As the presidential race heats up, the two leading candidates ― Park Geun-hye of the ruling Saenuri Party and Moon Jae-in of the main opposition Democratic United Party ― are crisscrossing the nation to collect votes. And at every stop, they never fail to unveil development plans to woo residents.
During the one week since the official campaigning period started on Nov. 27, they have promised a litany of projects. As there are two more weeks left before the Dec. 19 election, the list will be extended much further.
The upcoming election is different from the previous two elections in that neither of the two candidates has thus far proposed a mega development project that requires tens of trillions of won to promote and, hence, generates much controversy.
In the 2002 election, ruling party candidate Roh Moo-hyun put forward a highly controversial proposal ― the construction of a new city in South Chungcheong Province to serve as an administrative capital. The cost of the project was estimated at 45 trillion won.
In 2007, opposition candidate Lee Myung-bak proposed an equally, if not more, controversial scheme ― building a 540-kilometer-long grand canal connecting Seoul and Busan. Advocates of the aborted scheme put the cost at 16 trillion won, while critics argued it would cost the nation about 50 trillion won.
The two projects both dominated much of the debate throughout the election campaign period. In this election, such a divisive issue is missing, probably because the two candidates focused more on welfare programs than on social infrastructure projects.
Yet this does not mean they have not proposed any controversial construction plans. Some of the projects they have announced are highly disputable. One example is their promises to build an international airport in the southeast.
The idea of building a new airport in that part of the nation was first floated by Roh. Then Lee adopted it as an election pledge in 2007.
The 10-trillion-won scheme triggered fierce competition between two regions ― Daegu and North Gyeongsang Province on the one hand and Busan and South Gyeongsang Province on the other. The first wanted to have the airport built in Milyang, while the second recommended Gadeokdo in Busan.
In March 2011, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs had a location evaluation committee conduct a feasibility study on the two candidate sites. The committee concluded that neither of them was suitable for the proposed new airport.
The panel’s conclusion led Lee to scrap the airport project and apologize for reneging on his public pledge. But this was not the end of the story.
In July, politicians of the two regions sought to revive the plan. Lawmakers of the ruling Saenuri Party from districts in Busan submitted a bill to the National Assembly to relocate Gimhae International Airport, located in the western part of the city, to Gadeokdo.
In response, Saenuri lawmakers from Daegu also presented a bill to promote an airport in Milyang.
It is against this backdrop that the two leading presidential candidates weighed in. During a campaign stop in Busan on Nov. 27, DUP candidate Moon, who hails from the port city, promised to build an airport on Gadeokdo.
On Friday, Park also said she would build an airport on the island but on the condition that it was chosen as an ideal site by top international experts. She stopped short of supporting a certain site but made it clear she would promote the airport project.
The two candidates’ pledges to push ahead with the airport scheme are typical of the way they make regional development proposals. Their schemes are not based on prior feasibility studies. Furthermore, they are not accompanied by any specific funding plans.
The two candidates should not commit themselves to costly development projects this way. They should ensure that their pledges are based on well thought-out strategies and concrete financing plans.
When in office, they will have to implement their pledges. If they try to keep their pork-barrel promises, they will waste taxpayers’ money. But if they fail to deliver on them, they will undermine the government’s credibility. So the best way is to refrain from making inconsiderate, wasteful pledges in the first place.
