WFH Policy Begins. What Are the Real Impacts?

Starting April 1, 2026, the government introduced a Work From Home (WFH) policy every Friday for civil servants, state-owned enterprises, and even encouraged adoption in the private sector. The primary objective is energy efficiency. However, several sectors are exempt, including healthcare, public services, and transportation.

At first glance, this policy suggests operational cost savings, such as reduced office electricity usage, official travel expenses, and other supporting costs. However, from a broader perspective, fiscal efficiency cannot be measured solely by cost reductions within a single entity. It must be assessed based on its aggregate impact on the overall economic system.

There is a potential domino effect from this WFH policy that may lead to a phenomenon known as cost shifting, where financial burdens move from the state to households. An OECD report (2023) indicates that remote work tends to increase household energy consumption, particularly electricity and digital device usage.

This means that government savings do not necessarily translate into national-level efficiency. It reflects a risk of partial efficiency, where reduced office operational costs do not automatically result in lower total energy consumption.

Without proper policy design, administrative efficiency may simply transform into systemic inefficiency.

Beyond that, another dimension needs attention. A one-day-per-week WFH policy may negatively impact income across transportation sectors, ride-hailing drivers, and small food vendors who rely heavily on office worker demand, especially for lunch services.

In transportation, for example, ride-hailing drivers, public transport operators, and parking attendants do not have the option to work remotely. Their income is directly tied to public mobility.

At the same time, household expenses increase. Costs associated with WFH, such as electricity, internet data, and self-prepared meals, can exceed savings from reduced commuting. In this context, fuel subsidy savings by the government do not disappear, but instead shift to individual workers.

While energy efficiency remains a valid rationale for WFH, it must be evaluated comprehensively. Fuel consumption may decrease, but has the government fully accounted for the cost of digital transition?

Technology infrastructure, cybersecurity, workforce capability upgrades, and the risk of public service disruptions are all part of a complex equation.

This policy promises significant savings, but it must be balanced with mitigation strategies for the most affected sectors. Continuous and constructive policy evaluation is essential.

First, WFH implementation should remain flexible and sector-based, recognizing that mobility patterns differ across industries. Second, the government should consider rotating WFH days instead of fixing them permanently on Fridays.

This approach is important to avoid creating structured long weekends that may unintentionally suppress economic activity in mobility-dependent sectors.