[First-term Lawmaker Survey] 80% of Both Parties Support Basic Income... Divided on Implementation Speed

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Nahum] The introduction of a basic income system has emerged as the biggest topic in the political sphere following the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The argument is that it should not remain a one-time disaster relief concept but rather provide a fixed amount to all citizens to firmly establish a social safety net. Especially among presidential candidates, such discussions are erupting in a 'battle of a hundred schools of thought' style. So, what are the perceptions of first-term lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties who have just stepped into institutional politics? Most first-term lawmakers agree on the necessity of introducing a basic income system, but there is a stark difference in perception between the parties regarding fiscal soundness.

◆ Basic Income Is No Longer Just a Progressive Agenda = According to the results of Asia Economy's 'First-term Lawmaker Survey' on the 16th, when asked about their stance on the basic income system, 56.5% of first-term lawmakers responded that "there is a need for introduction, but it should be discussed as a mid- to long-term task." The response rate for "the plan for permanent introduction should be discussed as soon as possible due to this opportunity" was 30.4%. Regardless of party affiliation, more than 8 out of 10 first-term lawmakers agree on the necessity of discussing basic income. Additionally, only 7.6% responded that it should be limited to a temporary implementation for emergency relief purposes. "Others" accounted for 5.4%.

However, perceptions of urgency differed by party. Among first-term lawmakers who answered that permanent introduction should be discussed as soon as possible, 60.7% belonged to the Democratic Party of Korea. Those affiliated with the United Future Party accounted for 28.6%, showing a gap of about twice as much. The proportion of minor parties such as the Justice Party was 10.7%. On the other hand, among first-term lawmakers who answered that it should be discussed as a mid- to long-term task, 57.7% were from the United Future Party, and 40.3% were from the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party maintains a more proactive attitude toward basic income than the United Future Party. Of the seven lawmakers who said it should remain a temporary implementation for emergency relief purposes, five belonged to the United Future Party.

Although there is a difference in urgency, the fact that both ruling and opposition parties agree on the necessity of introducing a basic income system indicates that basic income is no longer just a progressive agenda but has become a task of the times. In fact, Kim Jong-in, the emergency committee chairman of the United Future Party, raised the basic income issue on the 3rd by mentioning "material freedom for a hungry person to buy bread." As the conservative camp, which was considered to hold the representative progressive agenda of basic income, took the lead in raising the issue, it is interpreted that this also influenced the awareness of first-term lawmakers in the United Future Party.

◆ Stark Differences Between Parties on Fiscal Soundness Issues = However, there was a significant difference in perception between the ruling and opposition parties regarding concerns about damaging fiscal soundness. Even regarding the third supplementary budget (supplementary budget) that requires massive fiscal input, the perceptions of first-term lawmakers from both parties were clearly divided.

In this survey, when asked about their views on the third supplementary budget, 34.8% of first-term lawmakers responded that "there is no problem because the fiscal status is sound compared to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) standards." However, the response rate for "steep debt increases lead to a national crisis, so fiscal spending should be minimized" was also 33.7%, showing a close split. None of the first-term lawmakers from the United Future Party responded that there was no problem. Similarly, Democratic Party first-term lawmakers did not agree with the question that fiscal spending should be minimized.

Responses stating "fiscal soundness is a concern, but it cannot be helped due to the emergency situation" accounted for 29.3%. Among them, the response rate of Democratic Party members reached 52%, confirming that concerns about fiscal soundness are not insignificant even among first-term lawmakers within the ruling party.