11

Imposing irrational and impromptu changes in tax policy is among the worst choices any government can make when dealing with the housing market — not simply because such measures indiscriminately affect millions of citizens, but because they have consistently failed wherever they have been tried. When the government abruptly tightens regulations or introduces surprise taxes, people interpret these actions not as solutions but as signals that prices will rise further.

The result is panic buying or speculation, which only worsens the very instability policymakers claim to fight. In this sense, the government must learn to let the market operate according to its own logic and internal principles rather than trying to manipulate outcomes through short-term intervention.

During President Lee Jae Myung’s campaign and even after his June election victory, he pledged not to control housing prices with taxation. “I’m not going to try to control housing prices with taxes anymore,” he declared. “The moment you start tightening regulations, people take it as a signal that prices will go up. We have to let the market work according to its own principles.”

Yet only months later, his administration seems to be turning away from that promise, repeating the same mistakes he once condemned.

In South Korea, as in many countries, housing policy is never purely about economics or about an industry. It is political, emotional and social all at once. A home is not merely a shelter or a piece of real estate; it is a symbol of adulthood, stability and social achievement.

That is why every government announcement about housing — especially those related to taxes, loans or regulations — instantly becomes a national debate, stirring emotion across the country and affecting the confidence of millions.

Unfortunately, we are once again watching a familiar controversy unfold. Just more than four months after taking office, the Lee Jae Myung administration has already announced a series of major housing initiatives that appear to have been introduced hastily — with little evidence of coordination, public communication or a guiding framework that clarifies how each measure fits into a broader vision.

By any objective measure, South Korea’s housing market is not in a nationwide crisis. Price surges are concentrated in a few high-demand districts in Seoul and its suburbs, while prices in much of the country remain stable or are even declining. Yet new measures are being applied uniformly in broader regions, as though the entire area was trapped in the same speculative bubble. This mismatch between local realities and final policies only deepens confusion, amplifies inequality and reduces trust in the government’s capacity to accurately diagnose problems.

The contradiction between the Lee administration’s campaign rhetoric and its actual policies has therefore become a political flashpoint. During his campaign, Lee sharply criticized previous governments for using tax hikes and restrictions to suppress housing prices, arguing that such strategies created distrust and speculation rather than stability. But now, by resorting to those very same instruments, his government risks undermining both its credibility and its consistency.

Unplanned shifts erode market trust

This inconsistency underscores a deeper issue: the absence of a roadmap. A roadmap in public policy is not just a metaphor borrowed from cartography. It is a concrete framework — a clearly drawn plan that outlines where the government intends to go, the routes it will take, the milestones along the way and the rationale behind each step.

Like an actual map, it provides both direction and reassurance. Citizens can see how different policies connect, anticipate what comes next and judge progress based on visible markers rather than political slogans. Without a roadmap, even well-meaning reforms feel arbitrary, like turns taken without a compass in unfamiliar terrain.

The absence of such a roadmap has broad and tangible consequences. Housing policy, more than most, depends on timing, sequencing and clarity. When measures are introduced suddenly — a new tax here, a lending cap there — people respond not to the content but to the chaos.

Buyers rush into the market fearing future restrictions; developers cancel projects fearing stricter rules ahead. The entire system becomes a cycle of second-guessing. In contrast, a transparent roadmap communicates intent. It allows markets to adjust gradually, reduces uncertainty and transforms fear into foresight.

History proves this point. In many other countries, housing authorities, despite their flaws, operated with visible long-term plans. Citizens knew roughly when new housing supply would come online, how financing systems would evolve and what types of regulation were on the horizon. Predictability — not perfection — fostered stability.

In South Korea and in recent years, however, this discipline has eroded. Each new administration has scrapped its predecessor’s policies, effectively hitting the reset button every election cycle. The result is a chronic sense of drift: a belief that every regulation is temporary, every reform political and every promise short-lived.

Introducing sweeping changes without a roadmap — particularly when those changes contradict campaign pledges made only weeks earlier — undermines both trust and market confidence. Citizens do not expect the government to control every price fluctuation. What they demand is coherence: a sense that decisions are rooted in analysis, not in impulse; in vision, not in reaction. A roadmap is what separates policy from politics, planning from improvisation.

A roadmap, then, is not a luxury — it is a necessity. It prevents confusion, builds predictability and turns abrupt shifts into deliberate progress. It transforms promises into measurable goals and ensures that the nation’s housing policy remains stable even when the political winds shift.

For a country as ambitious and emotionally invested in homeownership as South Korea, good governance begins not with declarations or deterrents, but with a map — a detailed, transparent, durable plan that shows not just where we stand, but where we are going, and how we intend to get there.

Yoo Choon-sik

Yoo Choon-sik worked for nearly 30 years at Reuters, including as the chief Korea economics correspondent, and briefly worked as a business strategy consultant. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. – Ed.