YEONGGWANG — One local government has managed to grow its population even as rural counties across South Korea face the threat of disappearing. It is Yeonggwang County in the Jeonnam-Gwangju integrated region. But the county has now run into an unexpected obstacle: its success in restoring population growth could actually work against it in applying for government support programs.
Areas at high risk of depopulation receive extra points. There is no separate reward for having increased the population. The result, critics say, is that local governments that worked hard end up worse off. Officials and residents in Yeonggwang have gone so far as to ask whether there is any point in raising the population at all. The structure, they argue, paradoxically turns efforts to prevent regional decline into a disadvantage.
Jang Se-il, the head of Yeonggwang County, has stepped in directly. After approaching the government, Jang took his case to the National Assembly to call for changes to the system.
Jang visited the National Assembly's Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans and Fisheries Committee on the 20th of this month. He met with committee chairman Suh Sam-suk, Rep. Lee Kae-ho and other members of the Democratic Party of Korea to request improvements to the evaluation criteria for the rural basic income pilot program. His central demand was that the criteria should assess not only the severity of population decline but also achievements in population recovery.
Yeonggwang was recently designated a "population vitality plus area," the only county-level local government in the country to receive the designation. In effect, it was recognized as an area where actual population conditions have improved despite being classified as a depopulating region.
According to the county, its registered resident population rose to 53,608 as of September this year from 51,750 in 2023, an increase of 1,858 people. Its total fertility rate stood at 1.79 in 2025, the highest in the country for the seventh consecutive year. The gains followed policies linking marriage and childbirth support, help for young adults settling in the area, and education and care services.
While the population has grown on the surface, structural weaknesses remain. People aged 65 and over account for 33.2% of residents. The county's financial independence ratio stands at just 11.9%. The county has produced results, in other words, but still needs more support.
The problem lies in the evaluation table for the 2027 rural basic income pilot program. The table assigns 10 points to the risk of depopulation. By contrast, there are no separate bonus points recognizing population growth or improvements in the fertility rate. The open call covers 52 county-level local governments designated as depopulating regions nationwide, of which roughly 18 will be selected. Residents of selected areas will receive local gift certificates worth 150,000 won per month.
Yeonggwang believes that under the current criteria, areas that invested in population policy and produced results could be at a relative disadvantage. That creates a contradiction, the county says, in which falling population is an advantage and rising population is a liability.
Jang presented the National Assembly with four proposals for changing the system. They call for allocating roughly 10% of the Regional Extinction Response Fund separately according to performance in improving population figures; giving preferential treatment or mandatory selection to population vitality plus areas in the 2027 rural basic income pilot program; restructuring the support framework for depopulating regions into three stages of decline response, vitality plus and transition to self-reliance; and expanding fiscal incentives, including bonus points in central government open calls, a new performance-based component in ordinary local grant taxes and priority access to special local grant taxes.
"Supporting areas where the population is falling matters, but so does giving greater opportunities to areas that have increased their population," Jang said. "That is what will make local governments take on the challenge more actively and allow successful policies to spread nationwide."
Suh, the committee chairman, agreed on the need for change. "If areas that made the effort and delivered results end up worse off when it comes to support, what local government is going to pour energy into population policy?" he said.
Lee also said he would work to persuade the government. "The evaluation criteria need to be revised so that areas that have made efforts to increase their population are not penalized," he said.
Yeonggwang's case is more than a local issue; it raises questions about the direction of the government's population policy. Supporting areas at risk of disappearing matters. But if areas that have overcome the crisis receive no encouragement, the policy loses momentum. That is why questions are being raised about who would boldly invest in population policy if the structure leaves high-performing local governments worse off.
The county plans to continue urging the National Assembly and relevant ministries to revise the evaluation criteria. It also intends to actively pursue selection for the rural basic income pilot program.