[Insight & Opinion] Securing Representation for the Unrepresented 'Future Generations'

Citizen Representative Group for Pension Reform Should Be Restructured
to Include a 'Future Generations Ombudsman' Representing Minors and Others

On the 22nd of last month, the Public Deliberation Committee under the Special Pension Committee announced the results of a pension reform survey conducted with 492 citizen representatives. After three rounds of deliberative discussions, the vote was on two major reform proposals. Plan 1 proposed increasing the insurance premium rate from the current 9% to 13% and raising the income replacement rate from 40% to 50%. Plan 2 suggested a smaller increase in the premium rate to 12%, while maintaining the income replacement rate at 40%. While Plan 1 focused on income security, Plan 2 emphasized fiscal soundness. Ultimately, Plan 1 received more support than Plan 2.

Considering the composition of the representative group, it was predictable that the income security plan would receive more support than the fiscal stability plan. Notably, among the 79 youth representatives aged 18 to 29, 53.2% chose Plan 1, which involves 'paying more and receiving more.' This result contrasts with experts' expectations that the youth generation would prefer Plan 2, considering future burdens. Experts believed that delaying pension depletion by reducing the premium increase rate would be more advantageous for the youth.

Some experts point out that the position of future generations was not properly reflected in this pension reform discussion. The problem lies in the unclear definition of 'future generations.' Some define future generations as youth, others include adolescents and infants, and some even refer to those not yet born. In any discussion, the range of future generations considered by the current generation rarely extends beyond one or two generations. In my 2012 publication, Conditions for Sustainable Development of Future Generations, I defined future generations as 'those who are directly affected by the decisions and actions of the current generation but are either minors or not yet born, and thus cannot have their voices reflected in real-world politics or policies.'

The current youth generation (aged 18 to 29) has voting rights and can represent their interests. However, infants, adolescents, and unborn generations are directly affected by current decisions but remain unrepresented. Someone should represent their positions and rights, but in reality, this does not happen. As seen in the survey results, the youth generation only represents their own interests and does not represent future generations.

There were voices suggesting that the 500-member representative group should include unborn future generations, but this was not adopted due to lack of precedent and other reasons. Securing representation for future generations is an untried approach, and its method is unclear, making it difficult for the general public to accept.

Then, how and by whom can the positions and interests of future generations be represented? I propose including a 'Future Generations Ombudsman' as a representative member in the Public Deliberation Committee's citizen group under the Pension Special Committee. The term 'ombudsman' originates from Old Swedish, meaning 'representative.' The Future Generations Ombudsman would be selected from candidates with experience and expertise in various fields such as finance, welfare, education, environment, and law, capable of advocating for the rights and interests of future generations. Even if not including the unborn, the representative group could be restructured to include ombudsmen proportionally representing ages 0 to 17. A Future Generations Ombudsman could be a feasible, democratically acceptable, and potentially effective solution. Even if pension reform is deferred to the next National Assembly, a public deliberation process that properly reflects the voices of future generations must be conducted.

Seoyongseok, Professor, Graduate School of Future Strategy, KAIST