[First-term Survey] 63% Say "More Serious Than During the IMF"

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Cheol-eung] Among the 10 first-term lawmakers who hold the majority in the 21st National Assembly, about 6 view the economic situation caused by the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) as "more serious than the International Monetary Fund (IMF) foreign exchange crisis." As solutions to the job issue, they pointed to the "Korean New Deal" and "deregulation," but there was a significant difference in perspectives between ruling and opposition parties. Additionally, most members of the United Future Party believed that reductions in corporate and inheritance taxes are necessary. Over 80% of all first-term lawmakers responded that discussions on basic income and constitutional amendments are needed.

Currently, the Korean economy is experiencing the overlapping effects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution's momentum and the harsh winds of the COVID-19 crisis. As seen in the basic income discussions spreading like a fever mainly in the political sphere, it is generally analyzed that the country is at a critical turning point. At this historic crossroads, the National Assembly bears a heavier responsibility than ever before, with first-term lawmakers at the center. Although conflicts between ruling and opposition parties have been intense since the opening of the assembly, development is hard to expect without the role of the National Assembly.

To mark its 32nd anniversary, Asia Economy conducted a survey targeting 92 out of 151 first-term lawmakers. The background of the survey is that understanding the thoughts of first-term lawmakers is a key measure to gauge future changes, with a focus on economic issues including jobs.

In response to the question "Evaluation of the current economic situation compared to the past," 63.0% answered "more serious than the IMF foreign exchange crisis," and 33.7% responded "more serious than the global financial crisis but less than the IMF foreign exchange crisis." Relatively, first-term lawmakers from the United Future Party perceived the current economic situation as more severe.

Regarding the "most urgent task to solve the job problem" (multiple responses allowed), 52.2% chose "creating new growth engines through the Korean New Deal." "Bold deregulation of companies" was also selected by 50.0% of first-term lawmakers, making the two opinions nearly tied. By party, almost all first-term lawmakers from the Democratic Party, except one, chose the Korean New Deal, while about 87% of United Future Party lawmakers selected deregulation as the urgent task. United Future Party lawmakers also showed relatively high selection rates for "labor flexibility measures such as postponing the 52-hour workweek system."

Regarding the "fundamental cause of the job problem" (multiple responses allowed), 68.5% of all first-term lawmakers pointed to "structural problems due to industrial restructuring." Most United Future Party lawmakers checked "side effects of income-led growth such as minimum wage increases," but no Democratic Party lawmakers responded so. This shows that first-term lawmakers are distinctly divided by party on the income-led growth policy.

In the field of regulatory innovation (multiple responses allowed), "deregulation of new industries such as the sharing economy and fintech" received overwhelming support at 80.4%, regardless of party. 47.8% expressed the need for "labor market reforms such as easing restrictions on flexible work systems," with relatively more responses from United Future Party first-term lawmakers. However, only 9.8% of all first-term lawmakers responded regarding "deregulation of the metropolitan area such as factory total volume system."

Regarding corporate taxes, the opinion "reduce both corporate and inheritance taxes" was the highest at 39.1%, mainly due to a large number of responses from United Future Party lawmakers. On the other hand, 26.0% answered "increase both corporate and inheritance taxes." Among the Democratic Party alone, 47.6% chose this, and 31.0% responded to "maintain current levels."

When asked about their stance on the basic income system, 56.5% of first-term lawmakers said, "There is a need for introduction, but it should be discussed as a mid- to long-term task," and 30.4% responded that "a plan for permanent introduction should be discussed as soon as possible." More than 8 out of 10 first-term lawmakers agree on the necessity of discussing basic income. Regarding constitutional amendments, combining the responses "necessary and will be pursued" and "necessary but difficult to pursue," the total was 82.6%. As for the timing of the pursuit, "after the presidential election" was 46.7%, and "between this year and before the presidential election" was 43.5%, showing similar proportions. Regarding the direction of power structure reform, "a four-year single-term presidency" was the most favored at 57.6%.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.