This study focuses on the family policies which controls the behaviour of families. Family policies are now one of the highest interests in the political process in Korea because of the recent demographic situation such as low birth rate, increasing old population and changing structure of families.
One of the most important change in the Korean family policy in recent years is that the Ministry for Gender Equality became the responsible government department for family policies. In 2004 the ministry became the Ministry for Gender Equality and Family. It means that the family policy in Korea is changing fundamentally in recent years in the following senses.
First, a gender sensitive perspective plays a role in the process of family policies. Second, in spite of the change family policies have no attention as a major factor for decision of social policies. Third, family policies in Korea should take regard a gender sensitive perspective as an important factor in the decision making process for social policies.
One point of gender sensitive perspectives is to observe what kind of function family policies do to control the life of families. In this sense three questions could be introduced. The first question is related to the position of family policies which presume the role of women and men in families. The second question is about the results of social policy interventions in the family lives which are different from that of men and women. The third question is about the effort of the government how he intervenes in family life to change the traditional division of sex roles in family.
Some results come from the "law for healthy family" which is a fundament of family policies in Korea since 2004. First, the variety of family forms is ignored in the process of family policies. Second, it doesn"t accept other forms of living together such as partnership without marriage. Third, it emphasizes individual duty for maintenance of family, but not the duty of the state. Fourth, it emphasizes the typical, traditional family ideology. Fifth, it restraints individual freedom through the concept for the maintenance of the so called home. Sixth, there is confusion in using both concept "home and family." Seventh, the expression for "healthy family" idealizes the typical nuclear family. Eighth, it is not clear how much the local and central government should take responsibility for the processing of family policies. Especially there is a limit for budget. Ninth, it is not clear whether this law has superior position compared to other laws related to family affairs. At last, there is no logical connection between the concepts such family value, various forms of family and break down of family and so on.
It is time to try to make clear the range of responsibilities for family policies between societies and state, and the central and local governments.
|