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,.