South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on June 28 defended a proposed Honam semiconductor cluster as a national industrial project, rejecting opposition claims that Samsung Electronics and SK hynix investment plans for the southwestern region were politically motivated or technically unrealistic. The fight is not merely about one Korean province getting a chip complex. It is about whether democratic governments can steer the geography of advanced manufacturing without turning industrial policy into a partisan spoils system. For Windows users and IT professionals, that distinction matters because the next decade of PCs, servers, AI accelerators, memory, and cloud infrastructure will be shaped as much by power grids and water rights as by silicon design.
Lee’s argument is straightforward: if semiconductors are a national survival industry, then the map on which they are built is also a national question. The Honam region, covering Gwangju and the Jeolla provinces, has long sat outside South Korea’s dominant industrial geography, while the Seoul metropolitan area, Gyeonggi Province, and parts of Chungcheong have absorbed the country’s most valuable technology investments.
That imbalance is not new, and neither is the political temptation to fix it with a factory announcement. What is new is the strategic weight now attached to every fab, packaging line, data center, and AI campus. A semiconductor cluster is no longer a regional development ribbon-cutting. It is a power grid problem, a water allocation problem, a talent pipeline problem, a logistics problem, and a geopolitical insurance policy.
The Lee administration is trying to place Honam inside that equation. According to Korean reporting, the government has framed the project as part of a broader regional growth blueprint built around AI, chips, and large-company investment outside the capital region. Samsung Electronics and SK hynix have reportedly been linked to plans that could include production and advanced packaging, though the precise scale, timeline, and corporate commitments remain the crucial missing pieces.
That gap between political framing and corporate specificity is where the controversy lives. Lee says the project is a national cause. The opposition says it looks like a political cause wearing a hard hat.
That accusation has bite because South Korea’s chip industry is not a decorative sector. Samsung and SK hynix are not merely local champions; they are pillars of the global memory supply chain and key suppliers to the AI infrastructure boom. If government pressure nudges them into uneconomic site decisions, the consequences would not stop at provincial borders.
The opposition has also argued that the discussion has been sudden, insufficiently transparent, and too closely tied to ruling-party political incentives. One PPP line of attack is that reasonable questions about site feasibility have been dismissed as bad faith. Another is that corporate investment should be decided by engineering and market logic, not by the regional loyalties of elected officials.
Lee’s social media response escalated rather than cooled the dispute. His rebuttal reportedly included a proverb-like barb about what one sees depending on what one is, a formulation the opposition called insulting. The immediate political theater may fade quickly, but the underlying complaint will not: in a capital-intensive industry, even the appearance of politicized site selection can damage trust.
Lee has pushed back especially hard on water concerns. He argued that the Jeolla region has sufficient water resources if managed and allocated properly, and presidential aides have pointed to dams, agricultural reservoirs, weirs, and reclaimed wastewater as part of the supply picture. The administration’s message is that Honam is not inherently unfit for semiconductor production; it has been managed for other uses, particularly agriculture, because previous political choices made it so.
That may be true in a broad hydrological sense, but fabs do not consume “water” in the abstract. They need reliable industrial-grade supply, treatment systems, redundancy, discharge management, and long-term guarantees that can withstand drought, local opposition, and competing municipal or agricultural demands. In semiconductor planning, theoretical capacity matters less than bankable capacity.
The same is true of power. Advanced fabs and AI data centers are joining at the hip: both need enormous, stable electricity supply, and both are becoming harder to site in regions where transmission expansion is politically painful. South Korea’s existing semiconductor geography around Yongin, Pyeongtaek, Icheon, and Cheongju reflects accumulated infrastructure, supplier ecosystems, and workforce concentration. Honam can build some of that, but it cannot inherit it overnight.
That is why the government’s strongest version of the argument is not that Honam is already equivalent to established chip corridors. It is that South Korea needs to start building the next corridor now, before congestion, power shortages, land costs, and geopolitical shocks make concentration even more dangerous.
Earlier arguments about whether some semiconductor investment should be redirected or relocated toward Honam provoked fierce pushback, including from lawmakers whose districts depend on the existing plans. The government has previously denied reviewing a simple relocation of the Yongin complex, and that distinction matters. A new Honam build-out is politically difficult enough. A perceived attempt to cannibalize Yongin would be explosive.
For chip companies, the difference between “additional future capacity” and “politically redirected capacity” is everything. Additional capacity can be evaluated as a long-term portfolio decision. Redirected capacity introduces delay, legal uncertainty, sunk-cost waste, and boardroom suspicion that the investment climate has become unstable.
This is where Lee’s rhetoric carries risk. Calling Honam a national cause may rally support, but it also raises expectations before the engineering, financing, and corporate governance details are visible. If the project is additive, phased, and tied to clear infrastructure guarantees, it can be defended as strategic diversification. If it is perceived as an intervention into already-planned corporate roadmaps, the opposition’s “politics over science” critique becomes much harder to dismiss.
The administration needs to be precise because semiconductor timelines punish ambiguity. A presidential slogan can be written in an afternoon. A leading-edge or advanced memory ecosystem takes years of land work, utility planning, supplier recruitment, workforce development, and yield learning.
But there is a difference between industrial policy and industrial theater. Industrial policy uses the state to reduce risks that individual companies cannot solve alone: grid build-out, water systems, research capacity, workforce training, and coordination across suppliers. Industrial theater uses corporate logos and regional promises to create the impression of strategy before the hard constraints are solved.
Lee is betting that Honam can be the former. His critics are warning that it may become the latter. The outcome will depend less on speeches than on procurement schedules, utility investment, environmental approvals, and whether Samsung and SK hynix publicly commit on terms that look commercially rational rather than politically choreographed.
For WindowsForum readers, this may sound distant from daily concerns about Windows 11, Copilot PCs, BitLocker patches, driver stacks, and server refresh cycles. It is not. The PC and cloud markets are downstream of semiconductor geography. Memory availability, accelerator packaging capacity, SSD pricing, server lead times, and AI hardware supply all trace back to the places where fabs and advanced packaging lines can actually run.
South Korea’s memory dominance is one of the hidden assumptions under modern computing. When DRAM and NAND supply is stable, procurement teams complain about pricing but get machines. When supply tightens, the pain shows up everywhere: laptops, servers, storage arrays, GPU clusters, and cloud instance pricing. A successful new Korean cluster could add resilience. A politicized misfire could add delay.
This is why chip clusters are no longer only business-page stories. A fab in Korea, a packaging plant in Japan, an Arizona foundry delay, a Dutch lithography export rule, or a Taiwanese water shortage can ripple into the availability and cost of the machines that IT departments deploy. The operating system is globalized; the hardware base is geopolitically local.
Honam’s proposed role also intersects with a broader shift from pure front-end manufacturing toward packaging and heterogeneous integration. As AI systems demand more memory bandwidth and tighter coupling between processors and memory, advanced packaging becomes a strategic bottleneck. If Honam is positioned not merely as a symbolic manufacturing site but as part of a broader packaging, memory, and AI infrastructure ecosystem, the project could be more credible than a generic “new fab” promise.
That distinction should matter to policymakers. Mature-node manufacturing, memory expansion, advanced packaging, and leading-edge logic all have different water, power, workforce, equipment, and supplier requirements. A serious plan would specify which part of the semiconductor stack Honam is meant to serve. A political plan would blur those differences and hope the word “semiconductor” does the work.
The practical question is not whether Honam deserves investment. The practical question is whether South Korea can define a role for Honam that complements existing clusters rather than competing with them for attention, power, talent, and credibility.
Both readings can be partly true. Large Korean conglomerates are skilled at surviving political weather. They know when to appear enthusiastic, when to stay vague, and when to let government officials speak first. In a sector as regulated and strategically sensitive as semiconductors, corporate silence is rarely neutral.
Samsung and SK hynix have every reason to evaluate new sites. They also have every reason to avoid being turned into props in a domestic fight. If the government is offering infrastructure, permitting certainty, and long-term support, the companies will listen. If the government is asking them to validate a political map before the business case is settled, they will hedge.
That hedging is not cowardice. It is governance. A semiconductor investment can run into tens of billions of dollars and define a company’s capacity profile for a decade. Executives must answer to shareholders, customers, engineers, regulators, and lenders, not just presidents and provincial leaders.
The healthiest outcome would be transparent alignment: the government publishes infrastructure commitments and site logic; companies define their investment scope and conditions; local governments explain water, power, and workforce plans; opposition lawmakers test those claims without pretending that regional development is illegitimate. That is a high bar. It is also the bar a national chip strategy deserves.
A second or third semiconductor corridor could reduce those risks over time. It could also create a broader talent base and tie regional universities, technical colleges, suppliers, and renewable-energy projects into a national industrial network. Done well, Honam could become part of South Korea’s answer to a world where chip capacity is simultaneously commercial infrastructure and national security infrastructure.
But “done well” is doing a lot of work. The history of regional megaprojects is full of grand announcements that produced underused land, subsidized buildings, and disappointed local communities. Semiconductor clusters are especially unforgiving because the anchor tenant matters. Without real corporate demand, a cluster is just expensive zoning.
Honam’s advocates should therefore avoid overselling speed. If the region becomes relevant to advanced packaging, memory expansion, AI-linked infrastructure, or future fab capacity over a 10-year horizon, that would still be significant. A realistic timeline is not a weakness. In semiconductors, realism is a competitive advantage.
The opposition, for its part, should avoid treating regional balance as inherently suspect. South Korea’s concentration problem is real, and a country that depends so heavily on a few industrial corridors has reason to broaden its base. The critique should focus on evidence, sequencing, and governance, not on the idea that Honam is disqualified because politics noticed it.
That visibility changes how IT professionals should read semiconductor news. A regional cluster announcement is not a guaranteed capacity increase. A presidential endorsement is not a supply agreement. A corporate “review” is not a fab. A water-resource claim is not an operational utility contract. A national strategy is only as real as the infrastructure schedule behind it.
For Windows fleet managers, this matters in procurement cycles. Hardware refresh planning increasingly depends on memory pricing, AI PC availability, server accelerator supply, and storage cost curves. If countries successfully expand resilient chip capacity, enterprise buyers benefit from more predictable supply. If industrial policy turns into performative regional bidding, buyers inherit volatility disguised as ambition.
The Honam debate is therefore a useful test case. It asks whether a democratic government can make a long-range industrial bet while preserving enough transparency and market discipline to keep companies, investors, and customers confident. That is not a Korean-only question. It is the question underneath almost every chip subsidy program now underway.
Seoul Wants Chips to Become Regional Policy, Not Just Corporate Strategy
Lee’s argument is straightforward: if semiconductors are a national survival industry, then the map on which they are built is also a national question. The Honam region, covering Gwangju and the Jeolla provinces, has long sat outside South Korea’s dominant industrial geography, while the Seoul metropolitan area, Gyeonggi Province, and parts of Chungcheong have absorbed the country’s most valuable technology investments.That imbalance is not new, and neither is the political temptation to fix it with a factory announcement. What is new is the strategic weight now attached to every fab, packaging line, data center, and AI campus. A semiconductor cluster is no longer a regional development ribbon-cutting. It is a power grid problem, a water allocation problem, a talent pipeline problem, a logistics problem, and a geopolitical insurance policy.
The Lee administration is trying to place Honam inside that equation. According to Korean reporting, the government has framed the project as part of a broader regional growth blueprint built around AI, chips, and large-company investment outside the capital region. Samsung Electronics and SK hynix have reportedly been linked to plans that could include production and advanced packaging, though the precise scale, timeline, and corporate commitments remain the crucial missing pieces.
That gap between political framing and corporate specificity is where the controversy lives. Lee says the project is a national cause. The opposition says it looks like a political cause wearing a hard hat.
The Opposition Sees a Fab-Shaped Election Map
The People Power Party’s criticism has two layers. The first is practical: semiconductor facilities cannot simply be dropped onto a map because a government wants regional balance. The second is political: announcing or previewing major Honam investments at a sensitive moment in domestic politics risks turning private capital and national industrial strategy into campaign material.That accusation has bite because South Korea’s chip industry is not a decorative sector. Samsung and SK hynix are not merely local champions; they are pillars of the global memory supply chain and key suppliers to the AI infrastructure boom. If government pressure nudges them into uneconomic site decisions, the consequences would not stop at provincial borders.
The opposition has also argued that the discussion has been sudden, insufficiently transparent, and too closely tied to ruling-party political incentives. One PPP line of attack is that reasonable questions about site feasibility have been dismissed as bad faith. Another is that corporate investment should be decided by engineering and market logic, not by the regional loyalties of elected officials.
Lee’s social media response escalated rather than cooled the dispute. His rebuttal reportedly included a proverb-like barb about what one sees depending on what one is, a formulation the opposition called insulting. The immediate political theater may fade quickly, but the underlying complaint will not: in a capital-intensive industry, even the appearance of politicized site selection can damage trust.
The Real Constraint Is Not Land. It Is Infrastructure.
Industrial policy debates often start with land because land is visible. A cluster needs a site, roads, zoning, and political permission. But chip manufacturing is governed by less photogenic constraints: water, electricity, transmission lines, environmental approvals, specialized contractors, cleanroom construction capacity, and the availability of engineers who can operate at yield-critical precision.Lee has pushed back especially hard on water concerns. He argued that the Jeolla region has sufficient water resources if managed and allocated properly, and presidential aides have pointed to dams, agricultural reservoirs, weirs, and reclaimed wastewater as part of the supply picture. The administration’s message is that Honam is not inherently unfit for semiconductor production; it has been managed for other uses, particularly agriculture, because previous political choices made it so.
That may be true in a broad hydrological sense, but fabs do not consume “water” in the abstract. They need reliable industrial-grade supply, treatment systems, redundancy, discharge management, and long-term guarantees that can withstand drought, local opposition, and competing municipal or agricultural demands. In semiconductor planning, theoretical capacity matters less than bankable capacity.
The same is true of power. Advanced fabs and AI data centers are joining at the hip: both need enormous, stable electricity supply, and both are becoming harder to site in regions where transmission expansion is politically painful. South Korea’s existing semiconductor geography around Yongin, Pyeongtaek, Icheon, and Cheongju reflects accumulated infrastructure, supplier ecosystems, and workforce concentration. Honam can build some of that, but it cannot inherit it overnight.
That is why the government’s strongest version of the argument is not that Honam is already equivalent to established chip corridors. It is that South Korea needs to start building the next corridor now, before congestion, power shortages, land costs, and geopolitical shocks make concentration even more dangerous.
Yongin Is the Shadow Over Every Honam Promise
The Honam debate is haunted by Yongin. South Korea’s existing mega-cluster ambitions around Yongin have already become shorthand for the scale and difficulty of modern semiconductor development. The project has involved major corporate commitments and long-running questions about electricity supply, water, permitting, and supporting infrastructure.Earlier arguments about whether some semiconductor investment should be redirected or relocated toward Honam provoked fierce pushback, including from lawmakers whose districts depend on the existing plans. The government has previously denied reviewing a simple relocation of the Yongin complex, and that distinction matters. A new Honam build-out is politically difficult enough. A perceived attempt to cannibalize Yongin would be explosive.
For chip companies, the difference between “additional future capacity” and “politically redirected capacity” is everything. Additional capacity can be evaluated as a long-term portfolio decision. Redirected capacity introduces delay, legal uncertainty, sunk-cost waste, and boardroom suspicion that the investment climate has become unstable.
This is where Lee’s rhetoric carries risk. Calling Honam a national cause may rally support, but it also raises expectations before the engineering, financing, and corporate governance details are visible. If the project is additive, phased, and tied to clear infrastructure guarantees, it can be defended as strategic diversification. If it is perceived as an intervention into already-planned corporate roadmaps, the opposition’s “politics over science” critique becomes much harder to dismiss.
The administration needs to be precise because semiconductor timelines punish ambiguity. A presidential slogan can be written in an afternoon. A leading-edge or advanced memory ecosystem takes years of land work, utility planning, supplier recruitment, workforce development, and yield learning.
Industrial Policy Has Returned, But It Still Needs Discipline
The Honam fight fits a global pattern. The United States, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are all using public money, tax incentives, fast-track permitting, and geopolitical arguments to shape semiconductor investment. The old idea that governments should simply let fabs emerge wherever the market chooses has collided with export controls, AI demand, supply-chain shocks, and national security planning.But there is a difference between industrial policy and industrial theater. Industrial policy uses the state to reduce risks that individual companies cannot solve alone: grid build-out, water systems, research capacity, workforce training, and coordination across suppliers. Industrial theater uses corporate logos and regional promises to create the impression of strategy before the hard constraints are solved.
Lee is betting that Honam can be the former. His critics are warning that it may become the latter. The outcome will depend less on speeches than on procurement schedules, utility investment, environmental approvals, and whether Samsung and SK hynix publicly commit on terms that look commercially rational rather than politically choreographed.
For WindowsForum readers, this may sound distant from daily concerns about Windows 11, Copilot PCs, BitLocker patches, driver stacks, and server refresh cycles. It is not. The PC and cloud markets are downstream of semiconductor geography. Memory availability, accelerator packaging capacity, SSD pricing, server lead times, and AI hardware supply all trace back to the places where fabs and advanced packaging lines can actually run.
South Korea’s memory dominance is one of the hidden assumptions under modern computing. When DRAM and NAND supply is stable, procurement teams complain about pricing but get machines. When supply tightens, the pain shows up everywhere: laptops, servers, storage arrays, GPU clusters, and cloud instance pricing. A successful new Korean cluster could add resilience. A politicized misfire could add delay.
The Windows Ecosystem Is Already Living in the Chip-Policy Era
Microsoft’s current product strategy assumes a world of abundant, specialized compute. Copilot+ PCs rely on neural processing units. Azure’s AI services depend on accelerators, high-bandwidth memory, advanced packaging, and dense data center infrastructure. Windows Server, Hyper-V, SQL Server workloads, and enterprise endpoint fleets all sit atop hardware supply chains that are being actively reshaped by governments.This is why chip clusters are no longer only business-page stories. A fab in Korea, a packaging plant in Japan, an Arizona foundry delay, a Dutch lithography export rule, or a Taiwanese water shortage can ripple into the availability and cost of the machines that IT departments deploy. The operating system is globalized; the hardware base is geopolitically local.
Honam’s proposed role also intersects with a broader shift from pure front-end manufacturing toward packaging and heterogeneous integration. As AI systems demand more memory bandwidth and tighter coupling between processors and memory, advanced packaging becomes a strategic bottleneck. If Honam is positioned not merely as a symbolic manufacturing site but as part of a broader packaging, memory, and AI infrastructure ecosystem, the project could be more credible than a generic “new fab” promise.
That distinction should matter to policymakers. Mature-node manufacturing, memory expansion, advanced packaging, and leading-edge logic all have different water, power, workforce, equipment, and supplier requirements. A serious plan would specify which part of the semiconductor stack Honam is meant to serve. A political plan would blur those differences and hope the word “semiconductor” does the work.
The practical question is not whether Honam deserves investment. The practical question is whether South Korea can define a role for Honam that complements existing clusters rather than competing with them for attention, power, talent, and credibility.
Corporate Silence Is Not Consent
One of the more telling details in the recent dispute is the reported absence of companies and relevant ministries from an opposition forum criticizing the Honam plan. Supporters may interpret that as a sign that the companies do not want to legitimize partisan attacks. Critics may interpret it as evidence that firms are under pressure and avoiding public disagreement with the Blue House.Both readings can be partly true. Large Korean conglomerates are skilled at surviving political weather. They know when to appear enthusiastic, when to stay vague, and when to let government officials speak first. In a sector as regulated and strategically sensitive as semiconductors, corporate silence is rarely neutral.
Samsung and SK hynix have every reason to evaluate new sites. They also have every reason to avoid being turned into props in a domestic fight. If the government is offering infrastructure, permitting certainty, and long-term support, the companies will listen. If the government is asking them to validate a political map before the business case is settled, they will hedge.
That hedging is not cowardice. It is governance. A semiconductor investment can run into tens of billions of dollars and define a company’s capacity profile for a decade. Executives must answer to shareholders, customers, engineers, regulators, and lenders, not just presidents and provincial leaders.
The healthiest outcome would be transparent alignment: the government publishes infrastructure commitments and site logic; companies define their investment scope and conditions; local governments explain water, power, and workforce plans; opposition lawmakers test those claims without pretending that regional development is illegitimate. That is a high bar. It is also the bar a national chip strategy deserves.
Honam’s Best Case Is Diversification, Not Replacement
The strongest case for Honam is not sentimental. It is strategic redundancy. South Korea’s existing semiconductor base is powerful but concentrated, and concentration creates vulnerabilities. Land bottlenecks, power-transmission disputes, housing costs, local environmental opposition, and regional inequality all become more dangerous when the nation’s most important industry is clustered too tightly.A second or third semiconductor corridor could reduce those risks over time. It could also create a broader talent base and tie regional universities, technical colleges, suppliers, and renewable-energy projects into a national industrial network. Done well, Honam could become part of South Korea’s answer to a world where chip capacity is simultaneously commercial infrastructure and national security infrastructure.
But “done well” is doing a lot of work. The history of regional megaprojects is full of grand announcements that produced underused land, subsidized buildings, and disappointed local communities. Semiconductor clusters are especially unforgiving because the anchor tenant matters. Without real corporate demand, a cluster is just expensive zoning.
Honam’s advocates should therefore avoid overselling speed. If the region becomes relevant to advanced packaging, memory expansion, AI-linked infrastructure, or future fab capacity over a 10-year horizon, that would still be significant. A realistic timeline is not a weakness. In semiconductors, realism is a competitive advantage.
The opposition, for its part, should avoid treating regional balance as inherently suspect. South Korea’s concentration problem is real, and a country that depends so heavily on a few industrial corridors has reason to broaden its base. The critique should focus on evidence, sequencing, and governance, not on the idea that Honam is disqualified because politics noticed it.
The Map Is Now Part of the Motherboard
The immediate controversy is about Lee, the PPP, and Honam, but the larger story is that the physical geography of computing has become visible again. For years, users experienced hardware as a spec sheet: CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD, Wi-Fi, battery. The pandemic supply crunch, the AI boom, and the return of industrial policy have made clear that those specs are downstream of mines, ports, fabs, substations, reservoirs, and parliaments.That visibility changes how IT professionals should read semiconductor news. A regional cluster announcement is not a guaranteed capacity increase. A presidential endorsement is not a supply agreement. A corporate “review” is not a fab. A water-resource claim is not an operational utility contract. A national strategy is only as real as the infrastructure schedule behind it.
For Windows fleet managers, this matters in procurement cycles. Hardware refresh planning increasingly depends on memory pricing, AI PC availability, server accelerator supply, and storage cost curves. If countries successfully expand resilient chip capacity, enterprise buyers benefit from more predictable supply. If industrial policy turns into performative regional bidding, buyers inherit volatility disguised as ambition.
The Honam debate is therefore a useful test case. It asks whether a democratic government can make a long-range industrial bet while preserving enough transparency and market discipline to keep companies, investors, and customers confident. That is not a Korean-only question. It is the question underneath almost every chip subsidy program now underway.
What the Honam Fight Already Tells the Rest of the Tech World
The dispute is still early, and many of the most important details remain unsettled. Even so, the contours are clear enough for users, administrators, and industry watchers to draw some practical lessons.- The Honam semiconductor plan should be judged by binding infrastructure commitments, not by presidential language or opposition outrage.
- Samsung Electronics and SK hynix investment details will matter more than any political characterization of the project.
- Water and power claims need to be translated into operational guarantees before the project can be treated as a serious semiconductor cluster.
- The project is most credible if it adds long-term capacity and specialization rather than appearing to redirect or weaken existing Yongin-area plans.
- Windows users and IT departments should treat chip-location politics as a real supply-chain signal, because memory, packaging, and AI hardware capacity directly affect device and server availability.
References
- Primary source: 조선일보
Published: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 06:33:56 GMT
President Lee Jae Myung: Honam Semiconductor Cluster a National Cause
President Lee Jae Myung: Honam Semiconductor Cluster a National Cause Semiconductor cluster breaks regional discrimination, offers Honam development owww.chosun.com - Related coverage: en.sedaily.com
Government Denies Reviewing Relocation of Semiconductor Complex to Honam Region - Seoul Economic Daily
Korea's industry ministry denies reviewing relocation of Yongin semiconductor cluster to Honam region, stating corporate relocation decisions rest with companies amid power supply concerns.en.sedaily.com
- Related coverage: news.sbs.co.kr
People's Power Party Criticizes President Lee's Social Media Post as Insulting
▲ President Lee Jae-myung The People's Power Party criticized President Lee Jae…news.sbs.co.kr
- Related coverage: koreatimes.co.kr
President ramps up regional growth blueprint, putting AI, chips at center - The Korea Times
President Lee Jae Myung will introduce a sweeping growth strategy next week to spur balanced regional development in collaboration with the private...www.koreatimes.co.kr