[Essay] The 'Basic Care Society': Guaranteeing the Social Maximum and the Right to Care
1. Introduction: Reframing the Vision of Integrated Care
The recent launch of the Presidential Committee on Basic Society in South Korea marks a pivotal moment. The concept of a "Basic Society" is rapidly evolving from a mere policy slogan into a dominant discourse that will likely encompass the entire spectrum of future social policies.
In this shifting landscape, as the community-based integrated care system is being implemented, we face a critical question: What should be the ultimate vision of this care system?
My answer to this question is clear: We must strive toward a "Basic Care Society."
But what vision does a Basic Care Society truly hold? Ultimately, the answer hinges on how we define and set the level of what is "basic."
2. Paradigm Shift: From "National Minimum" to "Social Maximum"
Traditional welfare systems have historically been designed around the concept of a "National Minimum." This perspective is epitomized by slogans such as "guaranteeing a minimum decent life," the establishment of official poverty lines, and various rigid eligibility grading systems.
The current long-term care insurance system in South Korea, which operates heavily around strict disability grading, is a prime example of this model. While this approach is meaningful for providing a safety net of last resort, it possesses structural limitations when it comes to maintaining, let alone enhancing, the actual quality of life for citizens.
Instead, I propose that we approach the vision of a Basic Care Society through the lens of the "Social Maximum." This paradigm asks us to contemplate two fundamental questions:
"To what extent should society collectively guarantee the quality of life for all its members?"
"Up to what level will society take responsibility for every individual's right to receive care?"
3. A Precedent of the Social Maximum: The Living Wage System
A representative example of a "Social Maximum" policy is the Seoul Living Wage system, which was introduced during the tenure of former Seoul Mayor Won-soon Park.
In 2026, the Seoul Living Wage translates to a monthly salary of KRW 2,533,289 (hourly rate of KRW 12,121). In contrast, the statutory national minimum wage results in a monthly salary of KRW 2,156,880 (hourly rate of KRW 10,320). This creates a substantial gap of over KRW 370,000 per month between the two systems.
[ Monthly Wage Comparison (2026, South Korea) ]
- Seoul Living Wage: KRW 2,533,289 (Hourly: KRW 12,121)
- National Minimum: KRW 2,156,880 (Hourly: KRW 10,320)
======================================================
* The Gap: + KRW 376,409 per month (A standard of dignity)
At SE Empower Social Cooperative (에스이임파워 사회적협동조합), we proactively apply the Seoul Living Wage—rather than the national minimum wage—to our administrative staff, utilizing this standard as the baseline for our annual wage adjustments.
If this Living Wage system were to expand to small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs) and micro-businesses across Seoul, its social ripple effect would be monumental. This case vividly demonstrates how drastically the landscape of our society can transform based entirely on where we choose to position the baseline of "basic."
4. Expanding the Right to Care (The Care Rights)
It is now time to extend this "Social Maximum" perspective to the Right to Care (Care Rights).
The Right to Care as a Social Maximum is a concept that questions the level to which socially acceptable living conditions must be collectively guaranteed. I propose the following definition:
"The Right to Care as a Social Maximum is the collective right where society shares the responsibility to ensure that no individual's living conditions are unilaterally deteriorated simply because they require care, or because they are providing care to others."
5. Who Bears the Responsibility? The Four-Actor Model
This definition frequently prompts a crucial question: “Does a Basic Care Society mean that the state and the government must bear 100% of the responsibility?”
The answer is no.
Drawing upon the "Four-Actor Model of the Care Society" proposed by the prominent sociologist of care, Chizuko Ueno, I believe that a Basic Care Society must be co-created by four distinct pillars:
[ State & Government ]
│
[ Family ] ─────────┼───────── [ Local Community ]
│
[ Social & Solidarity Economy ]
(Grassroots Civil Society)
The Family
The State
The Local Community
Civil Society (The Social and Solidarity Economy)
This collaborative network is the true meaning of "society" in the phrase "Basic Care Society."
Given the reality of today's weakened familial and local community ties, the role of civil society as a proactive agent of care has never been more critical. In a time when grassroots civil movements are generally facing a downturn, the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) serves as an essential alternative foundation for bringing the Basic Care Society to fruition.
6. Conclusion: An Ongoing Social Movement
In conclusion, the Basic Care Society is not a static welfare model; it is a continuous social movement designed to guarantee the maximum right to care and to relentlessly expand this right through institutional reform and on-the-ground practice.
This is not merely about adding another layer of welfare programs. Rather, it is a fundamental process of resetting our societal standards and expanding the boundaries of collective responsibility for care.
📌 Author's Note & Publication Background
This article was originally published on February 6, 2026, in LifeIn (https://www.lifein.news/), a prominent South Korean media outlet specializing in the social economy and civic innovation.
Author: Dr. Sung-kee Kim (CEO of SE Empower Social Cooperative / 에스이임파워 사회적협동조합)
Comments
Post a Comment