[What Do You Think?] The Value of Universal Disaster Relief

[Takryu Cheongron] "If selective support ends, it will be difficult to create fair selection criteria"

Takryucheongron is a column featuring in-depth analysis and diagnosis by experts in the relevant fields on socially contentious topics. This week's topic is the urgent disaster relief fund payment.

Currently, disaster relief funds in Korean society are being discussed from three perspectives. First, compensation for losses incurred by businesses designated as subject to gathering bans and business restrictions under government policy; second, selective support for those who have suffered relatively significant damage due to COVID-19; and third, universal support for all citizens facing economic difficulties caused by COVID-19. Although there is controversy over the scale and recipients of the first and second categories, a general social consensus seems to have been formed. The fourth disaster relief fund, scheduled to be paid at the end of March, falls under these categories. Meanwhile, debate continues over the third category, and government policy has not yet been finalized. This debate is also linked to the basic income discussions recently occurring among ruling party presidential candidates, and it is expected to intensify going forward.

I believe it is right to provide disaster relief funds to all citizens. First, there are hardly any citizens who are free from the damages caused by COVID-19. If disaster relief funds are defined as money paid to victims, then all citizens qualify to receive them. Moreover, all citizens pay various taxes according to the constitutional obligation of taxation. Especially the middle class and above bear a large portion of total tax revenue. If they bear the full cost required by the state but are excluded when receiving benefits from the state, what might they think inwardly? They are likely to become hidden opposition forces against similar future support payments or welfare expenditures targeted at low-income groups. Attempting to increase the 'cost-effectiveness' of policy through selective support may make it difficult to even discuss similar policies in the future.

Second, if support is limited to selective aid, it is difficult to create fair selection criteria. To provide selective support fairly, the degree of damage for every citizen would need to be measured individually and support amounts determined proportionally, which is practically impossible. Therefore, any method of selective support involves issues of fairness in criteria, and dissatisfaction and complaints inevitably arise from those who are excluded or receive relatively less support. One might think that selection based on income would suffice, but even among the low-income group, the degree of damage varies greatly, and there is no correlation between last year's income and this year's damage, so fairness disputes cannot be avoided.

Third, universal support funds allow all citizens to truly feel their identity as sovereigns of the Republic of Korea. Although people grow up hearing that sovereignty lies with the people, most have lived without experiencing the economic effect of their sovereignty. In the past, when economic crises or disasters occurred, state support was usually concentrated on companies or banks. Ordinary citizens never dared to expect such benefits, which was fundamentally wrong. If, on this occasion, universal disaster relief funds are provided to all citizens as a payment corresponding to sovereignty, it will be the first step toward the state treating citizens as actual sovereigns. Since sovereignty is equal among all citizens, this payment should be given equally as well.

There is no need to argue whether selective or universal support is right regarding disaster relief funds. Losses incurred due to government policy should naturally be supported selectively. Selective support for those who have suffered relatively large damage should only be implemented when it is clearly confirmed that the damage is significant and support is unavoidable. Universal support for all citizens is not only a valuable policy that treats citizens as sovereigns but also greatly mitigates the side effects of selective support. It also stimulates consumption. Watching the government and ruling party delay this repeatedly with various excuses is extremely frustrating.

Jeon Gang-su, Professor, Department of Economics and Trade, Daegu Catholic University