Evaluation of the Policy for the Promotion of Regional Universities

  • 2025-08-21
  • 751

 

 

Evaluation of the Policy for the Promotion of Regional Universities

 

 

 

 

 

Published on August 21, 2025
Published by Social Cost Estimates Division, Budget Analysis Department

 

 

 

   With the ongoing decline in the school-age population, intensifying concentration in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, and mounting risk of regional decline, the challenges facing regional universities have become increasingly acute. These pressures could extend beyond higher education, posing broader risks to local communities and underscoring the need for more targeted responses within the framework of balanced regional development policy. In this context, the survival and advancement of regional universities has emerged as a national priority. The enactment of the Act on the Development of Local Universities and Colleges and Regional Human Resources in 2014 laid the institutional foundation for a series of multifaceted policy initiatives. This report assesses the effectiveness of such regional university promotion policies over the past decade. In light of the recent shift toward region-centered university support―exemplified by RISE and Glocal University initiatives―it also examines the principal challenges these programs face and outlines policy directions to ensure the sustainable development of regional universities. The main findings of this report are as follows.
   First, while regional universities have achieved some improvements over the past decade in indicators related to education, research, and industry-academia cooperation under these policies, limitations remain in strengthening their overall competitiveness. Graduate employment rates have improved modestly, but main indicators such as student enrollment, freshman intake, and dropout rates have deteriorated, and the gap with metropolitan universities remains. In research and industry-academia cooperation as well, quantitative gains have been observed, yet qualitative outcomes, including research publications and technology transfer income, continue to lag behind those of metropolitan institutions. Accordingly, it is essential to pursue a range of measures to enhance the competitiveness of regional universities. In addition to developing region-specific, demand-driven curricula, regional universities should identify specialized research fields for focused support, while also promoting closer collaboration with local industries. Such efforts are necessary to enable regional universities to adapt effectively to the rapidly evolving environment in which they operate.
   Second, the RISE and Glocal University initiatives―central pillars of the region-centered university support policies―are being implemented to promote the joint development of local communities and universities by linking financial support to regional development strategies under local government leadership. Nonetheless, several policy refinements are required to achieve these objectives effectively. To begin with, the RISE program is designed to transfer administrative and fiscal authority from the central government to provincial governments and extend eligibility to metropolitan universities outside local regions. However, because the program's content does not align with some provisions of its governing laws, institutional refinements are necessary to align with its objectives. Moreover, the 2025 allocation of RISE project funds shows a distribution pattern largely proportional to student enrollment, diverging from the program’s original aim of advancing university specialization aligned with regional development strategies. To ensure effectiveness, allocation principles and criteria must be managed more rigorously in line with the program’s stated objectives. Lastly, the Glocal University initiative, aimed at fostering globally competitive universities in regionally specialized fields, also faces challenges. Its reliance on self-reported indicators and university-submitted reports compromises accountability for financial support, while at the national level, the program lacks a clear framework defining the outcomes to be achieved through such support. To ensure its success, more precise performance indicators and more thorough performance management are required.