▲지난 18일 영국 런던 지하철 내부의 한 모습. 영국정부의 '사회적 거리두기' 발표이후 런던 시내의 유동 인구가 크게 줄었다.
김종철
Drinking a cup of tea, Chang said, "So, I think the most important thing is to make a proper welfare state." "In fact, I've been talking about welfare for the past 15 years, even though it is not my major," he added with a smile.
It really was, as he said. The word "welfare" has rarely been left out in conversations with him since 2003, when I first met him.
I still remember what Professor Chang said: "the definition of welfare needs to be changed first". He thinks "welfare spending is not simply a burden or a cost, but rather reduces the burden." (article: "Free school meals are not for 'free', it is an insurance group-purchase" – 2012 interview)
"Creating a welfare state is not having a great revolution", he added. (article: "Is it a great revolution to enjoy some welfare?" Go to Africa if you don't want to pay taxes" – 2011 interview)
Chang has also talked about Park Geun-hye's welfare manifesto in the former presidential election, that "People who are shaking the welfare pledges of an elected president are traitors" (an interview in 2013). Park's government was elected with their manifesto of a welfare state and democratisation of the economy; however, those pledges were not achieved due to the massive political Choi Soon-sil scandal. He has also mentioned that the government of Moon Jae-In "needs to increase welfare more radically, to make citizens aware." (2019, interview)
Q: Although the governments in charge have changed several times, I have heard that they have been steadily increasing its welfare budget.
"There's still a long way to go. Our welfare spending is about 10% of our national income. It is lower than Chile, a South American country called the textbook of neoliberalism. The National Gini coefficient (a measure of distribution of income - the higher the number, the greater the degree of income inequality) is 0.34 before the government got tax revenues and spent on welfare, but the number (gini coefficient) is 0.33 even after welfare spending which is almost the same.
Most developed countries see their Gini coefficient drop significantly after government spending. This means that income redistribution has barely occured in our country."
Q: I see that the government's welfare spending is not very effective.
"The problem with this is that we have kept income inequality low only by regulating the market. Although the level of absolute income inequality has been low in the last decade, the rate of increase in inequality has been the highest in the world. The film that recently won shows this. The story of a family in the film mirrors the reality in our society. So the new society after COVID-19 will be very important...", said Chang.
Since COVID-19, a universal welfare state based on civil rights will be the only solution.
Q: You mentioned the post-coronavirus society a little while ago in the restaurant.
"The coronavirus epidemic will reveal what's hidden in our society. I do think South Korea was more mature politically than it has been in the past. Democratic measures including its effective controlling of COVID-19 in the quarantine process, transparency of information, and the provision of tests and treatment to all citizens, etc. can be rated as A. On the other hand, it is true that social and economic supporting measures are insufficient for temporary employees, small business owners, and short-term employees."
Q: What about the social safety net, overall inspection of the welfare system, etc.?
"I think ultimately, a universal welfare state based on civil rights will be the only solution. That's the fairest thing. If you only subsidise those who are defined as socially and economically vulnerable, then only those who met the standards will be protected, whereas those who are not allowed to be in the circle could be alienated or find it more difficult. We need to create a more humane society, a more collective and cooperative society, especially when there's a socioeconomic crisis caused by such viruses or disasters, as it (the welfare state model) would be able to overcome these better."
"It's a shame that South Korea seems to be following the US model," he said, citing an example of inefficient welfare spending in the United States.
"The US spends approximately 19 percent of its GDP on public welfare, which is lower than the OECD countries'average. However, it is 33 percent of GDP if you add individual spending on private insurance and medical service, which makes them the second highest welfare spending country in the world following Finland. It is not true that the US doesn't spend money on welfare, but the effectiveness is low due to low efficiency in spending. And South Korea is following the same path...", he continued.
"The difference is whether an individual person spends their own money on private insurance or saves money together through the government system to jointly purchase medical services.", Chang said. "In South Korea, people think welfare spending is a form in which the rich help the poor, but it is rather the form of a joint-purchase of social welfare services.", he added.
Q: The COVID-19 tests and free medical treatment provided by the South Korean government were possible because of national health insurance.
"We've created a system called the National Health Insurance system, which has enabled citizens to save their health insurance fees and hence joint-purchase the medical service at much lower costs. Most of all, we have offered tests and treatments to everyone. It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, everyone could get the virus. This could also be a long-term benefit for the rich as everyone needs to recover, reduce the risk of spreading the disease, and reduce the mortality rate etc."
What about basic income? Unless 100 million Korean won is given per person... Society will have to prioritize.