When (Not) Nutritious, (Not) Free Meals
The Free Nutritious Meals Program (MBG) is touted as a flagship program of the Prabowo-Gibran administration. The government, through Bappenas, identifies 4 main objectives for MBG. These include meeting the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups. The program is also intended to improve the quality of education. MBG is expected to boost the local economy. The program is also claimed to create jobs.
President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly said that MBG provides nutritious meals at no cost. The program is believed to improve children’s nutrition. MBG is also said to be capable of stimulating the economies of thousands of farmers, fishers, and small business owners. This narrative creates the hope that the state will be tangibly present in people’s everyday lives.
However, various criticisms have emerged during implementation. The food supply-chain mechanisms are considered unclear. The quality of service providers remains in question. Oversight on the ground is also considered weak. This has left the public divided in its views of MBG.
Some members of the public see MBG as a populist policy. The program is considered to deliver short-term benefits. At the same time, the state’s fiscal sustainability is seen as receiving too little attention. These doubts are not without reason. The history of social assistance in Indonesia has often been marked by irregularities. Problems with poor targeting have also recurred. Political manipulation has further deepened public distrust.
On the other hand, support for MBG is also strong. For many low-income families, the most important thing is that their children can eat. Access to free nutritious food is seen as tangible assistance. The program eases families’ daily expenses. Children who previously arrived at school hungry are believed to be able to learn better. For MBG’s supporters, the program symbolizes the state’s role in fulfilling citizens’ basic rights.
The CELIOS study situates MBG between social urgency and the challenges of policy governance. The findings show that 79% of respondents are aware of conflicts of interest in the direct appointment of vendors. A total of 73% of parents prefer direct cash assistance over MBG. Meanwhile, 65% of respondents say they still spend extra money on food to replace MBG meals.
This report invites the public to view MBG more holistically. The program cannot be judged solely by its good intentions and popularity. MBG needs a transparent policy design. Accountability in implementation must be strengthened. Without improvements to governance, the goals of meeting nutritional needs and achieving social justice risk not being met sustainably.
1-Year Evaluation Study of (Not) Nutritious, (Not) Free Meals_2025_CELIOS_ Download
Deck_1-Year Evaluation of (Not) Nutritious, (Not) Free Meals_2025 Download
CELIOS_MBG Report_English Version Download