Debate over the mandatory closure regulations for large retail stores is reigniting. Park Yong-jin, vice chairman of the Presidential Regulatory Reform Committee, recently stated that "regulations established over a decade ago based on market conditions should be reassessed to align with today’s consumer environment." This raises the question of whether these regulations still hold effectiveness today, without denying their original purpose. It is a reasonable demand to evaluate whether policies reflect the realities of a changed retail environment beyond the interests of specific industries.
The mandatory closure system for large retail stores was introduced in 2012 through amendments to the Distribution Industry Development Act. The aim was to curb the indiscriminate expansion of large retailers and protect traditional markets and local businesses. At that time, the rapid market dominance of large stores posed a significant threat to the survival of small businesses, leading to a consensus on the need for institutional responses.
However, the market landscape has drastically changed over the past decade. Consumers can now order products anytime and anywhere via mobile devices, with same-day and early morning deliveries becoming commonplace. Online platforms and e-commerce companies have long taken the lead in the retail market. According to Statistics Korea, the domestic online shopping transaction volume has reached record highs annually, with consumer purchasing behavior shifting rapidly from offline to online.
The effectiveness of a policy is determined by its outcomes rather than its intentions. Regardless of the good intentions behind regulations, if they fail to achieve the desired effects, they should be reconsidered. Yet, questions about the effectiveness of the mandatory closure system for large retail stores have persisted for over ten years. In reality, consumers do not flock to traditional markets when large stores close. Particularly for dual-income households, weekends have become the primary shopping time, and their options are mobile apps rather than traditional markets. When stores close, consumer spending naturally shifts online.
Recent research supports this reality. The Korea Development Institute (KDI) analyzed regions that switched mandatory closure days to weekdays and found no evidence of decreased sales in traditional markets. Instead, there was an observed trend of some consumer spending moving from online to offline, leading to increased visits to surrounding businesses and traditional markets. This suggests that the existing premise that mandatory closures are essential for revitalizing traditional markets may not hold true.
It is time to ask, "Who does the current regulation serve?" If a system intended to protect traditional markets only aids the growth of online platforms while sacrificing consumer convenience, it is responsible policy-making to reassess the direction of these regulations. A survey conducted by the Korean Retail Association with 2,000 adults found that about 60% of respondents agreed with abolishing or relaxing the mandatory closure regulations for large retail stores.
Regulations are merely a means, not an end. As market conditions change, policies must adapt. Regulations that were reasonable in the past may yield unreasonable results today. The success of a policy is measured by its outcomes, not its good intentions. It is time to critically evaluate whether the mandatory closure system for large retail stores has sufficiently achieved its original goal of protecting traditional markets or if it has created new side effects amid changing times.
The government should not maintain regulations for the sake of regulation. It must boldly revise those that are out of touch with reality and strengthen necessary support. A fair competitive environment should be established that aligns with the changed consumer landscape and retail ecosystem, seeking new models of coexistence where traditional markets, large retail stores, and online platforms can thrive together. This is the sensible path for consumers, small businesses, and our economy.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.