As the government prepares to announce its second phase of public institution relocations, local governments are intensifying their competition to attract these entities. Up to 350 public institutions, including those remaining in the metropolitan area and government-funded organizations, are being considered for relocation. These institutions can serve as catalysts for increased consumption, tax revenue, and the attraction of related industries.
Busan is targeting financial and maritime institutions, while North Jeolla Province is focusing on financial and agricultural life sciences organizations. North Gyeongsang Province has selected institutions centered around advanced manufacturing and smart logistics. Even before the government finalizes the list of institutions and relocation principles, various candidates are already being discussed.
A key concern is that the competition may devolve into a mere scramble for a few institutions. With political interests at play and local elections approaching, there is a risk that balanced development policies could become political spoils.
Reflecting on the first phase of relocations, 153 institutions moved to innovation cities and Sejong by 2019, resulting in population dispersal and increased local tax revenues. However, many regions struggled to retain families and attract related businesses and industries. Some workers commuted to the metropolitan area on weekends, indicating that while the relocation of institutions occurred, it did not necessarily lead to regional growth.
The second phase must be different. The focus should not be on the number of institutions but rather on where they are placed and which industries will be nurtured. This is why the idea of clustering financial and maritime institutions in Busan and energy institutions in Honam is being discussed. Connecting public institutions with local key industries, universities, research institutions, and private companies is essential for creating jobs and attracting businesses.
Opposition from labor unions and members should not be dismissed as mere regional self-interest. Institutions requiring specialized expertise, such as finance and research, risk losing their competitive edge if key personnel leave. Without improving living conditions in education, healthcare, culture, and transportation, simply relocating addresses will repeat the limitations of the first phase.
The government should not become fixated on the number 350. It must first outline the national industrial map rather than focusing solely on regional distribution. It should assess whether the future industries of each region align with the functions of the institutions, whether they can attract businesses and research institutions, and whether members and their families can settle there. If necessary, related institutions should be concentrated in regions where they can have the most significant impact.
The second phase of public institution relocation is not merely about distributing metropolitan institutions to local areas. It should be a national strategy aimed at alleviating the dominance of the metropolitan area and creating growth hubs in the regions. If this competition ends as a political and local government spoils contest, we will find ourselves reassessing failures a decade from now. This time, the question should not be 'how many institutions will be given where,' but rather 'what will be nurtured where.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.