Analysis shows that only 59% of the real estate policies announced by the Yoon Suk-yeol government have been implemented.
In a situation of 'divided government', it has been difficult for the National Assembly to pass bills, leading to overall delays in the implementation of policies that require legal amendments. Notably, only 50% of the major policies among the measures to expand dwelling supply have been actualized.
There are also concerns that if real estate policies are only announced without timely implementation, the policy effects may diminish, necessitating the establishment of a system for stable policy promotion.
According to the 'Research on the Establishment of a System for Analyzing the Status of Real Estate Policy Implementation' announced by the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS) on the 10th, 18 policies related to the real estate market were announced over a period of two years and two months from June 2022 to August last year.
In detail, the number of detailed policy tasks related to this increased from 78 in 2022 to 124 in 2023, and to 188 in 2024, totaling 390.
In its first year in office, the Yoon Suk-yeol government announced a real estate policy that encompassed both demand and supply. However, it subsequently shifted the focus towards supply-oriented policies. The proportion of supply policies increased from 60.3% in 2022 to 76.1% in 2024.
As of the end of last year, out of the 390 detailed real estate policies announced by the Yoon government, 230 policies (59%) had reached the implementation stage. Progress was not made on 106 policies (27.3%) after their announcement, and 54 policies (13.8%) had only been introduced as bills.
The Yoon government gradually reduced the proportion of real estate policies requiring legal amendments, considering the divided government landscape, and increased the proportion of policies that can be implemented without passing through the National Assembly, such as amendments to enforcement regulations and rules, but there were limitations.
For policies requiring legal system reforms, the implementation rate was only 41.7%. Even if a bill was introduced, it took an average of 204 days for it to pass the National Assembly and be implemented.
The actualization rate for measures related to dwelling supply was particularly low. The Yoon government set a target supply figure of 2.7 million dwellings + alpha (α) with the August 16 measures and announced plans to reduce the burden of redevelopment excess profit and improve the safety inspection system. In the September 26 measures of 2023, it was suggested to expand public housing supply using the third new towns and new residential sites.
Last year, the January 10 measures introduced the 'fast track for redevelopment', which would shorten the redevelopment process by about 5 to 6 years, and eased the standards for dilapidation, lowering the threshold for redevelopment. It also announced the August 8 measures to supply dwellings by lifting the greenbelt restrictions in Seoul.
After reviewing the implementation status of these supply measures, researchers found that only 154 out of 279 tasks (55.5%) had been implemented. Among the 12 supply measures assessed as highly important, only half, or six measures, had progressed to the implementation stage.
Among the supply policies, the average implementation period for tax-related policies took 7.3 months (218 days), while for maintenance projects it took 7.9 months (237 days).
On the other hand, the implementation period for financial supply measures such as 'relaxation and expansion of eligibility criteria for real estate project financing (PF) loan guarantees' and 'rationalization of the initial subscription rate criteria during the banks' intermediate payment loan review' was short, averaging 1.1 months (34 days).
Researchers noted that 'delays in institutionalization are likely to result in diminished policy effects due to policy lag'. They continued, 'Taxation and maintenance policies that depend on legal amendments and revisions in supply policies could have a negative impact on the perceived implementation of policies by citizens, making it imperative to simplify procedures or prepare alternative measures for swift advancement.'