Basic Report

     Citizens are increasingly confused due to conflicts between central and local government regarding welfare programs such as free child-care, free school lunch and youth allowance. This study attempts to analyze those conflicts, the Free Child-care Program of the Ministry of Health and Welfare(MOHW) and Youth Allowance Program of Seoul Metropolitan Government(SMG) and to derive reasonable ways to resolve them. In particular, this study adopts the frame theory to analyze differences of perception between central and local government.
     Frames are composed of four sub-frames such as substance, characteristics, process and performance frame. The key research finding is that frames that central and local governments hold are very different and thus it has made them difficult to reach a resolution of conflicts.
     Policy conflicts regarding child-care for free program between central and local governments are solidly based on their differences of frames. In case of the substance frame, local government tries to frame it a service that national government holds responsibility, however central government does a substance frame that local government has responsibility of the service program. In case of the characteristics frame, local government perceives that central government tries to transfer responsibility without jurisdictional power. On the other hand, central government is likely to think that local government tries to avoid its own responsibility. In case of the process frame, local government considers that central one has made a big problem of budget planning and then has enforced local one to allocate budget for the service, which has brought about this conflict. Central government holds that local Office of Education has sufficient fund to allocate to the service but it does not attempt to do it. In case of the performance frame, local government perceives free school lunch program as one of child-care programs, but cental one does it as one of educational programs.
     Conflicts in terms of the Youth Allowance Program of SMG between central and local government are derived from their differences of frames, too. In case of the substance frame, SMG argues that the program is under local government works and the service program is lawful and fair that is based on executing autonomous rights of local government. However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare(MOHW) deems to conceive that the program is under agreement between them. In case of the characteristics frame, SMG thinks that MOHW is stubborn and untrustful, on the other hand the MOHW does that SMG is a local government that executing a welfare program with no consultation and consensus-building. In case of the process frame, SMG perceives that it has followed a series of legal procedures with requests of the MOHW. But the MOHW considers that the program is illegal because it has never legal process regulated by Socal Security Act and has never reached an agreement. In case of the performance frame, SMG judges the Youth Allowance Program as one of job creation programs for young people, but cental government perceives it as a popularist service program without deep policy deliberation.
     Based on the research findings, this study recommends some measures. First, both local and central government need to transform their frames, which helps lead to a resolution of policy conflicts. Transforming to consensus-building friendly frame is the key approach to enhance plausibility of agreement. Second, it is necessary to establish an organization for policy conference to discuss welfare programs for free. Increasing participation of the civil society or non-governmental organization in the policy conference group is essential. Third, an institutional reform is desirable to clarify authorities and responsibilities of central and local governments for free welfare programs. It is necessary to reform rules and regulations for autonomous businesses of local government, financial obligations for specific welfare services, and specify ranges of local autonomy in education.