National Pension Research Institute report on gender gaps in the public pension system finds career breaks from childbirth and childcare leave women more exposed after their 30s

[Created using Copilot]
[Created using Copilot]

Monthly national pension benefits for recipients aged 60 and older average more than twice as much for men as for women, according to a new analysis. Career breaks caused by childbirth and childcare were identified as a key driver pushing women disproportionately into the pension system's blind spots.

The National Pension Research Institute's report on gender gaps in the public pension system found that the average monthly benefit for male recipients aged 60 and older stood at 824,000 won (about $541) as of April 2025, while women received just 407,000 won — a gap of more than twofold. The share of people enrolled in the pension system was also higher for men at 76.5 percent, compared with 67.0 percent for women, a difference of 9.5 percentage points.

Analyzing data from the 10th wave of the Korean Retirement and Income Study on 4,028 adults aged 65 and older, the institute found that women's national pension receipt rates and benefit amounts were lower than men's across all age groups. Among those in their 60s, the average monthly benefit gap reached 465,000 won.

Particularly notable was the gender breakdown of those falling outside the national pension system — people exempt from coverage, granted payment exceptions or in long-term arrears. As of December 2024, women accounted for 53.6 percent of the roughly 10.83 million people in that category, or about 5.801 million, compared with 46.4 percent, or about 5.029 million, for men.

While men made up a larger share of those outside the system through their 20s, women surpassed men from their 30s onward. The report interpreted this as "evidence that career breaks caused by childbirth and childcare destabilize women's employment after their 30s." From their 40s on, the share of women who had failed to secure any entitlement to an old-age pension — 51.9 percent among those in their 40s and 50.5 percent among those in their 50s — far exceeded the corresponding figures for men, at 30.7 percent and 26.5 percent respectively. The report concluded that the risk of a pension-free retirement is structurally concentrated among women in their late 50s.

The widening retirement income gap between men and women is attributed to labor market inequality throughout working life and an unequal distribution of caregiving responsibilities.

Given that the gender pension gap is a multidimensional problem, the institute recommended pursuing both "proactive measures" — addressing the root causes — and "corrective measures" that work within the existing pension system.

Proactive measures focus on changing the labor market and family structures that generate the gap in the first place. These include mandatory disclosure of gender pay gaps, a revaluation of part-time and irregular jobs disproportionately held by women, and the socialization of caregiving through measures such as mandatory paternity leave.

Corrective measures aim to narrow gaps that have already emerged within the pension system itself. Specific proposals include expanding the childbirth credit into a universal caregiving credit, raising the survivors' pension payout rate from the current 30 percent to around 50 percent, converting the pension-splitting regime to a "pre-enrollment history split" model to strengthen women's independent benefit entitlements, and restructuring the basic pension into a hybrid model combining a universal tier based on age and residency with a supplementary tier guaranteeing a minimum income floor.

To offset the fiscal burden of a shift to a universal model, the report also proposed introducing a clawback mechanism to recoup benefits from high-income recipients.

The institute noted, however, that the analysis relies on cross-sectional data, making it difficult to establish causal relationships, and that it does not cover private pensions or assess the fiscal impact of the proposed policy alternatives. The institute added that the policy recommendations reflect the views of the individual researchers and do not represent the official position of the National Pension Service.


killpass@heraldcorp.com