| 摘要 | ABSTRACT
1. Purpose of the study
The primary social safety net of Korea is the National Basic Livelihood Security System (NBLSS), where the eligibility is determined by the minimum cost of living and the benefits are paid out for the entire consumption basket to guarantee the minium level of living standard. This means that once determined as a recipient, there is less incentive to exit the system. Also, the system has failed to include those in need especially those in the next lowest income group. In order to resolve these issues, the government plans to introduce a customized (consumption) category-specific benefit system that caters to individual recipients�� needs. By introducing the concept of relative poverty, each category-specific benefit will differ in terms of eligibility and benefits schedule to expand the overall coverage.
If the current low-income support system changes, energy welfare will inevitably undergo a change also, since the eligibility rules of energy welfare are closely linked to those used by the NBLSS. Given the unique characteristics of energy goods, however, energy welfare programs need more detailed eligibility criteria. If income is to be the only criterion, then many of the problems facing energy welfare are likely to persist. The eligibility criteria need to be based not only on income but other pertinent household characteristics in order to increase the effectiveness and fairness of energy welfare programs.
To design an effective energy welfare program with eligibility criteria, benefit schedules and delivery methods that take into account household characteristics, this study analyzes energy consumption expenditure by household characteristics.
2. Summary of the study
There are mainly three types of energy welfare programs: income assistance, price discounts, and energy efficiency improvement. A major example of income assistance is the livelihood benefits that include a budget for household��s heating and lighting costs. However, it is generally agreed this budget is of an amount below the subsistence level needed by low income households. Many agree that either the method for calculating households�� heating and lighting costs needs to be improved or an alternative plan needs to be introduced, such as the currently-discussed energy voucher program. Whether we continue with the current way of providing energy assistance or introduce a new energy welfare program, however, new eligibility criteria and rules that adequately reflect energy-specific characteristics are required.
This study analyses households�� energy expenditure by household characteristics using Korean Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Our findings show that energy assistance to reduce household energy costs burden is imperative for low income households, whose share of fuel expenditure in ordinary income is high. Further analysis by household type reveals that the energy burden of one-parent households with small children is high relative to general households, while elderly households�� seemingly lower fuel expenditure turns out to be due to excessive energy saving behaviors. By dwelling type, households that reside in single-family houses have higher energy burden than those that reside in apartments. This may be due to two reasons: first, the physical characteristics of single-family houses demand more energy to generate the same amount of heat compared to apartments. Secondly, the share of those that use relatively more expensive kerosene are much higher for single-family houses than apartments.
Our regressions results for household energy consumption expenditure show that there is a significant correlation between household characteristics and household��s energy expenditure. The household��s income elasticity with respect to energy expenditure is estimated to be less than 1 but positive, implying that energy is a necessity good, while the income elasticity with respect to electricity expenditure turns out to be higher than other energy costs.
As expected, even after controlling for other household characteristics, house size and household size are positively associated with household��s energy expenditure, while apartments on average turn out to be the most energy efficient dwelling type. However, in order to understand the determinants of energy consumption expenditure of disadvantageous groups, such as elderly and one-parent households, stratification by income groups is more appropriate than studying the entire sample as a whole.
3. Result and policy suggestions
Our study shows that estimated heating and lighting costs included in the subsistence benefits are not adequate and need to be upwardly adjusted, especially the monthly subsistence benefits do not take into account the dramatic rise in heating costs faced by households in winter season. This can be problematic since increased heating cost burdens may translate into a reduction in household��s consumption of other necessity goods, such as food. Thus, either the amount of subsistence benefits paid out to welfare recipients need to take into account seasonal differences or additional energy assistance measures need to be introduced.
Energy consumption expenditure analysis shows that household��s energy expenditure differ across household characteristics. Low-income households with small children face a much higher burden than other low-income household types, thus should have priority access to energy assistance. As for low-income elderly households, it is likely that they engage in excessive energy conservation behavior, thus in-kind benefits or energy vouchers may be preferable to a cash-support in inducing them to consume energy required to maintain a healthy life.
There are large differences in fuel expenditure across dwelling types: households that reside in single-family houses have higher energy spending than those that reside in apartments. This is likely to be due to the physical properties of single-family residence(SFR) and the usage of relatively expensive kerosene as heating fuel associated with SFR. Also, current energy assistance measures include price discounts on town gas, while no such discount program exists for kerosene. In order to ensure energy welfare equity, the recipient household��s dwelling type and energy sources need to be considered when determining the eligibility criteria and benefits generosity of an energy welfare program. |
