The deepening mess surrounding the financing of free child care testifies to what consequences political populism could bring about.
If a lesson is to be learned from the confusion, it should ring a loud alarm bell against reckless competition between the rival parties to woo voters with excessive welfare pledges in the lead-up to the presidential election in December.
It has been just a matter of time for the budget for free child care to be exhausted since lawmakers passed a measure last December to extend the benefit of covering nursery fees for babies up to the age of 2 to all households from families in the lowest 70 percent income bracket.
Under the current scheme, nursery costs are shared between the central government and local administrations with the specific proportion depending on the degree of financial independence of each metropolis or province.
Disregarding, or more probably unaware of the possible fiscal strains on the regional governments which are already reeling under ballooning debt, the legislators had no prior consultation with local administrative chiefs.
With few compliments from the relatively affordable families, local administrations began to cry out over their inability to raise more than 377 billion won ($323.8 million) in estimated additional costs.
They fear the extra expenditure may increase further as many housewives, who would otherwise have continued to raise their children at home, opt for the daycare facility just to take advantage of the extended benefits.
In Seoul, the nursery budget is expected to be spent out by October. Other metropolitan and provincial governments are in similar situations.
The local administrations have called for the central government to take up all the additional cost, while central government officials reportedly consider financing the burden from the increase in the number of households using nursery facilities.
It is just improper for the central and local governments to be in a fray over how to pay the price for the reckless measure rammed through by the political parties.
The lawmakers who passed the measure cannot avoid being criticized for their irresponsibility and inconsiderateness. It is also disappointing for the major parties to keep mum on the disturbance over the budget for free child care.
Whatever compromise is made, it would set another undesirable example of succumbing to political populism.
The ongoing fray should be an occasion to make us reflect on the future direction of welfare policies as well as the relevance and sustainability of the pledges made by the political parties.
Korea certainly has room to expand its welfare spending, which remains below the average of the 34-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But the country needs to cautiously adjust the rapid pace of increased spending and adopt an appropriate priority list and direction of welfare policies.
In this sense, more heed should be paid to the advice from experts that policies would have to focus on providing tailored services for specific target groups and encouraging welfare through work.
Party policymakers as well as government budget planners should thoroughly evaluate how to finance a flood of welfare packages.
A recent report from a private research institute estimated an additional 281 trillion won to 572 trillion won would be needed to carry out welfare pledges made by the ruling Saenuri Party and the main opposition Democratic United Party over five years from 2013.
The additional burden could be too much as the national debt has exceeded 770 trillion won under a new accounting system.
Politicians here should learn a lesson from the case of Japan’s ruling Democratic Party withdrawing most of its welfare pledges made during the last general election campaign.
