Report on Socioeconomic Disillusionment and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals in South Korea

Introduction: A Crisis of Sustainable Development

A profound sense of disillusionment among South Korean youth, driven by economic precarity, is creating significant obstacles to the nation’s progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Stagnant wages, high living costs, and limited career opportunities directly challenge the achievement of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This report analyzes how these economic frustrations have become intertwined with gender politics, undermining SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and threatening the stability of democratic institutions, a core component of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Challenges to Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8)

The ‘N-po Generation’ and Economic Insecurity

The emergence of the ‘N-po generation’ signifies a critical failure to provide secure and decent work for young people. This cohort feels compelled to relinquish key life milestones, indicating a widespread crisis of well-being and economic opportunity that contravenes the principles of SDG 8.

• Abandonment of dating, marriage, and childbearing.
• Forgoing home ownership and stable employment.
• Sacrificing personal relationships, health, and life aspirations.

These sacrifices are a direct consequence of a hyper-competitive, neoliberal environment where traditional markers of success are increasingly unattainable, leading to widespread frustration, particularly among young men who feel pressured by historical roles as primary breadwinners.

Impediments to Gender Equality (SDG 5)

Systemic Gender Disparities in the Economy

Despite policy efforts, South Korea faces profound challenges in achieving SDG 5. The nation’s progress is hindered by one of the most significant gender pay gaps in the developed world and severe underrepresentation of women in leadership roles. This disparity persists even as women achieve higher rates of tertiary education, indicating systemic barriers to their economic empowerment.

• Gender Pay Gap: In 2022, the gender pay gap was 31.2%, the largest in the OECD, directly contravening SDG Target 5.5.
• Leadership Representation: Women held only 22.1% of managerial positions in 2023.
• Political Representation: As of April 2025, women occupied just 20% of seats in the National Assembly.

Institutional Familism as a Barrier to SDG 5

The persistence of a family-centered welfare model, rooted in Confucian familism, entrenches gender inequality. By privatizing responsibilities such as childcare and eldercare, the state places a disproportionate “dual burden” on women, forcing them to balance paid employment with unpaid domestic labor. This societal structure creates systemic disadvantages for women in the workplace, as employers often perceive them as less committed than their male counterparts, directly obstructing progress on gender equality.

Politicization of Gender and the Rise of Anti-Feminism

Economic anxieties have been politically weaponized, transforming legitimate concerns about employment (SDG 8) into a gendered conflict that attacks the foundations of SDG 5. The 2022 presidential election exemplified this trend, where populist rhetoric framed feminist policies as discriminatory against men. This narrative successfully mobilized a significant portion of the young male electorate, who perceive women’s empowerment as a zero-sum threat to their own opportunities. This development represents a significant regression for social cohesion and the goals of gender equality.

Threats to Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

Perceptions of Inequity and Social Polarization

The discourse surrounding mandatory military service for men has become a focal point for grievances, further complicating efforts to achieve SDG 10. While military service is culturally valued, many young men view the 18-21 month requirement as a career setback in a competitive job market. Populist actors exploit these frustrations, citing military service as evidence of systemic discrimination against men, thereby deepening the gender divide and distracting from the structural economic issues affecting all youth.

Populism’s Challenge to Democratic Governance

The rise of gender-based populism poses a direct threat to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). By thriving on polarization and economic precarity, this rhetoric undermines institutional accountability and erodes public trust. The framing of gender equality policies as a source of conflict, rather than a collective goal, weakens the democratic institutions designed to manage societal disputes inclusively and constructively. South Korea’s democratic resilience now depends on its ability to address the root causes of this unrest, particularly the intersecting challenges of economic and gender inequality.

Conclusion and Path Forward

South Korea’s current turmoil reflects a critical juncture between traditional social structures and the pressures of modern economic life. To counter the rise of divisive populism and make meaningful progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, a comprehensive and equitable governance strategy is required. The path forward must be built on a renewed commitment to inclusive development.

1. Advance Equitable Governance (SDG 16): Address the root causes of economic precarity for all youth while simultaneously strengthening institutional commitments to gender equality, ensuring that policies do not create a zero-sum conflict.
2. Promote Social Solidarity (SDG 10): Foster constructive dialogue to bridge the gender divide and counter populist narratives that thrive on polarization. This requires acknowledging the distinct pressures faced by both young men and women.
3. Reform Institutional Support Systems (SDG 5 & 8): Transition away from a familistic welfare model by increasing public support for caregiving. This will alleviate the dual burden on women, promote their full economic participation, and create a more equitable labor market for all.
4. Uphold SDG 5 as a Foundational Goal: Reaffirm gender equality as a fundamental principle of a just and prosperous society, essential for democratic resilience and sustainable development, rather than a secondary policy goal instrumentalized for economic purposes.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
    
    The article discusses systemic discrimination, such as “selective hiring practices and slower promotion rates for women,” and the societal perception of women as “less reliable for demanding roles” due to caregiving expectations. The rise of anti-feminism and political rhetoric framing feminist policies as “discriminatory against men” also relates to this target by highlighting the complex nature of perceived and real discrimination.
  • Target 5.4: Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies.
    
    The article explicitly states there is “minimal public support for childcare or eldercare,” which forces caregiving to be “privatised as a woman’s duty.” This directly forces women to “juggle paid employment with unpaid domestic labour,” which is the central issue this target aims to address.
  • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.
    
    This target is directly addressed with specific data from the article: “women held only 22.1 per cent of managerial positions across industries” and occupied “just 20 per cent of seats in the National Assembly as of April 2025.” This shows a clear lack of equal participation in economic and political leadership.
  • Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.
    
    The article mentions the “establishment of the MOGEF in 2001” and the implementation of “feminist policies to encourage female labour participation” as institutional commitments. However, it also critiques these policies as being “instrumentalised as part of economic policy rather than pursued as a transformative societal goal” and highlights the political backlash, such as pledges to “abolish the MOGEF.”

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people… and equal pay for work of equal value.
    
    The article highlights the struggles of South Korean youth with “stagnant wages, soaring living costs and limited career prospects.” The issue of equal pay is starkly pointed out by the statistic that South Korea “recorded the OECD’s largest gender pay gap at 31.2 per cent.” The labeling of youth as the “‘N-po generation’,” who give up on “stable employment,” points to a failure in providing decent work.
  • Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training (NEET).
    
    While the target date has passed, the article’s focus on the “profound sense of disillusionment among today’s South Korean youth” and the “N-po generation” relinquishing life milestones due to limited career prospects directly relates to the ongoing challenge of youth employment and their integration into the economy.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex… or other status.
    
    The article’s core theme is the lack of social, economic, and political inclusion for women. This is evidenced by the gender pay gap, low representation in management and politics, and the societal structures of “institutionalised familism” that limit women’s opportunities. The article also discusses how young men feel excluded and victimized, leading to gender polarization.
  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
    
    The article directly discusses inequalities of outcome, citing the “31.2 per cent” gender pay gap and the disparity in managerial positions despite women having higher tertiary education enrolment rates. It identifies “rigid gender roles upheld by institutionalised familism” and “selective hiring practices” as practices that prevent equal opportunity.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
    
    The article critiques the effectiveness of government institutions. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) is seen by some as creating “unfair advantages for women,” and its establishment is described as being “instrumentalised as part of economic policy.” The article calls for “equitable governance, institutional accountability and a commitment to solidarity” to counter populist unrest, pointing to a need for more effective and accountable institutions.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
    
    The article highlights a failure in inclusive decision-making through the 2022 presidential election results, which showed a stark gender divide in voting. The fact that “58.7 per cent of young men voted for Yoon, while his opponent… garnered 58 per cent of the young female vote” demonstrates a breakdown in representative decision-making, where political campaigns capitalize on “gender polarisation” rather than fostering inclusive dialogue.
  • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.
    
    This target is relevant through the discussion of “feminist policies” and the existence of the MOGEF. However, the article shows the challenge of enforcing these policies when they are met with political backlash and are framed by populists as a “threat to fairness,” indicating a struggle to enforce non-discriminatory policies effectively.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  • Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments.
    
    The article explicitly states this figure: “women occupying just 20 per cent of seats in the National Assembly as of April 2025.”
  • Indicator 5.5.2: Proportion of women in managerial positions.
    
    The article provides a clear statistic: “women held only 22.1 per cent of managerial positions across industries.”
  • Indicator 5.4.1: Proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex.
    
    While not providing a quantitative figure, the article strongly implies a high and disproportionate amount of time spent by women on this work by stating that caregiving “remains privatised as a woman’s duty, forcing many to juggle paid employment with unpaid domestic labour.”

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Indicator 8.5.1: Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, age and persons with disabilities.
    
    The article directly references this through the “gender pay gap at 31.2 per cent,” which is the largest in the OECD. This figure is a direct measure of the disparity in earnings between men and women.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilities.
    
    The article implies economic inequality through the gender pay gap and the mention of “stagnant wages” and “soaring living costs,” which disproportionately affect certain groups. The 31.2% pay gap is a direct indicator of economic inequality based on sex.
  • Indicator 10.3.1: Proportion of the population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law.
    
    The article implies this through its discussion of how “younger men” have “feelings of victimisation” and view gender equality policies as “preferential treatment that disregards their struggles.” It also discusses the discrimination women face in hiring and promotion.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group.
    
    The starkly polarized voting patterns mentioned in the article (“58.7 per cent of young men voted for Yoon, while… 58 per cent of the young female vote” went to his opponent) serve as a proxy indicator for a lack of inclusive and responsive decision-making, reflecting deep societal division along gender lines.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators’ to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: eastasiaforum.org