This article is a presentation for the course, Public Policy at Department of Public Administration of Chonnam National University, South Korea. It was discussed on November 28, 2011.
Presented by: J. B. Nangpuhan II, MPA
Presented to: Professor Dr. J. K. Seo
INTRODUCTION
The free school meals program in Seoul is just one of the welfare policies being implemented to help lower-income households. Some other welfare policies in Seoul include housing, family welfare, among others. The free meals program is provided to elementary students in Seoul except for fifth- and sixth- graders. However, shortly after the opposition-led independent Park Won-soon was elected as Mayor in the October 26, 2011 by-election, he approved an 18.4 billion won (US$16.6 million) budget to fully implement the program for all elementary students. With the victory of Mayor Park, another move is expected to be implemented next year to include middle school students in the free meal program.
Politicians, administrators, and citizens all throughout Korea have been to heated debates over the past months regarding social welfare issues especially on the free school meal program in Seoul. It can be recalled that Seoul City Council, being dominated by opposition officials, have passed the free lunch bill last December of 2010. But the then Mayor Oh Se-hoon strongly opposed the implementation of the bill. On August 23 of this year, Mayor Oh pushed for a referendum where citizens will directly vote on two choices: 1 limit free meals to only lower-income students belonging to the lowest 50 percent households or 2 provide free meals to all students regardless of family income. Unfortunately, Mayor Oh’s referendum failed to meet the required number of votes leading to his early resignation on August 26, 2011. Only 25.7 percent of the city’s 9.4 million eligible voters cast their vote for the referendum, lower than the 33.3 percent requirement.
In the national level, the administration of President Lee Myung-bak appears to be against the expansion of social welfare policies especially on the free school meal program. Pres. Lee said that lessons must be learned from countries in southern Europe where populist welfare pushed the governments to the brink of bankruptcy.
GOALS FOR THE FREE SCHOOL MEALS PROGRAM
The provision of free meals to students is a common social welfare program by governments worldwide. Aside from Seoul in Korea, some nations like United States, United Kingdom, Finland, France, etc. have been implementing free school meals. The basis for providing free meals to students include four goals: 1 improvement of students’ health; 2 reduce health inequalities and help low income families; 3 reduce poverty trap that prevents parents from seeking employment; and 4 support rural economy and promote sustainable food.
In Seoul, the free school meals program is being tagged as an “eco-friendly free school meals.” Such program will ensure contamination-free and nutritious school meals to students. If the free lunch program will be provided to all 810,000 students of elementary and middle school in the coming months, Seoul city government will spend US$370 million annually.
ISSUES OF THE FREE SCHOOL MEALS PROGRAM IN SEOUL
The implementation of the free school meals in Seoul divided the views of the people.
Arguments from the affirmative side regarding the provision of universal free school meals include the following:
1. Separation between the well-off and the less well-off during school lunches.
2. “Poor” branding from peers.
Arguments opposing the universal free school meals include the following:
1. The term “free” might not only for school meals but will become a precedent to further expand social welfare.
2. If the goal is to help the poor, the focus should be on them rather than expanding to a universal program.
The social implications of the free school meals program depend on the arguments of both the affirmative and opposing sides. In the end, the final analyses on the implications (good and bad) of this program will once more put to test political and social officials in Seoul. As mentioned previously, lessons must be learned from countries with excessive social welfare services. The citizens must also decide which should be the best approach in providing better populist welfare services.
CONCLUSION
Politicians have several strategies to gain sympathies from voters. Voter vigilance should be observed at all times so that the people who are the taxpayers will not be lured by excessive populist welfare. The long term effects of the universal free school meals program should be considered. Government financial sustainability and limited spending are way better than bankruptcy.
References:
The Korea Times.
The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/asia/25korea.html
The Korea Herald. http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110822000500
Yonhap News Agency. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/11/01/2/0301000000AEN20111101005400315F.HTML
The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/seoul-mayor-free-school-lunch_n_933911.html
2 comments:
a lot of populist welfare benefits will kill the government financially, control and prevention is better than bankruptcy.....
the free school meals program is not an absolute solution to improve students' health. but then, it is a short-term option to appease political leaders and their popularity.. what a irony for selfishness
Post a Comment