John Freebairn Outline General idea of a tax mix change Some detailed policy options Importance of casting assessment in the context of a small open economy Economic effects of a tax mix

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI:   * Strenghening the Cap Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.27-43 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.3.201809.27 * Strenghening the Capacity of Cultural Arts Required in Special Education

More information

<BFA9BAD02DB0A1BBF3B1A4B0ED28C0CCBCF6B9FC2920B3BBC1F62E706466>

<BFA9BAD02DB0A1BBF3B1A4B0ED28C0CCBCF6B9FC2920B3BBC1F62E706466> 001 002 003 004 005 006 008 009 010 011 2010 013 I II III 014 IV V 2010 015 016 017 018 I. 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 III. 041 042 III. 043

More information

歯주5일본문.PDF

歯주5일본문.PDF ECO 2002-10 2002. 8 5, .. Tel : 3771-0496, Fax : 3771-0110, E-mail : css@fki.or.kr < > 1 5 17. 19. 5 (2002. 5. 23) 22. (2002. 7. 22) 25 5 27. 29. 31. 36. 42 5 45. 47. 51. 52. 53 5 55. 57. 63. 65 . 71.

More information

A Study on Married Female Immigrants Life Style and Marriage Satisfaction in Terms of Preparing Their Old Age in Chungcheongnam-do Department of Gerontology, Hoseo University Doctoral Student : Hi Ran

More information

장양수

장양수 한국문학논총 제70집(2015. 8) 333~360쪽 공선옥 소설 속 장소 의 의미 - 명랑한 밤길, 영란, 꽃같은 시절 을 중심으로 * 1)이 희 원 ** 1. 들어가며 - 장소의 인간 차 2. 주거지와 소유지 사이의 집/사람 3. 취약함의 나눔으로서의 장소 증여 례 4. 장소 소속감과 미의식의 가능성 5.

More information

05-08 087ÀÌÁÖÈñ.hwp

05-08 087ÀÌÁÖÈñ.hwp 산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석(이주희) ꌙ 87 노 동 정 책 연 구 2005. 제5권 제2호 pp. 87118 c 한 국 노 동 연 구 원 산별교섭에 대한 평가 및 만족도의 영향요인 분석: 보건의료노조의 사례 이주희 * 2004,,,.. 1990. : 2005 4 7, :4 7, :6 10 * (jlee@ewha.ac.kr) 88 ꌙ 노동정책연구

More information

204 205

204 205 -Road Traffic Crime and Emergency Evacuation - 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Abstract Road Traffic Crime

More information

<BFACB1B85F323031332D333528C0CCC3B6BCB1295FC3D6C1BEC8AEC1A45FC0CEBCE2BFEB28313430323131292E687770>

<BFACB1B85F323031332D333528C0CCC3B6BCB1295FC3D6C1BEC8AEC1A45FC0CEBCE2BFEB28313430323131292E687770> 연구보고서 2013-35 친서민정책으로서의 사회서비스 일자리 확충 전략 Ⅲ : 사회서비스 산업-제3섹터-고용창출 연계모델 이철선 박세경 권소일 책임연구자 이철선 한국보건사회연구원 연구위원 주요저서 협동조합 실태조사 및 기본계획 수립을 위한 기초연구 한국보건사회연구원, 2013(공저) 협동조합기본법 관련 현황조사 연구 한국보건사회연구원, 2012(공저) 공동연구진

More information

http://www.kbc.go.kr/pds/2.html Abstract Exploring the Relationship Between the Traditional Media Use and the Internet Use Mee-Eun Kang This study examines the relationship between

More information

01김경회-1차수정.hwp

01김경회-1차수정.hwp 한국민족문화 57, 2015. 11, 3~32 http://dx.doi.org/10.15299/jk.2015.11.57.3 장복선전 에 나타난 이옥의 문제의식 고찰 - 심노숭의 사가야화기, 정약용의 방친유사 와의 비교를 중심으로 1)김 경 회 * 1. 들어가며 2. 장복선의 행적 비교 1) 입전 동기 2) 장복선의 처지 3) 장복선의 구휼 및 연대 3. 장복선의

More information

12Á¶±ÔÈŁ

12Á¶±ÔÈŁ Journal of Fashion Business Vol. 5, No. 4. pp.158~175(2001) A Study on the Apparel Industry and the Clothing Culture of North Korea + Kyu Hwa Cho Prof., Dept. of Clothing & Textiles, Ewha Womans University

More information

서론 34 2

서론 34 2 34 2 Journal of the Korean Society of Health Information and Health Statistics Volume 34, Number 2, 2009, pp. 165 176 165 진은희 A Study on Health related Action Rates of Dietary Guidelines and Pattern of

More information

ePapyrus PDF Document

ePapyrus PDF Document 육아지원연구 2008. 제 3권 1 호, 147-170 어린이집에서의 낮잠에 대한 교사와 부모의 인식 및 실제 이 슬 기(동작구 보육정보센터)* 1) 요 약 본 연구의 목적은 어린이집에서의 일과 중 낮잠 시간에 대한 교사와 부모의 인식 및 실제를 알아봄 으로써, 교사와 부모의 협력을 통해 바람직한 낮잠 시간을 모색해 보는 데 있었다. 연구 대상은 서울, 경기지역

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA 김진주 김수연. 초등학생대상장애이해교육에활용된동화에나타난장애인관분석. 특수교육, 2013, 제12권, 제2호, 135-160... 20.,,. 4.,,.,..... 주제어 : 장애이해교육, 동화, 장애인관 1. ( 1 ) Incheon Munhak Elementary School ( )(, E-mail: sooyoun@ginue.ac.kr) Dept. of

More information

<28BCF6BDC320323031352D31332920B0E6B1E2B5B520C1F6BFAABAB020BFA9BCBAC0CFC0DAB8AE20C1A4C3A520C3DFC1F8C0FCB7AB5FC3D6C1BE2830312E3036292E687770>

<28BCF6BDC320323031352D31332920B0E6B1E2B5B520C1F6BFAABAB020BFA9BCBAC0CFC0DAB8AE20C1A4C3A520C3DFC1F8C0FCB7AB5FC3D6C1BE2830312E3036292E687770> 수시과제 2015-13 경기도 지역별 여성일자리 정책 추진 전략 연구책임자 : 최 윤 선 (본원선임연구위원) : 남 승 연 (본원연구위원) 연 구 지 원 : 이 상 아 (본원위촉연구원) 연 구 기 간 : 2015. 9 ~12 2015 발 간 사 여성 일자리는 사회 내 여성과 남성간의 차이를 좁히고 개개인의 삶을 윤택하게 만드는 중요 한 부분입니다. 이에 정부는

More information

<313120B9DABFB5B1B82E687770>

<313120B9DABFB5B1B82E687770> 한국민족문화 40, 2011. 7, 347~388쪽 1)중화학공업화선언과 1973년 공업교육제도 변화* 2)박 영 구** 1. 머리말 2. 1973년, 중화학공업화선언과 과학기술인력의 부족 3. 1973년 전반기의 교육제도 개편과 정비 1) 계획과 개편 2) 기술교육 개선안과 인력개발 시책 4. 1973년 후반기의 개편과 정비 5. 정비된 정규교육제도의 특징

More information

<B0ADB9AE5F33B1C75F30315FC0CEBCE232C2F728B9DAC1D6BEF0295F303133305FB3AAB4AEC5EBB0E85FB0B3BCB1B9E6BEC85FC3D6C1BEBAB8B0EDBCAD28C3D6C1BE295FC3D6C1BE283230313230333237292E687770>

<B0ADB9AE5F33B1C75F30315FC0CEBCE232C2F728B9DAC1D6BEF0295F303133305FB3AAB4AEC5EBB0E85FB0B3BCB1B9E6BEC85FC3D6C1BEBAB8B0EDBCAD28C3D6C1BE295FC3D6C1BE283230313230333237292E687770> 나눔통계 개선방안 1 나눔통계 개선방안 박주언 이희길 제1절 서 론 1. 연구배경 및 목적 최근 우리 사회에서 균등한 기회보장과 공정한 경쟁으로 대변되는 공정사회 수립이 중요한 국정과제로 제시되었다. 이에 따라 공정사회를 실현하기 위한 수단으로서 나 눔 (philanthropy)에 대한 사회적 관심이 급속히 증가하고 있다. 나눔 은 자신이 가진 가치 있는 자원을

More information

Vol.258 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Vol.258 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2017.12 Vol.258 C O N T E N T S 02 06 35 57 89 94 100 103 105 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2017.12 3 4 2017.12 * 6 2017.12 7 1,989,020 2,110,953 2,087,458 2,210,542 2,370,003 10,767,976

More information

<BCF6BDC3323030392D31385FB0EDBCD3B5B5B7CEC8DEB0D4C5B8BFEEB5B5C0D4B1B8BBF3BFACB1B85FB1C7BFB5C0CE2E687770>

<BCF6BDC3323030392D31385FB0EDBCD3B5B5B7CEC8DEB0D4C5B8BFEEB5B5C0D4B1B8BBF3BFACB1B85FB1C7BFB5C0CE2E687770> ... 수시연구 2009-18.. 고속도로 휴게타운 도입구상 연구 A Study on the Concept of Service Town at the Expressway Service Area... 권영인 임재경 이창운... 서 문 우리나라는 경제성장과 함께 도시화가 지속적으로 진행되어 지방 지역의 인구감소와 경기의 침체가 계속되고 있습니다. 정부의 다각 적인

More information

70200501802.hwp

70200501802.hwp 1 5 1 11 2 14 1 14 1. 14 2. (life course) 16 2 21 1. 21 2. 27 3 32 1. 32 2. 35 3 37 1 37 2 46 3 58 1. 59 2. 61 4 64 1 65 1. 65 2 2. 70 3. 72 2 77 1., 78 2. 80 5 84 87 3 2 1 (1970 2003 ) 15 2 2 (1980 2000

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI:   : Researc Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.251-273 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.27.2.201706.251 : 1997 2005 Research Trend Analysis on the Korean Alternative Education

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: Awareness, Supports

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI:   Awareness, Supports Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.335-363 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.26.3.201612.335 Awareness, Supports in Need, and Actual Situation on the Curriculum Reconstruction

More information

강의지침서 작성 양식

강의지침서 작성 양식 정보화사회와 법 강의지침서 1. 교과목 정보 교과목명 학점 이론 시간 실습 학점(등급제, P/NP) 비고 (예:팀티칭) 국문 정보화사회와 법 영문 Information Society and Law 3 3 등급제 구분 대학 및 기관 학부(과) 전공 성명 작성 책임교수 법학전문대학원 법학과 최우용 2. 교과목 개요 구분 교과목 개요 국문 - 정보의 디지털화와 PC,

More information

¹ýÁ¶ 12¿ù ¼öÁ¤.PDF

¹ýÁ¶ 12¿ù ¼öÁ¤.PDF 논문요약 146 [ 주제어 ] 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 abstract Recent Development in the Law of DPRK on the

More information

<30392D323020B1C7B1E2BCF628C7D1B1B9B1E2BEF7C0C720B4EBC1DFB3B2B9CC292E687770>

<30392D323020B1C7B1E2BCF628C7D1B1B9B1E2BEF7C0C720B4EBC1DFB3B2B9CC292E687770> 연구보고서 09-20 한국기업의 대중남미 투자진출 성과와 과제 권기수 김진오 고희채 한국기업의 대중남미 투자진출 성과와 과제 연구보고서 09-20 한국기업의 대중남미 투자진출 성과와 과제 권기수ㆍ김진오ㆍ고희채 서 언 전통적으로 우리에게 중남미시장은 수출규모는 크지 않지만 무역흑자시장으로 인 식되어 왔습니다. 특히 2000년대 들어 대중남미 수출이 큰 폭의 성장세를

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: NCS : * A Study on

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI:   NCS : * A Study on Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.157-176 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.3.201809.157 NCS : * A Study on the NCS Learning Module Problem Analysis and Effective

More information

<30382EC0CCBDC2B1E62E687770>

<30382EC0CCBDC2B1E62E687770> 고령자 고용안정 및 고용촉진을 위한 노동법정책의 개편방안 연구 * A Study on Reorganization Plan of Labor Law System and Policy for the Aging Employment Security and Promotion 이 승 길 ** (Lee, Seung-Gil) < 차 례 > Ⅰ. 문제의 제기 Ⅱ. 고령자의 현황

More information

한국 출산력의 저하 요인에 관한 연구

한국 출산력의 저하 요인에 관한 연구 가족계획실천율 가족계획실천자 세 유배우부인 조출생률 년간 총출생아수 연앙인구수 일반출산율 년간 총출생아수 가임연령 여자연앙인구수 합계출산율 세 연령층 여성이 출산한 출생아수 세 연령층 여성의 연앙인구수 즉 합계출산율 합 6 계 출 산 율 5 4 3 2 1 1960 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001

More information

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI:   NCS : G * The Analy Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.133-158 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.27.1.201703.133 NCS : G * The Analysis of the Cognitive Level of Basic Job Skills of Specialized

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA The e-business Studies Volume 17, Number 6, December, 30, 2016:237~251 Received: 2016/11/20, Accepted: 2016/12/24 Revised: 2016/12/21, Published: 2016/12/30 [ABSTRACT] Recently, there is an increasing

More information

공연영상

공연영상 한국영화 배급시장의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 고찰 143 144 한국영화 배급시장의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 고찰 - 독과점 배급시장을 중심으로 김황재* 23) I. 머리말 II. 한국 영화산업의 배급시장 1. 배급의 개념 2. 한국 영화산업 배급시장의 변화 3. 메이저 배급사의 배급시장 4. 디지털 배급 시스템 III. 한국영화 배급시장의 문제점 1. 독과점

More information

1..

1.. Volume 12, Number 1, 6~16, Factors influencing consultation time and waiting time of ambulatory patients in a tertiary teaching hospital Jee-In Hwang College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University :

More information

02_연구보고서_보행자 안전확보를 위한 기술개발 기획연구(2014.1.10)최종.hwp

02_연구보고서_보행자 안전확보를 위한 기술개발 기획연구(2014.1.10)최종.hwp 발 간 등 록 번 호 11-1312184-000067-01 보행자 안전확보 기술개발 기획연구 A Preliminary Research on Technology Development to Ensure the Safety of Pedestrian 2013. 12 국 립 재 난 안 전 연 구 원 연구 과제명 : 보행자 안전확보 기술개발 기획연구 연 구 기 간 :

More information

Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2018.01 Vol.259 C O N T E N T S 02 06 28 61 69 99 104 120 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2018.1 3 4 2018.1 1) 2) 6 2018.1 3) 4) 7 5) 6) 7) 8) 8 2018.1 9 10 2018.1 11 2003.08 2005.08

More information

歯문화기반시설(본문).PDF

歯문화기반시설(본문).PDF 200 1-8 200 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . 1 1. 1 2. 2. 5 1. 5 1) 5 2) 7 3) 8 4) 13 2. 18 1) 18 2) 20. 27 1. 27 1) 30 2) 32 2. 49 1) 50 2) 53 3) 55 4) 56 5) 57. 63 1. 63 1) 64 2) 66 i 3) 68 4) 73

More information

.. IMF.. IMF % (79,895 ). IMF , , % (, 2012;, 2013) %, %, %

.. IMF.. IMF % (79,895 ). IMF , , % (, 2012;, 2013) %, %, % *.. 8. Colaizzi 131, 40, 11.,,,.... * (2014). (Corresponding Author): / / 76 Tel: 041-550-2903 / E-mail: limkt3013@naver.com .. IMF.. IMF 1996 1.7% (79,895 ). IMF 1999 118,000 1980 5 2004 138,900 11 12.

More information

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA e- 비즈니스연구 (The e-business Studies) Volume 17, Number 1, February, 28, 2016:pp. 293~316 ISSN 1229-9936 (Print), ISSN 2466-1716 (Online) 원고접수일심사 ( 수정 ) 게재확정일 2015. 12. 04 2015. 12. 24 2016. 02. 25 ABSTRACT

More information

정책 토론회 지방선거, Living Wage 생활임금을 보장하라 2014 5.14 수 10:00 국회 의원회관 제2세미나실 좌장 김경협 발제 권순원 김준영 토론 황선자 나지현 이창근 최재혁 정길채 석명옥 새정치민주연합 국회의원 참여연대 노동사회위원회 부위원장, 숙명여대 교수 한국노총 전략기획본부장 한국노총중앙연구원 선임연구원 전국여성노동조합 위원장 민주노총

More information

<BBE7C8B8C5EBC7D5284946BAB8B0EDBCAD295FC3D6C1BE2832295F303731302E687770>

<BBE7C8B8C5EBC7D5284946BAB8B0EDBCAD295FC3D6C1BE2832295F303731302E687770> IT & Future Strategy 21세기형 사회통합 신패러다임과 ICT 활용 전략 제6호(2009. 7. 27) 목 차 Ⅰ. 사회변화 가속화와 사회통합의 중요성 / 1 Ⅱ. 사회통합의 신패러다임과 4대 이슈 / 7 Ⅲ. 사회통합을 위한 ICT 활용 전략 / 11 IT&Future Strategy 는 21세기 한국사회의 주요 패러다임 변화를 분석하고 이를

More information

Oracle Apps Day_SEM

Oracle Apps Day_SEM Senior Consultant Application Sales Consulting Oracle Korea - 1. S = (P + R) x E S= P= R= E= Source : Strategy Execution, By Daniel M. Beall 2001 1. Strategy Formulation Sound Flawed Missed Opportunity

More information