Both discourses seek to’transform the welfare paradigm’
Frontline is’Theory of Welfare Expansion vs. Fiscal Centricism’
Material photo” alt=”Lee Nak-yeon, the Democratic Party’s representative (right) and Gyeonggi-do governor Lee Jae-myeong, met at the Gyeonggi Provincial Office in July of last year for a meeting. <한겨레> Material photo” />
In July of last year, the Democratic Party President Lee Nak-yeon (right) and Gyeonggi Gyeonggi Governor Lee Jae-myeong met for a meeting at the Gyeonggi Provincial Office. Material photo
As the competition for the next presidential election flows into the solo structure of Gyeonggi Governor Lee Jae-myung, the checks of rivals against the governor are in earnest. It is a clear example that Lee Nak-yeon, Democratic Party President Lee Nak-yeon, and Prime Minister Chung Sye-gyun made critical comments on the Governor’s’Basic Series’ one after another. In addition, as Lee recently unveiled the framework of the’new welfare system,’ which systematized his welfare theory, policy confrontation over welfare is also growing.
Lee Jae-myung’s basic income is not’right-wing basic income’
What is worth noting is that both Governor Lee and CEO Lee are emphasizing welfare as a’universal right’ beyond the conservative welfare paradigm, which focuses on the low-income class and provides conservative support. Representative Lee’s “new welfare system” emphasizes cash benefits that can be called “partial basic income” such as child allowance, universal youth allowance, and basic old-age pension. Governor Lee’s’Basic Income Theory’ also insists on a gradual expansion of basic income without damaging the existing welfare system. Although the long-term blueprint may be different, experts say that there are many common areas in the mid- and short-term pursuit points. First of all, Governor Jaemyung Lee’s’Basic Income Theory’ is different from the’right-wing basic income’ in which the complex welfare system is organized and distributed with money. The aim is to provide local currency of a certain amount on a regular basis, without conditions, to all citizens without sacrificing the existing welfare system while increasing the total amount of welfare. Governor Lee said on his Facebook page on the 8th that “Expanding welfare and the introduction of basic income are both the paths we should go,” and “(to Lee’s new welfare system) fully sympathize with and say that the future of the Republic of Korea should be realized in the near future.” That’s why I said it. Gyeonggi Research Institute Lee Han-joo, known as Governor Lee’s “policy brain,” said in a talk with the talks, “Never insist that basic income is the basis of all policies or that we have to give up other things for this. It is impossible without a revolutionary situation to pay a basic income enough to guarantee a basic living. Even if it is not enough, it is to add basic income to the current welfare system.” Unlike the existing welfare system, which has a feeling of self-defeat by requiring beneficiaries of welfare to prove their’will to support themselves’ and’how much effort’, the new paradigm of’welfare = universal rights’ is provided by providing basic income that does not ask or ask even a small amount. He said that preparing for the transition of’Je Myung Shik Lee’ is the core of’Basic Income’. In short, it means that’how to give’ is more important than’how much to give’.
Nak-yeon Lee’s’new welfare system’ also includes a basic income factor
Democratic Party President Lee Nak-yeon’s “new welfare system” shares the same problem. It is a plan to change the substantive structure of receiving support by proving’who is the weaker’. However, it is close to the view that the’new welfare system’ can realize welfare as a’universal right’ by significantly raising the level of the existing welfare system and widening the scope, not basic income. The’new welfare system’ starts with finding various welfare needs that the existing welfare system has missed. The goal is to set the’minimum living line’ in all areas of life, including income, care, medical care, housing, employment, education, culture, environment, and safety, in line with the’world’s top 10 economic scale’ and guarantee this as a state responsibility. However, the difference is that the policy focus is on social service rather than social allowance. However, experts believe that the element of basic income is actually dissolved in the’new welfare system’. The expansion of the child allowance until the age of 18 and the introduction of the youth allowance are largely open to view as’partial basic income’. Choi Hyun-soo, a researcher at the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, said, “In the new welfare system, more support for income guarantees than basic income is provided to children, the disabled, and the elderly,” said Choi Hyun-soo, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. “We do not provide lump sum basic income to youth and middle-aged people of economic activity, but they are given the right to receive universal allowance for up to three years.”
Lee Jae-myung and Lee Nak-yeon must fight’financial centricism’
Experts say that it is reasonable to see the current policy confrontation not as a confrontation between’Lee Jae-myeong vs. Lee Nak-yeon’, but as a fight of’welfare expansion forces vs. financial authorities’. Both the’Basic Income Theory’ and the’New Welfare System’ are the first confrontations in Korean political history that focus on’what should the state do?’ It is said that under the name of’sustainable finance’, it is a common task that President Lee and Governor Lee face to weaken the initiative of the fiscal authorities that have limited the expansion of social policy. Research Fellow Hyun-Soo Choi said, “In the ruling party, there is a policy confrontation centered on social policy rather than finance. However, it is a pity that this point has not been highlighted because it is tied to the frame of internal politics.” In his memoirs, former President Roh Moo-hyun also said, “What I did wrong (the fiscal authority) brought the budget, took colored pencils,’I’m going to raise spending on social policy,’ and drew it up, and I had to go out to this level,’Get the number from here.’ I should have been ignorant, but I was stupid.” By Lee Ji-hye, staff reporter [email protected]