Can Bu-Ul-Gyeong megacity project revitalize provincial regions?

From left, Ulsan Mayor Song Chul-ho, the presidential transition committee's regional balanced development committee head Kim Byeong-joon, Busan Mayor Park Heong-joon and the South Gyeongsang Province governor's representative Ha Byeong-pil pose during a discussion about the three local governments' special self-governing body at the presidential transition committee's office in Seoul's Jongno District, April 19. Joint Press Corps.

Busan, Ulsan, South Gyeongsang Province team up for megacity project

By Ko Dong-hwan

Some of the biggest provincial universities in Korea have been seeing ominous signs recently. After this year's enrollment registration closed, the schools saw that the total number of new students fell short of their maximum enrollement caps. Not only does that mean less tuition fees but less investment being made in the schools. When the top universities in larger regions are facing such crises, there's no doubt other smaller and less popular local universities face an even worse situation.

The shrinking number of students points to a chronic imbalance in development and infrastructure between the capital region (including Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi Province) and the other regions in the country. It is an ongoing issue despite multiple national efforts in past administrations to resolve it.

President Moon Jae-in mentioned the problem in an April 25 press conference.

"Because the capital region is all interconnected by well-laid public transportation, it has attracted money and people and achieved a robust economy and competitiveness which local regions cannot possibly compete with."

And so there is much hope that the new megacity project, announced last week, can address growing concerns among the residents of the included southern regions and avert difficulties that could lie ahead if such imbalances continue to grow.

Under the project, two major southern cities ― Busan and Ulsan ― have teamed up with South Gyeongsang Province to launch a new "special coalition self-governing body," better known in the media by its acronym, "Bu-Ul-Gyeong."

"Bu-Ul-Gyeong special coalition is the country's first self-governing body starting from Oct. 14 last year when the central government announced its strategic plan to support combined authorities in greater metropolitan areas across the country," the interior ministry said.

The interior ministry expects the Bu-Ul-Gyeong special self-governing body will introduce new networks of public transportation and roadways between cities and share each local government's region-specific industries to boost the unified region's industrial competitiveness as a whole. The three local governments are also expected to stabilize the nurturing of local human resources and build a stable job market in the region.

"It's a unitary autonomy that will run parallel with the capital region in terms of satisfying local residents' economic interests and other daily-life needs," the interior ministry said. "It's the country's first model that will be led by a local entity and supported by the central government."

On April 19, the heads of the three local governments, two ministers (interior and safety, land, infrastructure and transportation) and Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU stated the three local governments are to share authority under the new coalition body and cooperate to develop the now-unionized region across regional borders.

In March 2020, the three local governments started working on establishing an exclusive megacity for the country's southeastern region. A special taskforce comprising the region's governors and council chairmen was launched in July 2021 to push forward with administrative and financial factors for the initiative.

Prior to launching the Bu-Ul-Gyeong self-governing body, the interior ministry agreed to transfer control over part of the land ministry's state affairs to the new coalition body for the sake of improved efficiency in state affairs including planning public transportation networks connecting metropolitan regions nationwide as well as logistics-and-warehouse depots serving at least two cities or provinces.

The new self-governing body will also carry out 30 short-term projects and 40 long-term projects, each of which is aimed at strategically decentralizing the capital region in terms of industry, human resources and population density.

The interior ministry said the Bu-Ul-Gyeong coalition body will grow into a megacity with global competitiveness in future cars, aircraft and eco-friendly ships, and is expected to introduce a self-reliant system to nurture and employ local workers as well as develop networks of express transit routes covering greater metropolitan regions across the country.

The Bu-Ul-Gyeong self-governing body, after regulations supporting its operation as well as governing organizations and their offices are completed, is scheduled to officially commence its first administrative day on Jan. 1, 2023.

President Moon Jae-in, right, presides over a Cabinet meeting on April 19 when the launch of the southern megacity project was approved. Yonhap

Upgrading local education, relocating gov't organizations essential

To sustain the nascent unified entity and its ambitious goals, experts have put forward various proposals. One of them was upgrading local universities in Busan, Ulsan and South Gyeongsang so that they can secure a highly educated workforce and utilize those employed to compete against the expansive talent pools and industrial assets concentrated in the capital region.

According to Han Sae-eok, a professor of public administration at Dong-A University in Busan, major universities in the Bu-Ul-Gyeong region are in desperate need of self-innovation lest they face mass shutdowns.

"Pusan National University, Kyungpook National University and Chonnam National University (which are some of the country's largest provincial universities) have seen their recent enrollment pools not reaching full student capacities," Han told The Korea Times

Han said the schools should start cooperating so that they do not offer the same programs as each other to boost competitiveness. "The schools should become more like research institutes so that they can adapt to the global trends that are now hinging on decentralization and globalization."

Kang Jae-ho, a professor of administrative studies at Pusan National University in Busan, agreed that if the central government strengthens policies and invests more state budget in order to improve major local universities, it will "deconcentrate" the capital region's high-level educational functions across the country.

"But boosting local universities is merely a measure for 'deconcentration' of the capital region," Kang said. "What the Bu-Ul-Gyeong is trying to enact is 'decentralization,' bringing over part of the central government's state agenda to a local governing body. So this is like the hunter who chases two rabbits at once and catches neither."

Kang also argued that relocating some of the country's public offices to the Bu-Ul-Gyeong region will improve the region's self-reliance and help create more jobs for the local workforce.

Han added that the relocation should be accompanied by the public organizations' efforts to faithfully employ local workers according to the rule of law. "The central government had promised a certain portion of local workers will be guaranteed jobs by public organizations but the authority ignored laws and neglected fully honoring those promises," Han said. "Local governments, companies and universities must cooperate to nurture a workforce for the particular demands of companies, as well as to encourage innovation in the region and develop its industries."

Han also emphasized that the Bu-Ul-Gyeong region should come up with region-specific industries with which they can outperform the capital region. Each of the three local governments, according to the professor, should stop going its own way and start forming a greater metropolitan platform to jointly dismantle the power concentrated in the capital region. He said it resonates with a continuing global trend that brings together metropolitan regions in each country to a greater extent.

"The Bu-Ul-Gyeong region's main industries, from vehicles to shipbuilding, petrochemical and mechanical engineering, used to lead the country's economy but not anymore," Han said. "They must come up with new industries that are free from the central government's policies and can exclusively feed the local economy ― something that the capital region hasn't laid its hands on."

Han mentioned the local industry's energy transition to hydrogen as an example. Ulsan has already demonstrated feasibility in using hydrogen to generate power for vehicles and households through various projects, according to the professor. "The three local governments should share these technologies and mutually transition to hydrogen, developing new industries and raising competitiveness for existing industries," Han said.

Seen above is a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle in a parking lot in Ulsan. The southeastern coastal city is Korea's leading hydrogen economy city, with the city government having invested in distributing hydrogen vehicles to local residents and developing fuel cell batteries. Korea Times file

Exemplar greater metropolitan regions

Experts sought precedents for the Bu-Ul-Gyeong coalition body from around the world to see how their outcomes have changed the cities and affected the countries. One example they found was combined authorities in England.

There are nine combined authorities that are part of the United Kingdom. West Midlands Combined Authority, established in 2016, which has the highest population with over 2.9 million, combined the local authorities of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), established in 2011 with the second-highest population with over 2.8 million, combined 10 local authorities such as Bolton, Manchester, Bury and Oldham.

The concept dates back to 2010 when England's central government accepted a proposal from the association of Greater Manchester authorities to establish GMCA as an "indirectly elected top-tier strategic authority" for Greater Manchester. The move coined "city deals," which started defining combined authorities as an alternative means to grant additional powers and funding for a metropolitan district, a non-metropolitan district, a non-metropolitan county and a unitary authority council.

A legally recognized, combined authority in England was vested with power to exercise any function of its constituent councils for economic development and regeneration as well as integrated transport.

Some positive outcomes from combined authorities in England have been recorded, according to the U.K. Parliament. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, for example, saw 500 million euros brought into the region through private investment thanks to the authority's efforts. The authority and its local enterprise partnership also created 15,150 jobs and trained over 8,300 people through a special program.

The Parliament also said GMCA's creation of a single health and social welfare budget had "broken down silos" and improved its workforce relations.?The authority, citing local think-tank researchers, also highlighted accomplishments in other combined authorities as well, such as an advent of bus franchising in North of England,?lower bus fares?and increased adult education provisions.

But the Parliament also noted caveats. Citing a remark from a professor at De Montfort University in England, it said devolution of the country's central authority to combined authorities proved to be more administrative and task-based decentralization than the devolution of power. The country thus had a lack of decision-making power or financial autonomy comparable to that in Scotland and Wales.

North of Tyne, one of the nine combined authorities, had "particular problems that were ascribed to the lack of powers relative to other combined authorities, the small size and lack of meaningful economic geography, and weak identification amongst the wider public," according to the Parliament.

"Devolution deals were also critiqued for being inconsistent between different places," the Parliament said. "It was feared these weaknesses would undermine public support for devolution."