[Gangnam Perspective] The Paradox of Population Policy: Problems Whether Numbers Rise or Fall

"It's a problem whether the population increases or decreases." As the deadline for re-designating Depopulation Areas approaches next October, local governments are on high alert. If areas are not re-designated, there are concerns that administrative and financial support, along with various benefits, will be reduced or lost. In rural regions, myeon areas within urban-rural complex cities are excluded from support due to statistical blind spots, while in the Greater Seoul area, issues of fairness are raised over metropolitan regulations and exclusion from support. Myeon areas in urban-rural complex cities such as Suncheon, Yeosu, Naju, and Gwangyang are often classified as high-risk with an extinction risk index below 0.2, yet they are excluded from support because they are grouped within city-level statistics. This structural issue dilutes the actual decline in rural populations by including urban population figures. As a result, there is growing support for more precise and rational solutions. In reality, however, population decline policies have often backfired, regardless of their stated goals and intentions. The so-called 'labeling effect' is said to further accelerate population loss. By branding areas as "already finished," the designation itself paradoxically hastens regional extinction.
In particular, regions where population decline continues even after re-designation tend to focus on short-term projects, with little investment in core infrastructure, highlighting the clear limitations of the system. There is also criticism that the current indicator-based policy, which relies solely on population numbers and growth rates, fails to adequately reflect the quality of life, including local networks, care, and the informal economy. The Government of South Korea is considering supplementing existing criteria and adding indicators of local vitality for future Depopulation Area re-designations. While discussions focus on whether to maintain support for areas with population growth, the rationality of designation standards, and preventing disadvantages for excluded areas, the effectiveness of these policies remains uncertain.
Currently, 89 Depopulation Areas and 18 areas of concern have been designated, but more than half of the 228 administrative districts nationwide are classified as at risk. Since the first designation in 2021, additional designations have been made every five years. The problem is that over the past three years, Depopulation Areas have seen an average decrease of 3.51%, a sharper decline than non-designated areas. Despite various support measures and incentives, the expected results have not materialized. Depopulation Areas are highly dependent on government funding, and if their designation is revoked, they could face extreme difficulties in maintaining self-sufficiency. In many cases, even with support, population decline is not mitigated, leading to skepticism about policy effectiveness and growing distrust among local residents. Conversely, areas with population growth may face disadvantages due to reduced support, as they are excluded from designation, raising the risk of reverse discrimination. Residents may feel the impact of reduced benefits, and in regions with weak foundations for self-reliance, there is concern that population decline could resume. Fortunately, the Government of South Korea has announced that, starting this year, administrative and financial support will continue for areas where local government efforts have led to population increases, which is an encouraging development.
Experts note that the issue of re-designation is not simply about whether support is provided based on population figures, but about how to reflect local vitality and sustainability. While tailored policies that consider local realities are needed, effective solutions remain elusive. Some argue that, given the limitations of current population decline measures, it will be difficult to achieve significant results in the future. There is an urgent need to shift policy toward managing regional contraction, based on the premise that "not every region can be saved." Above all, what matters is not short-term population changes, but ensuring that basic rights—such as access to healthcare, education, and mobility—are guaranteed regardless of population size. Designing region-settlement-based immigration models that combine external population inflows with internal structural reforms could provide another alternative. Ultimately, population decline policy should be seen not as a matter of simply increasing numbers, but as a national restructuring plan that enables people to sustain their lives in local communities.
ktitk@fnnews.com Reporter