[Edaily Marketin Hur Jieun JI YEONG-EUI Reporter] “Nowhere in the world do they scatter financial institutions instead of concentrating them. If financial institutions are dispersed for political gain, it will seriously undermine financial competitiveness and make it extremely difficult to attract talent.”

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

Employees at financial institutions under consideration for relocation warned that if the government prioritizes the goal of balanced regional development without fully considering the specific nature of the financial industry’s operations and the realities of its workforce and residential patterns, the institutions’ competitiveness itself 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) said they would seek to resign, switch to the private sector, or 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 regional areas. 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 to regional areas. It appears that the response rate was higher among institutions under consideration for a second-phase relocation, as they face uncertainties such as staff turnover and disruptions to operational networks.

Among respondents from institutions under consideration for a second-phase relocation, 91.5% (2,127 people) selected “diminished competitiveness.” Positive responses indicating that 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 was 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 relocation, 74.5% (1,731 people) predicted that they or their colleagues would resign immediately or within 1–2 years, or 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 resigning, moving to the private sector, or transferring to a department in the greater Seoul area.

Meanwhile, 8.6% (201 respondents) said 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 the provinces. This suggests that opposition to the relocation to the provinces may extend beyond conflicts during the policy implementation process, potentially leading to a brain drain of skilled workers and a concentration of remaining departments in the Seoul metropolitan area, thereby perpetuating 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 I’m being told I have to move to another provincial area at this late stage in my life—I feel completely lost,” adding, “As someone who needs to get married and have children, I can’t envision my future.”

Another respondent said, “My wife works in Seoul and our baby is just a newborn, yet I’m being told to move to the provinces,” and asked, “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% Cite “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 disruptions to work following 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 issues 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 trading 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, face-to-face collaboration would have to be replaced by business travel, which could significantly increase time and cost burdens.

There was also a flood of concerns regarding specific operational disruptions. 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 concerns raised included disruptions to joint financial inspections, increased travel expenses to Seoul, reduced accessibility for the public, and weakened capacity to respond to IT system failures.

Many respondents also expressed concern that moving financial supervision functions away from Seoul—where financial institutions are concentrated—would undermine their effectiveness. One respondent pointed out, “Supervisory functions must be closely tied to the field to be effective,” 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 where it is 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.”