사회서비스 현금지급제도의 이용자 선택권 비교연구

이동석

서지반출

국문초록

본 연구는 퍼지셋 이상형분석방법을 사용한 유형화를 통해 8개국 11개 사회서비스 현금지급제도의 이용자 선택권을 비교한 것이다. 이론적이고 실질적인 지식을 바탕으로 현금급여사용의 융통성과 정보 및 지원시스템의 기능정도를 유형화 지표로 추출하였다. 각국 제도에 대한 분석결과, 현금급여 사용의 융통성이 크면서 정보 및 지원시스템의 기능도 강한 이용자지원 예산모형에는 영국의 개인 예산제도와 미국의 자기주도지원 프로그램이 속했다. 현금급여사용의 융통성은 크지만 지원시스템 이 발달하지 않은 개인책임 예산모형에는 오스트리아 장기요양수당, 독일 현금급여, 이탈리아 동행 수당이 속했으며, 현금급여사용의 융통성은 적지만 지원시스템은 발전된 이용자지원 고용모형에는 미국 C&C, 스웨덴 활동지원수당, 네덜란드 개인예산제도가 속했다. 현금급여사용의 융통성도 적고 지원시스템도 발달하지 않은 개별책임 고용모형에는 프랑스 장기요양수당, 영국 직접지불제도, 독일 사례관리예산이 속했다. 유형분석결과 사회서비스 현금지급제도는 기존 사회 돌봄의 틀을 유지하면 서도 독자적인 제도로 발전하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 우리나라 제도 도입 시 이용자 선택권 정도에 대한 함의를 도출할 수 있었다.

영문초록

This study is to compare the user’s choice of 11 cash-for-care in 8 countries by adapting fuzzy-set ideal type analysis. On the basis of theoretical and practical knowledge about cash-for-care, flexibility of cash usage and the functioning of support system are selected as indicators. As a result, UK Personal Budgets and US PM-LTSS pertain to ‘user support budget scheme’that has much cash flexibility and support function. Austria Pflegegeld, Germany Long-term care cash benefits, and Italy IdA pertain to ‘individual responsibility budget scheme’ that has much flexibility of cash usage but does not develop the functioning of support system. US Cash and Counseling, Sweden Personal assistance, and Netherlands PGB belong to ‘user support employment scheme’ that has little flexibility of cash usage but considerably develops the functioning of support system. France APA, UK Direct payments, and Germany case-managed care budgets belong to ‘individual responsibility employment scheme’that has not cash flexibility and support function. Cash-for-care seems to have common features with social care but have its own pictures. It is also necessary to integrate market approaches which can facilitate service user’s choice and anti-market schemes which can act against the negative effects of market approaches.

키워드

사회서비스 현금지급제도 이용자 선택권 퍼지셋 이상형분석 개인예산제도 Cash-for-Care User’s choice Fuzzy Set Ideal Type Analysis Personal budgets

참고문헌 (43건)

김진욱·최영준, 2012. “일-가족 시간배분에 따른 가구유형과 변화 -퍼지셋 이상형분석의 적용-”. 『한국사회복지학』. 64(2): 31-54.
석재은. 2006. “장기요양 현금급여 정책의 국가간 비교 연구”. 『한국사회복지학』. 58(2): 273-302.
안상훈. 2002. “비교사회정책 연구방법론의 서설적(序說的) 이해”. 『비판사회정책』. 13: 47-71.
원소연. 2010. “장애인의 자기결정권 실현을 위한 정책연구: 독일의 개인예산제도와 한국의 활동보조지원사업을 중심으로”. 『사회복지정책』. 37(2): 267-289.
유동철. 2012. “영국 장애인 서비스 현금지급제도의 정책적 효과성에 대한 탐색적 연구: 사회적 배제의 관점에서”. 『비판사회정책』. 34: 129-162.
이동석. 2015. 『사회서비스 현금지급제도의 유형에 관한 국가비교연구 -퍼지셋 이상형 분석의 적용』. 성공회대학교 박사학위 청구논문
이동석·김용득. 2013. “영국 서비스현금지급과 개인예산제도의 쟁점 및 한국의 도입 가능성”. 『한국장애인복지학』. 23: 47-66.
이승기·이성규. 2014. “직접지불제도와 개인예산제도 도입을 위한 탐색적 연구- 영국 사례를 중심으로”. 『장애인복지학』. 26: 235-249.
최영준. 2009. “사회과학에서 퍼지셋 활용의 모색: 퍼지셋 이상형분석과 결합 요인 분석을 중심으로”. 『정부학연구』. 15(3): 307-336.
한국보건사회연구원. 2012a. 『주요국의 사회보장제도: 영국 편』. 한국보건사회연구원.
한국보건사회연구원. 2012b. 『주요국의 사회보장제도: 프랑스 편』. 한국보건사회연구원.
ADHS. 2008. IndependentChoices Final Report December 1998-March 2008. Arkansas Department of Human Services.
Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. 1996. “European social care services. Is it possible to identify models?”. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2): 87-100.
Arksey, H. and Kemp, P. A. 2008. Dimensions of Choice: A Narrative of Cash-for-Care Schemes. Social Policy Research Unit, The University of York.
Bettio, F. and Plantenga, J. 2004. “Comparing care regimes in Europe”. Feminist Economics, 10(1): 85-113.
Burau, V., Theobald, H., and Blank, R. 2007. Governing Home Care : A Cross-National Comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Colombo, F., Llena-Nozal, A., Mercier, J., and Tjadens, F. 2011. Help Wanted? - Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care. OECD Health Policy Studies. OECD Publishing.
Da Roit, B. and Le Bihan, B. 2010. “Similar and Yet So Different: Cash-for-Care in Six European Countries’ Long-Term Care Policies”. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(3): 286-309.
Decruynaere, E. 2010. The Personal Budget(PGB) in the Netherlands. Expertise Centre Independent Living.
Doty P., Mahoney K. J., and Simon-Rusinowitz L. 2007. “Designing the cash and counseling demonstration and evaluation”. Health Research and Educational Trust, 42: 378–396.
Fukushima, N., Adami, J., and Palme, M. 2010. The Long-Term Care System for the elderly in Sweden. ENEPRI Research Report No. 89. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes · Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations.
Glasby, J. and Littlechild, R. 2009. Direct Payments and Personal Budgets – Putting Personalization into Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Glendinning, C. 2006. “Paying family caregivers: evaluating different models”. In Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. (eds). 2006. Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Bristol: The Policy Press, 127-140.
Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. (eds). 2006. Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Gori, C. and Da Roit, B. 2007. “The commodification of care – the Italian way”. in Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S.(eds). Cash-for-Care in Developed Welfare States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 60-80.
Joël, M., Dufour-Kippelen, S., Duchêne, C., and Marmier, M. 2010. The long-term care system for the elderly in France. ENEPRI Research Report No. 77. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes · Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations
Kremer, M. 2006. “Consumers in charge of care: the Dutch personal budget and its impact on the market, professions and the family”. European Societies, 8(3): 385-401.
Kvist, J. 2007. “Fuzzy set ideal type analysis”. Journal of Business Research, 60(5): 474-481.
Martin, C. and Le Bihan, B. 2007. “Cash-for-care in the French welfare state: a skilful compromise?”. in Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds). Cash-for-Care in Developed Welfare States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 32-59.
Morris, J. 2006. “Independent living: the role of the disability movement in the development of government policy”. In Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. (eds). 2006. Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Bristol: The Policy Press, 235-248.
Mot, E., Aouragh, A., De Groot, M. and Mannaerts, H. 2010. The Long-term Care Syatem for the Elderly in the Netherlands. ENEPRI Research Report. No. 90. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes · Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations.
NRCPDS. 2014. Facts and Figures: 2013 National Inventory Survey on Participant Direction. National Resource Center for Participant-Directed Services.
Österle, A. and Hammer, E. 2007. “Care allowances and the formalization of care arrangements: the Austrian experience”. in Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds). Cash-for-Care in Developed Welfare States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 13-31.
Pijl, M. and Ramakers, C. 2007. “Contracting one’s family members: the Dutch care allowance”. in Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds). Cash-for-Care in Developed Welfare States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 81-103.
Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set Social Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Riedel, M. and Kraus, M. 2010. The Austrian long-term care system – Final Report. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
Schneider, U. and Reyes, C. 2007. “Mixed blessing: Long-term care benefits in Germany”. in Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds). Cash for Care in Developed Welfare States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 137-165.
Schulz, E. 2010. The Long-term Care System for the Elderly in Germany. ENEPRI Research Report NO. 78. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes · Assessing Needs of Care in European Nations.
SFI(The Danish National Centre for Social Research). 2011. LIVINDHOME - Living independently at home, Reforms in home care in 9 european countries. SFI(The Danish National Centre for Social Research).
Ungerson, C. 2004. “Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on cash for care schemes”. Ageing and Society, 24: 189-212.
Ungerson, C. and and Yeandle, S. (eds.). 2007. Cash for Care in Ddeveloped Welfare States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Westberg, K. 2010. Personal Assistance in Sweden. Independent Living Institute.
Yoshida, K., Willi, V., Parker, I. and Locker, D. 2004. “The emergence of self-managed attendant services in Ontario: an independent living model for Canadians requiring attendant services”. Research in the Sociology of Health Care, 22: 177-204.

구매하기 (5,500)

장바구니

국문초록

영문초록

목차

키워드

참고문헌 (43건)