The Cycle of Poverty Affecting South Korean Regions: The Future of Educational Reform Holds the Key - An Era Where Assets Determine Social Class More Than Household Income

The Cycle of Poverty Affecting South Korean Regions: The Future of Educational Reform Holds the Key - An Era Where Assets Determine Social Class More Than Household Income

"If you work hard, you will be rewarded." The "story of upward mobility" that many societies have believed in has been the last support for young people. In Korea, there is also a proverb, "A dragon emerges from a stream," meaning that one can succeed even if born into a poor family. However, now those words resonate heavily. The reality that "where you are born and where you continue to live" determines the ceiling of your life has been starkly presented in statistics.


1) Strengthening of "generational inheritance" as shown by numbers—Assets solidify class more than income

A report jointly compiled by the Bank of Korea and the OECD estimates how much parents' economic power is transferred to their children in terms of income and asset rankings (percentiles). The results are symbolic.


The higher the parents' income ranking, the higher the children's income ranking is pushed up. On average, this relationship is said to be at the level of "when parents move up 10 ranks, children move up about 2.5 ranks." On the other hand, assets have an even stronger impact . The estimate is that "when parents move up 10 ranks, children move up about 3.8 ranks," revealing a structure where **"asset-centered class fixation"** is advancing.


Moreover, the strength of this inheritance is increasing with newer generations. Those born in the 1980s are more likely to inherit both income and assets than those born in the 1970s. In other words, the room for individuals to change their rankings through effort is narrowing with each generation .


2) "Migration" as a ladder for class mobility—However, the ladder is less accessible for lower-income groups

The report further delves into the role that **regional movement (migration)** plays in class mobility.


Children who migrate to regions different from their parents' tend to see an upward shift in their income rankings on average. Conversely, children who remain in their hometowns tend to see a downward shift on average. This indicates that migration is a "realistic ladder" for accessing educational environments and employment opportunities.


However, this ladder is not equal for everyone. The key factor is "place of birth."
If born in the capital region, even moving within the capital region can lead to some improvement. However, if born outside the capital region, significant economic improvement is seen only when moving to the capital region , and the effect of moving to a hub city within the same broader region has weakened in recent years.


The most severe condition is for those who are "born outside the capital region, do not migrate, and have low-income parents." Children who remain in their hometowns and whose parents belong to the lower half of the income bracket outside the capital region have a recent rate of over 80% of remaining in the lower half themselves . Meanwhile, the rate of entering the top 25% has decreased from 13% to 4% .


There is a "structure" here that is difficult to dismiss with the argument of effort. Even if it is known that migration is effective, housing costs and living expenses become barriers, making it harder for lower-income groups to choose migration to the capital region . As a result, the beneficial effects of migration do not reach them, and the more they remain in their hometowns, the more their class becomes fixed.


3) Why can't they "go to the capital region"?—The invisible gate created by housing costs

Young people flock to the capital region not merely out of "admiration." The density of employment, wage levels, concentration of companies, and the connection between education and hiring make the capital region still the optimal solution when considered rationally.


However, because it is rational, it comes with a price . The higher the housing costs, the more people are divided into "those who can go" and "those who want to go but can't." Even if scholarships and initial employment conditions are the same, differences in housing costs lead to differences in disposable income and savings.


In a society where the impact of assets on class fixation is strong, parents' assets influence the "initial costs of migration," narrowing the choices for education, employment, and career changes . The report's finding that "asset inheritance is stronger than income inheritance" aligns with this mechanism.


4) Is "education" alone enough as a prescription?—Regional proportional selection and strengthening hubs

The report and related media repeatedly mention the idea of "returning education to being a ladder." Specific measures include admission quotas reflecting regional ratios (regional proportional selection) and strengthening the competitiveness of hub universities outside the capital region .
There are two key points.

  • Ensuring that the probability of reaching top universities in the capital region is not extremely influenced by the region of origin

  • Developing hubs where people can learn, work, and earn even if they stay in their hometowns, breaking the structure of migration being the only option

However, changing the flow with education alone is not easy. Even if regional quotas widen the doors, if post-graduation employment remains concentrated in the capital region, it could ultimately become a "device that siphons off to the capital region."


Therefore, the report also mentions, alongside education, concentrated investment in industries and employment in hub cities and **integration of administrative areas (reorganization of wide-area governance)**. In an era of population decline and fiscal constraints, instead of spreading resources thinly across all regions, investing heavily in 2 to 6 hubs to create functions —such a "selection and concentration" realistic approach is suggested.


5) Reactions on social media—From "personal responsibility" to "structural debate," though opinions are divided

This theme easily ignites on social media. The reason is simple: it directly connects to **life's pain points (education, employment, housing, parental lottery)**. In Korean online forums and social media posts, the following reactions are generally noticeable.


A: Sympathy and resignation (Data backed up "felt experiences")

  • "Everyone vaguely knew that staying in the hometown = game over."

  • "The talk about birthplace and parents' assets over effort, seeing it in numbers is tough."

  • "'A dragon emerges from a stream' has become a thing of the past."


B: Anger towards housing costs (Real estate as the main factor for capital region concentration)

  • "In the end, Seoul's rent and housing prices are the gatekeepers of migration."

  • "It's obvious that the lower the income, the harder it is to migrate. There's no initial deposit."

  • "In a society where asset disparity is fixed, 'effort' goes in vain."


C: Support for regional proportional selection (Changing the distribution of opportunities)

  • "Without regional quotas, the capital region will always win."

  • "At least the fairness of the entrance must be ensured, or society won't hold."

  • "A system is needed to stop the flow of talented people disappearing from rural areas."


D: Opposition to regional proportional selection (Reverse discrimination and doubts about effectiveness)

  • "It's not a university problem. The real issue is the lack of jobs."

  • "Regional quotas will only create 'new unfairness.'"

  • "If graduates end up going to the capital region anyway, it loses meaning."


E: Realism towards hub cities and administrative integration (Spreading thinly is no longer feasible)

  • "It's impossible to save everyone. We have to invest intensively in hubs and make it work."

  • "Administrative integration can become political bargaining. They should verify its effectiveness."


Summarizing the sentiment on social media, there is indeed a growing atmosphere that **"it's limited to dismiss it as personal responsibility."** However, reaching a consensus on solutions is difficult. Touching education raises debates about "fairness," while industrial investment and administrative integration are intertwined with "politics."


Nevertheless, the significance of visualizing the numbers is great. When society faces a problem, what is first needed is not "words" but "reality."


6) Can the "freedom to stay in rural areas" be regained?

The question posed by this report is not unique to Korea. In many countries, urban concentration continues, housing costs rise, and those with assets tend to have an advantage.


Therefore, what is important is not to abandon those who stay in rural areas as "personal responsibility," nor to condemn the capital region as "evil." How to create an educational, work, and living foundation that allows people to build their lives even if they stay in rural areas .


If migration is a ladder, policies to extend the ladder (scholarships, housing support, information support) are also needed. To make staying in one's hometown a viable choice, the functions of hub universities and hub cities need to be seriously developed.


And above all, in a society where asset disparity is fixed, it is not enough to only demand "effort" from young people. Can society redesign the "foundation" for effort to be rewarded?


Reviving "a dragon emerges from a stream" ultimately means just that.


Source URL

Related Articles