Why Presidential Candidates' Promises Worth Hundreds of Trillions Lack Solid Funding Plans Every Time

"Funding plans for each pledge do not align with the current fiscal management method"
"Costs for each pledge should be requested, and funding should be asked as an overall resource plan"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Naju-seok] When a presidential election is held, candidates rush to announce their pledges. While some appealing pledges occasionally catch the eye, it is also true that doubts arise about whether they are truly feasible. The budget for this year is already set, and it is not possible to secure tens of trillions of won separately even for next year, so how to prepare the funds is questionable. Ultimately, the ‘funding plan’ is the key.

The National Election Commission disclosed on its website the ‘goals,’ ‘implementation methods,’ ‘implementation periods,’ and ‘funding plans’ related to the top 10 pledges of presidential candidates. This is to provide voters with a basis to judge how the pledges will actually be implemented.

Asia Economy asked an expert which candidate’s funding plan among these pledges is the most realistic, as the feasibility of the pledges hinges on the ‘funding plan.’

The answer was ‘indeterminable.’

The explanation followed that the problem lies in the format.

For example, when pledging to underground the Gyeongbu Expressway and increase the basic pension by 100,000 won, the Election Commission’s method is to ask how the funds will be secured for each pledge. Ultimately, each answer can be that the funds will come from national and local government budgets collected from the people, or since the money does not exist, expenditure restructuring must be done by reducing or eliminating existing spending. For this reason, candidates’ funding plans inevitably state that they will be filled with ‘national and local government funds, private investment capital, and various fund utilizations.’ Occasionally, candidates like Ahn Cheol-soo of the People’s Party propose measures such as establishing a ‘special account,’ and Sim Sang-jung of the Justice Party suggests converting the Korea Development Bank into a Green Investment Bank or imposing a carbon tax.

Lee Sang-min, senior research fellow at the Nara Salrim Research Institute, said, “There is a structural problem with the Election Commission’s format,” adding, “They ask for a funding plan for each pledge, but even I have nothing to write.” He explained, “From the perspective of Korea’s fiscal system, it makes no sense to secure funds for each individual project,” and “Naturally, (each pledge) must use national and local government funds.”

In other words, a different ‘format’ is needed to practically examine the feasibility of pledges.

The researcher said, “The funding plan should be included as an independent item asking for the overall funding plan, and each pledge should only state how much money is needed,” adding, “The current method only gives presidential candidates a free pass for inadequate funding plans.” He suggested that the cost of each pledge should be disclosed by candidate, and a separate funding plan should be prepared regarding how to secure the total cost of all pledges combined.

For example, if a certain project costs a certain amount, and when all pledges are combined, it requires 250 trillion won, or 50 trillion won annually, then after disclosing this, a separate funding plan item should clarify how to secure this 50 trillion won.

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