The future of approximately 350 public institutions located in the Seoul metropolitan area remains uncertain as the government has announced plans to consider their relocation to regional areas and to consolidate 109 public institutions. However, the specific details regarding which institutions will move, where they will be relocated, and the timeline for these changes will be finalized in the fourth quarter. While the government aims to minimize the number of institutions remaining in the capital and expedite relocations, it has not provided clear criteria or execution plans for individual institutions.
This does not imply that the relocation process should be delayed. It is essential to transfer public functions and jobs concentrated in the metropolitan area to regional locations. The government should not abandon this initiative due to strong opposition from labor unions or compromise by distributing a few institutions to various regions. The government's goal of clustering related institutions to create growth hubs in the regions is also a valid approach.
However, there is a lack of visible change that aligns with the term 'second phase.' The government has stated its intention to link regional industries and universities while creating self-sufficient living environments. It has also committed to relocating institutions quickly, even if it means renting private buildings. Yet, the promises of clustering institutions, connecting them with regional industries, and improving living conditions were already made during the first phase of innovation city development.
In the first phase, 153 institutions and approximately 48,000 employees were relocated to regional areas, resulting in population growth in innovation cities and increased hiring of local talent. However, the timeline for these relocations was delayed by an average of 28.6 months, and costs increased by 645.6 billion won. The rate of family relocations was 71%, and the occupancy rate of industry-academia-research clusters was 56.6%. While offices and employees were moved, the task of ensuring that families and businesses also settle in these regions remains incomplete.
This time, there is a difference in that the government has combined consolidation and functional reorganization with relocation. If executed properly, this could provide an opportunity to gather similar functions in one place and connect them with regional industries. Conversely, if the order of operations is mishandled, the risks could be greater than in the first phase. Assigning relocation sites to institutions that are to be merged or eliminated could lead to further adjustments of offices and personnel. If a region loses functions due to consolidation, new conflicts may arise. However, the government has not clearly stated whether it will prioritize functional reforms or regional placements.
The varying speeds of relocation for different institutions also need to be addressed. The government has expedited the relocation of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries to a temporary office. Meanwhile, the Financial Services Commission and the Personal Information Protection Commission were excluded from the initial relocation targets, and the fate of financial public institutions has been pushed to the fourth quarter. In light of ongoing resistance from the financial sector, the government must first disclose consistent criteria to avoid the perception that the intensity of organizational opposition is dictating the pace of policy implementation.
While the criteria remain undefined, regions are competing to attract institutions, and institutions are developing justifications for remaining in the capital. Employees and their families are left waiting, unable to make decisions about housing, children's schools, spouses' jobs, or elder care. This issue is not limited to a few institutions mentioned in the media; many employees of institutions under review are uncertain about whether their workplaces will change or merge. For the government, a few months of review may seem brief, but for some, it is a time that halts life plans.
Public institution employees cannot refuse government policies. However, the government cannot treat the relocation process as a mere directive, insisting on balanced development without providing a clear plan for how families and businesses will settle together. It is also the government's responsibility to establish criteria for determining relocation versus retention, the order of consolidation and relocation, and plans for families and businesses to settle together.
The government has proposed five principles, but these do not constitute five solutions to prevent the limitations of the first phase of relocation. If the government merely fills in a distribution chart for institutions by region in the fourth quarter, the second phase will end up being an expanded version of the first phase, with only the targets and pace increased. Balanced development must be demonstrated through an actionable plan that shows what will be left in the regions after the institutions are relocated.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.