Can Free Nutritious Meals Improve Human Resource Development?

President Prabowo Subianto is very serious about fulfilling his promise to provide free nutritious meals (MBG). Starting with a very smooth government transition process, this program is also equipped with a very large budget allocation compared to other social protection program expenditures.

As a comparison, the government has allocated IDR 29.9 trillion, IDR 59.9 trillion, and IDR 46.5 trillion for the Family Hope Program (PKH), school operational assistance (BOS), and BPJS Health contribution assistance in 2024. The government is also undertaking large-scale efficiency measures to provide fiscal space for the expansion of MBG coverage.

Actually, MBG is not a new initiative. In 2021, the Global Child Nutrition Foundation reported that at least 125 countries have similar programs with varying frequencies and scales, reaching 330 million children worldwide.

There have been quite a few studies that show the success of this program. In the United States, MBG successfully addressed the problem of food insecurity among program beneficiaries. Children who are food insecure tend to have lower academic achievement and cognitive development, as well as higher disciplinary problems and suicidal ideation tendencies (Davis, 2022). In Sweden, participation in the MBG program was positively correlated with increased lifetime income, educational attainment, and overall health quality (Lundborg, 2022).

There are indeed concerns that MBG might not succeed in improving children's nutritional quality because parents might reduce their spending on children who receive MBG. However, MBG research in the Philippines shows no convincing evidence that parents of students receiving MBG will reduce the nutritional allocation for their children (Jacoby, 2002).

Although not yet proven in Indonesia, it can be said that MBG is a policy that is quite robust scientifically. However, the challenge of this program lies precisely in the design and implementation of its policies. There are at least three aspects that need attention.

First, the target of the MBG policy is still ambivalent. In his vision and mission, President Prabowo linked MBG to the problem of stunting. However, the draft of the 2025-2029 RPJMN makes educational achievement an indicator of its success. Recently, an official suggested that the MBG program also be directed at creating jobs.

The three aspects can indeed seemingly be achieved with just one policy instrument. However, in its implementation, each policy target should ideally be achieved with at least one independent policy instrument. This is known as the Tinbergen Rule.

The accumulation of policy targets increases the complexity of its implementation. For example, if the MBG is directed to increase school participation rates, this program actually misses out on children who have been unable to attend school from the start. Conversely, if this program is focused on improving nutritional quality, the coverage of MBG recipients needs to be reduced, which may sacrifice the target of school participation rates.

With various resource limitations, including budget, it is almost impossible for the government to achieve diverse policy targets with just one policy instrument alone.

If the program is focused on improving nutritional quality, the scope of MBG recipients needs to be reduced, possibly sacrificing the target school participation rate.

Second, MBG faces the risk of inefficiency. Although proven to be a good policy in the context of other countries, Indonesia's needs may be different, especially considering that spending on other social protection programs (perlinsos) faces quite severe budget challenges. In fact, several of these policies have been proven effective and efficient in Indonesia. For example, PKH has succeeded in significantly increasing school participation rates (Cahyadi, 2018) at a much lower cost than MBG.

Recent budget cuts in education, research, health, and infrastructure risk reducing long-term economic productivity. For example, Indonesia's logistics costs will still be 23.5 percent of GDP in 2024, one of the highest in Southeast Asia.

If infrastructure development is neglected, Indonesian businesses risk becoming less competitive compared to neighboring countries. Research and innovation, which are the economic drivers of other industrialized countries, have also seen significant budget cuts this year.

In short, the government needs to be wiser in analyzing the costs and benefits of a policy. If we can achieve a target through other more efficient instruments, why not?

Third, MBG also faces accountability risks. Kompas (19/1/2025) reported how weak transparency is and how difficult it is to access key sources for the MBG program. If it is so difficult for journalistic purposes, let alone if there are allegations of misuse there.

In fact, procurement-related corruption is one of the most common modes of corruption in Indonesia, second only to bribery. And the involvement of the TNI only increases concerns about impunity for potential future misappropriation.

To mitigate these risks, the government needs to consider the following three things. First, clarify the target of this policy and communicate it to the public. What exactly is it trying to achieve, and is MBG the most efficient instrument?

Second, the government needs to consider the option of reducing the scope of MBG, only in certain locations. If the target is the health aspect, this program can be prioritized for areas with a high prevalence of stunting—which, although not 100 percent accurate, can be a proxy to reflect the quality of nutrition in an area.

This is similar to the design of the Community Eligibility Provision, an MBG policy in the United States that focuses only on poor areas. This policy has succeeded in improving nutritional quality, academic achievement, school attendance, and eliminating the stigma of poverty caused by previous programs that were designed means-tested (Davis, 2022).

Third, do not make MBG a panacea for human or economic development problems. MBG without quality education will not improve the quality of human resources. Quality human resources without an adequate industrial ecosystem will find it difficult to contribute to economic activity. The government needs to find a sweet spot in managing resources in a balanced way.

Finally, transparency is needed to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. Lack of transparency is feared to weaken the role of society in democracy, reflect the absence of good governance in government, and send negative signals about government policies and the business climate, both to domestic and international audiences.

Reza Syam Pratama, Master of Public Policy Student, National University of Singapore