🚨 Member Project Budget

Today Korean Social News for Beginners | 2025.08.28

0️⃣ Illegal Budget Allocation Without Legal Basis Undermining Local Government Principles

📌 'Member Project Budget' Controversy Revived Under Resident Priority Projects, Calls for Abolition Spread

💬 Local council member project budgets have become a social issue again following the recent Yeonggwang County Council case in South Jeolla Province. Member project budgets are funds allocated without legal basis, given to council members under the name of resident priority projects, and have been criticized as a source of corruption. Although the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety have already recommended abolition, some local councils continue this practice secretly, reigniting conflicts. Public employee unions and local communities define this as a violation of the constitution and laws, demanding complete abolition, and it is evaluated as a typical example of undermining the basic principles of local government.

💡 Summary

• Member project budget refers to resident priority project funds allocated to local council members without legal basis.
• Following the Yeonggwang County Council case, political and moral responsibility controversies are spreading.
• Public employee unions and civil society define it as a violation of local government principles and demand complete abolition.

1️⃣ Definition

Member project budget means funds individually allocated to local council members under the name of resident priority projects. This is an illegal budget that has been allocated by custom despite having no legal basis specified in the Local Finance Act and local government budget allocation standards.

Most of these funds are used for individual council members' district projects or support for specific businesses, earning names like 'pork barrel budget' and 'split budget'. They have become a source of waste of taxpayer money and corruption due to lack of transparency and fairness. This is evaluated as a typical example of violating constitutional principles of separation of powers.

💡 Why is this important?

• It is a serious problem that undermines the basic principles of rule of law and local government.
• It harms transparency and fairness of public budgets, violating citizens' right to know.
• It destroys the principle of separation of powers, harming the soundness of local politics.
• It causes waste of taxpayer money and corruption, damaging trust in local government.

2️⃣ Legal Problems and Current Status of Member Project Budget

📕 Lack of Legal Basis and Illegality

• Violation of the Local Finance Act is clear. Main problems include:

  • Article 36 of the Local Finance Act states that local government budgets must be allocated based on laws and ordinances.
  • Member project budgets are completely illegal budgets with no basis in any law or ordinance.
  • Article 8 of the Ministry of Interior and Safety's Budget Allocation Operating Standards also limits individual member budget allocation under the name of resident benefits.
  • The Board of Audit and Inspection has continuously pointed out the illegality of member project budgets since 2012 and demanded corrections.

• It violates basic principles of local government. Main violations include:

  • Korea has an institutional opposition-type local government system that separates executive and legislative bodies.
  • Budget allocation and execution are the exclusive authority of local government heads, while councils have the role of reviewing and monitoring them.
  • Member project budgets fundamentally undermine the principle of separation of powers by having councils directly distribute budgets.
  • This is a serious problem that destroys the democratic principle of checks and balances.

📕 National Status and Reality

• It has become a practice in local governments nationwide. Main status includes:

  • Despite the Ministry of Interior and Safety's abolition recommendation in 2012, many local governments still maintain this practice.
  • Some formally abolished it but continue indirect allocation under different names like 'resident priority project budget' or 'legislative activity support budget'.
  • Considerable amounts of budget from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of won per member are allocated illegally.
  • In most cases, projects are decided by individual members' judgment without special review procedures.

• The Yeonggwang County Council case shows typical problems. Main content includes:

  • Recently, member project budget-related controversy reignited at Yeonggwang County Council in South Jeolla Province.
  • The public employee union strongly opposed this, defining it as 'pork barrel budget'.
  • They argued it violates the constitution and Local Finance Act due to budget allocation without legal basis.
  • This became an opportunity to raise awareness about similar practices in local councils nationwide.

💡 Main Problems of Member Project Budget

1. Lack of Legal Basis: No legal basis specified in Local Finance Act and budget allocation standards
2. Violation of Separation of Powers: Councils directly intervening in budget execution, undermining checks and balances
3. Lack of Transparency: Budget used based on individual member judgment without public review or procedures
4. Source of Corruption: Frequent cases of budget abuse for special favors to specific businesses or personal interests
5. Waste of Taxpayer Money: Budget waste due to ineffective showcase projects or duplicate investments

3️⃣ Government Response and Current Abolition Demands

✅ Government and Audit Agency Position

• The Board of Audit and Inspection continuously recommends abolition. Main measures include:

  • Since 2012, the Board of Audit and Inspection has defined member project budgets as illegal and demanded corrections.
  • They repeatedly pointed out problems in audits of local governments nationwide.
  • They clearly judged that budget allocation without legal basis violates the Local Finance Act.
  • They also detected indirect allocation cases and strongly demand substantial abolition.

• The Ministry of Interior and Safety also officially expressed a prohibition stance. Main policies include:

  • In 2012, they sent official documents to all local governments recommending abolition of member project budgets.
  • They specified provisions limiting individual member budget allocation in local government budget allocation operating standards.
  • They continuously emphasize the need for abolition through local finance operation guidelines.
  • They demand corrective measures for violation cases discovered during audits.

✅ Response from Civil Society and Public Employee Unions

• Public employee unions are actively conducting abolition campaigns. Main activities include:

  • Following the Yeonggwang County Council case, they defined member project budgets as 'pork barrel budget'.
  • They presented legal grounds that it violates the constitution and Local Finance Act, demanding complete abolition.
  • They disclosed problems to local media and civil society to form public opinion.
  • They are promoting nationwide abolition campaigns in solidarity with public employee unions in other regions.

• Interest and participation from civil society are increasing. Main changes include:

  • Civic groups interested in local government and citizen participation are pointing out problems.
  • Citizen monitoring activities to prevent taxpayer money waste and corruption are spreading.
  • Demands for transparency in local council budget review processes are growing.
  • In some regions, citizens are directly demanding abolition of member project budgets.

4️⃣ Related Term Explanations

🔎 Local Finance Act

• The Local Finance Act is the basic law governing financial operations of local governments.
  • The Local Finance Act is a law that establishes basic principles and procedures for budget, settlement, accounting, and contracts in local government financial operations. Enacted in 1963, its purpose is to enable local governments to operate finances soundly and efficiently.
  • Main content includes: First, Article 36 stipulates that budgets must be allocated based on laws and ordinances. Second, it presents soundness, transparency, and efficiency as budget allocation principles. Third, it specifies procedures for budget proposal preparation, review, and decision. Fourth, it prohibits using budgets for purposes other than intended.
  • Member project budgets are a typical case that directly violates Article 36 of this law. Allocating budgets without basis in any law or ordinance is clearly illegal conduct, and this is a serious problem that undermines basic principles of local financial operations.

🔎 Institutional Opposition-Type Local Government

• Institutional opposition-type local government is a system that separates executive and legislative bodies.
  • Institutional opposition-type local government is a local government system where separate bodies handle executive and legislative powers to achieve mutual checks and balances. In Korea, local government heads serve as executive bodies, and local councils serve as legislative bodies.
  • Core principles of this system include: First, checks and balances through separation of powers. Second, local government heads allocate and execute budgets, while local councils review and monitor them. Third, each body has independent authority but mutually checks each other. Fourth, it implements responsible politics based on democratic legitimacy.
  • Member project budgets fundamentally undermine these institutional opposition principles. Councils directly intervening in budget allocation violates the unique authority of executive bodies, and causes problems where oversight bodies lose their oversight function by becoming involved in execution.

🔎 Budget Allocation Operating Standards

• Budget allocation operating standards are local budget allocation guidelines presented by the Ministry of Interior and Safety.
  • Local government budget allocation operating standards are guidelines containing specific standards and procedures for local government budget allocation, announced annually by the Ministry of Interior and Safety. Based on the Local Finance Act, they help local governments nationwide allocate budgets uniformly and rationally.
  • Main content includes: First, presenting basic principles and directions for budget allocation. Second, specifying detailed allocation standards for revenue and expenditure budgets. Third, providing priority decision principles for investment and current projects. Fourth, Article 8 limits individual member budget allocation under the name of resident benefits.
  • Article 8 in particular is a provision directly related to member project budgets. After member project budgets became a social issue in 2012, explicit prohibition provisions were established. This is clear evidence that the Ministry of Interior and Safety judges member project budgets as obvious illegal conduct.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: I want to know specifically why member project budgets are problematic.

A: Lack of legal basis and violation of separation of powers principles are core problems.

• Problems with member project budgets appear at multiple levels. First, regarding legal issues, violation of Article 36 of the Local Finance Act is most clear. All local budgets must be based on laws or ordinances, but member project budgets are completely illegal budgets with no legal basis anywhere. Second, regarding institutional issues, they undermine institutional opposition-type local government principles. Budget allocation is the unique authority of local government heads, but councils directly distributing budgets destroys separation of powers. Third, regarding practical issues, transparency is not guaranteed at all. Budgets are used based on individual member judgment without public review or evaluation, becoming a source of corruption.
• Fourth, regarding financial issues, efficiency and effectiveness are poor. Budgets split into small amounts without professional review lead to duplicate investment or showcase projects, resulting in waste of taxpayer money. These problems work together to greatly undermine citizens' trust in local government.

Q: Do other countries also have systems like member project budgets?

A: Most developed countries maintain strict separation of powers principles.

• Looking at local government systems in major democratic countries, practices like Korea's member project budgets are hard to find. First, in the United States, city councils review and approve budgets, but individual members don't receive budget allocations for specific projects. Budget allocation and execution are strictly the authority of mayors (heads). Second, British local governments also have clearly separated roles for councils and executive bodies, with no cases of giving budget allocation authority to individual members. Third, European countries like Germany and France also maintain principles where local councils focus on budget review and monitoring functions, while separate bodies handle execution.
• Although similar practices exist in some developing countries, these are mostly classified as corruption or undemocratic practices and considered targets for improvement. Advanced democratic countries generally don't give budget allocation authority to individual members, based on principles of separation of powers and transparency.

Q: If member project budgets are completely eliminated, who will do projects for residents?

A: Local government heads should promote resident welfare projects professionally and systematically.

• Abolishing member project budgets doesn't mean reducing resident services. Rather, projects for residents can be carried out more efficiently and transparently. First, local government heads can set project priorities and allocate budgets from a comprehensive perspective covering entire regions. Concentrated and effective investment is possible compared to small-scale split budgets like member project budgets. Second, projects reviewed and evaluated by professional civil servants are promoted, improving quality and effectiveness. Third, transparency and fairness are secured because projects are decided through public procedures.
• Fourth, local councils can be faithful to their original function of monitoring and oversight. It's more important for members to objectively evaluate executive body projects and suggest improvement plans. Fifth, residents receive systematic and sustainable public services rather than individual benefits from members. Ultimately, abolishing member project budgets is an institutional improvement that can enhance both quantity and quality of resident services.

Table of Contents

• Go to Guide