South Korea will elect the new 20th National Assembly members on April 13. The Korea Herald is publishing a series of articles on the candidate agendas, election trends and notable runners leading up to the race. This is the first installment. -- Ed


Leading a campaign based on welfare measures is certainly a tempting strategy for political parties in an election season.

Progressive parties have used the strategy to distinguish themselves from conservatives and criticize excessive capitalist growth drives. The conservative camp, on the other hand, adopts welfare plans to prove a balanced policy portfolio.

But in either case, such buoyant promises come with a critical question: How will these costly social support programs be financed?

Indeed, several of the welfare pledges that have successfully won votes in recent years have boomeranged against the initiating party, mostly due to a lack of funds. Voters, too, have grown skeptical over the rosy promises of free child care, school meals and pension benefits.

These side effects may explain why welfare agenda have been swept aside this year, as the nation heads toward a general election to pick National Assembly members for the next four years.


Welfare, key election determinant in 2010-2012

In the elections from 2010-2012, political parties had every reason to prioritize welfare in their campaigns in response to growing demands for stronger social protection.

The education superintendent election in 2010, the Seoul mayoral by-election in 2011, the parliamentary elections and the presidential election in 2012 were all won by the party or candidate who took the lead in welfare issues.

As progressive candidates swept the 2010-2011 elections with pledges of free school meals and halving college tuition fees, the ruling Grand National Party decided to undercut the liberal drive by taking the initiative.

After replacing its supreme council with an emergency committee led by then-Rep. Park Geun-hye and changing its longtime name to the current Saenuri Party, the conservatives made the unconventional move to announce an extensive child care program, called the “Nuri” curriculum.

Not only did it revise the infant care act to increase the state subsidies for child care, but it also pledged to expand the free child care beneficiaries to 3-year-olds, and eventually to all age groups.

This was a drastic expansion of the original plan devised by the former Lee Myung-bak administration benefitting 5-year-olds before gradually moving on to younger age groups.

These groundbreaking welfare policies caused a stir, as well as scornful counterattacks from the opposition, but they had their intended effect -- the Saenuri Party secured its majority in the assembly in 2012.
 

Leader Park Geun-hye, too, earned credit for saving the party from crisis and for redirecting the party’s interest toward people’s livelihoods. Her presidential campaign mantra was based on two key terms -- “economic democratization” and “welfare” -- which later contributed to her victory.


Policy boomerang

But over recent years, the financial consequences of these generous welfare programs have gone out of control, with the government and ruling party are struggling to patch them up.

The greatest problem for the ruling bloc is the strife between the central government and local education superintendents over the state-initiated Nuri curriculum.

Due to the Park Geun-hye administration’s low-taxation stance, the program soon came to face a lack of funding, which then led to a standoff over who was to take financial responsibility.

The central government claims local offices should allocate their share of the budget, as stated in the ordinance. But superintendents argue that child care centers are classified as nurseries, and thus supervised by the Welfare Ministry instead of the Education Ministry.

This child care dispute brought criticism against the president for pushing ahead with an extensive welfare blueprint without a matching funding plan or sufficient consultation with local governments.

A standout example of the trouble for the ruling camp is the ongoing war with progressive welfare-driven Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myeong.

Late last year, the local assembly of Seongnam passed a series of welfare bills, providing free postnatal care for new mothers, free uniforms for middle school freshmen and special subsidies for young job seekers.

The mayor claimed the measures were within legal boundaries, citing the duty of the central or local government to improve citizens’ welfare. But his bold actions have rubbed the presidential office and the ruling party up the wrong way.

The administration, which once touted grand welfare pledges as a prerequisite responsibility of the state, started branding it as populism.

“When a local government runs (welfare) businesses that it cannot afford, the (financial) consequences will be borne by the state,” said President Park last month, as she also labeled Mayor Lee’s welfare policies “populist.”

The president also passed through the Cabinet meeting an ordinance to cut back on the subsidy for local governments that introduced a social security system without consulting the central government in advance.

“These populist policies that abuse people’s taxes for the sake of the mayor’s personal interest are like a sweet poison, leading the country and the people to breakdown,” were the words of Saenuri chief Kim Moo-sung.

But Mayor Lee refuted, saying his actions would have been in line if only the president and ruling party had not reversed their earlier pledges for people’s welfare.

“(The Saenuri Party) promised welfare without extra taxation, which turned out to be a lie,” Lee said in a radio interview Monday.

“President Park, too, spoke of a basic pension for all those aged 65 or above, but now she is taking back her words.”

The ruling party made its rebuttal, but the dispute over welfare served as a reminder to voters that several of the party’s welfare vows remain unfulfilled.


Parties dodge welfare talk in general

The Saenuri chief may be known for his outspokenness, but his offense against the Seongnam Mayor’s welfare plans was by no means his personal opinion. It reflected the party’s growing reluctance to prioritize welfare amid limited financial resources and prolonged slow growth.

A report by the party’s think tank the Youido Institute last year said that as a means to exit the low growth phase, the government should “increase the level of economic freedom and reduce welfare.”

Quoting the cases of Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the report claimed that most advanced countries were held back in terms of economic development due to their “excessive welfare systems.”

It is not just the ruling conservatives that have shied away from the welfare agenda. The progressive main opposition party, too, has toned down its stance.

The New Politics Alliance for Democracy, which is now The Minjoo Party of Korea, issued an election strategy report last year and fingered “tolerant growth” rather than “universal welfare” as the top policy goal.

Even former chief Rep. Moon Jae-in has been reiterating the concept of “income-led growth,” placing growth over welfare.

This has led to suspicion that the opposition party has lost some of the progressive color it claimed to have, but some experts point out that welfare should not be considered a yardstick of progressiveness.

According to the late Harvard historian Sydney Fay, the very concept of state welfare dates from German chancellor Otto von Bismarck and French Emperor Napoleon III in the 1870s. Both highly conservative rulers came up with insurance systems for the socially disadvantaged class so as to discourage them from turning to socialism.

Libertarian economist Richard McKenzie, too, pointed out that “the welfare state is necessary for the continued collective acceptance of the free market system.” Without a soothing mechanism, workers may end up resisting a free economy, which will then cost more in terms of growth than in welfare costs, he explained in his book “Fairness of the Market.”

“What really counts in welfare is the existence of a sustainable system,” said Ahn Sang-hoon, professor for social policy studies at Seoul National University.

“We should pay more attention to whether welfare is forming a virtuous circle with the nation’s economy or whether the level of benefits is in line with the people’s tax burden, instead of disputing individual policy contents.”

By Bae Hyun-jung (tellme@heraldcorp.com)