[Public Opinion Briefing Vol. 71-2] Public Perception of the Three Major Issues of Sejong City / Sejong City Solutions and Political Impact

[Public Opinion Briefing Vol. 71] EAI · Hankook Research Planning Special Feature on Public Opinion on Sejong City

1. Characteristics of the Sejong City Issue / Mismatch in Values and Preferences Regarding Sejong City

2. Public Perception of the Three Major Issues of Sejong City / Sejong City Solutions and Political Impact

Public Perception of the Three Major Issues of Sejong City: Unable to Differentiate Between Original and Revised Plans

Majority Opinion: No Difference in Effects on Balanced Regional Development, Administrative Efficiency, or Chungcheong Region Development

[Table 1] Government/Political Stance on Sejong City (Logical Structure)

How do the public perceive the three major issues of Sejong City currently debated in the political sphere—its contribution to balanced regional development, administrative inefficiency, and its impact on the Chungcheong region? Does the public's assessment align with the political establishment's perception? While each political faction claims its plan is superior in all three aspects, what is the public's perspective?

A brief summary of the logical structure of the Sejong City debate in the political arena is presented in [Table 1]. The revised and original plans are in opposition based on conflicting logic regarding objectives, means, justification, and resolution methods.

The conflicting points of the original and revised plans can be broadly summarized into three dimensions: (1) effect of alleviating concentration in the Seoul metropolitan area, (2) administrative efficiency, and (3) contribution to the development of the Chungcheong region. Overall, the political debate emphasizes that the original plan can contribute to alleviating Seoul's concentration and developing the Chungcheong region, arguing that administrative agencies must be relocated for a greater effect on alleviating concentration. The revised plan criticizes the administrative inefficiency of the original plan and argues that the revised plan, which relocates businesses and educational institutions with significant economic ripple effects, is superior in terms of alleviating concentration in Seoul.

The results of asking about the perceived impact of the original and revised plans for each issue are summarized in <Figure 4> below. Regarding the goal of alleviating concentration in the Seoul metropolitan area, 47.5% responded that the original plan would contribute positively, while the revised plan received a 45.6% positive evaluation. In contrast, regarding administrative efficiency, the public's evaluation of the original plan was only 36.0%, and the positive evaluation for the revised plan was only 3.2% higher at 39.2%. In terms of contribution to the development of the Chungcheong region, the proportion of positive evaluations for the original plan was 62.6%, and for the revised plan, it was 62.3%. Overall, it is noteworthy that the public does not clearly perceive the differences between the revised and original plans for each dimension. Both the original and revised plans were evaluated negatively in terms of administrative efficiency, and while the effect of alleviating concentration in Seoul was relatively positively evaluated, the proportion of positive evaluations did not exceed half. Both the original and revised plans were highly evaluated for their positive contribution to the development of the Chungcheong region, with little difference between them.

[Figure 4] Positive Evaluation of Original and Revised Plans by Aspect: Percentage of Positive Responses

Note) Percentage of positive responses only, combined from very positive, somewhat positive, no significant impact, somewhat negative, and very negative.

Relative Evaluation of Original vs. Revised Plans by the Three Major Issues

Effect of easing concentration in the Seoul metropolitan area: 34.1% for the original plan, 35.2% for no difference, and 30.8% for the revised plan.

Administrative Efficiency: Original Plan Superior 27.3%, No Difference 40.2%, Revised Plan Superior 32.4%

Contribution to Chungcheong Development: Original Plan Superior 28.4%, No Difference 47.9%, Revised Plan Superior 23.7%

A relative evaluation based on the numerical differences in the assessment of both plans for each issue shows that 34.1% believe the original plan is better for alleviating concentration in Seoul, while 30.8% believe the revised plan is better, with the original plan being slightly higher within the margin of error. In terms of contribution to Chungcheong development, 28.4% believe the original plan is superior, and 23.7% believe the revised plan is superior, indicating a slight advantage for the original plan. In terms of administrative efficiency, 32.4% responded that the revised plan is better, while 23.7% responded that the original plan is better than the revised plan, suggesting a perception that the original plan would increase administrative inefficiency.

However, overall, a significant portion of the public assigns the same evaluation score to both plans. For the effect of alleviating concentration in Seoul, 35.2% of respondents gave the same score to the original and revised plans, and for administrative efficiency, 40.2% responded that there was no difference, which was the highest proportion. Notably, for the effect of Chungcheong development, nearly half, 47.9%, of respondents indicated no difference between the original and revised plans, suggesting that the government's revised plan is perceived as not lagging behind the original plan in terms of development benefits for the Chungcheong region. Consequently, there was no significant differentiation in the scores received by the two options for the three major issues.

[Figure 5] Relative Evaluation of Original vs. Revised Plans by Aspect: Majority Indicate No Difference

Sejong City Solutions and Political Impact

Amidst diverging perceptions of the original and revised plans, public fatigue with political debates is also growing.

Sejong City Issue is Important but Exaggerated 47.2%, Other Issues More Important 36.9%

Important Enough for Current Level of Debate 14.0%

The Sejong City issue, which faced controversy during the confirmation process of the Prime Minister last year, remains unresolved even as the year progresses. In particular, following the government's revised plan on January 11, efforts by the mainstream of the government and ruling party to push for the revised plan have intensified, leading to sustained strong opposition from the pro-Park faction led by Representative Park Geun-hye and the opposition parties. Consequently, public sentiment towards the Sejong City issue is becoming increasingly indifferent.

Only 14.0% of the public believes that the Sejong City issue is 'an important matter worthy of the current level of debate.' In contrast, 47.2% believe that 'while it is an important issue, the debate is excessive.' Furthermore, 36.9% believe that 'there are many other issues, and the Sejong City issue should not be debated in this manner,' indicating not only fatigue with the current debate but also a cynical attitude towards the importance of the Sejong City issue.

[Figure 6] Evaluation of the Importance and Current Debate Dynamics of the Sejong City Issue

Sejong City Resolution Methods: Perceptions of Resolution Methods Vary by Stance on Sejong City

Parliamentary Vote 20.0%, National Referendum 56.0%, Government Abandons Revised Plan 19.8%

National Referendum Proposal: 37.5% of Original Plan Supporters, 65.6% of Revised Plan Supporters Agree

Overall, 20.0% favored resolving the issue through a parliamentary vote, 56.0% through a national referendum, and 19.8% believed the government should abandon the revised plan. 'Don't know/No response' accounted for 1.8%.

A breakdown by policy preference for Sejong City reveals that only 37.5% of original plan supporters favored a national referendum, while 46.7% believed the government should withdraw the revised plan, which was the highest proportion. Those favoring a parliamentary vote accounted for 14.7%. In contrast, among supporters of the revised plan, 25.5% opted for a parliamentary vote, and 65.6% favored a national referendum, which was the highest proportion. Only 5.0% suggested the government should abandon the plan. Among those who had not decided on a stance, public opinion favored a national referendum by 63.1%.

The high support for a national referendum appears to stem from a deep distrust of the political establishment, leading to the argument for resolution through a referendum. This result is noteworthy, as some within the pro-Lee Myung-bak faction and the Blue House have recently mentioned the possibility of a 'grave decision,' implying consideration of a national referendum. However, the distinct views on national referendums between supporters of the original and revised plans suggest that if a national referendum is pursued, the process of resolving the issue could become another source of political conflict.

[Figure 7] Sejong City Resolution Methods

Compromise Plan

Necessary 39.8%, Not Necessary 29.6%, Don't Know 30.5%

Original Plan Supporters: Necessary 36.5%, Revised Plan Supporters: Necessary 46.1%

Various compromise plans have emerged, such as reducing the number of government ministries to be relocated to Sejong City to three or four, relocating seven independent agencies like the Supreme Court to minimize the effect of administrative decentralization, preparing a plan to relocate the capital altogether, or postponing the decision until the next presidential election. The survey results indicate that 39.8% believe 'discussion of a compromise plan is necessary,' while 29.6% believe it is 'not necessary,' and 30.5% responded 'don't know.'

Perceptions of the necessity of a compromise plan also vary depending on one's stance on the original and revised plans for Sejong City. Among supporters of the original plan, only 36.5% responded that a compromise plan is necessary, while 44.6% responded it is not necessary, indicating a negative stance towards compromise plans. Those who answered 'don't know' accounted for 18.8%. Conversely, among supporters of the revised plan, 46.1% responded that a compromise plan is necessary, while only 25.5% responded it is not necessary. 28.4% answered 'don't know.' The high proportion of negative perceptions of compromise plans among original plan supporters appears to align with the pro-Park faction's view that compromise plans are a variation of the revised plan. The fact that 'don't know' responses exceeded 30% overall suggests that a clear preference for compromise plans has not yet been established. This can be interpreted as a reflection of insufficient exposure to information about the content or purpose of these plans, as well as doubts about their effectiveness.

[Figure 8] Necessity of Compromise Plan (%)

Sejong City Controversy Simultaneously Worsens Images of the President and Former Representative Park; Overall Negative Impact Greater for MB > Park

A survey on the impact of the Sejong City controversy on the favorability ratings of President Lee Myung-bak and former Representative Park revealed that 15.2% responded positively regarding President Lee Myung-bak, while 32.1% responded negatively. For former Representative Park, 15.7% responded positively and 24.0% responded negatively. While the Sejong City controversy has commonly worsened public image for both President Lee and former Representative Park, the proportion of image deterioration was relatively greater for President Lee Myung-bak.

[Figure 8] Change in Image of President Lee and Former Representative Park Following the Sejong City Controversy

Note) Don't know/No response not shown.

President Lee's Image Improved Among Grand National Party Supporters, Deteriorated Among Unaffiliated Voters

Examining the changes in the images of President Lee Myung-bak and former Representative Park Geun-hye according to party affiliation, among Grand National Party supporters, 35.5% responded that President Lee's image improved, while only 12.2% responded it worsened, indicating a net positive evaluation among GNP supporters. In contrast, among Democratic Party supporters, 6.3% responded it improved, while 42.4% responded it worsened. Among unaffiliated voters, only 6.8% responded it improved, while 33.7% responded it worsened. This suggests that while the Sejong City issue helped consolidate core support (often referred to as 'house cats'), it had a negative effect on expanding the base of support.

Former Representative Park's Image Improved Among Democratic Party Supporters, Deteriorated Among Grand National Party Supporters

In contrast to President Lee Myung-bak, former Representative Park Geun-hye saw her image improve among Democratic Party supporters, with 19.6% responding positively and only 9.8% responding negatively. However, among Grand National Party supporters, 13.0% responded that her image improved, while 38.7% responded it worsened. Among unaffiliated voters, 12.6% responded it improved, and 24.1% responded it worsened. Thus, while former Representative Park's image also deteriorated among unaffiliated voters overall, she received relatively more positive evaluations compared to President Lee Myung-bak.

[Figure 9] Change in President Lee Myung-bak's Image by Party Affiliation

Note) Don't know/No response not shown.

[Figure 10] Change in Former Representative Park's Image by Party Affiliation

Note) Don't know/No response not shown.