[Exclusive] Amid 'inter-ministerial disputes' over the 162 trillion won Future Response Fund... OPC held '0' consultations with the Ministry of Planning and Budget

[Financial News] It has emerged that the Office for Government Policy Coordination (OPC), which is responsible for coordinating policy among ministries, has no record of holding separate consultations with the Ministry of Planning and Budget during the creation of the 162 trillion won Future Response Fund. Questions have been raised about whether the government's policy coordination function was working effectively, amid disagreements among relevant ministries over funding for the fund and continuing opposition from local governments.
■ OPC has a policy coordination mandate under law, but not a single official letter was exchangedAccording to documents submitted by the OPC on the 21st to the office of Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party, a member of the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee, the OPC said of the Future Response Fund, "It falls under the Ministry of Planning and Budget's remit, and there are no related official letters exchanged or records of consultations."
The Future Response Fund is a large-scale fund the government is pursuing to secure resources for future investment. Its 2027 project budget is 45.3625 trillion won, making it the second-largest of the 72 funds, after the National Pension Fund. The Ministry of Planning and Budget oversees the fund's creation, which involves the finances and policies of several ministries, including the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and the Ministry of Education.
Disagreements among relevant ministries came to the fore during the creation of the fund. In particular, the Ministry of Planning and Budget and the Ministry of Education took different positions on reforming local education finance grants. Last August, the ministers of both ministries held direct consultations, but failed to reach agreement, and tensions flared. The government later developed a reform plan through the Fiscal Management Strategy Council and other channels.
Opposition to reform of the Local Allocation Tax also continued. Local governments nationwide raised objections, concerned that the tax could be reduced as the government sought funding for the Future Response Fund. Earlier, differences had also emerged between the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Planning and Budget over how to use excess tax revenue.
The OPC's policy coordination role is also set out in law. Article 20 of the Government Organization Act stipulates that the OPC is to assist the Prime Minister with coordinating the policies of central administrative agencies and managing social risks and conflicts, among other matters. Article 3 of the Regulations on the Organization of the Office for Government Policy Coordination and Its Affiliated Agencies also designates policy coordination and conflict management as the OPC's responsibilities. This has prompted calls to examine what role the OPC played in coordinating the creation of a large-scale fund involving the interests of multiple ministries.
■ Prime Minister's Office: "Policy coordination is for when a policy is flawed or ministries disagree"Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party criticized the situation, saying, "The intensifying disputes among ministries over who gets to use the Future Response Fund show that they regard taxpayers' money as their personal piggy bank," and adding, "Even the Office for Government Policy Coordination, which should mediate, has remained a bystander, while the use of the Future Response Fund is nearly a scene of utter chaos."
The Prime Minister's Office said the Future Response Fund was pursued primarily by the ministries responsible for it, including the Ministry of Planning and Budget, and that the relevant ministries developed policies and followed reporting procedures without separate working-level consultations. An official from the Prime Minister's Office explained, "Policy coordination is generally for when a policy is flawed or there are disagreements between ministries. That was not the case while the Future Response Fund was being developed."
Earlier, in July, the Ministry of Planning and Budget and the Ministry of Education held a public debate on reforming local education finance grants. A reform plan was subsequently developed after consultations among the relevant ministries. However, no direct coordinating role by the OPC during that process has been confirmed.
Some analysts say that although the OPC's direct involvement in budget formulation is not essential, the interests surrounding the allocation of large-scale resources need to be coordinated responsibly. Since the Ministry of Planning and Budget leads budget allocation, the key issue is substantive government-wide conflict resolution and accountability, rather than the mere absence of records of consultations with the OPC.
Kim Tae-yoon, a professor in the Department of Public Administration at Hanyang University, noted, "Someone must take responsibility for explaining to the public whether the Future Response Fund consists of projects that align with its purpose, but at present, there is no accountable party in sight to coordinate this."
Whether there was sufficient public discussion during the Local Allocation Tax reform process is also at issue. While reform of local education finance grants has been discussed for years, the plan to link the Local Allocation Tax to funding for the Future Response Fund is seen as having received relatively little discussion.
Lee Sang-min, a senior research fellow at the Nara Salim Research Institute, criticized the process, saying, "Reform of education finance grants was discussed and debated for years, but the plan to include the Local Allocation Tax in the Future Response Fund was pushed ahead without public hearings or public debate."

[email protected] Kim Ye-ji, Kim Chan-mi Reporter