우리나라 어가의 경제적 불평등에 관한 연구

Abstract

Although many countries are working to alleviate economic inequality, economic inequality in fishing households has intensified. Fishery houses have different income structures from general households, and compared to other industries, production uncertainty, information asymmetry, and dependence on the natural environment are high, resulting in a large income gap between households. Therefore, in order to understand the income distribution and economic inequality of fishing households, it is necessary to study fishing households separately. In this study, in order to understand the economic inequality of Korean fishery houses, income inequality and consumption inequality of fishery house are analyzed. For this study, first, a Gini coefficient factor decomposition analysis is conducted to measure income inequality by source of income and consumption inequality by consumption item. Additionally a Gini coefficient decomposition analysis is conducted according to the presence or absence of public subsidies. The Gini coefficient decomposition not only estimates the Gini coefficient of gross income-total expenditure, but also estimates the Gini coefficient of sub-items, indicating how much each item contributes to the Gini coefficient of the upper item. Furthermore, structural analysis is possible by simultaneously estimating the correlation with the Gini coefficient and the marginal effect. Through the above theoretical approaches, the difference between inequality by income source and consumption item and inequality according to fishing type can be identified, and the effect of improving inequality can be seen through the presence or absence of public subsidies. In other words, it is useful for implications and policy suggestions because it simultaneously estimates the Gini coefficient, contribution, and limitations of sub-items. Second, in order to understand the influencing factors on items with high income and consumption inequality, the determinants of fishery house net income(fishing income + non-fishing income) and fish consumption expenditure were estimated through quantile regression analysis. When there is a difference in the distribution according to the quintile, quantile regression analysis enables quantile regression analysis without sample omission. In this study, the determinants of fishery house net income and fishing household consumption expenditure were identified, and the determinants of each quintile were analyzed by dividing them into fishing types and age groups. Through the above approaches, it was found that there are differences in the variables that affect net income and consumption expenditure by income-consumption quintile and their size. Through the analysis results of this study, the characteristics of economic inequality of fishermen were presented as follows. First, inequality in fishing household income was deepening. This was driven by fishing income and non-fishery income, and public transfer income played a role in mitigating the Gini coefficient of total income. Second, the income redistribution effect of the public subsidy was confirmed. Conversely, the income redistribution effect of the fishing subsidy was found to be insufficient. Third, there was a difference in average income by type of fishing, and the higher the average income, the higher the economic inequality. Inequality among fishery types was also deepening. Fourth, among the consumption items of the fishing family, the inequality was lower for essential goods, and the inequality was higher for optional goods. Fifth, like income inequality, consumption inequality among fishery types has been found to be deepening. Sixth, the higher the income quintile, the greater the effect of the fishery subsidy, which may cause income disparity, and the public subsidy appears to reduce the income disparity. Seventh, the effect of public subsidies in boosting consumption was significant in the low-consumption circumstance. The policy implications derived from the analysis results of this study and the economic inequality characteristics of fish prices presented above are as follows. First, public subsidies should be expanded to improve the economic inequality of fishing families. Second, since the income structure and inequality resulting from structural changes in the fishery industry have been captured, it is necessary to manage so that economic inequality does not become fixed at the time of transition to a technology-intensive industry. Third, it is necessary to contribute to balanced regional development, depopulation of fishing villages, and prevention of extinction of fishing villages through the improvement of economic inequality and income preservation of fishing households. Lastly, in order to fundamentally resolve economic inequality among fishing families, support that can promote productivity improvement of individual fishing families is essential.