Editorial, Thekabarnews.com—Indonesia’s daring Free Meals Program (MBG) has sparked a nationwide debate. The flagship program has become so synonymous with President Prabowo Subianto that it has become part of his brand. The MBG program is a revolutionary approach to combating child malnutrition. It is also a way to build up quality human resources by providing nutritious meals to millions of students each day.

But with the implementation in hand, the urgent question that arises is, Is the program a long-term investment for the future of the country? Or is it an unsustainable burden on the state budget (APBN)?

The MBG program is fundamentally addressing a real and pressing problem. Based on the World Bank data, Indonesia still faces problems with child nutrition. In 2022, 21.6 percent of children experienced stunting. Meanwhile, millions of Indonesian children are not receiving the nutrition they need to grow physically and mentally. As a result, they lack what they need to be productive in the future, UNICEF reported.

And on that score, the case for the MBG program is strong. School feeding programs have also been similarly successful in increasing school attendance, learning outcomes, and child health in countries such as India and Brazil. For example, school meal programs can boost school enrollment by as much as 9 percent and dramatically reduce child hunger, the World Food Programme says. If properly implemented, MBG can provide similar benefits. In fact, it could help Indonesia to leverage the dividends of its demographic bonus in the coming decades.

However, we cannot overlook the economic aspect of the program. The initial estimate is that the MBG could cost hundreds of trillions of rupiah a year. That could potentially make it one of the biggest social spending programs in Indonesian history. The government projects the 2025 state budget (APBN) to exceed Rp3,000 trillion, with the fiscal deficit capped at 3 percent of GDP. Therefore, it is a real concern for fiscal sustainability to fund a large proportion of that money in a single program.

Critics argue that such extravagance could potentially delay other crucial areas, including infrastructure, health care, and enhancements in the quality of education. Sure, feeding kids is important, but can we do even better with the same resources in targeted nutrition programs, maternal health, or sanitation infrastructure? All these are also key to tackling stunting.

In addition, problems in implementation can greatly reduce the effectiveness of the program. Indonesia’s geography and logistical challenges make it no small feat to get food out across the archipelago. Without enough oversight, the program could be vulnerable to inefficiency, corruption, or uneven quality of food. However, history demonstrates that mismanagement and leakage often result in the loss of a significant portion of the benefits associated with large government programs.

There are targeting problems as well. Universal free meals schemes are politically attractive but may not be the best answer in a country with diverse socio-economic conditions. According to Statistics Indonesia (BPS) data, poverty rates vary widely across regions. As a result, a more focused program for the vulnerable could be more effective at less cost.

But it would be wrong to write off MBG as a fiscal burden. Investments in nutrition are economic investments, not social costs. Malnutrition costs countries up to 3 percent of GDP a year in lost productivity, according to the World Bank. Better nutrition for children could have important positive implications in this respect, such as a healthier, more productive workforce and lower health care costs.

The question is not MBG’s belonging there, but the design and execution of it. The program should be transparent, accountable, and data-driven in its targeting. Involvement of community stakeholders, local food supply chains and digital monitoring systems to enhance efficiency and reduce waste

MBG shouldn’t do it by itself. Nutrition is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach, including access to clean water, maternal education, and health care services. Such complementary efforts are vital to the success of any feeding program. This principle is true no matter how grand the program is.

Ultimately, the MBG program is a risk and an opportunity. It has the potential to transform the future of Indonesia by addressing one of the country’s most challenging human development problems. However, if handled poorly, there is a risk of a costly policy misstep.

So the debate should not be “nutrition” vs. “budget.” The idea is to derive the most value for money out of every rupiah. In a large and diverse country like Indonesia, policymakers judge a policy by its implementation, not its ambition.

If implemented effectively, the MBG program can become a milestone in Indonesia’s development journey. Otherwise, it risks becoming another case where laudable intentions go wrong, exposing the challenges of policy implementation in a complex country like Indonesia. (Kusnadi Assaini)

……….

Do you have an opinion on the issues that are happening right now? If you would like to submit your article by email to thekabarnews@gmail.com

Stay connected via Google News