Inclusive and Sustainable Well‑being in Korea

Reader’s guide

This guide provides information for readers on how to interpret the findings in this report.

Conventions

• In each figure, data labelled “OECD” are simple mean averages of the OECD countries displayed, unless otherwise indicated. Whenever data are available for fewer than all 38 OECD countries, the number of countries included in the calculation is specified in the figure (e.g. OECD 33).

• A weighted OECD average (or OECD total) is shown in instances where the OECD convention is to provide this type of average. Where used, this is specified in the figure notes. For example, when data are population-weighted this is done according to the size of the population in different countries, as a proportion of the total OECD population. The OECD total treats the sum of all the OECD countries as a single entity, to which each country contributes proportionally.

• In analysis changes over time and trendlines, the OECD averages refer to only those countries with data available for every year shown, since the sample of countries needs to be held constant across all years.

• Each figure specifies the time period covered, and figure notes provide further details when data refer to different years for different countries. Countries are denoted by their ISO3 codes (Table 1).

Table 1. ISO3 codes for OECD countries

AUS	Australia	ISL	Iceland
AUT	Austria	ISR	Israel
BEL	Belgium	ITA	Italy
CAN	Canada	JPN	Japan
CHE	Switzerland	KOR	Korea
CHL	Chile	LTU	Lithuania
COL	Colombia	LUX	Luxembourg
CRI	Costa Rica	LVA	Latvia
CZE	Czechia	MEX	Mexico
DEU	Germany	NLD	Netherlands
DNK	Denmark	NOR	Norway
ESP	Spain	NZL	New Zealand
EST	Estonia	POL	Poland
FIN	Finland	PRT	Portugal
FRA	France	SVK	Slovak Republic
GBR	United Kingdom	SVN	Slovenia
GRC	Greece	SWE	Sweden
HUN	Hungary	TUR	Türkiye
IRL	Ireland	USA	United States

Data sources

This report draws on the OECD Well-being Framework (i.e. the Framework) as its conceptual basis (Figure 1.1). The analysis draws on the How’s Life? Well-being Database (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/fu), developed with guidance from the OECD Committee on Statistics and Statistical Policy (CSSP). The database operationalises the Framework through more than 80 internationally comparable indicators covering its 11 dimensions of current well-being and four types of future well-being capital, with time series beginning in 2004. The latest comparable data and trends on well-being outcomes, inequalities between population groups, and the resources shaping future well-being can be explored in the OECD Well-being Data Monitor (https://www.oecd.org/en/data/tools/well-being-data-monitor.html). This well-being data hub features three interactive dashboards and a streamlined OECD Better Life Index (BLI), which allows users to compare OECD Members based on what matters most to them and summarises how countries perform across the Framework’s 11 well-being dimensions according to users’ priorities. A full description of the indicator set and metadata is available here: https://www.oecd.org/wise/oecd-well-being-database-definitions.pdf.

For this report, the database has been extended back to 1996 (or earliest available year) to track Korea’s progress since joining the OECD and enriched with additional indicators to reflect well-being opportunities and challenges specific to Korea. These additional data points are drawn from OECD datasets and policy work, complemented by the “Quality of Life Indicators in Korea” dataset and relevant evidence from the Korean Ministry of Data and Statistics in cases where international comparable information on certain aspects of well-being is limited. This report is based on data available as of March 2025.

For a mapping of Korean data availability against the indicators in the OECD Well-being Framework, see Annex A.

Breakdowns considered in inequalities analyses (age, education, gender)

Consistently with the approach undertaken in the OECD well-being flagship report series How’s Life?, age and education ranges considered in this report are chosen to maximise international comparability based on what is available in aggregate statistics.

• Age groups are broadly structured around key life‑cycle stages: Childhood and adolescence, young adulthood, middle age, and older age. The age ranges considered can differ between indicators, and are detailed in the How’s Life? Well-being Database metadata (https://www.oecd.org/wise/oecd-well-being-database-definitions.pdf) as well as in the figure notes throughout this report.

• Education levels reflect the highest qualification completed:

  • In most cases, these align with ISCED 2011: Levels 0-2 for “below upper secondary” level (i.e. less than primary, primary and lower secondary); levels 3‑4 for “upper secondary” level (i.e. secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education); and levels 5‑8 for “tertiary” level. Country-specific ISCED mappings are available at https://isced.uis.unesco.org/data-mapping/.

  • For indicators drawn from the Gallup World Poll, “primary” corresponds to up to eight years of basic education; “secondary” to 9‑15 years of education (some secondary up to three years of tertiary); and “tertiary” to four years beyond high school and/or a four‑year college degree.

To deepen the evidence on intersecting inequalities, the report incorporates an analysis of well-being by gender over the life course, drawing on Gallup World Poll microdata. Gender-specific age groups were defined to support a life‑cycle perspective and to better analyse key transitions across the life course: 18‑29 (young adults transitioning to adulthood and the labour market), 30‑59 (prime‑age adults, often balancing work and family responsibilities), 60‑69 (older adults approaching or recently entering retirement), and 70+ (older adults after retirement). A minimum sample size of 1 000 observations per category was applied throughout.

Assessing change over time

To identify the areas of well-being that call for closer monitoring and policy attention, it is essential to know with some degree of confidence whether an outcome is improving or worsening over time. Drawing on the approach used in How’s Life? 2024, indicators are classified as “improving”, “deteriorating”, or showing “no clear change”, using indicator-specific thresholds (Table 2). These thresholds also underpin comparisons across gender, age, education, and between Korea and the OECD average.

These thresholds account for several factors: the range of changes observed across OECD countries (in both absolute and percentage terms); the distribution of values across countries; the likely margins of error; and, where possible, the harmonisation of thresholds across similar data sources and indicator types (including for complementary indicators specific to the Korean context that are not internationally harmonised).

Table 2. Indicator-specific thresholds used to assess changes well-being outcomes

Indicator	Definition	Threshold
Income, wealth and economic capital
Household wealth	Household median net wealth per household, measured in USD at 2021 PPPs	+/- USD 11 000
Financial insecurity	Percentage of individuals who are financially insecure (defined as people who are not currently income‑poor, but who have liquid financial wealth below three months of the annual national relative income poverty line)	+/- 5.5 percentage points (p.p.)
Household debt	Household debt as a percentage of household net disposable income	+/- 10 p.p.
Household income	Household net adjusted disposable income, measured in USD at 2021 Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) per capita	+/- USD 1 100
S80/S20 income share ratio	Ratio of average (equivalised) household disposable income of the top 20% of the income distribution to the average income of the bottom 20%	+/- 0.3 point
Relative income poverty	Percentage of people with (equivalised) household disposable income below 50% of the national median	+/- 0.6 p.p.
Financial net worth of government	Adjusted financial net worth of general government as a percentage of GDP	+/- 3 p.p.
Work and job quality
Employment rate	Employed people aged 25‑64, as a percentage of the population of the same age	+/- 1 p.p.
Gender wage gap	Difference between male and female median wages, as a percentage of the male median wage	+/- 1 p.p.
Long-term unemployment rate	Percentage of the labour force unemployed for one year or more	+/- 0.2 p.p.
Long hours in paid work (all employed)	Percentage of employed aged 15 years or more usually working 50 hours or more every week	+/- 0.6 p.p.
Health and safety
Life expectancy at birth	Life expectancy at birth, measured in years	+/- 0.5 year
Perceived health	Percentage of the population aged 15 or over reporting “good” or “very good” health	+/- 3.5 p.p.
Deaths from suicide	Combined deaths from suicide, measured per 100 000 population (age‑standardised)	+/‑1.9 deaths
Homicides	Deaths due to assault, age‑standardised rate, per 100 000 population	+/- 0.3 death
Feeling safe at night	Percentage of people declaring that they feel safe when walking alone at night in the city or area where they live	+/- 3 p.p.
Road deaths	Road deaths, rate per 100 000 population	+/- 0.5 death
Smoking prevalence	Percentage of people aged 15 or more who report smoking tobacco every day	+/- 1 p.p.
Obesity prevalence	Percentage of people aged 15 or more who is obese, as reported from health interview surveys or measured through health examinations	+/- 1 p.p.
Educational attainment and skills
Educational attainment of young adults	Percentage of people aged 25‑34 with i) at least an upper secondary education, ii) tertiary education	+/- 1 p.p.
Student skills (mathematics)	PISA mean scores in mathematics of 15‑year‑old students	Based on OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) confidence intervals
Student skills (reading)	PISA mean scores in reading of 15‑year‑old students
Student skills (science)	PISA mean scores in science of 15‑year‑old students
Students with low skills	Percentage of 15‑year‑old students who score at or below Level 1 in mathematics, reading and science (i.e. all subjects combined)	+/- 3 p.p.
Adult skills (numeracy)	PIAAC mean score in numeracy of adults aged 16‑65 years old	Based on OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) confidence intervals
Adult skills (literacy)	PIAAC mean score in literacy of adults aged 16‑65 years old
Adults with low skills in both numeracy and literacy	Percentage of adults scoring at or below Level 1 in both literacy and numeracy assessment
Subjective well-being
Life satisfaction	Mean values for life satisfaction, reported on a 0‑10 scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)	+/- 0.2 point
Low life satisfaction	Percentage of people reporting a score of 4 or below on a 0‑10 scale for life satisfaction	+/- 0.5 p.p.
Negative affect balance	Percentage of the people reporting more negative than positive feelings and states in a typical day	+/- 3 p.p.
Worry	Percentage of the people who reported experiencing worry a lot the previous day	+/- 3 p.p.
Pain	Percentage of the people reporting experiencing physical pain a lot the previous day	+/- 3 p.p.
Stress	Percentage of people who replied that their daily life was somewhat or very stressful over the last two weeks	+/- 1.5 p.p.
Social connections
Social support	Percentage of people reporting that they have relatives or friends they can count on to help them in times of trouble	+/- 3 p.p.
Social interactions	Time spent interacting with friends and family as primary activity, hours per week	+/- 20 minutes
Satisfaction with personal relationships	Percentage of people aged 13 years or more reporting to be very satisfied or satisfied with their personal relationships	+/- 3 p.p.
Low satisfaction with personal relationships	Percentage of people aged 13 years or more reporting to be somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied with their personal relationships	+/- 3 p.p.
Volunteering	Percentage of respondents who declared having volunteered through an organisation in the past month	+/- 3 p.p.
Loneliness	Percentage of people aged 19 or more who replied feeling somewhat or very much lonely	+/- 1.5 p.p.
Civic engagement and social capital
Voter turnout	Votes cast among the population registered to vote in major national elections	+/- 3 p.p.
Having a say in government	Percentage of respondents with a score of >= 6, on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (a great deal) when asked, “How much would you say the political system in your country allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?”	+/- 3 p.p.
Government stakeholder engagement	Government stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws and subordinate regulations, 0 (no engagement) to 4 (maximum engagement) scale	Any change different from zero
Trust in national government	Percentage of the population responding “yes” to a question about confidence in the national government	+/- 3 p.p.
Gender parity in politics	Percentage of women in national parliament, lower or single houses	+/- 2 p.p.
Environmental quality and natural capital
Greenhouse gas emissions per capita	Total greenhouse gas emissions from domestic production, excluding those from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), kilograms per capita, CO2 equivalent, thousand	+/- 0.5 kilograms, thousand
Carbon footprint	Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in final domestic demand, tons per capita	+/- 0.5 ton
Natural and semi-natural land cover	Percentage of intensity of conversion to and from natural and semi-natural vegetated land	Any change different from zero
Biodiversity (Red List Index of threatened species)	Red List Index, where 1.0 = all species qualifying as “Least Concern”; 0 = all species having gone extinct	Any change different from zero
Recycling rate	Municipal waste recycled or composted, as a percentage of all treated waste	+/- 2 p.p.
Renewable energy supply	Renewable energy, as a percentage of the total primary energy supply	+/- 2.5 p.p.

Note: The following indicators have not been included in this table due to insufficient time series to evaluate change over time: Adults with low adaptive problem-solving skills, gender gap in total hours worked, exposure to outdoor air pollution.