Merger of four port authorities amounts to demotion for Incheon port, critics say

The government's announcement of a sweeping plan to merge four port authorities — covering Incheon, Busan, Ulsan and Yeosu-Gwangyang — into a single entity has ignited a fierce debate over the diminished standing of Incheon port.

Concerns are mounting that the Incheon Port Authority (IPA) would lose its status as an independent agency and be converted into a regional branch under the unified body, effectively stripping it of decision-making power over policy and investment and relegating it to the role of a local outpost.

Rep. Jeong Il-young of the Democratic Party of Korea, a member of the National Assembly's Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee representing Incheon's Yeonsu-eul district, called on the government Thursday to conduct a full review of the plan. "Downgrading the Incheon Port Authority to a regional branch of the unified authority is not something that can be brushed aside lightly," he said.

The government unveiled the plan Thursday as part of a broader public institution reform initiative, proposing to consolidate the four port authorities — Busan, Incheon, Ulsan and Yeosu-Gwangyang — into a tentatively named Korea Port Authority and centralize policy and planning functions under a single organization.

The existing four port authorities would be restructured as regional branches under the unified body, each handling specialized operations for their respective areas.

The central concern, however, is where authority will reside. If policy, planning, budgeting and investment decisions are concentrated at the headquarters of the unified authority, the regional branches would in effect lose the ability to pursue independent projects or make investment decisions.

The government has yet to provide a concrete blueprint for how authority would be divided between headquarters and regional branches, or what level of autonomy local organizations would retain after the merger.

"This restructuring is not a simple organizational merger — it is a significant change that could weaken the IPA's independent authority over policy and project decisions," Jeong said. "The government must first answer what substantive powers will be guaranteed to the regional branches."

A deeper concern is that the investment gap between Incheon port and Busan port is already severe.

According to data presented by Jeong, the government's fiscal investment in Busan port rose 83.6 percent, from 251.4 billion won ($184 million) in 2021 to 461.6 billion won in 2025.

Over the same period, investment in Incheon port fell 65.4 percent, from 177.2 billion won to 61.4 billion won.

While investment in Busan port surged, funding for Incheon port shrank to roughly one-third of its earlier level.

Jeong's office warned that if the unified authority's headquarters is also placed in Busan — with policy, planning and investment decisions concentrated there — Incheon port risks being pushed even further to the margins, beyond the organizational merger itself.

"If the headquarters and core functions of the unified authority are concentrated in Busan, this is not simply a matter of an institution's address," Jeong said. "It could affect the maritime and logistics systems of the entire Greater Seoul area, as well as the competitiveness of trade with China."

Opposition on the ground is equally strong. In a recent vote on the merger held by the IPA labor union, 84.58 percent of members participated, and 96.35 percent of those voted against the consolidation.

On the question of whether to take part in industrial action — including work-to-rule campaigns and strikes — 94.05 percent said they were willing to do so, signaling that the vast majority of IPA staff are firmly opposed to the merger.

Jeong drew a clear line between cooperation and consolidation. "The government is citing inter-port coordination and enhanced international competitiveness as the rationale for the merger, but strengthening cooperation is an entirely different matter from abolishing independent port authorities and converting them into regional branches," he said.

Joint projects between ports and collaboration on overseas ventures, he argued, are fully achievable under the existing framework of four separate port authorities.

Ultimately, the core of the controversy lies less in the merger itself than in who will hold authority afterward — and where policy and investment decision-making power will be concentrated.

The moment the IPA loses its status as an independent agency and becomes a regional branch, Incheon's voice on port policy and large-scale investment projects could become far more limited than it is today.

The investment gap between Busan port and Incheon port has already widened considerably. Concentrating headquarters and core decision-making functions in a single region risks producing the opposite of the stated goal: rather than strengthening port competitiveness, the merger could deepen the disparity between ports.

"What the government must explain first is why it is necessary to merge into a single authority, rather than simply enhancing cooperation among the existing port authorities," Jeong said. "Before proceeding, there must be a thorough review and genuine consultation with local communities on what will actually improve through the merger, and how the expertise and autonomy of each port will be protected."