사회국가의 실현 조건과 국민연금 개혁의 방향

Compared to a liberal right labeled a 19th century right, the driving force to support a social right, called as a 20th century right,seems to have deteriorated since the latter half of the 20th century. In particular, a shrinking social state is prevailing more evidently in the developed countries in the wake of many changes in the economic environment or population composition (aging society), etc. Korea, as one of emerging developed countries, is not exceptional from this global trend; how one will deal with such challenges is recognized as a pressing issue. Actually, the above-stated changes might be closely related to the national pension system reform issues in which there is a considerable controversy over its necessity;therefore, this paper attempts to examine these globally prevailing challenges and to consider alternatives by analyzing the national pension system. In fact, there are various analyses and views concerning the fundamental causes of bringing about the Koran national pension crisis. Korea had conducted parametric reforms in 1998 and 2007; however, it is difficult to say that such measures perfectly solve the abovementioned problems. Therefore, the pension system still needs more lasting and continuous improvements. The direction of reform of the national pension system should consider financial stabilization, an alternative to financial exhaustion or inter-generation inequality as pivotal elements in considering various reform measures such as raising pension premiums, reducing the benefits or changing the fund management methods. However, such approaches should keep in mind the aspect that the national pension system is purported to realize the idea of the social state. Therefore,the goal of the national pension system reformation is to enhance the solidarity between large and low-income earners, to support socially weak groups and to guarantee the relevant social security net; those goals could be considered as the important elements of national pension system reform, as well as the previously mentioned ones such as financial stabilization or durability. In addition, the alleged retreat of the social state, recognized in pension premium increase or pension benefit cut, should not lead to an unequal and forced sacrifice for the socially weak groups. The level of pension benefit, as long as it is not so-called “pocket money pension”, should correspond to its goal to provide the minimum material foundation to secure the decent standard of living in coping with difficulties (e.g. disability, disease or aging) the people face in their lives. In order to do so, raising pension premiums is required only on the condition of making effort to gain public support for such an option. In other words, pension reform measures should set and apply income criteria that the people can understand reasonably and clearly in calculating the pension premium. Furthermore, more systemic measures should continuously provide the public with confidence that this income standard scheme could apply to regional pension scheme participants in a rational way. Lastly, the most important thing is that the pension reform should seek the public consensus and support regarding the necessity and method of the pension reform by faithfully offering explanation and adequate persuasion to the people. The very social agreement enable fruitful discussion regarding a real sociality and fair social burden sharing; furthermore, this could prevent unequal sacrifice that could be often forced under the mask of the reform; the reason is that a cut in social benefits, found in an increase in pension premiums or a lowering in income replacement ratio, could cause more serious, far-reaching native effects to the socially weak groups.