27

© International Review of Public Administration 2011, Vol. 15, No. 3

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY

CHON-KYUN KIM Pennsylvania State University, USA

This paper attempts to explore Korean employment policies for persons with disabilities from a comparative perspective. The mandatory hiring of persons with disabilities to meet numerical goals and a timetable established by the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has remarkably improved the representativeness of persons with disabilities in most Korean government agencies, though in Korea there are still far fewer public workers with disabilities than in nations with advanced economies. Findings indicate that public workers with disabilities are relatively well represented in departments with agency missions that are closely related to the interests of people with disabilities, and that women with disabilities are severely underrepresented in the civil service. Germany has utilized a quota system to improve the employment of severely disabled persons and disabled women, an approach that Korea should also undertake. Additionally, as in the United States and the United Kingdom, which prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities, an anti-discrimination policy and an equal employment opportunity policy need to be more deliberately devised and strictly implemented along with workplace accommodation provisions. Key Words: disability employment policy, antidiscrimination, Korean civil service

INTRODUCTION To improve the representation of women in the public sector, the Korean government has set hiring goals for women and has utilized quotas for female applicants in the civil service entrance examinations since 1996, which have resulted in an increase in the representativeness of women in most Korean government agencies (see Kim 2003). Likewise, to improve the representativeness of persons with disabilities, the Korean government introduced the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which stipulates that the staffs of businesses with 300 or more employees must contain a certain percentage of people with disabilities. In 2000, the Act was extended to include all central and local

government agencies. The use of numerical goals and a timetable for the increased employment of persons with disabilities appears to be somewhat successful in spite of methodological, administrative, and budgetary problems. This paper attempts to explore Korean employment policies for persons with disabilities from a comparative perspective. In reviewing the literature on disability employment policies, this study examines the employment patterns of workers with disabilities in the Korean civil service, discusses important issues, and finally elaborates implications and suggestions. This study contributes to establishing a better disability employment policy through an examination of Korean disability employment policies and a comparison with the policies of advanced economies. This study also sheds light on disability employment policies in

28

Comparative Perspectives on Disability Employment Policy

developing and developed countries from the Korean experience.

APPROACHES OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY Representing the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, the discrimination prohibition system is designed to improve the representativeness of people with disabilities by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disabilities in all stages of the employment process, from recruitment through end of employment, including performance appraisal, promotion practices, pay equity, employee benefits, termination, dismissals, compulsory retirement, and layoffs. It also addresses the provision of reasonable accommodations necessary for persons with disabilities to fully perform their jobs. By contrast, as used by a number of other countries, including Germany, France, Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea, the quota system is designed to increase the representativeness of persons with disabilities through the enactment and implementation of laws governing mandatory hiring and employment quotas.

Discrimination Prohibition System Antidiscrimination law in the United States began with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which aimed to protect people with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disabilities by public and private employers, and required employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as job redesigning/restructuring, accessible work stations, assistive devices, and modification of facilities. Most U.S. states and localities have statutes that make it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities, whether in employment or any other area (Thornton & Lunt 1997:369). The ADA was intended to promote the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities by providing certain rights for them (Mont 2004:24). This anti-discrimination law was followed by similar acts in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, and “more recently, other countries have moved in this direction, although they have opted to incorporate language prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities into more general legislation (e.g., Sweden, Norway, and Germany)” (Mont 2004:23). In 1995,

Vol. 15, No. 3

Canada introduced the Employment Equity Act, which aimed to achieve equality in the workplace so that “no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment” experienced by people with disabilities, women, and minorities (Maharramova 2001:3). Traditionally, the United Kingdom had sought to tackle discrimination against persons with disabilities through voluntary measures and initiatives. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995 makes it unlawful to discriminate against people with disabilities in connection with employment, buying or renting land or property, and the provision of goods and services (Thornton & Lunt 1997:327-328). “It is against the law for employers of 20 or more workers to treat a disabled person less favorably than someone else because of their disability, unless there is good reason”; additionally, “employers and people who provide goods and services to the public have to take reasonable measures to make sure that they are not discriminating” (Thornton & Lunt 1997:328). Meanwhile, the U.K. has repealed the ineffective quota system established by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944, in which entities with 20 or more employees were required to have 3 percent of their personnel be workers with disabilities (Lee 2006:83-84).

Quota System Voluntary or mandatory disability quotas are a regulatory approach for promoting the employment of people with disabilities by directly influencing labor demand (Mont 2004:20). Among OECD countries Italy has the highest mandatory provision for the hiring of persons with disabilities, 7%, followed by France and Poland, 6%, Germany and Portugal, 5%, Austria, 4%, Turkey, 3%, and Spain and Belgium, 2% (Korea Ministry of Labor 2008:19). Applied uniformly to larger employers, flat-rate quotas are becoming less common, and instead, quotas are being varied depending on the size or sector of the employing establishment, as seen in Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands (Thornton & Lunt 1997:389). A variant of quota policies is the quota-levy system, which allows employers to opt out of hiring persons with disabilities by contributing money to a special fund; countries where quota-levy systems are operative

January 2011

Chon-Kyun Kim

include Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, China, the Russian Federation, and the Slovak Republic (Mont 2004:21). China established a quota-levy system in the early 1990s, which is not set at a national level but rather by each province, because quotas are to be in line with a province’s actual conditions (Mont 2004:22). Japan passed the Employment Promotion of Japanese with Disabilities Act of 1960, in which public and private employers were encouraged to hire persons with disabilities, and its amendment in 1976 introduced compulsory hiring provisions and hiring charges or funds. The Act, as amended in 2006, stipulates that public (private) employers with 48 (56) or more employees ought to have 2.1% (1.8%) of their personnel be people with disabilities (Lee 2006:136-138). In Germany, “legal provisions obliging employers to employ victims of war and of accidents appeared in the Severely Disabled Persons Act of 1919 and were extended in 1924 to certain other groups of disabled people” (Thornton & Lunt 1997:148). Focusing on the employment of severely disabled persons, the Equity of Germans with Disabilities Act of 2000 states that private employers with a workforce of 16 or more and public employers are obliged to ensure that at least 6 percent of their workforce comprises severely disabled people (Lee 2006:99; Thornton & Lunt 1997:161). Employers who fail to fulfill the quota must pay a compensatory levy. In 1987, France enacted a law establishing a quota of 6% for employment of persons with disabilities by companies with 20 or more employees (Mont 2004:21). South Korea introduced the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which stipulates that of the workforce of entities with 300 or more employees, 1% in 1990 must be disabled persons, 1.6% in 1992, and 2% in 1993; and agencies and funds to implement the Act were established (Korea Ministry of Labor 2003:15). The Act, as amended in 2004 and 2009, was extended to employers of 50 or more people; 3% of the staffs of central and local governments were required to be workers with disabilities; and employers were encouraged to hire both severely disabled persons and disabled women (Korea Ministry of Labor 2009). To supplement the Act, the Korean government made fiveyear plans for the employment promotion of people with disabilities in 1997, 2003, and 2008. The Act, however, left much room for interpretation, owing to a compromise among major political parties, and there

29

were a number of problems, including insufficient budget allocations, vague regulations, and poor preparedness.1

Pros and Cons of Discrimination Prohibition and Quota Systems The effectiveness of the discrimination prohibition and quota systems, in general, depends on political/technological supports, administrative capacities, and organizational culture for work environments friendly to persons with disabilities. A number of developed countries, including the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, elected to invest in vocational training and rehabilitation and to promote the employment of people with disabilities by non-compulsory means rather than mandatory quotas (Thornton & Lunt 1997:388). The major difficulties of the discrimination prohibition system, however, arise in the interpretation of civil and human rights and antidiscrimination laws, in addition to its insignificant achievement. In the United States, for instance, disputes have been emerging between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and judicial interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and no firm data exist on whether the employment rate of people with disabilities has increased under the Act (Thornton & Lunt 1997:387). Nonetheless, many researchers would agree that “whatever the influence of the ADA it is probably most effective at preventing job terminations resulting from the onset of a disability” (Mont 2004:24). Further, the quota system is often effective only in the short term and falls short of achieving its objective without more proactive strategies, including outreach to and education of persons with disabilities (Maharramova 2001:11). The average quota fulfillment in most OECD countries tends to run from 50% to 70%, and quota-levy arrangements in developing African and Asian countries, including Azerbaijan, Morocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam, are usually not even enforced (Mont 2004:21). Although more than one-third of OECD countries have some type of quota, desire is growing in Europe for an approach based on anti-discrimination legislation because quotas have a limited effect without a system of supports to create appropriate work environments (Mont 2004:21). An integrative approach combining both the discrimination prohibition and quota systems would be more effective to promote the employment of people with disabilities

30

Comparative Perspectives on Disability Employment Policy

Vol. 15, No. 3

Table 1. Employment Rate of Persons with Disabilities Country

Unit of Government

Disabled

Year

*

Germany

Federal

8.5%

2006

United States

Federal

6.8%

2006

United Kingdom

Federal

4.5%

2005

South Korea

Central

2.35%

2009

Japan

Central/Local

2.14%

2005

*severely disabled Source: Lee (2006); U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2007); Korea Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (2009)

in developing or emerging countries, because of the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES The number of Korean workers with disabilities has quadrupled in the public and private sectors over the past two decades, but the proportion is still far smaller than in advanced economies. Table 1 shows that among the OECD countries, Germany has the highest governmental hiring rate of people with disabilities, 8.5%, followed by the United States, 6.8%, the United Kingdom, 4.5%, South Korea, 2.35%, and Japan, 2.14%. Displaying the distribution of workers with disabilities in the Korean central government by department, Table 2 indicates that Korean public workers with disabilities are relatively well represented in the departments whose agency missions are related to the interests of people with disabilities, such as the Ministry of Veterans Affairs and the Human Rights Commission, whereas they are poorly represented in the departments where more accommodations for people with disabilities have to be made, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of National Defense, and the National Policy Agency. Similarly, the distribution of U.S. federal workers with disabilities by department indicates that the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose interests and circumstances are related to those of persons with disabilities, has a high percentage of workers with disabilities (see US OPM 2007). It seems that persons with disabilities in South Korea and the United States are more likely to be hired by agencies where their interests are relatively well represented. As

with women and minorities, the employment patterns of persons with disabilities could be linked to an agency’s interests and circumstances, in addition to the agency’s demographic and organizational characteristics. However, it is still debatable whether an agency’s interests, missions, and circumstances determine its demographic and organizational characteristics, or viceversa. Further, since some agencies culturally resist hiring people with disabilities, especially severely disabled persons (e.g., discriminatory attitude of organizational members), and since some agency heads hesitate to form a clear vision or a plan for the employment of people with disabilities, the representativeness of persons with disabilities in those agencies should be improved through the use of stricter quotas or regulations. To improve the representativeness of people with disabilities in government agencies where they are severely underrepresented, Korean national government agencies where workers with disabilities make up less than 3% of the workforce are obliged to have 6% of their new hires be applicants with disabilities every year until persons with disabilities make up at least 3% of their personnel (Korea Ministry of Labor 2008:1). More importantly, women with disabilities are less likely to be represented in the private and public sectors than are men with disabilities. In Korea, women with disabilities accounted for 41.4% of the general disabled population in 2008, but female workers with disabilities accounted for only 26.2% of the total disabled workforce (Korea Ministry of Gender Equality 2008:165). With regard to new hires of persons with disabilities in the Korean government, far fewer women with disabilities were hired than men with disabilities in all occupations. Women with and without disabilities

January 2011

Chon-Kyun Kim

31

Table 2. Employment Distribution of Persons with Disabilities in the Central Government, South Korea, 2007 Agency Overall (172,604)

Employees with Disabilities (%) 2.02% (3,488)

The Most Representative Agencies Veterans Affairs

6.33%

Human Rights Commission

3.85%

Unification

3.40%

Civil Rights Commission

3.26%

Military Manpower Administration

3.11%

Gender Equity

3.00%

Public Procurement Service

2.96%

Labor

2.83%

Health and Welfare

2.41%

Marine Affairs

2.40%

The Least Representative Agencies Foreign Affairs and Trade

0.56%

National Defense

1.39%

National Police Agency

1.43%

Education, Science & Technology

1.64%

Intellectual Property Office

1.85%

Fair Trade Commission

2.03%

Office of the Prime Minister

2.09%

Environment

2.11%

Culture, Sports and Tourism

2.19%

Source: Adjusted from Korea Ministry of Labor (2008)

tend to be severely underrepresented at all grade levels, especially high-level grades, in the Korean civil service. Women made up 40.8% of the entire civil service and only 2.3% at the highest levels (grades 1 and 2) in the general service in 2008 (Korea Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs 2009). Similarly, the distribution of U.S. federal workers with disabilities by occupational classification (PATCO) and gender in 2006 reveals that men with disabilities are better represented than women with disabilities in most white-collar and blue-collar jobs, except for clerical jobs (see U.S. OPM 2007; Kim 2007). Further, Korean public workers with disabilities are generally assigned low positions, nonmanagerial roles, and unprofessional jobs, in addition to receiving low salaries and fewer years of service. Persons with disabilities tend to quit more frequently and have more difficulty in adjusting to organizational

settings than non-disabled persons (Korea Ministry of Labor 2003:18). The average years of service of Korean workers with disabilities in the private workforce were 6.9; their salaries equaled 65.5% of those of nondisabled employees (and severely disabled people earned half the salary of people without disabilities); low salaries were the key reason workers with disabilities quit their jobs; and a majority of people with disabilities held clerical or blue-collar jobs (Korea Ministry of Labor 2006b:38-40, 43). As long as workers with disabilities are segregated by agency, grade, position, occupation, or salary, it is very difficult for them to break out of their stereotypical occupations, roles, or positions.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

32

Comparative Perspectives on Disability Employment Policy

Anti-discrimination Policy Unlike the ADA of the U.S. and the DDA of the U.K., the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was not designed to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by employers. The ADA and the DDA were not only intended to prohibit discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities in employment practices, but also sought to improve the employment opportunities and conditions of persons with disabilities. The Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act, however, focused on promoting the employment opportunity of people with disabilities without strictly prohibiting discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities in employment practices and without significantly providing reasonable accommodations for them. As seen in many European countries, including France, Germany, and Spain, anti-discrimination legislation does not appear to be considered incompatible with mandatory hiring provisions for persons with disabilities (Thornton & Lunt 1997:389). Rather, countries with quota policies tend to strengthen anti-discrimination policies: for example, in 1990, France passed a law protecting individuals against discrimination on grounds of their state of health or their disability (“handicap” in French) (Thornton & Lunt 1997:134). Further, the equal employment opportunity policy is largely utilized as a means to prevent discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, and physical and mental abilities (Riccucci 1998:166). As one of the measures to promote equal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and other underrepresented groups in the context of the Civil Service Reform, the British government suggests that every department should have a diversity action plan, with objectives against which performance is measured; in Canada, employers must develop action plans to achieve employment equity (Maharramova 2001:4, 9). In South Korea, employers have to fulfill numerical goals and adhere to a timetable set by the government for the employment of people with disabilities. If they fail to meet these objectives, private employers must pay penalties, whereas public employers are exempt from penalties. Instead of the use of negative incentives, such as fines or fees for noncompliance, it would be fair to use positive incentives such as tax exemptions, credits, or subsidies for compliant employers. Additionally, as

Vol. 15, No. 3

in Germany, employers should be allowed to pay hiring charges for people with disabilities by the degree of hiring rather than a flat rate (Lee 2006:100). More importantly, discriminatory practices are most likely to be detected in the selection process. For example, paperand-pencil tests, physical fitness and agility tests, height and weight requirements, experience and educational requirements, oral examinations, and job interviews generally remain a barrier to employment for people with disabilities. Job interviews are, in particular, a crucial barrier to the hiring of persons with disabilities due to the prejudice of interviewers or the difficulties that interviewees with disabilities experience when trying to effectively express their abilities. Even qualified disabled applicants tend to fail job interviews because they have a distinct disadvantage compared to non-disabled applicants during the interview process (Korea Ministry of Labor 2006c:1).

Workplace Accommodations To carry out the essential functions of the job, workers with disabilities should be provided with reasonable accommodations, including a modified work schedule, job restructuring, the provision of an auxiliary aid, and physical modification to the workplace (Pfeiffer 1998:206). Title I of the U.S. ADA states that public and private employers have to provide “reasonable accommodations” for persons with disabilities. Also, the U.K. DDA places “a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments to physical features of premises or employment arrangements if these substantially disadvantage a disabled employee or prospective employee, compared to a non-disabled person” (Thornton & Lunt 1997:337). Legislation regarding reasonable accommodations, however, tends to benefit people with physical rather than intellectual or mental disabilities; “in the North American model, the legal requirement is to accommodate the known limitations of individual employees,” whereas “in Europe, legal requirements to adapt the work or workplace have been framed generally, not in relation to specific employees” (Thornton & Lunt 1997:388). More importantly, a severe financial burden with little subsidy for employing persons with disabilities could result in a business avoiding either hiring or retaining disabled workers. Accordingly, the ADA states that a severe financial burden can exempt an employer from the requirement to offer reasonable accommodations to

January 2011

Chon-Kyun Kim

workers with disabilities. The Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the related regulations in South Korea, however, do not have clear provisions regarding the offer of reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities.2 Rather, the Act states that private and public employers are required to raise funds to promote the employment of people with disabilities, but raising funds is too great a burden for private employers. In 2000, private and public employers were assigned to raise US$62.6 million and US$1 million, respectively (Korea Ministry of Labor 2001). Further, workplace accommodations and financial burdens depend on the types of jobs and agencies and the nature of the work, in addition to the condition of a disabled person. For example, reasonable accommodations would be more costly to implement in public safety and public works jobs than in clerical, administrative, professional, and technical jobs. In a survey of municipal governments encompassing all American cities with a population of 50,000 or more, Condrey and Brudney (1998:32) found that making reasonable accommodations was significantly more difficult for public works positions such as laborer or equipment operator and public safety positions such as police officer and firefighter, while it was less difficult for professional occupations such as personnel analyst or accountant, clerical occupations such as secretary or clerk, and technical positions such as computer programmer or drafter. They suggested that “the reach of the ADA’s reasonable accommodation provisions may not extend equally to all occupational groups” and, hence, applicants seeking office positions or whitecollar occupations, such as professional, administrative, technical, or clerical occupations, may have a distinct advantage compared with applicants seeking blue-collar occupations (Condrey & Brudney 1998:33).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS The mandatory hiring of persons with disabilities according to numerical goals and a timetable established by the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has remarkably improved the representativeness of persons with disabilities in most Korean government agencies for the past two decades, although Korean workers with disabilities still represent a far smaller proportion of the public workforce than in

33

other industrialized countries. The Korean government has concentrated more on promoting the employment of less severely disabled persons, while paying less attention to the employment of more severely disabled people (Chun and Yi 2002:68). As in advanced economies, including Germany and Japan, the target of disability employment policies needs to shift to severely disabled persons who have extreme difficulty in obtaining and performing jobs, as well as disabled women, who are severely underrepresented in the workforce. Germany has been campaigning for the creation of five thousand new jobs for severely disabled persons since 1999 (Lee 2006:99). Japan appears to increasingly hire severely disabled people, who make up more than one-third of the disabled workforce in the public sector (Lee 2006:145). Encouraging private and public employers to hire both severely disabled persons and disabled women, the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation of Occupation Act and its amendment in 2000 do not include administrative plans or mandatory hiring provisions for both groups (Ryu et al. 2010). Koreans would not consider the quotas for people with disabilities reverse discrimination because of the relatively small number of disabled applicants, whereas some Korean men are against the quotas for hiring of women with disabilities because they can be victims of the quotas. In addition, public human resource directors point out that whenever they try to recruit people with disabilities, especially women with disabilities, they face difficulties due to the small size of the qualified labor pool (Korea Ministry of Labor 2006a:4). Lack of qualified disabled labor is partly due to Confucian ideology, social and educational systems, and government policies. Influenced by Confucianism, disabilities are considered a curse, and persons with disabilities are likely to be considered second-class citizens in Asian society. While it takes a long time to change a culture negative to people with disabilities, the strict implementation of non-discriminatory personnel policies and workplace accommodation provisions will help people with disabilities get a job, adjust to job tasks and organizational settings, maintain job commitment and security, and reduce occupational and agency segregation as well as salary differences between persons with disabilities and non-disabled persons. Also, the compulsory hiring of persons with disabilities will be more effective when an anti-discrimination policy and an equal employment opportunity policy are

34

Comparative Perspectives on Disability Employment Policy

more deliberately devised and strictly implemented with accommodation provisions. More importantly, the employment patterns and welfare of people with disabilities are a product of educational, social, economic, administrative, and political systems. Koreans with disabilities are most likely to have difficulty in making friends, attending school, using public and private facilities, getting a job, getting married, and raising children. Though there are specialized schools for children with disabilities in every region, a large number of elementary and secondary schools lack auxiliary aids for children with disabilities. Likewise, except for a few talented children who can get professional jobs, including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, accountants, scientists, teachers, computer programmers, and artists, many children with disabilities are going to be unemployed or live at poverty level. The college graduation rate of public workers with disabilities tends to be less than half that of non-disabled public workers (Korea Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs 2001). The unemployment rate of people with disabilities is much higher than that of non-disabled people (e.g., 8.3% vs. 3.1% in 2008) (Korea Ministry of Labor 2009). To more effectively promote the employment of people with disabilities, political leaders and policy makers need to deliberately develop a more benign and proactive infrastructure, including school curricula, public and private facilities, and government policies friendly to persons with disabilities.

NOTES 1. The sixteen types of disabilities, including hearing, seeing, speaking, learning, and physical or mental impairments, were categorized in the Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The definition of disability in the Act, however, was so narrow that only 2%–3% of Koreans who were seriously physically or mentally impaired were classified as disabled, whereas over 10% of Americans were classified as disabled due to the broad definition of disability in the ADA, including socially handicapped and medical impairments (Chun 2000:291–292). The Employment Promotion of Koreans with Disabilities Act, as amended in 2003, added six new categories of disabilities, and the number of registered disabled

Vol. 15, No. 3

persons has significantly increased. People with disabilities made up 4.56% of the general population in 2008 (Korea Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs 2010:4). 2. Less than 1% of Korean firms provide auxiliary aids for workers with disabilities, including special seats, special work tables for wheelchairs, Braille printers, and special keyboard or mouse; a government survey shows that inconvenient work facilities, poorly designed jobs, and unfriendly work environments are major obstacles to workers with disabilities (Korea Ministry of Labor 2006b:30, 41).

REFERENCES Chun, Young-Pyoung. 2000. Logic of Employment Policy for the Disabled and the Status of Korean Disability Policies. Korean Public Administration Review 34(3):281–298. (In Korean) Chun, Young-Pyoung, and Konsu Yi. 2002. Interpreting on the Implementation Process of the Employment Policy for the Disabled by Means of a Policy Sailing and Anchoring Effect Metaphor. Korean Public Administration Review 36(1):60–76. (In Korean) Condrey, Stephen E., and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 1998. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing Its Implementation in America’s Largest Cities. American Review of Public Administration 28(1):26–42. Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2003. Women in the Korean Civil Service. International Journal of Public Administration 26(1):61–78. ______. 2007. Federal Employees with Disabilities with Regards to Occupation, Race, and Gender. Public Personnel Management 36(2):115–125. Korea Ministry of Gender Equality. 2008. Annual Report of Gender Equality. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) Korea Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. 2009. Workforce Statistics. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) Korea Ministry of Labor. 2001. Workforce Statistics. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean)

January 2011

Chon-Kyun Kim

______. 2003. The Second Five years’ Plan for the Employment Promotion of People with Disabilities. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) ______. 2006a. Employment Statistics of People with Disabilities in the Public Sector. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) ______. 2006b. Survey on Workers with Disabilities. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) ______. 2006c. Interview Manuel for Applicants with Disabilities in the Public Sector. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) ______. 2008. The Third Five years’ Plan for the Employment Promotion of People with Disabilities. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) ______. 2009. Disability Statistics. Korea Government Printing Office. (In Korean) Lee, Sung-Kyu. 2006. Analysis on Disability Employment Policy of the Public Sector in Foreign Countries. Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. (In Korean) Maharramova, Elza. 2001. Disability Employment Policies within the Civil Service. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Mont, Daniel. 2004. Disability Employment Policy. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Pfeiffer, David. 1998. Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Stephen E. Condrey, ed., Handbook of Human Resource Management in

35

Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 199–213. Riccucci, Norma M. 1998. A Practical Guide to Affirmative Action. In Stephen E. Condrey, ed., Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ryu, Jeong-Jin, Young-Hwan Jun, Yong-Hyeon Nam, and Chang-Su Park. 2010. Evaluation of Disability Employment Policy in Korea and Future Strategies. Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. (In Korean) Thornton, Patricia, and Neil Lunt. 1997. Employment Policies for Disabled Persons in Eighteen Countries: A Review. University of York. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2007. Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Chon-Kyun Kim is senior lecturer of public administration at Pennsylvania State University. His research on labor policy, globalization, and digital government has appeared in major public administration and policy journals. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: July 27, 2010 Accepted with no revision: December 21, 2010