Facing a demographic collapse, Yeongyang County’s reported refugee resettlement plan — though not formally confirmed — reflects growing pressure on rural governments to find unconventional solutions to population decline.

In recent weeks, South Korean media reports suggested that this small county in North Gyeongsang Province was planning to resettle around 40 Myanmar refugees as part of a pilot project. The idea immediately drew sharp public criticism, and after a series of conflicting statements from officials, the truth proved to be more complicated.

Contrary to reports of formal talks with the Ministry of Justice and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a county official told Korea Pro that the refugee plan remains an internal idea still under review.

“It’s one of several population policy options we’re considering,” the official said. “But there is no finalized plan, and nothing is currently being implemented.”

The Justice Ministry, which oversees refugee resettlement, told Korea Pro that while it “introduced the general idea” to Yeongyang in 2023, it has held no formal discussions on selecting it as a resettlement site. The UNHCR also confirmed it has had no communication with Yeongyang County.

The appearance of a specific number — 40 refugees — and their country of origin — Myanmar — may instead reflect a strategic effort to secure funding under the government’s revised Local Extinction Response Fund, which now ties funding to measurable population growth.

Pesticide shop owner Kim Guk-tae in Yeongyang County, March 22, 2025 | Image: Korea Pro

A TOWN IN DECLINE

Yeongyang’s population, once over 70,000 in the early 1970s, has plummeted to just over 15,000 as of February. Excluding the island county of Ulleung, Yeongyang County has the smallest population in the country.

“We’re in a state of despair,” Kim Young-soon and Kim Guk-tae, a couple in their 70s who ran a pesticide store in Yeongyang for over 30 years, told Korea Pro. “At this point, I don’t know how you save this place — not unless someone revives the whole economy, not unless they bring back hope.”

Demographic collapse is not unique to Yeongyang. South Korea’s rural population fell from 72% in 1960 to under 19% today. Low birth rates, aging populations and urban migration have hollowed out the countryside.

In Yeongyang, the local economy has deteriorated alongside the population decline, with young people leaving for cities and remaining businesses struggling to survive.

“There used to be hundreds of students in each school. Now some have only three or four kids,” Park Myung-soo, a taxi driver in his seventies who travels between Yeongyang and neighboring Andong, told Korea Pro. “You can’t fix this just by bringing people in. You have to change what they’re coming into.”

Kim Guk-tae echoed this sentiment. “You can feel the emptiness. People aren’t having children, and even when they do, people don’t want to raise them here because there’s no support. No future. And it’s not just policy — it’s the feeling [of despair].”

The main street near Yeongyang County Office on a quiet Saturday afternoon, March 22, 2025 | Image: Korea Pro

THE POLICY CONTEXT

Local governments are under growing pressure to reverse population decline. In March, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety announced reforms to the Local Extinction Response Fund, a 1 trillion won annual initiative launched in 2022, tying allocations to measurable outcomes like population growth.

Municipalities now receive base funding, but strong performance can earn extra incentives. Conversely, underperformance or misaligned proposals may lead to reduced funding.

This shift toward results may explain why Yeongyang’s leadership floated the refugee resettlement plan before securing official backing. Refugee resettlement represents a politically sensitive yet potentially high-reward option to meet the new funding criteria.

South Korea’s refugee policy remains among the most restrictive in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In 2024, 18,336 people applied for refugee status in South Korea — a slight drop from the 2023 peak of 18,838. That year, Seoul granted refugee status to only 106 individuals, while granting humanitarian stay permits to another 101 people. Myanmar nationals were the largest recognized group in 2022, with 77 individuals approved out of 175 applicants.

The structural barriers to integration remain steep. Living subsidies for asylum seekers reach fewer than 2% of applicants and typically last only three to four months. Housing is limited, with the Foreigners Support Center in Incheon accommodating just 82 people.

Employment poses further challenges, as asylum seekers must apply for permission to work after six months, during which they are banned from working, often tied to short visa renewals and costly fees.

Myanmar refugees arrive at Incheon International Airport as part of South Korea’s first refugee resettlement pilot program, Dec. 23, 2015 | Image: UNHCR/H.Cheon

THE CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATION

South Korea was the second Asian country after Japan to implement a refugee resettlement program. In 2015, it welcomed 22 Myanmar refugees — ethnic Karen families who had spent decades in Thai refugee camps.

“In Korea, I can send my children to good schools and hope for a better life for them,” said Ku Htoo, a 44-year-old refugee. “I am thankful and very happy.”

Ku fled Myanmar in 1988 and later lost his right foot in a tree-cutting accident in Thailand.

“Life was difficult in Myanmar because of wars, and then in Thailand because we were so poor. Now, we can live like normal people in Korea,” Thein Zaw, another resettled refugee, said.

But these early successes contrast with the backlash that followed the arrival of nearly 500 Yemeni asylum seekers in Jeju Province in 2018, which led to tightened immigration policies and growing political resistance to refugee resettlement.

When asked about bringing in foreign workers or even refugees to support labor and population growth, Kim Guk-tae said: “We don’t have enough hands, it’s true. So we bring in foreign workers on short-term stays — six months, maybe a year — to help with farming. But that’s a band-aid. They come, they work and then they leave.”

“It doesn’t bring life back into the town. And it doesn’t solve the core issue, which is that no one — Korean or not — wants to stay in a place where the future looks uncertain. You can’t fix this by just bringing people in. You have to change what they’re coming into.”

Taxi driver Park echoed this point. “They need support. A system. A reason to stay. You can’t just drop them into a dying place and hope they fix it. Survival isn’t the same as living.”

A market in Yeongyang County on a quiet Saturday afternoon, March 22, 2025 | Image: Korea Pro

GLOBAL LESSONS

Germany offers a contrast to South Korea’s restrictive refugee approach. Between 2015 and 2023, Berlin admitted over a million refugees, addressing labor shortages and demographic decline. But the large-scale resettlement also sparked political backlash, fueling far-right gains and reshaping national debates.

Japan, like South Korea, has one of the most restrictive refugee policies among OECD countries, historically accepting only a few dozen asylum seekers each year. While it made rare exceptions for Ukrainians and Afghans in recent years, its overall approach remains conservative.

Whether or not Yeongyang ultimately becomes a resettlement site, the conversation it sparked matters. Local governments hoping to reverse population decline must weigh not only the numbers but also the deeper needs of both those arriving and those already here.

The potential of refugee resettlement as a rural revitalization strategy remains limited without targeted economic incentives and sustained integration support. Resettlement alone will not revive South Korea’s rural towns unless local governments invest in infrastructure, social services and long-term development.

“Every time the administration changes, the policies change,” Park told Korea Pro. “Nothing lasts. Nothing gets finished. You get hopeful for a minute, then it’s all back to square one.”

Edited by John Lee