🚨 Cash Support Policy Dilemma
Today Korean Economic News for Beginners | 2025.08.21
0️⃣ Life Stability vs. Reduced Work Motivation, Seoul Stepping Stone Income Experiment Results Analysis
📌 Two Sides of Cash Support... Poverty reduction effects confirmed, but economic growth slowdown and decreased labor participation also observed
💬 Recent results from Seoul's "Stepping Stone Income" experiment and cash support policy studies from the US and Pakistan have clearly revealed both the bright and dark sides of cash support policies. While there were clear life stability effects such as increased food and medical expenses for low-income groups, negative side effects including decreased labor participation and economic growth slowdown were also confirmed. Particularly, working hours significantly decreased among households earning below 50% of median income, and overall employment rates also declined. Experts point out that "while cash support is effective for short-term poverty reduction, education and job support must be combined to secure long-term growth momentum."
1️⃣ Easy to Understand
Governments are increasingly providing unconditional cash support to low-income groups. While this helps people who are struggling financially right now, research shows it can reduce work motivation and slow down overall economic growth, requiring careful policy design.
Cash support policy means the government regularly gives a certain amount of money to low-income or specific groups without conditions. Seoul's "Stepping Stone Income" is a typical example, supporting households earning below 85% of median income with 500,000 won per month.
The positive effects of such policies are clear. In Seoul's experiment, low-income groups spent more on food and medical expenses. People who had been skipping meals or delaying hospital visits due to cost burden were able to live basic lives. Also, the Gini coefficient showing income inequality improved, making the overall distribution situation in society better.
However, problems also clearly appeared. The biggest problem is that people receiving cash lose motivation to work. In US cash support experiments, participants' weekly working hours decreased by an average of 1.3 hours. This means they worked 5-6 hours less per month.
This happens because of the "income effect" in economics. When people's basic living is guaranteed, they feel less motivated to work extra for money. This tendency is especially strong for difficult, low-wage jobs.
A more serious problem is that people don't use the reduced time productively. If they spent time on education or learning new skills, they could get better jobs in the long run, but this often doesn't happen in reality.
Pakistan's cash and asset support experiment showed even more interesting results. Income inequality decreased, but people's awareness about poverty and redistribution didn't change much. This means that even when policies have actual effects, changing people's attitudes or values is difficult.
In the end, experts commonly agree that cash support policies work as "emergency treatment" but need to be combined with other policies to solve fundamental problems.
2️⃣ Economic Terms
📕 Basic Income
Basic income is a system where the government regularly pays the same amount to all citizens without conditions.
- It's a universal income security system that everyone can receive regardless of age, income, or job.
- While it has life stability effects, there are many debates about funding and reduced work motivation.
- Countries like Finland and Kenya are testing its effects through pilot programs.
📕 Income Effect
Income effect is when people become less motivated to work additional hours as their income increases.
- When basic living is guaranteed, people tend to avoid difficult work.
- This is pointed out as one of the biggest side effects of cash support policies.
- This phenomenon appears more strongly in low-wage jobs.
📕 Gini Coefficient
The Gini coefficient is a key indicator showing the degree of income inequality.
- Closer to 0 means more equal, closer to 1 means more unequal.
- Below 0.3 is considered equal, above 0.4 is considered seriously unequal.
- Korea's Gini coefficient was about 0.33 as of 2023.
📕 Labor Supply
Labor supply means the amount of work that households are willing to provide in the labor market.
- It's determined by wage levels, non-work income, and personal preferences.
- When cash support increases, non-work income rises and labor supply tends to decrease.
- Decreased labor supply can lead to lower overall production and growth rates.
3️⃣ Principles and Economic Outlook
✅ Economic Mechanisms of Cash Support Policy
Let's analyze how cash support affects individual behavior and the overall economy.
First, income effects and substitution effects work together. When non-work income increases through cash support, people prefer more leisure time. This is called the income effect - when basic living is guaranteed, people feel less need to do difficult work. At the same time, substitution effects appear - receiving cash support makes low-wage jobs relatively less attractive, leading people to choose leisure over work. Seoul's Stepping Stone Income experiment showed this effect when working hours significantly decreased among households earning below 50% of median income.
Second, cash support changes consumption patterns and affects economic structure. When low-income groups receive cash, they mainly increase consumption of basic necessities like food, housing, and medical care. This can boost the economy short-term by increasing demand in related industries. However, long-term, economic activity might focus more on consumer goods rather than high-productivity investments or education, potentially limiting growth potential. The fact that US experiment participants didn't use reduced working hours for education or skill development supports this concern.
Third, the scale and target of policies create different economic ripple effects. Small pilot programs may seem fine, but expanding nationwide could shock labor markets and government finances. Especially if reduced labor supply from cash support creates wage pressure, it could cause inflation, which would again reduce low-income groups' real purchasing power in a vicious cycle. Also, if cash support is funded through taxes, middle-class disposable income would decrease, potentially leading to overall consumption decline.
The effects of cash support policies are complex and require considering various economic actors' behavioral changes comprehensively.
✅ International Case Analysis and Policy Design Lessons
Let's analyze success and failure factors through overseas cash support policy cases.
First, Finland's basic income experiment showed limited results. In 2017-2018, Finland conducted an experiment giving 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros per month without conditions. Results showed participants' stress decreased and life satisfaction increased, but employment rate improvement was minimal. Some participants actually showed more dependence on cash support rather than simple part-time work. This suggests that cash support alone is difficult for encouraging labor market re-entry.
Second, Kenya's unconditional cash support program showed relatively positive results. Kenya conducted a large-scale experiment giving extremely poor people $22 per month for 12 years, and participants' consumption increased while small business investments also grew. Different results from Finland occurred because Kenya started from extreme poverty where basic survival was difficult, so cash support was more likely to lead to productive investment. This shows that cash support policy effects can vary greatly depending on recipients' initial income levels and economic development stages.
Third, the US Stockton city cash support experiment confirmed the importance of conditional support. Stockton gave 125 low-income households $500 per month for 24 months, and participants' full-time employment rate increased from 28% to 40%. However, this was possible because they combined cash support with job support programs and financial education. This shows that comprehensive approaches combining education, training, and counseling are more effective than simple cash payments.
Successful cash support policies require customized design considering recipients' characteristics and local economic conditions.
✅ Future Policy Directions and Alternative Approaches
Let's suggest policy measures that can supplement cash support policy limitations.
First, models combining conditional cash support and human capital investment are needed. Rather than simply giving cash, policies requiring education participation, skill training completion, or job searching activities could be more effective. For example, requiring participants to attend job training for certain hours or earn certifications while receiving cash support. This way, immediate life stability and long-term income-increasing ability can both be developed. Brazil's "Bolsa Família" program is a representative success case, combining cash support with mandatory children's education participation to help break intergenerational poverty cycles.
Second, institutional mechanisms strengthening work incentives are needed. Current cash support policies have "cliff effects" where support suddenly stops when income increases, potentially reducing work motivation. To solve this, support could be gradually reduced based on work income, or additional incentives could be provided for sustained work over certain periods. Expanding systems like the US Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provides tax refunds to working low-income groups would also be good.
Third, region-specific customized policies and regular effect evaluation systems should be established. Even the same cash support policy can have different effects depending on regional economic conditions, industrial structure, and employment environment. Therefore, differentiated approaches considering regional characteristics are needed rather than uniform national policies. Also, policies should be continuously improved by regularly evaluating employment rates, income growth rates, and regional economic vitalization after implementation. Like Seoul's Stepping Stone Income, it's important to accumulate and analyze sufficient data during pilot phases before carefully deciding on nationwide expansion.
For cash support policy success, comprehensive social safety net construction beyond simple income support is needed.
4️⃣ In Conclusion
Cash support policies clearly help reduce poverty and income inequality, but also bring side effects of reduced work motivation and slower economic growth. Therefore, when designing policies, it's important to fully consider this duality and balance the pros and cons.
A common finding from Seoul's Stepping Stone Income and overseas cases is that while cash support helps short-term life stability, it doesn't fundamentally change people's long-term behavior and attitudes. Increased food and medical spending is clearly positive, but if reduced working hours aren't used for education or skill development, people will likely return to poverty even after policies end.
Particularly noteworthy is that cash support effects vary greatly depending on recipients' initial conditions and local economic situations. In extreme poverty like Kenya, cash support can lead to productive investment, but when basic living is somewhat guaranteed, it might only reduce work motivation.
Therefore, successful cash support policies must follow several principles. First, comprehensive approaches combining cash payments with education, training, and counseling are needed. Second, institutional mechanisms maintaining work incentives must be established. Third, customized policies considering regional characteristics should be designed with regular effect evaluations for continuous improvement.
Most importantly, cash support policies shouldn't be seen as "cure-all solutions." Poverty problems aren't simply caused by lack of money, but are structural issues involving complex causes like lack of educational opportunities, social discrimination, and health problems. Cash support is just one of many policies for solving these problems, and can only show real effects when organically connected with other policies.
Ultimately, the success of cash support policies depends not on how much money is given, but on how it's given and what it's combined with. Policymakers should approach carefully with long-term effects in mind rather than short-term popularity.
Table of Contents