[Baek Cheol-hyun's Focus] A Budget Left to Autonomy, but Demand Cannot Be Left to It

Field officials in charge of upland farming mechanization and agricultural machinery rental programs emphasize that “the agricultural machinery rental program is essential for the future of agriculture, where aging is a major issue, and in reality, demand for agricultural machinery rental is high among local farms.” Recently, however, related experts and academia have raised concerns that even when demand actually exists, it may be excluded or ignored by local governments.

The reason for these concerns is that, starting this year, the budget for the agricultural machinery rental program has been allocated to cities and provinces as a lump sum. As it was moved from the special account for agriculture and fisheries to the special account for balanced national development, cities and counties now decide how much to spend on which projects. The purpose is to allow spending suited to local conditions. 

The budget related to the agricultural machinery rental program decreased by 5.3 billion won in national funds compared with the previous year. In fact, the lower the fiscal self-reliance of a city or county, the larger the decline tended to be, and a review of this data raises the possibility that some local governments may cut even essential budgets because of poor local finances. The official average fiscal self-reliance ratio under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety’s standard this year is 47.3%, a figure that is quite high because the weight of large cities is reflected.  

A search of Local Finance 365’s agricultural machinery rental program category (operation sector) shows that among 10 cities and counties with fiscal self-reliance below 10%, Hwacheon County was unable to include any allocation in this year’s original budget, while Yeongdong County, Yeongdeok County, and Bonghwa County each saw cuts of more than 60%. They were followed by Yeongyang County (-39.7%), Yanggu County (-28.2%), Jeongeup City (-18.3%), Sinan County (-13.7%), Sancheong County (-11.3%), and Hampyeong County (-9.7%).  

In the changed structure, autonomy means choice, and choice presupposes competition. The agricultural machinery budget must now compete at the same table with welfare, culture, and regional development projects. Amid the inertia in which departments that have been using funds continue to use them, new entry is difficult, and agriculture is pushed back depending on local governments’ priorities. Cheonan City, an urban-rural complex city whose agricultural budget accounts for 4% of the total, has not allocated a budget for the agricultural machinery rental program even once since 2022. 

What has been pushed out is the budget, not the demand. Does low fiscal self-reliance in a local government mean low demand for agricultural machinery rentals? As aging and labor shortages deepen, rental demand instead increases, and rental ultimately leads to contracted work. Where the budget has disappeared, demand remains as it was. Even if it is revived through a supplementary budget, business plans and equipment orders are delayed by about half a year. In farming, half a year is an entire year. The ones that must bear that gap are not the local governments, but the farmers who could not rent agricultural machinery.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs explains that rental offices have been expanded to some extent, reaching 493 nationwide, and that there were no additional requests from local governments. Its position is that the budget transfer cannot be conclusively identified as the cause of the reduction. But saying there were no requests is different from saying there was no need. In places where there is only one regular employee in charge of agricultural machinery, or where a vacancy left by the retirement of a specialist career officer is being filled by a contract worker, the first question should be whether they have the capacity to design new projects and secure budgets. If we do not distinguish between being unable to request and choosing not to request, the voices of the most disadvantaged areas disappear from the statistics first.

This is not to argue that autonomy should be reversed. It is to say that autonomy needs at least minimal support. Measures that ensure the results of demand surveys reach budget formulation, incentives that reflect staffing and organizational requirements in evaluation indicators for national projects in which local governments act, such as the selection of smart agriculture promotion districts, and support for rental office staffing through law rather than guidelines must all accompany it. If authority has been handed over, the responsibility to check whether that authority is functioning properly and whether blind spots exist still remains with the central government.

Devolution to local governments began with the belief that regions could do better. For that belief to remain valid, we must also look at who bears the burden in regions that cannot do it well. Farmers who visit agricultural technology centers to rent tractors never chose the fiscal self-reliance of the local governments they belong to.