A Study on the Reality and Causes of Dual Welfare Attitude

Purpose and Background

This study examines the inconsistency in welfare attitudes in South Korea, where many support universal welfare expansion but oppose the taxation required to fund it. This paradox poses a growing challenge to the sustainability of the welfare state. Unlike Western models that emphasize class-based preferences and political mobilization, Korea’s welfare system has developed through state-led initiatives, resulting in weak class alignment and fragmented public opinion. Previous studies often rely on a single-dimensional view of welfare attitudes, overlooking internal contradictions. This study addresses that gap by redefining welfare attitudes around two key dimensions—universalism and taxation—and analyzes the mismatch between them. By doing so, it offers a more accurate and policy-relevant understanding of Korea’s welfare attitudes and contributes to broader debates on the transformation of welfare politics in East Asia.

Methods
This study uses data from the 2019 Korea Welfare Panel Survey (14th wave) to classify individuals into four welfare attitude groups based on two dimensions: preference for universal vs. targeted welfare, and support for vs. opposition to taxation. The dependent variable is the type of welfare attitude; independent variables include gender, age, education, income, employment status, political orientation, welfare benefit history, and perceptions of inequality, dependence, fairness, and public spending. Inconsistent responses were excluded. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted with the “universal–pro-tax” group as the reference category.

Results

This study finds that 44.1% of respondents hold inconsistent welfare attitudes—either supporting universal welfare but opposing taxation (“universal–anti-tax”) or supporting taxation while preferring targeted welfare (“targeted–pro-tax”). Among these, the “universal–anti-tax” group was the largest inconsistent group and the main focus of analysis, highlighting a disconnect between welfare ideals and willingness to bear fiscal costs. Multinomial logistic regression, using the “universal–pro-tax” group as the reference, identified key predictors of each group. The “targeted–anti-tax” group is more likely to include older individuals (50s and 60s; p<0.05), those with lower education (p<0.01), high-income earners (p<0.05), and conservatives (p<0.001). The “targeted–pro-tax” group includes respondents with lower education (p<0.05), basic livelihood security recipients (p<0.05), and those aged 60 and over (p<0.1). The “universal–anti-tax” group—reflecting the most common form of inconsistency—is more prevalent among women (p<0.1), political centrists (p<0.01), and conservatives (p<0.001).

Implication
This study highlights three key implications: (i) the need for gender-responsive welfare policy to enhance women’s benefit experience; (ii) the expansion of universal welfare to strengthen policy relevance and reduce attitudinal inconsistency; and (iii) the importance of political strategies to build public consensus around progressive taxation through trust and inclusive welfare delivery.