Associations between Social Welfare Service Utilization and Types of Social Networks Among Marriage Migrant Women in South Korea

Background and Purpose:
Social welfare services play a crucial role in the social integration of immigrants. While previous studies have generally identified associations between service use and increased social connectedness, they often do not distinguish between different types of both social services and social networks. Moreover, most research has focused primarily on integration with native-born populations, overlooking the potential significance of co-ethnic and other foreign national networks. Guided by social capital theory—particularly the distinction between bonding (ties with co-ethnics) and bridging (ties with native citizens or other migrants)—this study explores how welfare services function as potential integration platforms. Focusing on marriage migrant women in South Korea, this study seeks to address these gaps by examining whether, and in what ways, the use of social welfare services is associated with the size of three specific types of social networks: (1) same-nationality (co-ethnic), (2) native Korean, and (3) other foreign nationals.

Methods:
This study utilizes a cross-sectional quantitative dataset from a nationally representative sample of marriage migrant women residing in South Korea. The primary independent variables capture self-reported experiences with seven types of multicultural-related services, including Multicultural Family Support Centers and community welfare centers. The dependent variables are the self-reported number of friends in each of the three network categories. Negative binomial regression models are employed to address the overdispersed count distribution of the outcomes, and results are presented using incident rate ratios (IRRs). Post-estimation tests (e.g., Z-tests) are conducted to compare the relative strength of associations across network types.

Results:
Utilization of Multicultural Family Support Centers is positively associated with both same-nationality and Korean friendship networks, with a significantly stronger association observed for co-ethnic ties. This finding suggests that while the centers aim to promote immigrant-native integration, their actual role in facilitating such integration may be limited. Additionally, use of community welfare centers is notably associated with a higher number of friendships with other foreign nationals, exceeding its associations with co-ethnic or Korean networks. While all observed associations are positive, the relatively stronger link between community welfare center use and other-foreigner networks suggests these spaces may function as cross-cultural hubs fostering diverse migrant interactions.

Conclusions and Implications:
These findings demonstrate that different types of social welfare services are associated with distinct patterns of social network formation among marriage migrant women. Multicultural Family Support Centers appear to support bonding within co-ethnic groups and, to a lesser extent, bridging with native Koreans. In contrast, community welfare centers may uniquely foster connections with other foreign nationals—an often overlooked yet meaningful aspect of social integration.
This study contributes to the literature by offering a more differentiated understanding of how specific services relate to various network types and by expanding the analytical scope beyond host-society integration. These insights have important implications for policy and practice, highlighting the need for targeted and multidimensional strategies to support diverse pathways of integration of immigrants.