Issues in the 2022 Presidential Election: Focusing on the Evaluation of the Moon Jae-in Administration's Real Estate Policy

1. Introduction

In this paper, we examine the influence of issues on voters' decisions in the 20th presidential election of 2022. Compared to previous elections held since democratization, the 20th presidential election exhibited distinct characteristics in several aspects. Firstly, the candidates from the two major parties were both political outsiders. Although Lee Jae-myung, the candidate from the ruling Democratic Party, served as mayor of Seongnam City and governor of Gyeonggi Province, he lacked central political experience and had not been a member of the National Assembly. Yoon Suk-yeol, the candidate from the People Power Party, had only prosecutorial experience and no political background. For these reasons, neither candidate possessed a loyal base of supporters built over a long period, unlike previous candidates. This differs from Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung, who were rooted in regional politics, as well as Roh Moo-hyun, who enjoyed fervent support from the so-called 386 generation; Park Geun-hye, who was supported by the Park Chung-hee generation; and Moon Jae-in, who relied on pro-Roh Moo-hyun supporters. Consequently, the approval ratings of candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol showed significant fluctuations during the election campaign period. With weak loyal supporter bases, the candidates' approval ratings were volatile and influenced by external factors such as election issues.

Regarding election issues, the 20th presidential election also presented an unusual picture. During the campaign, the major candidates did not present core pledges that could be considered 'flagship products.' Discussions on policy directions or governing philosophies for the next administration were virtually absent during the election period. In the 2007 presidential election, candidate Lee Myung-bak promised '7-4-7,' meaning 7% economic growth annually, $40,000 per capita income, and becoming the world's 7th-largest economy. In the 2012 presidential election, candidate Park Geun-hye pledged 'economic democratization and expanded welfare.' In the 2017 presidential election, candidate Moon Jae-in, in the context of the post-impeachment situation, ran under the slogan 'Make Korea a Proper Country' and pledged 'reform of political power and power institutions.'[1]In comparison, the 2022 presidential election did not feature such 'grand narratives.' Instead, 'neighborhood pledges' such as 'new playground construction, underground parking lot construction in neighborhoods, walking trails, cafeterias, and pet parks' were excessively offered, leading to criticism that it was 'an election like a district council election.'[2]On the other hand, negative campaigning was prevalent. Allegations of corruption related to the Daejang-dong development project during Lee Jae-myung's tenure as Seongnam Mayor, Yoon Suk-yeol's 'shamanism controversy,' and corruption allegations involving the wives of both candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol garnered attention. Thus, with the presidential election lacking discussions on the nation's direction for the next five years and devolving into negative campaigns, it was evaluated as an 'election of dislike.'

Despite the high voter interest revealed through early voting, this presidential election was marred by the stigma of being the most disliked election ever. Controversies surrounding the moral integrity and qualifications of the candidates from the two major parties were incessant, and negative exchanges continued. Discourse and policy competition among candidates disappeared. The two major party candidates vied to present similar 'life-oriented' pledges. The voices of female voters were erased by the gender-based division tactics of the opposition party. The election landscape remained fiercely contested until the end due to the opposition's consolidation of candidates. This presidential election was stained by the negative exchanges between the ruling and opposition parties. From the outset, it carried the label of a 'disliked election.' Even on the day before the election, the ruling and opposition parties were engaged in disputes over the Daejang-dong allegations. The Democratic Party accused Yoon Suk-yeol of the People Power Party, and the People Power Party accused Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party, of being the 'mastermind.'[3]

However, concerning election issues, real estate policy is particularly interesting in the 2022 presidential election. Negative evaluations of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy were overwhelmingly high. According to a Korea Gallup poll conducted in late September 2021, 79% of respondents believed the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy was being handled 'poorly,' with only 6% responding that it was being handled 'well.' Even among supporters of the then-ruling Democratic Party, 64% responded that it was being handled 'poorly.' Among undecided voters, 75% held a negative view, and 97% of People Power Party supporters evaluated the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy negatively.[4]Reflecting this sentiment, both ruling and opposition party candidates critically evaluated the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy and proposed pledges to expand apartment supply, ease real estate taxes, and relax regulations on reconstruction and redevelopment. In a Hankook Ilbo poll conducted in January 2022, 51.8% of respondents stated they would prioritize 'real estate and housing stability' when choosing their preferred candidate in the presidential election.[5]

The point of focus in this paper is how the policy failures of the previous administration influenced the voting decisions for the candidate who would lead the next government, in the absence of forward-looking grand narratives that candidates could 'lead.' As the public opinion poll results above indicate, negative evaluations of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy were very high, regardless of partisan support. Conversely, issues that could capture voters' attention were virtually nonexistent, apart from candidates' moral integrity or corruption allegations. In this regard, the election was highly likely to lead to a retrospective evaluation of the Moon Jae-in administration. However, the election results were a close contest, with Yoon Suk-yeol receiving 48.56% and Lee Jae-myung 47.83%, a mere 0.73% difference in vote share. This suggests that the issue of 'real estate policy failure,' unlike its reaction in opinion polls, acted differently among voters based on their partisan stance. This paper aims to analyze the impact of election issues on voting decisions in the 2022 presidential election, with a particular focus on the issue of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy failure. We will analyze whether the evaluation of real estate policy failure led to retrospective voting against the Moon Jae-in administration, and if real estate policy was a significant factor in voting choices, which types of voters it influenced.

2. Theoretical Review

An election serves as an opportunity to evaluate the achievements of the previous administration and to choose a new government that will be responsible for national affairs for the next five-year term. If the former meaning is emphasized, voting decisions lean towards retrospective evaluation; if the importance of the latter is highlighted, prospective voting will occur. As discussed earlier, the 2022 presidential election was highly likely to lead to retrospective evaluations due to the absence of core pledges from candidates regarding the operation of the next administration and the high negative public opinion regarding the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy. As Key Jr. (1966) pointed out, retrospective evaluation involves rewarding the incumbent administration with continued support if it performed well, and punishing it by supporting another party if it performed poorly. In this way, elections are a core mechanism of democracy that allows for the implementation of political accountability. However, as Fiorina (1981) noted, if retrospective evaluation is viewed as a running tally of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the performance of governments led by a particular party, the impact of short-term evaluations of national governance may not be significant.

Furthermore, retrospective evaluations can vary depending on party identification. Evaluations of the incumbent administration may be based not on policy outcomes or achievements themselves, but on voters' political attitudes, such as partisan bias. That is, social identity or partisan loyalty determines preferences for parties or candidates, and evaluations of policies are also aligned with partisan loyalty (Achen and Bartels 2016). When encountering information that does not align with one's political orientation, individuals may either refuse to accept such information, seek to offset the negative information by adding new information, or engage in a distorted information processing process to interpret it in a way that suits them (Lodge and Hamill 1986; Redlawsk 2002). Rationalization, such as projecting one's issue preferences onto the stance of a favored candidate or changing one's preferences to align with that stance (persuasion), can also arise due to partisan support (Brody and Page 1972). In South Korea, the retrospective evaluation of the president regarding COVID-19 response in the 21st general election in 2020 also varied among voters based on their party identification (Gil Jeong-ah, Kang Won-taek 2020).

In terms of economic voting, the influence of pocketbook voting, related to an individual's economic status, and sociotropic voting, related to the national economic situation, are distinguished. While there are numerous research findings indicating a significant influence of sociotropic voting (Kinder and Kiewiet 1981; Kiewiet and Rivers 1984; Hansford and Gomez 2015), studies on elections in the UK (Clarke et al., 2000) and Denmark (Nannestad and Paldam 1997) have also found that voters engage in pocketbook voting based on their assessment of their personal economic situation. In South Korea, it is difficult to find a significant relationship between objective economic indicators and the vote share of the incumbent party (Moon Woo-jin 2018), and many studies suggest that prospective considerations of the national economy are more important than retrospective considerations of personal economic circumstances (Park Kyung-san 1993; Lee Hyun-woo 1998; Hwang Ah-ran 2000; Lee Jae-cheol 2008).

However, the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy in the 2022 presidential election was an issue that could not be overlooked in terms of its salience. Drawing from the experience of US elections, among various issues, evaluations of the government's economic policies can have a greater impact on voting decisions than other issues. If evaluations of economic policy have a significant impact, a positive evaluation of economic performance will lead to support for the incumbent party's candidate, and conversely, a negative evaluation will trigger a reward-and-punishment mechanism leading to support for the opposition party's candidate (Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier 2000). Even if it is not an economic issue, a highly salient issue, such as the abortion issue in the 1992 US presidential election, can influence candidate choice (Abramowitz 1995). In the 2020 presidential election, the real estate issue was not only an economic policy-related issue but also a highly salient issue that garnered the most attention from voters, and above all, it was an 'easy' issue for voters to understand (Carmines and Stimson 1980). A comparable case is the election during the Roh Moo-hyun administration. Similarities exist in that the Moon Jae-in administration inherited the policy direction of the Roh Moo-hyun administration, and both administrations experienced difficulties due to soaring real estate prices. Lee Nae-young and Jeong Han-wool (2007) concluded in their comparative analysis of party voting in the 17th general election in 2004 and the local elections in 2006 that the withdrawal of support from Uri Party supporters stemmed from economic dissatisfaction, specifically the deterioration of their personal economic conditions. This implies that the overall evaluation of the Roh Moo-hyun administration's governance performance and the negative evaluation of its economic performance influenced party support. Therefore, what was the political effect of the real estate policy failure in the 2020 presidential election?

3. Analysis of Election Issues

Although there was no single dominant issue in the 2020 presidential election, various matters captured voters' attention. As shown in [Table 1], the issues that garnered attention during the campaign largely pertained to the moral integrity and qualifications of candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol or their wives; there were no issues related to the candidates' core pledges. Policy-related issues, such as real estate policy or COVID-19 response, instead attracted more attention as evaluations of the Moon Jae-in administration's performance. Among the various issues raised during the election, the 'failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy' had the greatest impact. 31.1% of respondents cited real estate issues as their top priority, and the combined percentage for first and second priority responses was also the highest at 38.9%. This indicates that the real estate issue influenced nearly 40% of all voters.

[Table 1] Issues Influencing Voting Decisions (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Next, issues related to the candidates' morality had an impact. Based on the first-priority response, 'Yoon Suk-yeol's wife's false resume and stock manipulation controversy' ranked second highest at 14.2%, and the combined rate of first and second priority responses was also the second highest at 26.4%. The third highest response based on the sum of first and second priorities was the Seongnam Daejang-dong real estate development preferential treatment suspicion, with the first priority at 9.8% but the second priority response at 14.4%, totaling 24.2%. Following the real estate issues, issues related to negative campaigning against both candidates had an impact. However, considering the combined response rate of 10.1% for the controversy over Lee Jae-myung's wife's corporate credit card misuse and 21.2% for the controversy over Lee Jae-myung's own morality, such as his wife's foul language, the controversies surrounding Lee Jae-myung's and his family's morality amount to 55.5%. Furthermore, if the sum of first and second priority responses of 15.3% for the shamanism controversy, which arose when Yoon Suk-yeol wrote the character 'King' (王) on his palm during a TV debate, is added, the proportion of morality-related controversies concerning Yoon is raised to 41.7%.

Ultimately, it can be seen that the morality controversies surrounding both candidates significantly influenced the voting decision process. As the combined percentages show, the morality issues acted more unfavorably towards Lee Jae-myung. As shown in [Table 2], the response stating that voters chose the candidate based on their morality was only 1.4% among Lee Jae-myung voters, showing a stark contrast to Yoon Suk-yeol's 20.2%.

[Table 2] What factors influenced your vote (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Another interesting point from [Table 2] is that for candidate Lee Jae-myung, the response rate for voting based on party affiliation was only 5.9%, while the response rate for prioritizing personal factors such as the candidate's ability and experience was very high at 63.1%. In contrast, for Yoon Suk-yeol voters, the response rate for voting based on party affiliation was relatively high at 15.2%. The fact that Lee Jae-myung voters cited candidate-specific factors over party factors as reasons for their vote is interesting in that it signifies differentiation between the Moon Jae-in administration and candidate Lee Jae-myung. In terms of voting issues, this can be interpreted as Lee Jae-myung's differentiation strategy being accepted by his supporters to distance himself from perceptions of policy incompetence due to failed real estate policies and political responsibility arising from policy failures. Indeed, Lee Jae-myung claimed during the election campaign that he could handle housing prices and support for small business owners better than President Moon Jae-in, and figures like Song Young-gil, the leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, argued that the election of candidate Lee Jae-myung, who is not part of the pro-Moon Jae-in mainstream, would represent a true change of government.[6]

Meanwhile, among Yoon Suk-yeol voters, the response rate citing the candidate's integrity as an important factor was 20.2%, which is very high compared to 1.4% for Lee Jae-myung supporters. This is likely not because they thought Yoon Suk-yeol was morally superior, but rather because the various integrity controversies surrounding candidate Lee Jae-myung led them to relatively prefer Yoon Suk-yeol. Meanwhile, the unification between Yoon Suk-yeol and Ahn Cheol-soo, which occurred at the end of the election, was not as high as the issues of real estate or integrity controversies, with a combined response rate of 18.6% for the first and second rankings.

Regarding presidential election issues, the North Korea-related issues are noteworthy. North Korea's missile launches had virtually no impact on voting decisions. This is very different from past elections where North Korea's military provocations influenced voters as the so-called 'North Wind' (Jeong Jun-pyo 1998; Kim Hyung-jun 2007). The response rate for North Korean provocations as the primary issue was only 0.4%, and even when combining the first and second rankings, it was 2.3%. Instead, the combined response rate for Russia's invasion of Ukraine was 3.9%, higher than North Korea's missile launches. The effect of the North Korean variable in elections has shown a tendency to be limited in recent times (Kang Won-taek 2020: 15), and in the 20th presidential election, its impact was virtually non-existent.

[Table 3] Major Issues Affecting the Election by Region (Based on 1st Priority)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

∎ Lee Jae-myung Negatives: Daejang-dong development scandal + Controversy over misuse of First Lady Lee's corporate credit card + Lee Jae-myung's integrity controversy

∎ Yoon Suk-yeol Negatives: Controversy over First Lady Yoon's false career and stock manipulation + Controversy over Yoon Suk-yeol's shamanism

As such, apart from candidate integrity issues, the most significant issue influencing voting decisions was the surge in real estate prices. However, the impact of real estate issues could vary by region. The real estate policy issue began with the aim of controlling apartment prices in Seoul's Gangnam district, but soon the price surge spread to Seoul and the metropolitan area, and subsequently nationwide.[7]Although the primary target of real estate policy was Seoul and the metropolitan area, real estate prices also surged in the Chungcheong region, including Sejong and Daejeon. In fact, as shown in [Table 3], the response rate regarding the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policies was highest in the Chungcheong region, followed by Seoul. However, excluding the Jeolla region, which showed a response rate of 16.5%, the response rate viewing real estate policy failure as an issue affecting the election was generally 30% or higher. In other words, real estate policy failure was a significant election issue that influenced voters' decisions nationwide.

In contrast, other issues showed clear regional variations. The Lee Jae-myung negative issues were highest in the Daegu and Gyeongbuk regions and lowest in the Jeolla region, while the Yoon Suk-yeol negative issues showed the opposite pattern. This indicates that the effects of negative campaigning were influenced differently depending on partisan support. The Yoon Suk-yeol-Ahn Cheol-soo unification effect was also highest in the Jeolla region. It appears that the sense of crisis among Jeolla region voters that the unification of the two candidates could disadvantage candidate Lee Jae-myung influenced their voting choices.

The results in [Table 3] suggest that while the issues influencing voters could differ based on partisan support, the real estate issue, at least, had a relatively uniform impact on voters' judgments nationwide. Based on this, we examined the relationship between major issues and candidate support in detail. As shown in [Table 4], the content of the issues that influenced voters varied significantly depending on whom they voted for. For voters of the opposition candidate Yoon Suk-yeol, the real estate issue overwhelmingly had an impact, as shown by 48.5% of the responses, followed by the issues of Lee Jae-myung and his wife's morality. In contrast, for Lee Jae-myung voters, the controversies surrounding Yoon Suk-yeol's wife's false career and stock manipulation, and Yoon Suk-yeol's shamanism controversy had an impact, as did the Yoon-Ahn unification late in the campaign.

While the morality controversies of each candidate are problematic in themselves, they also stem from voters' existing political biases, causing them to react strongly to the negative attributes of opposing candidates they do not support. In other words, while the candidate morality issue cannot be said to have no impact, it is deeply related to voters' preferences for candidates based on their partisan stance. From this perspective, the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policies can be summarized as the significant issue that influenced voters in the 2022 presidential election.

[Table 4] Major Issues and Candidate Support

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

4. Impact of Real Estate Issues

Based on the preceding discussion, this section will examine in more detail the impact of real estate issues on the election. The burden on ordinary citizens due to real estate policy failures can be viewed in two ways. First, soaring prices made it even more difficult for those without homes to purchase one. This could also include the surge in prices for housing rentals, such as jeonse and monthly rent. Second, the increase in the comprehensive real estate holding tax. The Moon Jae-in administration strengthened taxes, including the comprehensive real estate holding tax, to control the surge in real estate prices.[8]Therefore, an evaluation of real estate policy failure needs to consider not only the surge in apartment prices but also the reaction to the comprehensive real estate holding tax. [Table 5] analyzes the average values regarding the burden of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and agreement on the importance of tax reform in the next administration, by candidate support.

[Table 5] Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Issue and Voted Candidate

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

∎ Excessive comprehensive real estate holding tax: 0-Strongly disagree, 10-Strongly agree.

∎ Tax reform in the next government: 0-Not important at all, 10-Very important

As shown in [Table 5], tax issues related to the failure of real estate policy significantly influenced support for candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol. Statistically significant differences were confirmed between voters for each candidate on both items. Voters who agreed that the comprehensive real estate holding tax was excessive and that tax reform was necessary in the next government tended to vote for Yoon Suk-yeol. The perception of the comprehensive real estate holding tax being excessive showed a significant difference between supporters of Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol. While Lee Jae-myung supporters generally viewed the tax as not excessively burdensome, Yoon Suk-yeol supporters responded that it was considerably burdensome. Yoon Suk-yeol supporters also felt a stronger need for tax reform in the next government, although the direction of this reform (e.g., tax increases or cuts like the comprehensive real estate holding tax) was not clearly specified. This suggests that Yoon Suk-yeol supporters were more influenced by tax-related issues. The results in [Table 6] also indicate that tax impositions related to real estate policy had a substantial impact on voters' electoral choices.

Although the influence of tax issues was pronounced among Yoon Suk-yeol supporters, [Table 4] shows that nearly 50% of Yoon's supporters indicated that the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy influenced their voting decision. Therefore, how did real estate issues affect voters who chose Moon Jae-in in the 2017 presidential election but made a 'politically different choice' for Yoon Suk-yeol five years later?[1]As shown in [Table 6], among voters who supported Moon Jae-in in the 2017 presidential election and switched their political support to Yoon Suk-yeol in the 2022 presidential election, the impact of real estate policy failure was confirmed compared to groups where this was not a factor. Furthermore, those who switched from Moon Jae-in to Yoon Suk-yeol perceived the comprehensive real estate holding tax as more burdensome and considered tax reform in the next government more important compared to those who did not switch. In other words, the failure of real estate policy and the comprehensive real estate holding tax influenced the defection of some past Moon Jae-in voters.

As shown in [Table 6], the impact of the real estate policy failure was confirmed among voters who supported Moon Jae-in in the 2017 presidential election and shifted their partisan support to Yoon Suk-yeol in the 2022 presidential election, compared to those who did not. Furthermore, it was confirmed that those who switched from Moon Jae-in to Yoon Suk-yeol perceived the comprehensive real estate holding tax as excessive compared to others, and also perceived tax reform as important for the next government. In other words, the failure of real estate policy and the comprehensive real estate holding tax influenced the defection of some past Moon Jae-in voters.

[Table 6] Attitudes toward Real Estate and Tax Issues Among 2017 Moon Jae-in Supporters Who Supported Yoon Suk-yeol in 2022

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

∎ Failure of real estate policy: 1-Influenced voting decision, 0-Not influenced

∎ Excessive comprehensive real estate holding tax: 0-Strongly disagree, 10-Strongly agree

∎ Importance of tax reform in the next government: 0-Not important at all, 10-Very important

∎ ( ) indicates n

To reconfirm these characteristics, we analyzed the correlation between real estate and tax issues and the perception of the election's significance as a 'judgment on the Moon Jae-in administration' among defectors from the Moon Jae-in camp in 2017. As shown in [Table 7], statistically significant correlations were confirmed for all three items. The correlation between the response that the failure of real estate policy influenced voting decisions and the perception that the 2022 presidential election was a referendum on Moon Jae-in was relatively high at .387. However, the correlation between the perception that the comprehensive real estate holding tax was excessive and the view of the election as a referendum on Moon Jae-in was remarkably high at .709. Based on [Table 6] and [Table 7], it can be confirmed that real estate issues, particularly the comprehensive real estate holding tax, had a significant impact on defectors from the Moon Jae-in camp.

[Table 7] Correlation: Real Estate-Tax Issues and Referendum on Moon Jae-in Election (Among Moon Jae-in Defectors)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

All p<0.01

This time, we examined perceptions of the comprehensive real estate holding tax by region. Seoul is a noteworthy region in terms of perception. While real estate prices have generally increased, the rise in apartment prices in Seoul has been particularly significant. Given that Seoul's real estate prices are relatively high, the burden of the comprehensive real estate holding tax is inevitably higher.[2]As shown in [Table 8], the response that the comprehensive real estate holding tax was excessive was highest in Seoul.[3]Considering [Table 3] and [Table 8] together, it can be seen that the impact of the surge in real estate prices and the associated increase in the comprehensive real estate holding tax in the Seoul region had a very significant effect on voting decisions. In the Chungcheong region, real estate prices saw the largest percentage increase, and responses regarding the failure of real estate policy were also high; however, the proportion of responses indicating the burden of the comprehensive real estate holding tax was below average. Meanwhile, the Daegu/Gyeongbuk region also showed high figures, but considering the region's traditional stronghold for the People Power Party, political orientation likely influenced these negative responses. The significance of real estate issues in influencing voting decisions is particularly evident in Seoul.

[Table 8] Regional Assessment of Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

∎ 0- Strongly Disagree, 10- Strongly Agree.

[Table 9] Vote Share of Major Party Candidates in Seoul in Past Elections

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

* Winner

However, since the two-party system of the Grand National Party and the Democratic Party was formed with the merger of three parties in March 1990, the candidate from the Democratic Party's lineage has always led in the Seoul region in past presidential elections, as shown in [Table 9]. The only exception was candidate Chung Dong-young in the 2007 presidential election, where the margin of victory was a significant 5.31 million votes. However, in the 2022 presidential election, Yoon Suk-yeol, the candidate from the Grand National Party's lineage, won with 50.6%, leading Lee Jae-myung's 45.7% by 4.9%. Considering that the final vote difference between the two candidates was only 0.73%, Lee Jae-myung's loss in Seoul to Yoon Suk-yeol can be considered decisive in his election defeat. Based on the discussion above, it can be understood that Yoon Suk-yeol's greater vote share in the Seoul region compared to Lee Jae-myung is closely related to the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policies, which led to soaring housing prices and the associated 'punitive tax burden'.

Based on the discussions above, a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted, as shown in [Table 10], on the influence of election issues, particularly the failure of real estate policy and the comprehensive real estate holding tax, on the voting choice between candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol. The dependent variable is support for Yoon Suk-yeol and Lee Jae-myung. The independent variables included four categories: election issues, ideology, income-assets-class consciousness, and socioeconomic attributes. The election issues category included candidate morality and real estate-related issues. Specifically, it included real estate policy failure, comprehensive real estate holding tax, Lee Jae-myung negative campaigning, and Yoon Suk-yeol negative campaigning. However, even if the comprehensive real estate holding tax is considered excessive, in reality, the number of taxpayers subject to this tax is limited among the total electorate. Therefore, an interaction term between the perception of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the evaluation of the Moon Jae-in administration was added to the issues category. Meanwhile, ideology has been identified as a variable with a significant impact on voting decisions and political attitudes in past elections (Gil Jeong-ah 2019; Park Won-ho 2012; Lee Nae-young 2009; Kang Won-taek 2005). Here, self-placement ideology and the ideological distance perceived by respondents from candidates Lee Jae-myung and Yoon Suk-yeol were included as separate variables. The age variable was also included, as it showed differences in partisan support in past elections (Choi Jun-young, Cho Jin-man. 2005; Park Myung-ho 2009; Kang Won-taek, Sung Ye-jin 2018). Meanwhile, gender was included in light of the emergence of gender conflict, particularly among younger generations, leading up to the 2022 presidential election.[12]The class category was included because recent elections have begun to show class effects (Kim Soo-in, Kang Won-taek 2022; Lee Ji-eun, Kang Won-taek 2020), and class may be linked to real estate or tax issues. Three variables were included in this category: household income, asset size, and subjective class identification.[13]

[Table 10] presents the results of the logistic regression analysis for the entire nation and for Seoul. Some differences are observed between the analysis for the entire nation and the analysis for Seoul only. The logistic analysis was conducted in four models. Model 1 analyzed only the major issues raised during the election. In the analysis for the entire nation, all four variables—real estate policy failure, comprehensive real estate holding tax, Lee Jae-myung negative campaigning, and Yoon Suk-yeol negative campaigning—were found to influence candidate support. Higher support for Yoon Suk-yeol was associated with the influence of real estate policy failure, the perception of the comprehensive real estate holding tax as excessive, and the influence of Lee Jae-myung's negative campaigning, while influence from Yoon Suk-yeol's negative campaigning led to support for Lee Jae-myung. However, as shown in [10-B], when analyzing Seoul only, the Yoon Suk-yeol negative campaigning variable was not statistically significant, and only the Lee Jae-myung negative campaigning variable was statistically significant. The real estate policy failure and comprehensive real estate holding tax variables were also statistically significant, with the coefficient for real estate policy failure being larger than in the analysis for the entire nation, which is noteworthy.

The second model includes the interaction term 'Moon Jae-in administration's performance evaluation x perception of excessive comprehensive real estate holding tax' in addition to Model 1. In both the national analysis and the Seoul-only analysis, the interaction term was statistically significant. The probability of supporting Yoon Suk-yeol increased when individuals perceived the comprehensive real estate holding tax as excessive and simultaneously held a negative view of the Moon Jae-in administration's performance. With the inclusion of this variable, the variable for comprehensive real estate holding tax alone was no longer significant. Support for Yoon Suk-yeol increased when negative perceptions of the comprehensive real estate holding tax were combined with negative evaluations of the Moon Jae-in administration.

Model 3 adds the ideology category to Model 2. In the analysis for the entire nation, all three ideology-related variables were statistically significant. More conservative individuals, those with greater ideological distance from Lee Jae-myung, and those with shorter ideological distance from Yoon Suk-yeol had a higher probability of voting for Yoon Suk-yeol. This result aligns well with the explanation of the proximity model of voting choice. However, in the analysis for Seoul only, the influence of the ideology variables was not statistically significant. In the Seoul region, only real estate policy, Lee Jae-myung negative campaigning, and the interaction term remained significant despite the addition of the ideology category.

Model 4 includes income-asset-class factors and demographic factors such as age and gender in Model 3. In the analysis for the entire nation, the variables that were significant in Model 3 remained significant, and among the added variables, the age variable was significant. Older individuals showed higher support for Yoon Suk-yeol. However, in the analysis for Seoul only, none of the added variables were found to be statistically significant.

[Table 10] Binary Logistic Regression Analysis

[10-A. National]

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[10-B Seoul]

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

∎ Dependent Variable: Yoon Suk-yeol 1, Lee Jae-myung 0

* p<0.01, ** p<0.05

Overall, the analysis of the entire country confirmed the ideological factors and age effects observed in past elections. The more conservative the voter, the closer their ideological distance to candidate Yoon Suk-yeol, and the older they were, the higher their support for candidate Yoon. Regarding issues, not only the failure of real estate policy but also the comprehensive real estate tax and the negative effects on the candidates were confirmed. However, in the analysis focusing solely on the Seoul metropolitan area, only election issues proved significant. Notably, the impact of real estate policy failure was greater in the Seoul analysis compared to the national analysis, and the effect of the comprehensive real estate tax, combined with an evaluation of the Moon Jae-in administration, was also confirmed. Another interesting point in the Seoul analysis is that among the negative issues concerning the candidates, only those related to candidate Lee Jae-myung influenced voting decisions. This pattern was consistent across all four models.

Synthesizing these results, it appears that for Seoul voters, the failure of real estate policy had a greater impact than ideological stances or partisan attitudes based on age, which have traditionally influenced voting decisions. Furthermore, the impact of real estate issues manifested partly as criticism of the Moon Jae-in administration and partly as a negative attitude towards candidate Lee Jae-myung. The analysis results in [Table 10] can be summarized as indicating that the relatively high support for Yoon Suk-yeol in Seoul was not due to trust or appeal in candidate Yoon himself, but rather due to anger over the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy failures and distrust of Lee Jae-myung as the 'ruling party candidate'.

5. Conclusion

The 2022 presidential election proceeded as if it lacked distinct issues. Unlike past presidential elections, no future-oriented 'grand narratives' were presented; instead, major candidates competitively offered tailored pledges for specific regions and demographic groups. Consequently, during the election campaign, issues capturing voter attention were either related to the morality or conduct of the candidates or their spouses, or they were retrospective evaluations of the Moon Jae-in administration's policies. Among these, the most prominent was the failure of the Moon Jae-in administration's real estate policy, which could not prevent housing price increases despite '24 rounds of measures'.[14]As observed earlier, dissatisfaction with the real estate policy failure was widespread among voters, irrespective of their party affiliation or political leaning. However, the election outcome was decided by a narrow margin of 0.73%. Despite the policy failures of the Moon Jae-in administration, other factors such as party loyalty or polarized partisanship may have outweighed the negative evaluations of some dissatisfied voters.

However, the analysis in this paper indicates that the failure of real estate policy, which could not curb housing price increases, played a significant role in voters' decisions. This issue was particularly influential for Seoul voters, who were at the center of housing price increases and felt the burden of the 'punitive' comprehensive real estate tax more acutely. This shift led to the defeat of the Democratic Party candidate in Seoul by a margin of 4.9% against the People Power Party candidate, marking a departure from the Democratic Party's consistent victories in Seoul in presidential elections since democratization (with the exception of 2007).

In this regard, the outcome of the 2022 presidential election demonstrates that elections in Korean politics function as a mechanism for implementing political accountability for the performance of those in state governance. The fact that the ruling power shifted after five years in 2022, rather than the ten-year cycle of power alternation between conservative and progressive political forces observed since democratization, can be interpreted in the same context. Furthermore, the 2022 presidential election clearly reflects the changes in voter demands that began to emerge from the 2007 presidential election. Unlike the past, where 'grand narratives' such as the liquidation of military rule, regime change, and de-authoritarianization dominated electoral competition, the 2007 presidential election saw the presentation of economic and livelihood-focused slogans like 'Economic President, CEO President,' and 'pragmatism.' In the 2008 general election, the 'New Town policy' attracted voter attention, particularly in the Seoul metropolitan area. In the 2010 local elections and the 2011 Seoul mayoral by-election, issues such as 'half-price tuition' and 'free school meals' were raised. In the 2012 presidential election, 'economic democratization' and 'welfare expansion' emerged as important issues. With the exception of the 2017 presidential election, which was a special case due to the impeachment of the president, the rise of real estate issues in the 2022 presidential election can be understood as a continuation of the preceding political trends. Although partisan polarization and intense ideological confrontation characterized Korean politics for five years under the Moon Jae-in administration, the 2022 presidential election clearly revealed that beneath the surface, demands for livelihood politics centered on pragmatic and substantive issues, rather than ideological orientation, are flowing. ■

References

Kang, Woo-jin. 2012. “A Study on the Effects of Perceptions of Economic Policy and Housing Ownership Type on Voter Abstention: The Case of the 18th General Election.” *Journal of Korean Political Parties* 11(2), 67-93.

Kang, Won-taek. 2020. *Korean Electoral Politics 2010-2020: From the Cheonan Incident to the COVID-19 Pandemic*. Purun-gil.

Kang, Won-taek. 2005. “Ideological Conflict and the Progressive-Conservative Divide in Korea.” *Journal of Korean Political Parties* 4(2), 193-217.

Kang, Won-taek, and Ye-jin Seong. 2018. “Ideology and Generation in the 2017 Presidential Election: Focusing on Conservative Voters.” *Korean Political Studies* 27(1), 205-240.

Gil, Jeong-ah. 2019. “Government Trust and Distrust, and Voting Participation: Differential Incentives Based on Voter Ideological Orientation and Party Favorability.” *The Journal of Legislative Studies*, 25(2), 103-140.

Gil, Jeong-ah, and Won-taek Kang. 2020. “Retrospective Voting in the 21st General Election: Evaluation of the President's COVID-19 Response and Partisan Bias.” *Journal of Korean Political Parties* 19(4), 101-140.

Kim, Su-in, and Won-taek Kang. 2022. “Assets and Voting Choice: Focusing on Voters in the Seoul Metropolitan Area.” *Korean Political Science Review*, 56(1), 187-215.

Kim, Hyung-jun. 2007. “The 16th Presidential Election and the North Korean Variable.” *Journal of Political Information*, 10(2), 47-64.

Moon, Woo-jin. 2018. “Economic Voting, Electoral Accountability, and Democracy.” *Peace Studies*, 26(2), 5-44.

Park, Kyung-san. 1993. “Economic Voting in the 14th Presidential Election.” *Korean Political Science Review* 27(1), 185-208.

Park, Myung-ho. 2009. “Analysis of Generational and Age Effects in the 2008 General Election.” *Journal of Korean Political Parties*, 8(1), 65-86.

Park, Won-ho. 2012. “Voters' Political Ideology, Policy Preferences, and Candidate Choice,” in Park, Chan-wook and Won-taek Kang (eds.), *Analysis of the 2012 General Election*, Nanam, 35-26.

Lee, Nae-young. 2009. “Changes in Korean Voters' Ideological Orientations and Ideological Voting.” *Peace Studies*, 17(2), 42-72.

Lee, Nae-young, and Han-wool Jeong. 2007. “Issues and Changes in Korean Party Support.” *Korean Political Science Review*. 41(1), 31-55.

Lee, Jae-cheol. 2008. "Economic Voting in the 17th Presidential Election: Voters' Economic Perceptions and Voting Decisions." *Journal of Modern Politics* 1(1), 111-135.

Lee, Jieun, and Kang, Won-taek. 2020. “Reconstructing Class Voting: Focusing on the Linkage between Assets and Income.” *Korean Political Science Review*, 29(3), 123-153.

Lee, Hyun-woo. 1998. “Economic Voting in Korea.” In *Elections in Korea II: Focusing on the 15th Presidential Election*, edited by Nam-young Lee, 97-150. Purenkil.

Chung, Jun-pyo. 1998. “The Political Science of the 'North Wind': Elections and the North Korean Variable.” *Korea and International Politics* 14(1), 111-151.

Choi, Jun-young, and Cho, Jin-man. 2005. “An Empirical Study on the Potential for Change in Regional Cleavages: Focusing on the Effects of Ideological and Generational Cleavages in the 17th General Election.” *Korean Political Science Review* 39(3), 375-394.

Hwang, Ah-ran. 2000. “A Political Psychology Approach to Economic Voting: Focusing on the 15th Presidential Election.” *Korean Political Science Review* 34(2), 193-212.

Abramowitz, Alan. 1995. “It's Abortion, Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 57(1), 176-186.

Achen, Christopher and Larry Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ansolabehere, Stepen and Shanto Iyengar. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.

Carmines, Edward and James Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78-91

Clarke, H., K. Ho, and M. Stewart. 2000. “Major's lesser (not minor) effects: prime ministerial approval and governing party support in Britain since 1979.” Electoral Studies 19, 255-274.

Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hansford, T and B. Gomez. 2015. “Reevaluating the sociotropic economic voting hypothesis.” Electoral Studies 39, 15-25.

Johnson, Paul, Frances Lynchb, and John Geoffrey Walker. 2005. “Income tax and elections in Britain, 1950-2001.” Electoral Studies 24, 393-408

Key, Jr. V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

Kinder, Donald and Roderick Kiewiet. 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case." British Journal of Political Science 11, 129-161.

Kiewiet, R. and and R. Rivers. 1984. “A Retrospective on Retrospective Voting.” Political Behavior, 6(4), 369–393.

Lewis-Beck, Michael and Mary Stegmaier. 2000. "Economic Determinants Electoral Outcomes." Annual Review of Political Science 3(1), 183-219.

Lodge, Milton and Ruth Hamill. 1986. "A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing." American Political Science Review` 80(2), 505-519

Nannestad, P., and Paldam, M., 1997. “From the pocketbook of the welfare man: a pooled cross-section Study of economic voting in Denmark, 1986-92.” British Journal of Political Science 27, 119-136.

Petrocik, J. R. 1996. "Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case." American Journal of Political Science 40(3), 825-850.

Redlawsk, David. 2002. "Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making." Journal of Politics 64(4), 1021-1044.

Sanders, D., 1996. “Economic performance, management competence and the outcome of the next general election.” Political Studies 44, 203-231.

Tillman Erik and Baekkwan Park. 2009. “Do Voters Reward and Punish Governments Changes in Income Tax Policy?” Journal of Elections and Public Opinion, 19(3), 313-331.

Wattenberg, Martin and Craig Leonard Brians. 1999. “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review 93(4), 891-899 (9 pages)

[1] The first of then-candidate Moon Jae-in's ten pledges was 'expansion of jobs,' and the second was 'reform of political power and power institutions.'

[2]" 'New Playground'... A Presidential Election Like a District Council Election" (Chosun Ilbo, 2022.1.25.) https://www.chosun.com/politics/election2022/2022/01/25/PKXMGXHD6RADDO5QT3U6HQ6L3Q/

[3] “The Presidential Election Also Saw Record Voter Turnout Amidst Policy Absence and Misogyny: What the 20th Presidential Election Left Behind.” (Kyunghyang Shinmun, March 8, 2022) https://www.khan.co.kr/politics/election/article/202203082205005

[4] Gallup Report Daily Opinion, Issue No. 466 (5th Week of September 2021) https://www.gallup.co.kr/gallupdb/reportContent.asp?seqNo=1241

[5] “LIVE ISSUE Hankook Ilbo New Year Poll: ① Real Estate ② Jobs ③ Will Choose President Based on Economic Growth Policy” (Hankook Ilbo, January 3, 2022) https://m.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2022010215080000998

[6] “LIVE ISSUE Presidential Race Heats Up: 'Cannot Help But Diverge Further from Moon'... Lee Jae-myung Camp Mulls 'Season 2 of Differentiation'.” (Hankook Ilbo, January 24, 2022). https://m.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2022012316460000030

[7] Based on the four-year term of the Moon Jae-in administration, the Korea Real Estate Board's survey results show that Sejong City saw the highest increase in real estate prices (47.5%), followed by Daejeon (32.2%), Gyeonggi (18.5%), Daegu (17.9%), Seoul (15.4%), Incheon (14.8%), Gwangju (9.5%), and Busan (7.8%). (Digital Times, May 12, 2021) http://www.dt.co.kr/contents.html?article_no=2021051202109932036007&ref=naver

[8] Compared to the asset tax revenue of 28.1 trillion won in 2017, the first year of the Moon Jae-in administration, the amount has grown 2.4 times in four years. Among asset taxes, the comprehensive real estate holding tax (종부세) saw the largest increase. The comprehensive real estate holding tax revenue, which was 1.7 trillion won in 2017, increased to 3.6 trillion won in 2020, and then surged to 6.1 trillion won in 2021. This represents a 3.6-fold increase in tax revenue since the beginning of this administration... Punitive taxation is largely intended to reduce speculative activities, such as those by multiple homeowners and short-term transactions, by using taxation as a means. (Maeil Business Newspaper, February 13, 2022) https://www.mk.co.kr/news/economy/view/2022/02/133085/

[9] Among the 1,104 survey participants, 140 individuals, or 12.6% of the total, shifted their support from Moon Jae-in in 2017 to Yoon Suk-yeol in 2022.

[10] Refer to the following article. "Of the Seoul residents who must pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax this year, 6 out of 10 are single-homeowners... The proportion of single-homeowners in non-metropolitan areas is around 10.4% to 22.6%. However, in Seoul, single-homeowners accounted for 60.4% of those subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax. This means that the comprehensive real estate holding tax, which is intended to be punitive towards multiple homeowners, is burdening single-homeowners in Seoul. The proportion of single-homeowners was also relatively high in Gyeonggi (29.6%), Sejong (22.6%), and Gangwon (21.9%). On average nationwide, single-homeowners accounted for 42.2% of those subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax... This outcome, despite the increase in the tax assessment criteria for the comprehensive real estate holding tax, is analyzed to be due to the surge in housing prices caused by the government's real estate policy failures. According to KB Real Estate, the average sale price of apartments in the Seoul area increased by more than 100%, from 607.08 million won in May 2017 to 1.21639 billion won last month. [6 out of 10 Seoul residents subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax are 'single-homeowners'] (Hankyung Ilbo, November 28, 2021). https://www.hankyung.com/economy/article/2021112899301

[11] Although Gangwon/Jeju showed the highest figures in [Table 8], they were not included in the actual discussion due to the small sample size.

[12] “Presidential Election Marred by Gender and Regional Conflicts... Must Also Break Away from 'Generational Encirclement Theory'.” (Seoul Economy, March 10, 2022) https://www.sedaily.com/NewsVIew/263D4DQQC9

[13] The coding for each independent variable is as follows.

∎ Real Estate Policy Failure: 1-Affected, 0-Not Affected

∎ Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax: 0-Not at all burdensome, 10-Extremely burdensome

∎ Lee Jae-myung Negatives: Lee Jae-myung Negatives: Daejang-dong Development Scandal + Wife's Corporate Card Misuse Controversy + Lee Jae-myung's Ethical Controversy. 1-Affected, 0-Not Affected

∎ Yoon Suk-yeol Negatives: Wife's False Resume Controversy, Stock Manipulation Controversy + Yoon Suk-yeol's Shamanism Controversy. 1-Affected, 0-Not Affected

∎ Moon Jae-in Evaluation: 0-Very well, 100-Very poorly. (Order reversed to align signs).

∎ Self-Ideology: 0-Very progressive, 10-Very conservative

∎ Ideological Distance: Absolute value of (Self-Ideology – Lee Jae-myung/Yoon Suk-yeol's Ideological Position)

∎ Democratic Party, People Power Party Favorability: 0-Strongly dislike, 10-Strongly like

∎ Household Income: 1-Less than 1 million won, 11-10 million won or more

∎ Assets: Less than 100 million won, 9-1.5 billion won or more

∎ Subjective Social Class: 1 Upper, 2 Upper-middle, 3 Middle, 4 Lower-middle, 5 Lower

∎ Gender: Male 1, Female 0

[14] “24 Real Estate Measures... Kim Hyun-mi Steps Down with the Nickname 'Bread Minister' After Being a 'Real Estate Warrior'.” (JoongAng Ilbo, December 4, 2020). https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/23937795#home

■ Author: Kang Won-taek_Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He has served as President of the Korean Political Science Association and the Korean Association of Party Studies. His main research areas include Korean politics, legislatures, elections, and political parties. His major publications include "Critical Moments in Korean Politics" (2019), "Social Science Writing" (2019), "Korean Politics" (2019), "Democracy Made by Citizens" (2018, co-authored), "Evaluation of 30 Years of Democratization in the Republic of Korea" (2017, co-authored), and "Presidential System, Cabinet System, and Semi-Presidential System" (2016).

■ Editor: Jeon Ju-hyun_EAI Research Fellow

    Inquiries: 02-2277-1683 (ext. 204) jhjun@eai.or.kr