EAI Opinion REVIEW 2: Families in the Era of Economic Crisis as Seen Through Public Opinion

Overview

“A family is love,” “A family is hope.” Advertisements featuring families have become increasingly common since the deepening of the economic crisis. In his first radio address in May, President Lee Myung-bak emphasized that “a family is the beginning and end of happiness” and urged people to reaffirm the value of family, especially in difficult times. However, the President himself has described the reality of South Korea having the highest divorce and suicide rates among OECD countries as “deplorable” and has presented family as the solution, stating, “The unique family spirit of our people was the driving force behind the miracles we achieved in the past 50 years that astonished the world” (14th Radio Address, May 4, 2009, KBS Radio).

The reason for focusing on family issues during the economic crisis is that we witnessed firsthand during the 1998 IMF economic crisis how national economic crises can lead not only to the collapse of household economies but also to the disintegration of families and a decline in the quality of individual lives. Household life is highly sensitive to socio-economic crises primarily because, in most cases, families manage their household economies through the socio-economic activities of their members. Therefore, economic crises are likely to result in reduced income or asset losses for family members, directly impacting the household economy.

Furthermore, in modern society, the functions once performed by the family are increasingly delegated to social institutions or programs, incurring associated social costs. During economic downturns, the contraction of household economies directly increases the burden of these expenditures. As extended families have rapidly declined and nuclear families have become the norm, roles that were historically fulfilled by the family, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly parents, are being rapidly transferred to social systems and facilities. Consequently, as society increasingly takes over family roles, the necessary costs and burdens also increase. In countries like South Korea, where welfare systems and public social spending are not extensive, these costs are largely borne privately, making socio-economic capacity and stability increasingly crucial for the proper functioning of family roles and responsibilities.

We have now entered an era where emphasizing abstract concepts like love or hope, or the unique family spirit of the nation, is no longer sufficient to explain or alleviate the problems families face in society.

In summary, with the global spread of the US-originated financial crisis in the latter half of 2008, the economic crisis in South Korean society is likely to lead to a crisis in families. The President's emphasis on the value of family in times of economic crisis reflects these concerns. However, since the outbreak of the economic crisis, government and societal responses have primarily focused on macro-level problem diagnosis and economic recovery plans. Even risks faced by vulnerable social groups have been approached mainly from an economic perspective, such as unemployment and wage reduction. Recently, with news of recovering economic indicators like a trade surplus and improved consumer sentiment index, expectations for economic recovery are rising.

However, macro-level economic indicators such as economic growth rate, unemployment rate, and price index, as well as the scale of government fiscal spending, do not fully capture the actual suffering and severity of the crisis experienced by the 'people' enduring that period. It is difficult to concretely understand the impact of the economic crisis on the home, the fundamental living space for families, and the suffering and isolation experienced by individuals can be overshadowed by the abstract hope provided by objective figures.

We particularly note that national and societal threats like the 'economic crisis' can manifest as a double crisis, 'overlapped' with a 'family crisis,' for socio-economically vulnerable groups. We designated "Economic Crisis and Family" as the theme for our April regular thematic survey. This study aims to distance itself somewhat from the 'macro-level crisis diagnosis and policy debates' conducted at the government and societal levels, and instead, to capture, through the voices of the people, how the deterioration of the socio-economic environment is affecting households, the fundamental living spaces of individuals, and what class-based differences exist in the severity of this impact.

<Table of Contents>

Introduction

Socio-economic Status and Family Satisfaction

Family Crisis Overlapping with Economic Crisis

- Major Threats to Family Life: Income Reduction, Unemployment, Debt

- Comparison of Threat Factors by Class

Family as a Safety Net: The Double Burden of Vulnerable Groups

- Family Dependence During Crisis for Vulnerable Groups

Family Pathology Concentrated in Socially Vulnerable Groups

- Groups Exposed to Family Pathology

- Polarization of Future Outlook

Reference Survey Materials

<Key Survey Results>

Family Life Satisfaction: 71.1 points

Satisfaction decreases with lower income; satisfaction sharply declines for those aged 50 and above

Economic Crisis and Family: Socio-economically vulnerable groups face a double burden of economic hardship and family problems

Threats to Family Life: Unstable household economy > Children's education issues > 'Health of family members' in order

For those in their 20s and 50s and above, the unstable household economy is the primary concern; for those in their 30s and 40s, children's education issues are more prominent.

Lower income groups are more concerned about household economy and family health; higher income groups are more concerned about children's education issues.

Family dependence during crises is only 40%; 37.1% have no one to rely on.

Targets for resolving worries: Family 40.0%, Myself 27.3%, No one to rely on 9.8%

Low-income, low-education, and individuals aged 50 and above show low rates of relying on family.

Only 1.8% seek professional help, 0.9% rely on relatives, 0.3% rely on neighbors.

Family problems leading to pathology are concentrated in socially vulnerable groups, with pessimistic outlooks for the future.

In the past year, 8.5% experienced depression or mental illness, 6.2% considered suicide, 4.4% experienced domestic violence, and 3.5% experienced separation or divorce. Family relationships are expected to improve in the next year for 47.3%, remain the same for 47.3%, and worsen for 4.0%.

Author

Jeong Han-ul, Vice Director, EAI Public Opinion Analysis Center

Jeong Won-chul, Senior Researcher, EAI