[Edaily Marketin Hur Jieun JI YEONG-EUI Reporter] “Nowhere in the world is the financial sector fragmented rather than concentrated. If financial institutions are dispersed for political gain, it will severely undermine financial competitiveness and create significant difficulties in attracting talent.”

A total of 2,368 financial sector professionals expressed strong concerns regarding the government’s discussions on the second phase of relocating public institutions to regional areas. They pointed out that the costs of such relocations extend far beyond mere office relocation expenses; they could also lead to operational inefficiencies caused by the loss of key personnel and the disruption of market networks, as well as fuel internal organizational conflicts over resignations, job changes, and employees choosing to remain in the Seoul metropolitan area.

Employees of financial institutions under consideration for relocation warned that if the government prioritizes the principle of balanced regional development without fully considering the specific nature of the financial industry’s operations and the realities of its workforce and residency, the institutions’ very competitiveness could be undermined. In particular, 91.5% of the 2,325 respondents from institutions under consideration for a second relocation believed that further relocation to the provinces would undermine the competitiveness of the financial industry and their institutions, while 88.2% (2,050 people) stated they would pursue resignation, a move to the private sector, or a transfer to a department within the Seoul metropolitan area.

According to the results of a survey conducted by Edaily from August 26 to 31 among 2,642 employees of domestic financial institutions (out of 2,368 valid respondents, 43 were from institutions that had completed the first-phase relocation and 2,325 were from institutions under consideration for the second-phase relocation), employees expressed strong concerns about the potential damage to the competitiveness of the financial industry and their institutions resulting from further relocation to the provinces. 90.4% (2,140) of all valid respondents answered that additional relocations to regional areas would undermine the competitiveness of the financial industry and individual institutions.


This survey focused on identifying the operational disruptions, risks of staff turnover, and policy acceptance anticipated by employees directly affected by the relocation. It appears that the response rate was higher among institutions discussed for a second relocation, as they face uncertainties such as staff turnover and disruptions to their operational networks.

Among respondents from institutions under consideration for a second-phase relocation, 91.5% (2,127 people) selected “diminished competitiveness.” Positive responses—indicating it would contribute “significantly” or “to some extent”—accounted for 3.3% (76 people), while 5.2% (122 people) stated there would be “no significant impact.”

In contrast, responses from institutions in the first wave—which had already undergone relocation—were relatively mixed. 30.2% (13 respondents) cited a decline in competitiveness, 46.5% (20 respondents) gave positive responses, and 23.3% (10 respondents) stated there would be no significant impact. This suggests that distrust regarding further relocations is particularly strong among members of institutions under consideration for relocation.

“My wife works in Seoul, and we have a newborn… The government is creating separated families”

Low policy acceptance became even more evident when considering anticipated responses should the relocation actually take place. Among respondents from agencies mentioned for a second round of relocation, 74.5% (1,731 people) predicted that they or their colleagues would resign immediately or within 1–2 years, or would actively seek employment in the private sector. Additionally, 13.7% (319 people) indicated they would apply for a transfer or reassignment to a department remaining in Seoul or the greater Seoul area. Combined, these two responses mean that 88.2% (2,050 people) anticipated either resigning, switching to the private sector, or transferring to a department in the greater Seoul area.

Meanwhile, 8.6% (201 respondents) stated they would decide whether to change jobs after relocating and assessing the situation, while only 3.2% (74 respondents) indicated they would accept working in a regional area. This suggests that opposition to the relocation may extend beyond conflicts during the policy implementation process, potentially leading to a brain drain of skilled workers and a concentration of staff in departments remaining in the Seoul metropolitan area, thereby prolonging the conflict.

In the open-ended responses, a flood of practical concerns emerged, including dual-income households, child-rearing, and caring for elderly parents. One respondent confided, “Although I’m originally from the provinces, I’ve finally managed to establish myself in Seoul after much hardship, and now, at this late stage in my life, I’m being told I have to move to another provincial area—I feel completely lost,” adding, “As someone who needs to get married and have children, I can’t envision a future for myself.”

Another respondent said, “My wife works in Seoul, and we just had a newborn, but I’m being told to move to the provinces,” asking, “What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to force my wife to take a career break?” Another respondent, facing the prospect of being separated from their family due to the relocation, wrote, “I think I’ll have no choice but to quit my job for the sake of my family.”

84.9% Cited “Loss of Key Personnel”… “Finance Is a Clustered Industry”

Beyond individual living conditions, concerns about a decline in work performance were also significant. In a multiple-choice question asking about anticipated work disruptions resulting from a relocation to the provinces,

“loss

of key personnel and inability to attract top-tier new and experienced talent” ranked highest at 84.9% (1,973 respondents). “Disruption of market networks” also reached 67.7% (1,573 respondents). Reduced accessibility to domestic and international institutional investors (LPs) and major clients accounted for 24.4% (567 respondents), communication disruptions with the government, National Assembly, and regulatory authorities accounted for 16.0% (373 respondents), and weakened access to market information accounted for 14.5% (336 respondents).

The financial industry is a highly concentrated sector where information and decision-making flow rapidly among counterparties, regulatory authorities, and professional firms such as law firms and accounting firms. Respondents expressed concern that if individual institutions were relocated to regional areas in isolation, face-to-face collaboration would have to be replaced with business travel, which could significantly increase time and cost burdens.

Concerns regarding specific operational disruptions also poured in. An IT manager stated, “All of our contracted vendors are based in Seoul,” adding, “Our competitiveness will clearly decline when financial institutions experience system failures or need to respond to major issues.” Other issues raised included disruptions to joint financial inspections, increased travel expenses to Seoul, reduced accessibility for the public, and weakened capacity to respond to IT failures.

Many respondents also expressed concern that financial supervision functions would be compromised by moving away from Seoul, where financial institutions are concentrated. One respondent pointed out, “Supervisory functions are only effective when closely tied to the field,” adding, “Why is the Financial Supervisory Service located in Yeouido? It’s because financial institutions are concentrated there.”

A respondent from an export finance institution expressed concern that “we must collaborate closely with global banks, law firms, and domestic law firms and consulting firms,” noting that moving physically farther from the financial hub could reduce operational efficiency and weaken competitiveness in securing contracts and exports.

Respondents raised concerns about a one-size-fits-all relocation approach that focuses solely on the principle of balanced regional development without considering the founding purposes and operational characteristics of financial institutions. A respondent from a mutual aid association noted that managing members’ funds requires face-to-face negotiations and continuous monitoring, expressing concern that “if an environment is created that makes it difficult to invest in a timely manner, we will face difficulties in maintaining our competitiveness.” Another respondent stated, “While I agree with the intent of regional balanced development, a differentiated approach that takes into account the size and founding purposes of each institution is necessary.”