Published on March 25, 2026
About 20 years ago, while serving as a department chair, I encountered a puzzling situation: each semester, around 30 students received scholarships determined through a preliminary list prepared by a teaching assistant and reviewed . One semester, the top student in the department, a student who had earned perfect A+ grades in every course, was surprisingly absent from the list.
Upon inquiring, I learned that the student lived in Apgujeong-dong, a wealthy neighborhood, and thus was deemed not in need of financial assistance. This revelation raised a fundamental question about the nature of scholarships: Are they rewards for academic excellence or financial support for those in need? This debate highlights a crucial dilemma; if even the top student is overlooked due to family wealth, what incentive remains for achievement?
Scholarships extend beyond mere monetary value. In numerous countries, esteemed scholars, even in their 60s, often include scholarships earned during their academic tenure on their resumes, as they symbolize dedication and accomplishment. After discussions in our department, we decided to award the scholarship to the top student and also introduced non-monetary recognition to support applications for further education or employment.
If high-achieving students receive rewards solely for their performance, disparities may deepen, which some may view as unjust. Conversely, if excellence is not rewarded at all, society stands to lose motivation for striving towards achievement. Readers might ponder: would they prefer a system that rewards performance or one that promotes equality regardless of outcomes?
This same dilemma resonates at the national level, particularly in South Korea, where recent reports have revealed that the asset Gini coefficient has surpassed 0.6, reaching an unprecedented high. However, the implications of this statistic are more intricate than they appear. The Gini coefficient measures inequality and is divided into income and asset components. While income inequality reflects current earnings, asset inequality accumulates over time, typically showing about double the income Gini.
Consider, for instance, if the most expensive apartments in Seoul rise from 10 billion won to 20 billion won (approximately $6.6 million). Such fluctuations might not significantly impact the daily lives of most individuals but could markedly affect the asset Gini due to the method of calculation. Compared to other OECD nations, South Korea’s asset inequality sits in the middle to upper-middle range.
Under the Lee Jae Myung administration, responding to political unrest, real estate has become a central policy focus. The government perceives unchecked property speculation as a severe threat and has proposed measures such as excluding multiple homeowners from housing policymaking.
Simultaneously, there are efforts to redirect capital from real estate into financial markets. Recent policy measures include revisions to commercial laws, share buybacks, cancellations, and initiatives to enhance the benchmark Kospi index. These have been accompanied ; where real estate investments face steeper taxes, financial investments benefit from distinct tax schemes, income deductions, and capital gains relief.
However, legitimate concerns linger. Aggressive share buybacks could expose companies to hostile takeovers, as was evident in the 2003 Sovereign Asset Management case. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, there seems little opposition to efforts aimed at developing a capital market that has long been undervalued.
The critical question remains: Can a shift from real estate to financial markets reduce inequality? In any market, there are victors and vanquished. In the real estate sector, early entrants into desirable locations reap the rewards of rising property values, there for others. Gains do not solely result from speculation; narratives of farmers in Apgujeong who became wealthy due to development illustrate how timing and circumstance can shape financial outcomes.
In capital markets, wealth itself is often the decisive factor. Those with spare capital possess an advantage over individuals investing portions of their salaries. Small investors face amplified risks, where a single loss can have dire consequences. Emotional responses to market fluctuations frequently prompt poor timing—selling in panic or buying at market peaks.
For wealthier investors, any paper losses may only be temporary. They can afford to wait for market recovery, while capital markets, despite generally lower barriers to entry than real estate, tend to generate wider disparities in outcomes.
Ultimately, the choice may not lie in eradicating inequality but rather in facing different forms of it. Policymakers contend with a trade-off between established inequalities and those that might arise from shifting dynamics. Whether this issue should be deemed a top priority in national governance continues to spark debate.