Abstract
Japan and South Korea both undertook capital function relocation as a measure to address
challenges such as overcrowding in their capitals, the excessive concentration of population and
functions in the capital, and the need for balanced national development. However, the outcomes were
entirely different. This study analyzes the factors behind these outcomes by comparing the policy
deliberation and decision-making processes, as well as the domestic consensus-building processes, in
both countries. In Japan, where consideration of relocating capital functions began only after deciding
to move branch offices and affiliated agencies outside the capital, multiple regions competed to attract
the single relocation site. This led to divided domestic opinion and made consensus-building difficult.
In contrast, South Korea proposed relocating capital functions and decentralizing public institutions
as a single policy package for balanced national development, examining both simultaneously.
Consequently, there was no significant opposition to relocating capital functions to the Chungcheong
region, and no other candidate sites emerged. Local governments outside the Chungcheong region
focused solely on attracting public institutions rather than the capital functions. By distributing these
institutions across national blocks, consensus was formed on both relocating the capital functions and
decentralizing public institutions. This clearly demonstrates that the difference in policy packages
between the two countries was a decisive factor in the success or failure of the capital function
relocation.
