K-mooc
A Critical Look at Integration between Seoul and Gimpo and Guri.pdfThis report offers a critical analysis of the potential administrative integration of Gimpo and Guri into the Seoul Metropolitan Government. It argues that instead of pursuing full territorial integration, a more effective and sustainable approach lies in strengthening interregional cooperation. The study highlights the risks of undermining local autonomy, administrative inefficiencies, and regional imbalances that may result from such integration.
Need:
Discussions about integrating Gimpo and Guri into Seoul have gained momentum due to overlapping living zones, limited transportation connectivity, and perceived administrative inefficiencies.
Problem:
However, integration is not merely a logistical fix but a complex issue tied to governance structure, local identity, and balanced national development.
Research Questions:
Does administrative integration genuinely improve local welfare and administrative efficiency?
Can alternative forms of cooperation resolve existing issues without compromising local autonomy?
✅ Presents a comprehensive review of integration proposals involving Gimpo and Guri.
✅ Identifies major downsides of administrative unification such as weakened self-governance and fiscal strain.
✅ Argues for enhanced metropolitan cooperation as a superior strategy over direct absorption.
✅ Offers policy-level implications for decentralization and balanced regional development.
3️⃣ Core Issues with Integration
🔸 Erosion of Local Autonomy
Gimpo and Guri, as independent municipal governments under Gyeonggi Province, currently exercise their own administrative rights.
Integration would reduce them to sub-districts within Seoul, stripping away local legislative and budgetary authority.
🔸 Transportation & Service Integration Without Redrawing Borders
Transportation improvements (e.g., Line 5 extension, GTX-D) are already underway and feasible without boundary changes.
Existing metropolitan governance structures (like the Metropolitan Transportation Committee) can address transit challenges through coordination.
🔸 High Administrative & Fiscal Cost
Integration requires massive legal, administrative, and budgetary restructuring.
Risks include transitional confusion, lowered service quality, and institutional inefficiency.
🔸 Intensified Capital-Centric Development
Integrating more satellite cities into Seoul risks exacerbating overcentralization in the capital region.
This directly contradicts national strategies aimed at promoting regional equity and countering population decline in non-metropolitan areas.
4️⃣ Alternative Approach: Metropolitan Cooperation
Rather than full integration, the report recommends strengthening regional governance frameworks to coordinate policies in transportation, housing, and welfare—preserving local self-rule while addressing cross-border challenges.
5️⃣ Policy Implications & Future Directions
📌 Limitations of Integration:
1️⃣ Loss of political representation and local identity.
2️⃣ Risk of increasing spatial inequality.
3️⃣ Legal, administrative, and budgetary challenges.
✅ Recommended Future Strategies:
Expand inter-city cooperative institutions.
Encourage policy harmonization while maintaining local autonomy.
Uphold principles of decentralization in line with national equity policies.
6️⃣ Conclusion
📌 Key Takeaways:
1️⃣ Integration into Seoul risks harming democratic self-governance, increasing administrative burdens, and worsening regional imbalances.
2️⃣ Strengthening inter-municipal cooperation presents a more sustainable and balanced solution.
3️⃣ Local autonomy is not just a spatial issue, but a governance principle rooted in democratic participation and regional identity.