The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Utilization of Maternity Protection Policy During Childbirth and Child-rearing Period and Its Impact on Women’s Career Interruption
Abstract
저출산, 고령화 사회의 인구문제를 극복하기 위해서는 여성 경제활동의 활성화, 안정화가 필수적이다. 이러한 배경에서, 본 연구는 여성의 경력유지나 단절에 출산전후휴가, 육아휴직과 같은 모성보호제도가 어떠한 영향을 미치고 있는지를 중심으로, 2015년 전국 출산력 및 가족보건복지실태조사 자료를 활용하여 실증 분석하였다. 전반적으로 기혼여성들은 고용 안정성이 높을수록, 경력단절 위험이 낮았다. 또한, 출산전후휴가나 육아휴직과 같은 모성보호제도를 사용할수록, 자녀 출산 전후 시점에서 경력단절 위험을 낮추는 효과가 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 그러나 종사상 지위가 비정규직이거나, 민간기업 종사자일수록, 경력단절의 위험은 일관적으로 높게 나타났다. 한편, 여성의 육아, 가사노동시간 비중은 높을수록, 경력단절 위험이 높아졌다. 이러한 결과는 여성들이 보다 안정적인 경제활동을 지속하기 위해, 직장유형이나 종사상 지위 등의 조건에 관계없이 모성보호제도가 보다 확장될 필요성이 높음을 시사한다. 동시에, 남성의 육아, 가사노동 시간량을 늘리는 등의 양성평등한 사회적 노력의 병행도 필요하다는 점을 제안한다.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“and that married women with higher employment stability are less vulnerable to career interruptions.”
From Women’s employment and fertility in Korea: A literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Oh and Kim, 2021
In the citing paper
“However, the design of this study creates endogeneity because parental leave users are on leave during the six-month period covered by the survey, and so career interruptions are unlikely.”
From Women’s employment and fertility in Korea: A literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Oh and Kim (2021)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Women’s employment and fertility in Korea: A literature review
(2024) · OECD Economics Department Working Papers · doi:10.1787/ac53879e-en · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Oh, E., & Kim, S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Asian Women
- Publisher
- Research Institute of Asian Women
- Published
- 2021-04-30
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-208
- ISSN
- 1225-9241
- 2671-7697
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
