29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review 2 (2007).,,,,, 5..,..,,. * (hobae@gsnu.ac.kr) 55
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review. 90 (, 2005). (, 2008;, 2007)... (, 2000: 34)...., (, 2004: 74;, 2006; Foley, Marrone, & Simon, 2002: 659).,... (, 2007;, 2007). (Feminization of Poverty, Pearce, D. 1978) (, 2003;, 2002; Brady & Kall, 2008; Northrop, 1990). (, 2002), (, 2004;, 2006),.. 56
,....,.,,, (, 2001: 181). (Silver, 1994: 536).,, (Atkinson & Davoudi, 2000: 434). (Atkinson & Davoudi, 2000: 437-438).,,, (O Brien & Penna, 2006: 85).,, (Silver, 1994: 533).. (Atkinson & Davoudi, 2000: 441). 57
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review (O Brien & Penna, 2006: 85). (2001: 202-203),. (2005: 161-167),,,,. Batavia & Beaulaurier(2001: 151),,,,..,, (Atkinson & Davoudi, 2000: 435). Gallie et al(2003: 12-14),. (2004: 260),. Dahl et al(2000: 231), Atkinson & Davoudi(2000: 441)... (, 2008;, 2007;, 2003; Carr & Chen, 2004).,,,, 5 (, 2007: 368-374;, 2005: 155-157;, 2006: 371-374; Atkinson & Davoudi, 2000: 440; Halleröd & Larsson, 2007: 19-20). 58
.. 2000 (, 2002: 58). 2005, (, 2006: 468-469). 2 (Russell, 2003: 220)... 50%, (, 2002: 19-20), (Baldwin & Johnson, 1995: 569).,. 1000/1470 1200/1470, 1000/1292 1000/1857 (Batavia & Beaulaurie, 2001: 143-144; Foley, Marrone, & Simon, 2002: 661)... 2005 20 24% (, 2006: 508). 20 85.2%, 30 37.9%, (, 2006: 508). 59
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review. 2002 415 8.8%, 3.4% 12.4% (, 2004: 24).. (, 2006: 245)..., (Nosek, et al., 2001: 183-184)..,,.. 2,. 3 (Nosek & Hughes, 2003: 226-227; Parish, et al., 2008: 59).,,, (Nosek, et al., 2003: 1742).,,, (Nosek & Hughes, 2003: 228)... 60
.,,,,,,, (Nosek & Hughes, 2003: 229)..,, (Dahl, Fløtten, & Lorentzen, 2008: 233).,, (Dahl, Fløtten, & Lorentzen, 2008: 234).. 1/3 (Foley, Marrone, & Simon, 2002: 659). 1992 CPS 40.5% 31%, 12.1%, 8.1% (Batavia & Beaulaurier, 2001: 142). (Brady & Kall, 2008: 978)., (Brady & Kall, 2007: 978; Casper, McLanahan, & Garfinkel, 1994: 595). Carr & Chen(2004: 150),,.. Parish et al(2008: 59).. 61
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review, (Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2007: 607; Vozoris and Tarasuk, 2002: 120)., (Mohan, 2002: 68).,,.. (Park, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 2002: 155). (Nosek & Hughes, 2003: 226-227; Parish, et al., 2008: 59). (Halleröd, Dahl, Fløtten, & Lorentzen, 2008: 241-242)., (Dahl, Fløtten, & Lorentzen, 2008: 233-234). Hickey & Toit(2007: 6).,, 1) (Nosek, et al., 2003: 1737).,.,. 1) (Nosek et al., 2003: 1737). 62
2007 2 2. 2 18 65 2) 10,835 235 2.2% 49.1. (,,,,, ) 75.1%, (,,,,, ) 6.0% 81.1%, (,, ) 11.0%, 7.8%. 52.1% 9.0%. 1~6.,. (2007: 239) (2005: 157).,,. () ( ),. 60%. ( ), (, ), (, ) ( 1)., x 2, ANOVA. 2) 18 18 65 65 63
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review,,. / 7 5 4 60%..,,, 4 ( 45.2%, 49.2%, 3.5%, 2.2% ),,. ( 2).. 57.3% 3, 1.5..,.., 64
.., 19.5%. 64.9%., 2... 2,,,,,.,.,,. 70.5%, 60.3% (x 2 2=50.16, <.001). 37.5%, 33.3%, 71.4%, 23.9% (x 2 2=17.08, <.05).. 3.83 1.54 (F=2.29, <.05).,.,,.,,. 65
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review 1) 11.5 20.0 40.5 57.3 17.7 88.5 80.0 59.5 42.7 82.3 58.4 44.6 38.2 15.8 51.9 15.3 25.4 22.2 30.3 19.6 20.4 10.9 22.7 19.7 16.8 5.8 19.2 16.9 34.2 11.7 27.2 24.3 21.1 16.7 25.3 3.8 4.2 7.0 8.1 4.2 0.6 3.8 2.2 8.5 2.4 68.5 67.8 69.7 66.7 68.1 94.4 91.5 91.4 86.8 92.7 5.6 8.5 8.6 13.2 7.3 532.74*** 557.85*** 178.95*** 37.38*** 93.6 89.1 58.3 43.2 89.1 972.84*** 6.4 10.9 41.7 56.8 10.9 5.7 9.6 13.4 19.4 8.2 94.3 90.4 86.6 80.6 91.8 89.68*** 12.5 13.0 8.0 8.5 12.5 87.5 87.0 92.0 91.5 87.5 10.14* 79.3 69.4 45.5 35.7 72.4 393.09*** 20.7 30.6 54.5 64.3 27.6 * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001 : 1). 60% 14.8% 45.5% 11.9%, 14.3%, 39.8%., ( 3).. 5.4. 60 66
. 3... 3.8, 2.7... 60-1.370-3.441-3.486 20-0.590*** 0.554-0.421 0.656-0.200 0.819 30-1.075*** 0.341-0.176 0.838-0.069 0.934 40-0.549*** 0.578 0.048 1.049 0.124 1.132 50-0.500*** 0.607-0.290* 0.749-0.272 0.762 1.677*** 5.352 0.829** 2.282 1.476*** 4.376 0.975*** 2.609 0.213*** 1.237-0.206* 0.818 0.826*** 2.284 0.834*** 2.131 0.352** 1.421 0.242 1.162 1.317*** 3.733 1.341*** 3.888 0.992*** 2.696 1.094*** 2.887 2.340*** 10.377 2.374*** 10.848 1.379*** 3.970 1.348*** 3.871 1.813*** 6.129 1.829*** 6.265 N 9899 6414 6414 Chi-square 417.72*** 887.84*** 940.12*** Cox and Snell R 2 0.038.119.126 * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001,.. (, ). 67
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review... (, ) (, )....,,.,, ( 4). b b b b b -0.398*** 0.208*** 0.207*** -0.496*** -0.706*** -0.118*** 0.152*** 0.023* -0.178*** 1.021*** -0.423** 0.633*** 0.171* -0.768* 0.162-0.045 0.521*** 0.065 0.179 0.492** -0.151*** 0.129*** 0.124*** -0.198* 0.460*** 0.258*** -0.236*** -0.060* 1.191*** 1.983*** -0.428*** 0.025 0.094*** 0.334** -0.094-0.531*** 0.213*** 0.283*** 0.294 0.116 0.040 0.179** 0.119* 0.510 0.747** -0.127* 0.108** 0.139*** 0.437*** 0.698*** -0.125** 0.063* 0.102*** 0.140 0.573*** -0.358*** 0.125*** 0.129*** 0.744*** 0.593*** R 2 Pseudo R 2 0.077 0.145 0.061 0.058 0.356 F 2 43.04*** 98.72*** 35.59*** 221.34*** 3058.66*** * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001 : 68
....,...,,.....,,,.. 3).,. 3) 69
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review..,.,,,,...,.,.,,.,..,.....,...,. 70
...,....,.,,...,,..,,......,,,. 71
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review,...,. Unversity of Pennsylvania.,,, (E-mail: k2rang@hanyang.ac.kr).,.,, (E-mail: k2rang@hanyang.ac.kr). 72
(2002).., pp.7~32. (2001).. :., (2007).., pp.73~107. (2007). (EU) :., pp.351~379. (2004). :,,., pp.253~277., (2001).., pp.185~219. (2008).., pp.11~41. (2007).., pp.151~191., (2004).., pp.61~83.,,, (2002)...,,,,,, (2006)... (2003).., pp.295~319. (2001). :., pp.178~208. (2006).., pp.27~74., (2000).. :., (2004).., pp.1~31. 73
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review, (2007).., pp.131~157. (2005).., pp.149~176. (2006). :., pp.367~379., (2007). :., pp.125~146. Atkinson, R. & Davoudi, S. (2000). The concept of social exclusion in the European Union: context, development and possibilities. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(3), pp.427~448. Batavia, A. I. & Beaulaurier, R. L. (2001). The financial vulnerability of people with disabilities: assessing poverty risks. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28(1), pp.139~162. Brady, D. & Kall, D. (2008). Nearly universal, but somewhat distinct: the feminization of poverty in affluent Western democracies. Social Science Research, 37, pp.976~1007. Carr, M. & Chen, M. (2004). Globalization, social exclusion and gender. International Labour Review, 143(1-2), pp.129~160. Casper, L. M. McLanahan, S. S. & Garfinkel, I. (1994). The gender-poverty gap: what we can learn from other countries. American Sociological Review, 59(4), pp.594~605. Dahl, E. Fløtten, T. & Lorentzen, T. (2008). Poverty dynamics and social exclusion: an analysis of Norwegian Panel Data. Journal of Social Policy, 37(2), pp.231-249. Foley, S. M., Marrone, J., & Simon, M. (2002). Cruise ships and kayaks: welfare and rehabilitation approaches for women with disabilities in poverty. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, pp.659~680. Gallie, D. Paugam, S. & Jacobs, S. (2003). Unemployment, poverty and social isolation: Is there a vicious circle of social exclusion? European Societies, 5(1), pp.1~32. Halleröd, B. & Larsson, D. (2007). Poverty, welfare problems and social exclusion. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17, pp.15~25. 74
Hickey, S. & Toit, A. (2007). Adverse incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty. Chronic Poverty Research Center Working paper 81. Chronic Poverty Research Center. Mohan, J. (2002). Geographics of welfare and social exclusion: dimension, consequences and methods. Progress in Human Geography, 26(1), pp.65~75. Northrop, M. E. (1990). The feminization of poverty: the demographic factor and the composition of economic growth. Journal of Economic Issues, 24(1), pp.145~160. Nosek, M. A. Foley, C. C. Hughes, R. B. & Howland, C. A. (2001). Vulnerabilities for abuse among women with disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 19(3), pp.177~189. Nosek, M. A., & Hughes, R. B, (2003). Psychological issues of women with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 46(4), pp.224~233. Nosek, M. A., Hughes, R. B., Swedlund, N., Taylor, H. B., & Swank, P. (2003). Self-esteem and women with disabilities. Social Science and Medicine, 56, pp.1737~1747. O Brien, M. & Penna, S. (2008). Social exclusion in Europe: some conceptual issues. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17, pp.84~92. Parish, S. L., Maga a, S., & Cassiman, S. A. (2008). It s just that much harder: multilayered hardship experiences of low-income mothers with disabilities. Journal of Women and Social Work, 23(1), pp.51~65. Park, J., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2002). Impacts of poverty on quality of life in families of children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), pp.151~170. Russell, P. (2003). Access and achievement or social exclusion? Are the government s policies working for disabled children and their families? Children and Society, 17, pp.215~225. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. International Labor Review, 133(5-6), pp.531~578. 75
29(2), 2009, 55-76 Health and Social Welfare Review Social Exclusion and Poverty of Disabled Women Bae, Hwa-ok (Gyeongsang National University) Kim, Yu-Kyung (Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs) This study purposed to understand the dynamic interrelationships between sex and disability, social exclusion, and poverty of disabled women utilizing the second wave data of the Korea Welfare Panel Study in 2007. Through literature review, this study clarified the concept of social exclusion compared to the traditional concept of poverty from the perspective of disabled women. This study also selected five areas of social exclusion that disabled women might experience throughout their life cycle: education, employment, family, health, and social participation. Study results identified that rates of the social exclusion and poverty of disabled women are significantly higher than those of other comparative groups. That is, disabled women experience social exclusion and poverty more often than does any other socioeconomic group. Sex and disability are significant predictors of social exclusion. Further, three areas of social exclusion significantly increased the odds of poverty. Also, disability significantly increased the odds of poverty, and poverty significantly affected five areas of social exclusion. Conclusively, social exclusion and poverty are dynamically interrelated, affecting each other in the context of disabled women's life cycle. This study suggested a few policy and practice implications to reduce the social exclusion and poverty of disabled women based on the findings. Keywords : Disabled Women, Social Exclusion, Areas of Social Exclusion, Poverty 76