Policy implications from Sweden for South Korea's housing policy for young single-households - Jihee Kwon
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DEGREE PROJECT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2022
Policy implications from Sweden
for South Korea’s housing policy
for young single-households
Jihee Kwon
Abstract
The number of young single-person households is consistently increasing in South Korea, as
in Sweden where the most common type of household is the single-person household.
Housing is the key to the transition of young adults to adulthood and it can affect their quality
of life and economic security throughout their lifetime. However, young people have
encountered a similar housing problem in Sweden and South Korea, countries with different
social, cultural, and political backgrounds. This study explores the policy implications garnered
from Sweden for establishing housing policies for young single-person households in South
Korea by investigating the difference between the housing policies in Sweden and South
Korea and the rental housing provisions for young single-person households. The policy
implications for single-person households in South Korea are, first, increasing the supply of
rental housing and easing housing support requirements to provide housing to more young
people as an alternative to increasing the universality of housing welfare policies. Second,
providing the applicants' with applications and contracts on a single platform through an online
integrated housing support system can be expected to improve operational efficiency and
provide better convenience to residents. Third, a method of supplying a variety of housing to
each region through regional integrated dormitory supply utilizing an integrated system, and
satisfying the demands of the housing consumers, can be considered to establish an effective
housing policy.
Keywords: young single-person household; housing policy; housing supply; Sweden; South
Korea
1
Acknowledgements
Thank you, to everyone and everything.
The two years I stayed in Sweden were an unforgettable and beautiful time.
Studying at KTH has helped me develop the ability to think, understand, and be
enlightened by multiple perspectives.
I would also like to thank the SUPD teachers and classmates, and, above all, my
supervisor, Hans Westlund, for giving me such warm and wonderful teaching.
I am grateful to my family for always supporting and loving me, and even though I was
far away, I was able to live happily thanks to them.
2Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ············································································································ 5
1.1 Background ··········································································································································· 5
1.2 Aims and research questions ············································································································ 7
2 KEY CONCEPTS AND CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ············································· 9
2.1 Young single-person households ····································································································· 9
2.2 Public rental housing ························································································································ 10
2.2.1 Housing as goods and the housing market ································································································ 10
2.2.2 Housing in the two countries ····························································································································· 11
2.2.2.1 Housing in Sweden ········································································································································· 11
2.2.2.2 Housing in South Korea ································································································································ 12
2.3 Welfare state and policy ·················································································································· 12
2.3.1 Welfare state of Sweden ······································································································································· 12
2.3.2 Welfare state of South Korea······························································································································ 13
3 METHODOLOGY ··········································································································15
3.1 Comparative study····························································································································· 15
3.2 Method of colleting data ················································································································· 16
4 HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF HOUSING POLICY FOR SINGLE-PERSON
HOUSEHOLDS IN SWEDEN AND SOUTH KOREA ····················································18
4.1 History of housing provision for single-person households in Sweden and South Korea
····································································································································································· 18
4.1.1 Sweden ·········································································································································································· 18
4.1.1.1 History of housing policy (early 1900s~)······························································································ 18
4.1.1.2 Young single-person households in housing policy········································································ 22
34.1.2 South Korea································································································································································· 24
4.1.2.1 History of South Korea’s housing policy ······························································································· 24
4.1.2.2 Young single-person households in housing policy········································································ 29
4.1.3 Comparative analysis ·············································································································································· 31
4.2 Current status of housing provision for young single-person households in Sweden and
South Korea ··············································································································································· 32
4.2.1 Young single-person households in housing market in Sweden ······················································ 32
4.2.2 Young single-person households in housing market in South Korea ············································· 36
5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES OF SWEDEN FOR
FORMULATING SOUTH KOREA’S POLICY··································································38
5.1 Comparison of results and target of policy and policy implication ········································ 38
5.2 Lessons for South Korea’s policy, based on Sweden ·································································· 40
5.2.1 Expansion of the target group for youth housing supply ···································································· 40
5.2.2 Introduction of the integrated rental housing application system ··················································· 41
5.2.3 Increase and diversification of housing supply ·························································································· 44
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ······························································46
6.1 Summary of research ························································································································ 46
6.2 Limitations and recommendations for further studies ···························································· 47
7 REFERENCES ·················································································································49
41 Introduction
1.1 Background
Decades ago, it was common in South Korea that unmarried adults would live with their
parents until marriage. However, due to the rise in the number of unmarried and late marriages,
the number of young single-person households is consistently increasing in South Korea, as
is the case in Sweden. The ratio of single-person households among the total households in
South Korea is expected to increase from 15.5% in 2000 to 28.5% in 2017, and then to 37.3%
in 2047 (Statistics Korea, 2019). Among all single-person households, young single-person
households (people aged 20 to 39) account for 34.7%, and the ratio of single-person
households among young households was 61.9%, which is approximately twice the ratio of
single-person households to all households (30.2%) (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transport of Korea (MOLIT), 2022a). Moreover, the number and ratio of young single-person
households are consistently increasing according to social and household composition
changes (ibid.). Nonetheless, as the existing housing supply policy in South Korea has
focused on a family of four, namely two parents and two children, if recent demographic
changes such as the increase in single-person households are not considered in policy
formulation, the housing problem might become more serious in the future.
Although the number of young single-person households continues to increase, the RIR (rent-
to-income ratio) of young people in South Korea is 17.8%; however, 31.4% of those
households experience a heavy burden in terms of housing costs, with an RIR exceeding 30%,
which was higher than the average RIR of all households (26.7%) (MOLIT, 2022b; Korea
Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS), 2021). Young single-person households
are experiencing problems in not only the burden of housing costs but also the quality of
housing. The minimum housing standard in South Korea is 14 m² (per person) with a private
bathroom and private kitchenette, but 11.4% of young people are living in spaces that do not
meet this standard (MOLIT, 2022b; KRIHS, 2021).
According to Statistics Sweden (SCB, 2022a), the most common type of household is single-
person households, accounting for 48.6% of households in 2013, and Sweden is among the
countries with the highest proportion of young single-person households worldwide (BBC,
52019). In Sweden, the proportion of single-person households has long been high due to
Swedish social culture, respect for privacy. The housing problem encountered by young
single-person households is likewise a social issue in Sweden. According to the Swedish
Association of Tenants (2017, cited in Housing Europe, 2017), 24.3% of young adults (20-27
years old) in Sweden do not live independently, and approximately 80% of them want to live
independently in their own house; yet, they continue to live in their parents’ homes due to a
lack of economic power.
Lieberg et al. (2000) emphasized that although housing is perceived as a social right that must
satisfy the needs and preferences of people in Sweden, young people face serious problems
once they begin living independently after leaving their parents' homes. Their major
constraints are financial factors, such as income and assets. Thus, if young people were to
extend their studies, they would earn income later in life, thereby delaying their independence.
UN-Habitat (2022a) emphasized that housing is more than a roof, and it serves as an
important opportunity for people to live a better present and future. Housing is key in young
adults’ transition to adulthood, and it can affect their quality of life and economic security
throughout their lifetimes (Arundel and Ronald, 2015; Hoolachan et al., 2016). If they do not
successfully engage in this early period of independence, they will not be able to develop their
studies and early careers, making it difficult for them to finally settle down in society. Grander
(2021) emphasized that young adults in Europe face serious housing problems and explained
the effects of housing inequality on young adults through a study in Malmö. He argued that
housing inequality could impede young adults’ wealth accumulation and independent living
and negatively affect work and study, ultimately deteriorating their quality of life. This is not
merely a temporary inconvenience for young people but rather a long-term problem that
affects their independence and settlement in society.
Housing is in limited supply in the short term, and it is difficult to expect an optimal distribution
by the market in terms of “necessity goods” consumed by everyone. Considering the welfare
and settlement of the aforementioned young people, the provision of housing for them is a
problem that must be solved via the implementation of national policies. Sweden’s social,
cultural, and political background significantly differs from that of South Korea, and its welfare
policy is different as well. The proportion of single-person households is high, and housing
6problems are significant issues in Sweden. During Sweden’s long history of urban planning
and housing policy, much housing has been supplied by the government and public initiatives,
such as the Million Homes program and various tenure forms. Moreover, public housing and
corridor rooms of student accommodation forms exist. Swedish housing policy has been
based on the nation’s welfare policy and has experienced changes due to the change in
government and shifts in the welfare and economic direction of policies.
Sweden and South Korea have implemented different policies within different historical
backgrounds and political and welfare regimes, but they recently have been experiencing
similar issues, such as the housing problem for young single-person households. In recent
years, more housing policies for young single-person households began to be implemented
in South Korea, but the number of young single-person households has likewise been rapidly
increasing; therefore, the implementation of additional policies is needed to solve these
housing problems. Considering this background, many implications that can be learned from
Sweden will be helpful and useful for policymaking in terms of young single-person households
in South Korea.
1.2 Aims and research questions
This study approaches how rental housing has been supplied to young single-person
households in the public sector in Sweden and South Korea and investigates policy
improvement in South Korea by performing a comparative analysis between the two countries.
Through this analysis, it is investigated how these two countries, possessing different social
and historical backgrounds but suffering from similar housing shortages, attempted to solve
the problem. To fulfill this aim, the following research questions are answered:
(1) What is the difference in the housing policy and rental housing provision for single-person
households by the public sector between Sweden and South Korea?
(2) What types of policy implications and best practices in Sweden are useful for the policy
development of South Korea?
7In this research, first, the housing policy and housing provision for single-person households
within the two countries are examined. Moreover, this study analyzes how the difference in
the historical and social background and the governance and welfare system between the
countries influenced their policy and system for the provision of housing for single-person
households. This study focuses on rental housing provision and support for young single-
person households by the public sector. Furthermore, this study provides implications for
establishing preemptive policies according to changes in the demographic structure and
household composition in the future by comparing the two countries’ housing provision for
young single-person households.
82 Key concepts and conceptual background
2.1 Young single-person households
The definition of a young single-person household differs between Sweden and South Korea,
but even within a single country, it is defined differently according to the policies and related
laws. It is reasonable that the age of the young people discussed in this study is defined in a
social context separate from biological characteristics. In addition, it is unnecessary to create
only a single age standard, as it is reasonable to define age according to its purpose and
characteristics in housing policy and related systems. Therefore, in this study, viewing the age
of young single-person households in a flexible manner, I discuss the main subjects of
students, job seekers, and newly employed people who seek independence from their parents.
In South Korea, the Fundamental Act on Youth stipulates that the age of youth ranges from
19-34, but the Korean National Statistical Office defines the age of employment-related youth
as 15-29 and is discussing an extension of this range to 15-34 (The Korean Law Information
Center, 2022; Statistics Korea, 2021). However, most of the housing support targeted at young
single-person households in South Korea defines the age as 19-39 years old. Meanwhile,
Sweden defines youth as 13-25 years old in The Youth Law (2004), but it adopts a unitary
policy for housing and welfare, so it is rare that an age criterion is required, as is otherwise the
case in South Korea (Youth Policy Labs, 2004). The Stockholm Housing Agency
(Bostadsförmedlingen) has a youth housing application age of 18-25, which might be different
in another municipality (Bostadsförmedlingen, 2022a). Rather than focusing on age, most
student accommodations require that students take more than a certain number of credits.
If the age range of young people is arbitrarily or theoretically defined as a certain age group,
such as 18-29 years old, in comparing between two countries, there may be difficulties in
obtaining or analyzing the data, and the objectivity of the comparison might be hindered.
Therefore, considering young people as a broad range and studying the housing of people
within that range will enable the research without the loss or distortion of data.
The characteristics of young single-person households include low income or property level,
smaller living space compared with multi-person households, and temporary and mobility of
residence (Lieberg, 2012, pp. 107-121). Lieberg explained that mobility of residence is one of
9the characteristics of young people. They exhibit temporary residence patterns, such as
moving between their parents' homes and student accommodation, but on the other hand,
there are cases in which they return to their parents' homes to study and work in their
hometown. If a single-person household lacks economic power or requires frequent housing
movement, a low-binding contractual condition that allows for easy housing movement might
be preferred over housing stability. For example, in South Korea, most rental housing
contracts typically last for two years, but the contract type of Gosiwon (temporary rental
accommodation, consisting of a shared bathroom and a small room) is on a monthly basis,
and no deposits are suitable for such young single-person households (Park and Lee, 2017).
Moreover, considering that most of the young single-person households are students or those
who just beginning their career, their income level is not high, and they must commute to
school or work at rush hour every day. As such, their housing options are limited by economic
and geographic constraints, which could be a major factor that influences their quality of life.
According to a recent study in South Korea, when selecting a place to live, young people place
importance on location convenience, such as proximity to work or public transport, and tend
to prefer apartments and new houses because of the comfort of housing (Kim et al., 2020).
In particular, the priority factors for single-person households' housing and housing selection
were functional convenience, living convenience facilities, and convenience of public
transportation (Kim and Gwak, 2020).
2.2 Public rental housing
2.2.1 Housing as goods and the housing market
UN-Habitat (2022a) stated that safe, habitable, and affordable housing is a fundamental right
for everyone. It focuses on affordability, sustainability, and inclusion in the housing sector
through the provision of adequate housing amid the recent acceleration of the urbanization
process.
Housing is a commodity where everyone spends much of their time, with the character of
being a necessity that everyone needs. In the case of homeowners, the value of the house
accounts for most of the household wealth, and even in the case of rental residents, the
10monthly rent accounts for a large portion of the expenditure, thereby occupying a large portion
of one’s personal finances and economics. However, since the supply of housing is inelastic
in the short term, it is difficult to achieve an optimal balance that maximizes social efficiency
without government intervention, and government policy intervention is required in that the
quality of life of the socially vulnerable can be the most strongly threatened.
2.2.2 Housing in the two countries
Since the housing policies and governance systems of the two countries differ, strictly defining
the public rental housing, which is the subject of this study, might be rather restrictive. In this
study, the case in which the landlord or the other party to the rental contract is the public is
considered, but the case in which the public sector actively intervenes in the supply of rental
housing is included as well. In addition, regardless of resident registration status, places where
residents are daily, such as commuting to work and school, are included in housing.
2.2.2.1 Housing in Sweden
Boverket (the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) classifies Sweden's
tenure type as ownership right, tenant-owner right, rental right, and cooperative rental right,
the last of which is an intermediate between rental right and tenant-owner right (Boverket,
2022). In 2015, in Sweden, tenure types were distributed as owner-occupied 40.7%,
cooperative 22.8%, public rented 18.9%, and private rented 17.6% (SCB, cited in Terner
center, 2017). Compared with other countries, Sweden's most characteristic feature is its high
proportion of cooperative housing and public rented housing (Public Housing, 2022 ; Terner
center, 2017). A cooperative enterprise has existed in Sweden for a long time, operating under
the principle of open membership and democratic and cooperative based on joint action and
self-help. In 2020, there will be approximately 5 million dwellings in Sweden, of which 42% are
one- or two-dwelling buildings, 51% are multi-dwelling buildings, and 5% are special housing
(SCB, 2020).
112.2.2.2 Housing in South Korea
According to the Korea Housing survey (2020), the housing type distribution in South Korea
was apartment 51.1%, detached house 31.0%, and multi-household house 9.4%. Higher-
income households tended to have a higher rate of living in apartments, while lower-income
households tended to have higher rates of living in single-family homes (MOLIT, 2022a). The
rate of living in one’s own house was 29.9%, Jeonse (a type of tenure without monthly rent,
rather a high deposit) 41.2%, and monthly rent 23.7% (ibid.).
2.3 Welfare state and policy
Housing plays an important role in supporting the welfare state, along with social security,
health, and education (Fahey and Norris, 2011; Kemedy, 2001). However, as Whitehead and
Scanlon (2007) argue, there remains no single consensus on a formal definition of public
housing, and in many countries, it is used synonymously with social housing (Houard, 2011;
Whitehead and Scanlon 2007). Since housing policies are affected by the welfare policies of
countries, it is necessary to discuss welfare policies in Sweden and South Korea, this study’s
target countries, before examining the public housing supply of single-person households as
well.
2.3.1 Welfare state of Sweden
According to the OECD Annual Report, in 2019, among the 37 OECD countries, the average
public social spending as a percentage of GDP was 20%; here, Sweden ranked 8th with 25.5%,
while South Korea ranked 34th with 12.2%. Social expenditure includes spending on social
policy areas, such as the elderly, health, family, labor market, unemployment, and housing
(OECD, 2020).
In Sweden, before the Central-rightist government came into power, the Swedish Social
Democratic Workers' Party was in control from the 1930s to 2006, and the government
provided many social welfare policies and services. Moreover, Sweden is well-known for being
one of the representative social-democratic welfare states of Esping-Andersen's seminal
12typology (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Hananel et al., 2018; Magnusson and Turner, 2008).
Esping-Andersen classified the welfare state into three regime types: liberal, corporatist, and
social democratic. Unlike the other regime types classified by Esping-Andersen, the social
democratic type pursues universalism and the decommodification of social rights and targets
not only some low-income classes but also the new middle classes. The social democrats aim
to achieve the highest standard in social welfare services so that the benefits satisfy even the
new middle classes (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Hananel et al., 2018). In other words, unlike
residual welfare regimes that focus on the poor and vulnerable, the Swedish welfare state
provides comprehensive welfare services for equal living conditions despite the demographic,
socioeconomic, and ethnical differences of the people. Under such a welfare system, the
housing policy aims to achieve general supply, in contrast to selective supply focused on the
low-income class selected through means-testing (Magnusson and Turner, 2008).
2.3.2 Welfare state of South Korea
Esping-Andersen successfully described the types of welfare state in Western-developed
countries in his book “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalist”. However, his classification is
based on the development process of European welfare states, and it has been identified that
there is a limit to its application to East Asian countries, including South Korea, with different
social and political backgrounds (Kwon, 1997; Powell and Kim, 2014).
South Korea's social welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2019, namely 12.2%, is
less than half that of Sweden (OECD, 2022), and South Korea has a significantly different
welfare state than Sweden as well. Powell and Kim (2014) stated that based on an analysis
of 26 studies investigating South Korea's welfare state, South Korea has a variable
appearance akin to a chameleon, appearing different depending on the viewer. They
emphasized that although South Korea's welfare state is classified into various types, such as
liberal, conservative, hybrid, fourth regime, and distinct world, it does not belong to the social
democratic regime, unlike Sweden. In addition, it can be observed that South Korea has been
forced to quickly change its welfare state due to rapid urbanization following the Korean War.
In recent years, after the pro-welfare government from 1998 to 2008, the welfare scale of the
13You can also read
