Democrats to Part Ways with 'Income-Led Growth'... "Must Change Due to Failure" vs "Not the Image of the Democratic Party"

Debate Within the Party Over 'Sojusung → Poyongsungjang'

Ahn Gyu-baek, Chair of the Preparation Committee for the Democratic Party of Korea National Delegate Convention, is giving opening remarks at the first policy platform subcommittee discussion of the Preparatory Committee held at the National Assembly on the 6th. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy reporters Naju-seok and Park Jun-i] Will 'income-led growth' disappear from the Democratic Party's platform? There is a heated debate within the Democratic Party over whether to continue championing income-led growth. Some argue that it should be discarded following the presidential election defeat, while others counter that the party should maintain the banner, saying it was never properly implemented.

This revision of the party platform was pushed amid voices within the party acknowledging the failure of the Moon administration's 'income-led growth' policy and calling for it to be revised with a new concept. On the 12th, Roh Woong-rae, head of the Democratic Research Institute, said in a phone interview, "Since we lost the presidential election, it is natural that we cannot run the election with income-led growth," adding, "Are you saying we can carry forward the growth discourse that was judged by the people in the election as it is?" He continued, "Then it is not a new Democratic Party," emphasizing, "It is like saying we will keep losing elections; now we must approach the people with a new growth discourse."

Rep. Lee Won-wook also said in a phone interview that day, "I originally thought this direction was correct," explaining, "Unlike during the primary, the Moon Jae-in administration did not use the term income-led growth in the general election. After the government was formed, it was brought back and got trapped in a frame."

While agreeing on the need to revise the expression, some argued that changing it to inclusive growth does not mean abandoning income-led growth. Rep. Kim Tae-nyeon said in a phone interview, "Income-led growth has already converged into inclusive growth," adding, "The term itself is not important. The fundamental purpose of creating a world where we live together is not damaged or anything like that." Regarding criticism that this is an attempt to erase the Moon Jae-in administration, he responded, "I don't think it was done with such a malicious intent."

President Moon Jae-in and First Lady Kim Jung-sook are greeting supporters as they leave Cheong Wa Dae in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 9th. Photo by Jin-hyung Kang aymsdream@

However, pro-Moon lawmaker Yoon Young-chan opposed the expression revision itself. He said, "I first oppose proceeding with revising the party platform without internal party discussion," adding, "When the survey was conducted, the question was simply about changing the name to inclusive growth, so the lawmakers probably did not fully understand the intent, but now the talk is about abolishing income-led growth itself."

He also expressed a negative stance, saying, "During the Moon administration's income-led growth, the gap between the first and fifth income quintiles was reduced through previous income," and "If you look only at earned income, polarization has decreased a lot, so I don't understand the idea of abolishing this policy itself."

Rep. Park Yong-jin, who is running for party leader, also strongly opposed. On Facebook that day, Park said, "'Inclusive growth' is not a word that replaces income-led growth but a higher-level concept itself," adding, "Our party platform already includes the phrase 'innovative inclusive state, building an inclusive economic foundation.' In that context, replacing income-led growth with inclusive growth is an inexcusable erasure of President Moon Jae-in." He said, "If there are problems with detailed implementation plans, they can be supplemented," and "Deleting this line from the platform is not the image of the Democratic Party."

Former election committee head Ahn Kyu-baek rebutted some internal criticism, saying, "This was discussed not only in the platform subcommittee but also through lawmakers' awareness surveys and public opinion polls." He explained the revision's purpose, saying, "If income-led growth had succeeded, we could have continued, but there was much debate from the start," and "We thought including inclusive growth was a more comprehensive approach."

Regarding 'one household, one house,' he explained, "Lawmakers living in or owning houses in the provinces are morally criticized because excess repayments are considered as owning two houses in one household," adding, "We thought there was no need to bind this, so we are changing the conceptual definition."

The election committee plans to hold a plenary meeting on the morning of the 17th to finalize the platform revision. It is reported that in a previous survey of party lawmakers, opinions were sought on income-led growth, the expression 'one household, one house,' chaebol reform, the principle of separation of banking and commerce, proactive fiscal policy and fiscal soundness, basic income, and gender conflict. Among these, the inclusion of basic income will be decided through additional discussions.