(EDITORIAL from The Korea Herald on Nov. 4)

Rebalancing support

: Korea needs targeted family support and a long-term immigration policy

Welfare policy can turn a narrow question of eligibility into a national argument about belonging. A case in point is South Korea's debate over multicultural family support, which began with complaints about priority access to subsidized postpartum care.

It now tests whether outdated rules can be corrected without casting suspicion on those they were meant to help.

The trigger was an online post asking why mothers from multicultural families shared a second-priority category with women in the national merit category when booking places through Seoul's subsidized postpartum care program.

President Lee Jae Myung took up the complaint on X, arguing that welfare should reflect financial need rather than cultural background. He has also said that programs addressing language and cultural barriers should continue.

A review of current rules is justified. The Ministry of Justice has asked local governments to examine support programs and related ordinances. Seoul has begun inspecting 26 programs. Other ministries have signaled reviews. The findings should be made public, including who has received each benefit and whether families in greater need have been denied access.

Korea's multicultural policies took shape in 2006, as international marriages, particularly in rural areas, brought the hardships faced by marriage migrants and their children into public view. Support later extended to childcare and housing.

The original case for assistance was clear: Many families faced poverty or language barriers and struggled to settle into Korean society.

Households covered by those policies now span a wider range of economic circumstances. The share of multicultural households with monthly income above 6 million won ($4,480) rose from 2.9 percent in 2015 to 10.4 percent in 2024, according to survey data.

The figures do not show that most are affluent. They do show that family background alone says little about a household's ability to pay.

That distinction matters when family status itself confers priority. It is hard to defend giving a well-off household precedence over a low-income Korean family seeking the same limited service. A migrant mother, however, may have few relatives nearby to help after childbirth, a circumstance income figures cannot capture.

An effective review would trace each benefit to the disadvantage it is meant to offset and test whether its eligibility rules reach the households that need it. Where poverty is the concern, income and assets should matter more than family category. Where language barriers are at issue, tailored services may remain justified.

That scrutiny should remain directed at the policies themselves. Immigrants as a group should not be made answerable for flaws in individual programs. A survey cited in the debate found that 13 percent of multicultural families had experienced discrimination. Their net enrollment rate in higher education was 61.9 percent, 13 percentage points below the national average.

Criticism of poorly designed benefits can become a pretext for disparaging people who still face substantial obstacles.

The definition of a multicultural family also leaves some immigrant households outside the framework. Programs largely focus on households formed by a Korean national and a foreign spouse, excluding families in which both parents are foreign nationals.

Foreign workers, too, are part of Korea's response to a shrinking workforce. Policy built around one family category cannot serve as an immigration strategy.

The national population strategy released last month gave little attention to multicultural households and foreign workers. A dedicated immigration agency, discussed under the previous administration but never established, could coordinate integration policy with education and employment policy.

Benefit-by-benefit revisions cannot tell the country how it will sustain its workforce, as births remain low.