The focus of the July issue of Health and Welfare Forumis “Public Perceptions of Immigrants and Social Integration.” As of December 2024, immigrants accounted for more than 5 percent of the Korean population. Korea is well on its way to becoming what by OECD standards may qualify as a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. Against this backdrop, marked by various intersecting dynamics―including working-age population decline due to falling birthrates and increasing longevity, a growing shortage of military personnel, a shrinking school-age population, and severe local depopulation―that pose significant threats to the sustainability of Korean society, immigration and social integration are no longer optional concerns, but major national policy imperatives. Yet the country has yet to reach a consensus on how many immigrants Korea should admit and how best to coexist with them. Meanwhile, a sense of exclusive national identity, anchored in ethnonationalism, runs deep in Korea, engendering, to varying extents across different migrant categories, prejudice against immigrants, a sense of psychological distance from them, and, consequently, resistance to entitling them to welfare benefits. Although understanding public attitudes toward immigrants’ social rights and welfare entitlement is crucial for publicly acceptable immigration and welfare policies, empirical research into this topic remains limited. In response to this shortfall, KIHASA has conducted its 11th Social Cohesion Survey in 2024 with a total of 3,010 adults (ages 19 to 74) sampled from across the country, focusing on the theme of immigrants and social integration. Drawing on the findings from the survey, the articles contributed to this month’s issue of the Forumattempt to illuminate from various angles citizens’ attitudes toward immigrants as well as the public acceptance of immigration policies and social welfare policies concerning immigrants. More specifically, the three articles devoted to our topic at hand respectively address: anti-immigrant sentiment and its policy implications from a welfare-state perspective; intergenerational differences in acceptance of immigrants and in attitudes toward immigration policies; and public perceptions of immigrants’ social rights and welfare entitlements. We hope these analyses will help lead to a substantive understanding of public attitudes―particularly their underlying structure and the possibilities of constructive change―and to ongoing efforts to shape a Korean welfare state grounded in inclusiveness and coexistence.

This study examined the current status and implications of anti-immigration attitudes in the context of Korea’s welfare state. On a theoretical level, it explored how welfare provision functions as a citizenship right while being closely linked to the boundaries of social membership. On an empirical level, the analysis highlighted how the ethno-cultural notion of nationhood deeply embedded in Korean society can lead to negative perceptions and stereotypes toward those with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and in turn, may be associated with welfare chauvinistic attitudes. The empirical findings revealed a negative correlation between support for welfare and anti-immigration attitudes―particularly, in relation to perceptions of immigrants as threats to employment and public safety. In addition, generational differences were observed in the acceptance of immigrants, with older age groups showing relatively lower levels of multicultural receptiveness compared to younger cohorts. These results underscore the need for future policies that address generational differences in immigrant acceptance, promote evidence-based public discourse and support the design of inclusive welfare systems.

This study aims to analyze generational attitudes in South Korea toward immigrant acceptance, immigration policy preferences, and multicultural orientations. These issues are especially salient in a society facing a declining working-age population due to low fertility and aging, alongside a steady increase in immigration. Using data from the 11th Survey on Social Cohesion conducted by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, the study identifies clear generational differences. Young adults showed relatively high acceptance of international students and permanent residents―a trend also observed among middle-aged and older adults in relation to permanent residents. In contrast, acceptance of refugees was consistently low across all generations. Regarding immigration policy, while most respondents agreed on the need to admit foreign labor in industries facing labor shortages, older adults were more likely to support stricter limitations on the number of immigrants. Additionally, individuals with stronger multicultural orientations expressed more inclusive attitudes toward foreign labor, whereas those with stronger assimilationist tendencies favored more restrictive policies. These findings offer valuable insights for designing effective and generation-sensitive social integration policies.

Drawing on data from the 2024 Survey on Social Cohesion, this article examines the attitudes held by Korean natives toward the social rights and welfare policies related to immigrants. When asked to what extent they thought the social rights of immigrants were respected, an overwhelming majority responded either “little” (2 points) or “to a point” (3 points), on a 1-4 scale. Groups with higher levels of income and education were more supportive of social rights for immigrants, a tendency also observed in other countries with well-developed welfare states. While support for extending the National Health Insurance to immigrants was high, providing livelihood benefits and child allowances was strongly supported only for permanent residents and marriage-based migrants. Citizens who had more frequent contact with immigrants were more likely to support granting them welfare benefits. Korean citizens’ support for extending welfare to immigrants was at about the same level as the European average. To further promote social integration, policy efforts should aim to increase contact between immigrants and natives, strengthen support for vulnerable native groups, and bring changes to discriminatory attitudes toward immigrant welfare.

In order to help the general public to foster their ability to adapt to the health impacts of the climate crisis, various forms of public communications have been conducted, though not to such an extent as to be considered sufficient. This article examines where such communications fall short and discusses the communication practices and strategies people wish to see more of. To influence public perceptions and behaviors, messages should emphasize the benefits of acting against climate change and present well-defined objectives, rather than focusing on negative aspects such as the costs involved. These messages are more effective when delivered by trusted public figures who can consistently raise awareness of key issues. Moreover, communications about climate change and its health impacts need a professional framework that unites diverse stakeholders, including the general public, policymakers, and healthcare experts.s, and strategies to align support with actual needs over the medium to long term.

We examine some examples of policy responses to population decline in Japan, where the demographic trend began earlier than in Korea, and consider policy options relevant to the Korean context. Specifically, our discussion covers the current state of population decline in Japan and corresponding responses that emphasize childcare support and ‘regional revitalization’, as well as such locally driven efforts as the relocation support program and ‘hometown tax’ scheme implemented in Miyakonojo City (Miyazaki Prefecture) and Tottori Prefecture’s initiative that links local businesses with urban job seekers. Japan’s diverse policy responses offer meaningful implications for Korea, a country where, as in Japan, population decline and aging are a growing national concern. Japan’s experiences with related legislative frameworks, localized practical solutions, and interventions aimed at engaging the business sector provide valuable insights that merit attention from policymakers in Korea. From our observations of the Japanese cases, we derive several takeaways for Korea: improve and systematically manage the Hometown Love Donation Program on a continued basis so that it can achieve its intended policy outcomes; enhance policy efficacy by promoting public-private collaboration; adopt locally led, integrated strategies; and strengthen local policy capacity.