8 out of 10 Construction Workers Negative on Allowing Cross-Market Entry in Construction Industry [Realmeter]

The government has allowed mutual market entry between general construction and specialized construction industries since 2021 to improve the construction industry's ecosystem and enhance competitiveness. However, 8 out of 10 construction workers have shown a negative view of this system.

On the 8th, the Korea Construction Policy Research Institute commissioned Realmeter to conduct a survey from the 17th to the 24th of last month targeting 1,014 executives of general and specialized construction companies. The results showed that 84.2% of construction company representatives (69.1% very negative, 15.1% somewhat negative) responded that they have a 'negative view' of the mutual market entry allowance system. Only 15.0% answered that they have a 'positive view' (3.2% very positive, 11.8% somewhat positive).

The mutual market entry allowance refers to a system that grants contracting and construction qualifications for projects in the counterpart sector without requiring construction business registration for general or specialized construction.

By detail, among negative evaluations, 87.3% were from specialized construction workers, and 77.0% were from general construction workers, indicating that specialized construction workers evaluated the system more negatively than general construction workers.

Regarding the impact of mutual market entry allowance on industrial competitiveness, 90.0% responded that it 'did not improve' (71.3% not improved at all, 18.7% not improved much), while 9.4% said it 'improved' (2.2% greatly improved, 7.2% somewhat improved).

Regarding the impact on quality and technical skills, 89.7% said it 'did not improve' (67.9% not improved at all, 21.9% not improved much), and 9.5% said it 'improved' (2.2% greatly improved, 7.3% somewhat improved), indicating that the mutual market entry allowance system did not help improve competitiveness, quality, or technical skills.

The primary problem (ranked first) identified with the implementation of the mutual market entry allowance system was 'granting specialized construction project qualifications to general construction companies' (29.6%), followed by 'restricting specialized construction companies' qualifications for general projects, making it difficult for specialized companies to enter general construction' (26.4%), and 'excessive increase in bidding competition' (21.8%).

Among respondents, 83.3% answered that the system should be 'abolished' in the future. Only 8.9% said the system should be 'further activated,' and 7.1% said it should be 'maintained as is,' both single-digit percentages.

Park Seung-guk, head of the Industrial Innovation Office at the Korea Construction Policy Research Institute, who commissioned the survey, said, "The purpose of this public opinion survey is to evaluate and identify problems of the mutual market entry system implemented since 2021." He added, "Considering that the mutual market entry allowance system has no positive effect on the construction industry and that construction workers want the system abolished, the government should not simply interpret the industry's evaluation as a territorial conflict between general and specialized construction companies. Instead, it should seek fundamental system improvement measures, including whether to maintain the mutual market entry allowance system, to enable coexistence and development between general and specialized construction."

Yoon Hak-su, president of the Korea Specialty Construction Association, evaluated the survey as "a meaningful investigation reflecting the vivid opinions of general and specialized construction companies regarding the mutual market entry controversy over the past two years." He stated, "We will actively collect construction companies' demands and persuade related government agencies such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the National Assembly to explain the problems caused by the system's implementation in detail and work toward improvements."

The response rate for this survey was 16.9%, and the sampling error was ±3.1 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.