\uc774 \uc5f0\uad6c\ubcf4\uace0\uc11c\ub294 \uc544\ub984\ub2e4\uc6b4\uc7ac\ub2e8\uc758 2023 \ubcc0\ud654\uc758\uc2dc\ub098\ub9ac\uc624 \uc2a4\ud3f0\uc11c \uc9c0\uc6d0\uc0ac\uc5c5\uc758 \uc9c0\uc6d0\uc73c\ub85c \uc9c4\ud589\ub418\uc5c8\uc2b5\ub2c8\ub2e4.<\/span><\/p>\n \ubaa9\ucc28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 1. \uc11c\ub860 Abstract<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Objectives<\/strong> Methods<\/strong> Results<\/strong> Conclusions<\/strong> <\/p>\n
\n
\n1.1. \uc5f0\uad6c \ubc30\uacbd\uacfc \ubaa9\ud45c
\n1.2. \uc774\ub860\uc801 \uace0\ucc30
\n1.3. \uc5f0\uad6c \uad6c\uc131
\n1.4. \uc5f0\uad6c\uc758 \ud2c0
\n2. \ubd84\uc11d1: \ubcf4\uac74\uc758\ub8cc \ubd80\ubb38\uc758 \ubbfc\uc601\ud654 \uc601\ud5a5\uc5d0 \ub300\ud55c \ubb38\ud5cc\uace0\ucc30 \uc5f0\uad6c
\n2.1. \uc5f0\uad6c \ubc29\ubc95
\n2.2. \uc5f0\uad6c \uacb0\uacfc
\n2.3. \uace0\ucc30
\n3. \ubd84\uc11d2: \ube44\ubcf4\uac74\uc758\ub8cc \ubd80\ubb38\uc758 \ubbfc\uc601\ud654 \uc601\ud5a5\uc5d0 \ub300\ud55c \ubb38\ud5cc\uace0\ucc30 \uc5f0\uad6c
\n3.1. \uc5f0\uad6c \ubc29\ubc95
\n3.2. \uc5f0\uad6c \uacb0\uacfc
\n3.3. \uace0\ucc30
\n4. \uacb0\ub860
\n\ucc38\uace0\ubb38\ud5cc<\/p>\n
\n
\nSince the conservative government came to power last year, the trend of privatization has been getting stronger. Privatization jeopardizes the lives of citizens by weakening the publicness of essential social services. In order to strengthen social public opinion against privatization, it is necessary to provide an academic ground for the negative consequences of privatization.<\/p>\n
\nThis study selected and reviewed literatures that analyzed the results of privatization in the fields of health care and non-health care using the \u2018scoping review\u2019 method.<\/p>\n
\nIn the field of health care, there were 27 literatures that met the research questions and selection criteria. There were 14 studies confirming the negative impact of privatization, 5 studies reporting positive effects, and 8 studies identifying mixed effects. Privatization of health care has usually been shown to limit access to care for low-income patients and worsen working conditions for workers. There were many studies conducted focusing on economic efficiency rather than the effect of privatization on health conditions and quality of care.
\nIn the non-health care field, 100 studies were selected to analyze the impact of privatization. Of these, 57 were studies that analyzed economic efficiency or productivity. The remaining 43 literatures included the results of privatization in the fields of water, welfare, education, prisons, electricity, energy, and housing. Unlike the health care field, studies reporting positive results of privatization occupied a relatively larger proportion. Few studies have analyzed the effects of privatization on inequality, quality of life, and human rights.<\/p>\n
\nThe fact that many studies have focused on the positive impact of privatization, mainly in terms of economic efficiency, may be the result of the neoliberal research regime. In the future, it is necessary to conduct more active research to analyze the impact of privatization on health inequality, quality of life, and human rights from a people-centered perspective.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/health.re.kr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/photo_2023-12-08_14-45-23.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"