In previous studies with both domestic and overseas, it has been empirically proved that poverty risk among the households with the disabled is higher compared to the households without the disabled because of their low income and extra costs due to disability. Based on these notions, this study was conducted for comparing characteristics and determinants of poverty between the households with the disabled and the households without the disabled in terms of the transfer income and extra costs. Also this study included the heads of the households’disability existence for comparing characteristics and determinants of poverty.
For this, ‘The 4th year Korean Welfare Panel Study(2009)’data were analyzed. Total number of analysis unit of the households with the disabled was 1,000 households, meanwhile the households without the disabled were 5,207 households. For estimating the amount of extra costs among the households with the disabled, the standard of living approach was taken account into calculation. And the logistic regression was performed in order to analyze the determinants of poverty of the households with and without the disabled. Major results of the analysis are summarized as follows.
First, the result showed that the standard of living and ordinary income among the households with the disabled were lower than those of the households without the disabled. Using the standard of living approach, the extra costs among the households with the disabled were estimated as 158,700 won. As a result, the households with the disabled would live in low living standards in order to expense their extra costs caused disability. From this situation, the deficit-covering of extra costs per month with a certain amount of cash is necessary for all households with the disabled in order to let them have the same standards of living as households without the disabled.
Second, the results presented that poverty rates of the households with the disabled were 13.29%, and those of the households without the disabled were 7.27%. Included the extra costs among the households with the disabled, poverty rates were increased, and it was three times higher than those of the households without the disabled. Therefore, more accurate estimation of poverty rates among the households with the disabled could be obtained when their extra costs are included in determining the poverty lines. Also, the results showed that dependency of the public transfer income among the households with the disabled are more higher compared to those of the households without the disabled. Related to this, the transfer income influenced more than two times of differences in poverty rates between the households with the disabled and without the disabled. When both whole transfer income and public transfer income were included into poverty rates, the poverty reduction effects were higher among the households with the disabled compared to those of the households without the disabled, meanwhile including their private transfer income into the poverty rate, the poverty reduction effect were lower than those of the counterpart. It was important result that the poverty reduction effect on public transfer income among the households with the disabled was higher than the effect on private transfer income of the households without the disabled. Therefore, income among the households with the disabled is decreased due to disability, that must be supplemented by public transfer income in order to reduce their risk of poverty.
Third, this study analyzed the characteristics of poverty depending on whether a householder is disabled or not among the research targets from the households with the disabled. As a result, poverty rates of the households with the disabled householders were 15.24%, meanwhile those of the households with the non-disabled householders were 10.13%. Therefore, the households with the disabled head are more poor than the households with the non-disabled head. As including extra costs of households with the disabled, poverty rates of the households with the disabled householders were increased, and the difference of poverty rates between the households with the disabled head and non-disabled householders became bigger. Therefore, the households with the disabled head need more the deficit-covering of extra costs than the households with non-disabled head. As taking account into the public transfer income, the differences between poverty rates of the households with the disabled head and non-disabled head also became bigger. Including the public transfer income into the poverty rates, the households with the disabled head had higher poverty reduction effects compared with their counterpart. On the contrary, using private transfer income into the poverty rates, more higher poverty reduction effect was showed among the households with non-disabled head compared with their counterpart. Therefore, it is clear that the households with the disabled head are more vulnerable to poverty because their earned income decrease due to disability of the breadearner in the household. In this situation, the public transfer income could contribute to reduce risk of poverty among the households with the disabled head.
Forth, determinants of poverty of the households with the disabled were education level, employment status, household type, number of household member, proportion of economic activity. Meanwhile, determinants of poverty of the households without the disabled were age, education level, employment status, number of household member, proportion of economic activity, proportion of dependents, house ownership. Regarding disability of householders in the research target the households with the disabled, determinants of poverty among the households with the disabled head were number of household member, proportion of economic activity. Meanwhile, determinants of poverty of the households with the non-disabled head were education level of heads, number of household member, proportion of economic activity, type of disability among household members(physical disability and mental disability).
In all types of households, number of household member and proportion of economic activity are major determinants of poverty. In other words, regardless of the households with or without the disabled, all households have the higher risk of poverty as the lower number of household member and economically active household member. In addition, the households with and without the disabled have the higher risk of poverty as the lower education level and in part-time position of heads. In this context, the risk of poverty among the households with the disabled could be reduced if the heads of the households are not only employed, but also are engaged in full-time position.

장애인가구는 낮은 소득수준과 장애로 인한 추가비용 지출로 인해 비장애인가구에 비해 빈곤의 위험성이 더 높다는 것이 국내외 선행 연구를 통해 실증적으로 규명되어 왔다. 따라서 본 연구는 장애인가구의 장애로 인한 추가비용 지출과 감소된 가구소득을 보전하는 이전소득의 영향을 고려한 빈곤특성과 빈곤 결정요인을 비장애인가구와 비교·분석하였다. 또한 장애인가구를 대상으로 가구주의 장애여부에 따른 빈곤특성 및 빈곤 결정요인을 비교·분석하였다.
본 연구는 한국복지패널 4차년도(2009년 조사) 자료를 활용하여 분석하였다. 분석대상 장애인가구는 1,000가구였으며, 비장애인가구는 5,207가구였다. 장애인가구의 추가비용을 계측하기 위해 삶의 수준 접근법을 활용하였다. 그리고 장애인가구와 비장애인가구의 빈곤 결정요인을 분석하기 위해 로지스틱 회귀분석을 실시하였다. 이에 대한 연구결과를 정리하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 장애인가구는 비장애인가구에 비해 삶의 수준과 경상소득이 더 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 삶의 수준 접근법을 활용한 장애인가구의 추가비용은 월 15.87만원으로 나타났다. 결과적으로 장애인가구는 장애로 인한 추가비용 지출로 인해 비장애인가구에 비해 삶의 수준이 떨어지고, 비장애인가구와 동일한 삶의 수준을 누리기 위해서 모든 장애인가구는 월 일정액의 추가비용 지출에 대한 보전이 필요하다고 할 수 있다.
둘째, 장애인가구의 빈곤율은 13.29%로 비장애인가구의 빈곤율 7.27%보다 약 1.8배 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 장애인가구는 추가비용을 고려할 경우 빈곤율이 22.61%로 증가하여 비장애인가구에 비해 빈곤의 위험성이 3배 더 높아지게 된다. 따라서 빈곤선 설정에서 추가비용을 고려해야 더욱 정확한 장애인가구의 빈곤을 추정할 수 있게 된다. 또한 장애인가구는 비장애인가구에 비해 공적이전소득에 대한 의존이 상당히 높은 것으로 나타났다. 공적이전소득을 고려할 경우 장애인가구와 비장애인가구의 빈곤율은 2배 이상의 차이를 보였다. 장애인가구는 비장애인가구에 비해 전체이전소득과 공적이전소득의 빈곤완화효과가 더 높은 것으로 나타났지만, 사적이전소득의 빈곤완화효과는 더 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 장애인가구의 공적이전소득에 대한 빈곤완화효과가 비장애인가구의 사적이전소득의 빈곤완화효과보다 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 장애인가구의 전체이전소득에 대한 빈곤완화효과는 비장애인가구에 비해 높고, 특히 공적이전소득에 대한 빈곤완화효과가 더 높다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 장애인가구는 장애로 인해 가구소득이 감소하고, 이렇게 감소된 소득을 공적이전소득을 통해 보전하여 빈곤의 위험성을 완화한다고 할 수 있다.
셋째, 장애인가구를 대상으로 가구주 장애여부에 따라 빈곤특성을 분석하였다. 그 결과, 장애인가구주 장애인가구의 빈곤율은 15.24%, 비장애인가구주 장애인가구의 빈곤율은 10.13%로 가구주가 장애인의 경우 더 빈곤한 것으로 나타났다. 추가비용을 고려할 경우 장애인가구주 장애인가구의 빈곤율이 증가하여 비장애인가구주 장애인가구와의 빈곤율 격차가 더 벌어지는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 가구주가 장애인인 경우 추가비용 지출에 대한 보전이 더 필요하다고 할 수 있다. 또한 공적이전소득을 고려할 경우 장애인가구주 장애인가구의 빈곤율이 비장애인가구주 장애인가구의 빈곤율보다 더 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 공적이전소득의 빈곤완화효과는 장애인가구주 장애인가구가 비장애인가구주 장애인가구보다 더 높았으며, 사적이전소득의 빈곤완화효과는 비장애인가구주 장애인가구가 장애인가구주 장애인가구보다 더 높게 나타났다. 결국 장애인가구주 장애인가구는 비장애인가구주 장애인가구에 비해 근로소득이 감소하여 빈곤에 더 취약하지만, 공적이전소득을 통해 빈곤의 위험성을 완화한다고 할 수 있다.
넷째, 장애인가구의 경우 가구주의 교육수준 및 정규직여부, 가구형태, 가구원 수, 경제활동 비중 변수가 빈곤 결정요인으로 나타났다. 비장애인가구의 경우 가구주 연령 및 교육수준, 가구주의 비정규직 및 정규직여부, 가구원수, 경제활동 비중, 부양가구원 비중, 자가여부 변수가 빈곤 결정요인으로 나타났다.
장애인가구를 대상으로 가구주의 장애여부에 따른 빈곤 결정요인을 살펴보면, 장애인가구주 장애인가구의 경우 가구원 수, 경제활동 비중 변수가 빈곤 결정요인으로 나타났다. 비장애인가구주 장애인가구의 경우 가구주의 교육수준, 가구원 수, 경제활동비중, 신체적 장애, 정신적 장애 변수가 빈곤 결정요인으로 나타났다.
모든 가구 유형에서 가구원 수와 경제활동비중 변수가 빈곤을 결정하는 주요 요인으로 나타났다. 즉 장애인가구이든 비장애인가구이든 상관없이 모든 가구는 가구원 수가 적을수록, 경제활동을 하는 가구원이 적을수록 빈곤에 처할 가능성이 높다고 할 수 있다. 또한 장애인가구는 가구주의 교육수준이 낮을수록, 가구주가 정규직이 아닌 경우에 빈곤의 위험성이 더 높다고 할 수 있다. 즉, 장애인가구는 가구주가 미취업인 경우보다는 취업을 하는 경우에 빈곤의 위험성이 감소하긴 하지만, 취업을 하더라도 비정규직에 종사하기보다는 정규직에 종사할수록 빈곤의 위험성이 더 감소된다고 할 수 있다.