Three essays on the impact of environmental and population policies in South Korea

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the health and economic consequences of environmental shocks and policy interventions in South korea through three empirical studies grounded in applied microeconomics. Each chapter exploits a natural experiment to identify causaeffects, offering evidence relevant to environmental economics, health economics, and public policy. The first chapter examines how temporary environmental regulations during the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games and Asian dust events affected mortality. Using a fixed-effect instrumental variable approach with these events as instruments for PM₁₀ concentrations, the study finds that a 10 μg/m³ decrease in monthly PM₁₀ leads to a 7.9% reduction in cardio-cerebrovascular and respiratory mortality. The effects are most pronounced among women and older adults, while no significant impacts are found on all-cause, cancer, or injury mortality. These results underscore the substantial public health benefits of air pollution control. The second chapter assesses the effects of prenatal exposure to severe wildfires on birth outcomes, focusing on the April 2000 wildfires in Gangwon Province. Using a difference-in-differences framework and detailed birth registry data, the analysis finds that wildfire exposure during pregnancy significantly reduces birth weight. The adverse effect is particularly pronounced when exposure occurs during the first and third trimesters. The impact is stronger for older mothers and for female infants, highlighting heterogeneity in fetal vulnerability by maternal age and fetal sex. The third chapter evaluates the 2013 expansion of South Korea’s childcare subsidy, which extended financial support from the bottom 70% of households to all families with children aged 3–4. Using a difference-in-differences design with propensity score matching, the study finds that the policy significantly reduced total household consumption and preschool expenditures. However, these savings were not redirected to non-consumption categories such as savings or insurance. Instead, higher-income households increased spending on private extracurricular education, potentially exacerbating educational inequality. The policy had no discernible effect on maternal employment, suggesting that financial support alone may not be enough to overcome structural labor market barriers.