국민연금의 급여 수준, 과연 낮지 않은가? : OECD 타 회원국과의 비교 (Is it true that the benefit level of the National Pension is not low? : A comparison with other OECD member countries)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 비판과 대안을 위한 사회복지학회/ 건강정책학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비판사회정책 / 76호 / 23 ~ 58페이지
· 저자명 : 남찬섭, 한신실, 주수정, 박나리, 유희원

초록

본 연구의 목적은 국민연금의 급여 수준, 즉 소득대체율이 OECD 평균과 비교해 낮지않다는 ‘국민연금 급여 과장론’에 대한 비판적 고찰을 하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 국민연금급여 과장론의 주장을 하후상박 구조론과 지급률 사용론, 기초연금 누락론, 실질소득대체율 주목론 등 4가지로 구분하여 이에 대한 반론을 전개하고, 그 과정에서 국민연금소득대체율에 대한 객관적인 평가를 수행하였다.
급여과장론의 주장을 검토한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, OECD 회원국 중 12개국(한국 제외)이 공적연금 급여에 하후상박 구조를 가지고 있었으며, 저임금자의 소득대체율도 OECD 회원국에 비해 낮은 수준임을 확인하였다. 둘째, 지급률이 실제 급여 수준을보여주지 못하는 한계를 가지고 있을 뿐만 아니라 국민연금의 지급률은 OECD 회원국에비해 낮은 수준임을 확인하였다. 셋째, 기초연금을 반영한 소득대체율을 고려하더라도공적연금 급여의 소득대체율은 OECD 회원국에 비해 낮았다. 마지막으로 국민연금의 보장성 강화를 위해서는 명목소득대체율 인상과 함께 실질소득대체율을 올리기 위한 다양한 정책이 추진될 필요가 있음을 강조하였다.

영어초록

This study aims to critically examine the argument of those who wronglyexaggerate the benefit level of the Korean National Pension(hereafter NP) and todemonstrate the low benefit level of NP. As exaggerators assert that the incomereplacement rate of NP is not lower in comparison of that of other OECD membercountries’ pension schemes, their argument can be called “the exaggerationargument”. The contents of the exaggeration argument can be divided into fourparts: the first is that NP has a very unusual redistributive benefit structure in whichthe lower income the beneficiary has the higher benefit he(or she) could receiveand vice versa (so-called “lower income-higher benefit/higher income-lower benefitstructure”); The second is that it is more appropriate to use the accrual rate whencomparing the benefit levels of member countries’ pension schemes. The third isthat OECD has excluded the Korean Basic Pension from the calculation of theincome replacement rates of the Korean public pension. And the fourth is thatit is more important to improve the real income replacement rate than legal ornominal one of NP, which could be achieved through extending entitlement period, reinforcing pension credits, and enhancing the subsidization of contributionpayment of low-income earners.
The findings of reviewing “the exaggeration argument” are as follows: First, itis not only revealed that the redistributive benefit structure is not unique to NP,with pension schemes of at least 12 OECD member countries except Korea havingthe so-called “lower income-higher benefit/higher income-lower benefit structure,but also the benefit level of NP is lower than that of other OECD member countries’schemes. Second, it is found that the accrual rate does not show the real benefitlevel of NP and NP has lower benefit level even compared on the basis of the accrualrate. Third, it is supposed that the Korean Basic Pension has been excluded fromthe calculation of the benefit level of the Korean public pension because itsentitlement has been granted on the basis not of residence but of nationality. Andeven though including the Korean Basic Pension, the benefit level of the Koreanpublic pension is still lower than that of other OECD member countries’ schemes.
Finally, although it can be agreed on claims that it is critical to improve the realreplacement rate of NP, those claims may well be raised on the ground ofconsolidation argument of the old-age income security. In order to consolidate theold-age income security, it is necessary to increase the nominal income replacementrate as well as the real income replacement rate of NP through various policies.

참고자료

· 없음