■ Institutional Blind Spots in “5 Megaregions and 3 Special Self-Governing Provinces” (5 Megaregions and 3 Provinces)● Despite its name, “5 Megaregions and 3 Provinces” is being promoted, with 5 megaregions taking center stage, while 3 special provinces are relegated to peripheral positions. The Local Era Committee’s blueprint includes 3 categories, 11 strategies, and 144 tasks; however, the implementational priorities seem to be lopsided toward 5 megaregions.
● Although the blueprint specifies establishing the super megaregion special account, it is still unclear whether or how 3 special provinces are included in the account, creating institutional blind spots.
■ Imbalance in Promotional Roadmaps and Financial Assistance
● Leveraging a special local government-based one-stop package type agreement (the super megaregion special agreement), 5 megaregions could simultaneously negotiate with multiple ministries. However, 3 special provinces would find it difficult to deal with ministries individually.
● With no concrete plan on how much funding is needed to create the super megaregion special account and how the account’s financial resources would be distributed, the shares of the 3 special provinces have yet to be decided.
■ Limitations of the Current Legal System
● According to Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Act on Local Autonomy, Decentralization, and Balanced Regional Development (the Act), the term “super metropolitan area” means an area beyond the administrative district of a city or province established by 2 or more local governments after mutual consultation. Thus, there are concerns that 3 special provinces, which are single metropolitan governments, could be at a disadvantage (or could be excluded from the account) compared to 5 megaregions for which governance has been planned.
● Since projects such as Saemangeum, AI Agriculture and Life Sciences Belt, and Carbon Material Cluster carry metropolitan implications, the criteria need to be clarified so that these projects become eligible for “super metropolitan projects” under the current law.
■ Legal and Institutional Improvement Roadmaps
● Law amendment (draft): We propose that a new term, “Special Self-Governing Province Independent Strategic Area (Special Metropolitan Area),” should be added to Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Act, enabling 3 special provinces to create super metropolitan areas that can exert significant influence in national space.
● Institutional improvement (draft): We recommend that the super megaregion special account be reorganized into a dual track: ministry-level budgeting and local government self-directed budgeting. Additionally, the minimum distribution ratio (e.g., 20%) for 3 special provinces must be specified in operational guidelines.
■ Conclusions and Policy Implications
● Since the current structure is practically centered on 5 megaregions, there is a high possibility that Jeonbuk, which has no special cases concerning finance and has the lowest level of financial independence, will be most negatively impacted.
● clarification. This action would enable its key projects to be classified as super megaregion projects, making them eligible for package-type support, fiscal expansion, and participation in the agreement system.
