Understanding Korean Public Administration

Lessons learned from practice

Kwang-Kook Park, Wonhee Lee, Seok-Hwan Lee, Kwang-Kook Park, Wonhee Lee, Seok-Hwan Lee, Kwang-Kook Park, Wonhee Lee, Seok-Hwan Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317359890
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Asuntos públicos y administración

Although much has been written about the Korean public administration, the international academic community has little knowledge about it as most of the literature has been written in Korean. This book aims to provide more accessible knowledge internationally by filling that gap, covering both the history and the current status of the Korean public administration. This book is a collaboration of many Korean public administration scholars and would appeal to those interested in the secrets of Korea's rapid development in such a short span of time.

Each chapter covers historical contexts, key to understanding its public administration and an important aspect as Korea is a fast changing society. The book takes on a more pragmatic approach rather than to put the Korean experiences into the western theory. Each chapter therefore provides an extensive discussion on the lessons-learned and practical implications.

1
Understanding public administration in Korea

The need for sharing models in government reforms

Kwang-Kook Park, Wonhee Lee, and Seok-Hwan Lee

Every country in the world is struggling to enhance its level of productivity in an era of limited resources. Regardless of what type of political and economic system each country has, government at all levels is pressured to produce more output with fewer input. Both the public and private sectors should equally contribute to the welfare of society in order for a nation to be prosperous. It should be noted, however, that a productive public sector leads to a productive society.

The Korean government has provided an important model of development, especially for nations around the world in the process of developing. Because Korea’s rapid economic growth in such a short period has astounded the world, many countries have shown interest in learning the forces driving economic development. Among others, the role of the public sector was critical, and it is necessary to share Korea’s experience for nations in similar situations that want to avoid errors as well as to benchmark success stories. Many books dealing with the Korean economic development model and the New Village Movement have come out, and many issues have been discussed. However, little has been discussed dealing with specific government reforms, practices, and operations in specific areas such as performance management, administrative control, human resources management, and e-government initiatives.

This book is a response to those demands. Scholars in the public sector came to agree on publishing a book that would introduce the real practices and lessons from Korean government reforms and innovations so that other countries can benchmark real cases. In doing so, the authors have tried, not only to focus on success stories, but also share some failures with the same attention. Initiated and sponsored by the Seoul Association of Public Administration, the contributing authors tried to identify lessons learned from practices in the Korean government at all levels.

Part I of this book discusses a variety of roles of government in Korea. Part I mainly focuses on Korean government initiatives for economic development along with efforts for overcoming challenges to planning in addition to organizing issues.

The first chapter by M. Jae Moon, “The Evolution of the Developmental State and Government Capacity in Korea: Achievements and Challenges,” points out that Korea is a peculiar example that demonstrates compressed developmental successes in both politics and economics. Many scholars and practitioners have attributed Korea’s successes to an effective developmental state through which the Korean government played a critical and leading role in designing economic development plans, mobilizing national resources, coordinating economic actors, and implementing proactive interventionist economic policies. Positing two contrasting developmental paths – the dictatorial (authoritarian) regime-based D₁ Path and democratic regime-based D₂ Path –, it is argued Korea is an exemplary model of the D₁ Path and demonstrates the significance of state (administrative) capacities. The D₁ Path requires effective management of corruption while the D₂ Path requires effective consensus-building mechanisms to ensure economic development. The Korean experience offers a set of implications for developing countries, including the significance of clean and capable bureaucratic systems, planning and coordinating capacity, political stability, leadership, legitimacy, and effective adaptation to environmental changes. With the increasing complexity of the administrative environment and the growth of the business sector and civil society, however, Korea has shifted from the D₁ Path to the D₂ Path where state and bureaucracy work, not as leaders, but as facilitators and enablers. Notably, the D₂ Path has been promoted in the name of good governance by many international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations.

In his chapter, “The Role of Planning and Government in Economic Development,” Jin Park emphasizes that the roles played by economic planning during the 1960s and 1970s include focusing, coordinating, motivating, and capacity-building. Government intervention replacing the market could potentially be detrimental to the national economy if wrong choices are made.¹ Since the Korean government has been reasonably competent and relatively untainted by corruption, its intervention was a positive factor in economic development. Park concludes that the role of government is crucial at earlier stages of economic development but less so in mature stages of the economy. Therefore, the government should attempt to reduce market intervention as the economy grows. When the economy is at an early stage of development, input factors such as labor and capital determine most of a nation’s income growth. As per capita income grows, however, total factor productivity (TFP) becomes a much more important source of growth. The government is a good mobilizer of resources, but not a good innovator, and this is why government should refrain from further interference with the market in the developed stage.

Keunsei Kim and Hyunshin Park’s chapter, “Korean Government Organization: The Developmental State and Its Transformation,” examines changes in the developmental state in South Korea in terms of state administrative structures. From a review of previous theoretical discussions, they identify some key characteristics of the developmental state: executive-centered public administration, strong central agencies, extensive economic functions and exclusive social functions, and directive policy tools. The analysis showed both consistency and change in the Korean developmental state. First, in spite of the recent growth of the legislature and the courts, the executive-centered public administration system still remains strong. Second, the top priority of the state still lies in economic functions, but its importance has been challenged by the demands of social integration. Third, the central management agency has strongly maintained its organizational arrangements, although its staff and budgetary resources have decreased. Fourth, state intervention has changed from direct to indirect means. In sum, this study argues that the basic structure of the Korean developmental state system has not been reduced, but rather, it has transformed into new functional configurations and new means of social and economic intervention.

Part II of this book sharpens the focus on public-sector management issues in terms of both micro and macro points of views. This not only includes personnel, financial management, and performance management issues within an organization but also highlights local government, urban administration, and state-owned enterprises in a broader framework.

Kyung-Ho Cho’s chapter, “Korean Public Personnel Management,” highlights how the importance of personnel administration is becoming stronger in the Korean civil service day by day. Until recently, the Korean civil service effectively utilized position classification, based on the rank-in-person system, and efforts have been made in the last ten years to institutionalize social equity in personnel systems to fulfill the democratization of the administration. The Korean civil service has also been striving to understand social issues and administrative demands from a customer perspective in order to deal effectively with rapidly changing administrative demands. In addition, the civil service has been putting efforts into dealing with administrative demands that prioritize the public interest rather than private interests.

In his chapter, “Budget and Financial Management,” Wonhee Lee argues that since Korea established the First Republic, the development of budgetary functions can be understood in three stages: industrialization (1948–1987), democratization (1988–1997), and globalization (1998–the present). During the industrialization period, the role of the budget was to support economic development. Under authoritarian regimes from 1961 until the late 1980s, the budget was considered an instrument supporting economic development by presidential will. Many meaningful fiscal reforms have been tried since the democratization movement of 1987. The trend was to strengthen transparency, participation, and accountability. The whole system was challenged by civil society after the financial crisis of 1997. The Korean government began to implement significant budgetary reforms in 2004 called the “Three Plus One reforms,” and the National Finance Act of 2006 was enacted to reflect the new system. The new system included the introduction of the National Fiscal Management Plan, top-down budgeting, performance management, and digital accounting. Simultaneous implementation of the interrelated reforms proved to be very effective. Through this kind of development, the budget in Korea contributed to the industrialization, democratization, and globalization of Korea society.

Seok-Hwan Lee’s chapter, “Performance Management in Korea: Challenges and Prospects,” argues that performance management in the Korean public sector was initiated by the launch of the so-called innovation management initiative in 2003 when the Roh Moohyun Administration took the office. The Blue House believed that performance management should be done in a systematic way to have government focus on innovation in every aspect of delivering public services as a major driving force in making the initiative a success. After that, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (MOGAHA) has had to spend a significant amount of time educating and training public officials in performance management as well as in the need for performance management in the public sector. He continues to argue that performance management is now taking place in government at all levels, and its focus is moving from government-driven to citizen-driven performance where citizen inputs and engagements matter in developing performance measures and evaluating the importance of performance measures to them. Public-sector employees are now required to work beyond the boundaries of organizational chart following the concept of Unreasonable Objectives-focused Organization (UOFO). This chapter emphasizes that top management support and commitment is a necessary first step to make performance management a success. Finally, he concludes that performance management is not a panacea for solving organizational problems. It is a problem-defining rather than a problem-solving procedure.

In his chapter, “Local Government,” Young-Chool Choi highlights how local government in Korea has faced enormous changes in the past 20 years. The Local Autonomy Act of 1988 has brought about significant changes to the system of local government in Korea, expanding the powers of local authorities in a number of respects. The increase in the power of local authorities must be balanced against increasing practical constraints on freedom of action as a result of significant reductions in central government support and cuts in government spending. This chapter aims to offer an introduction to, and an account of, the local government system of Korea that may appeal to those seeking an overview of the area as well as a critical and contextual approach that will be of interest to those actively researching in the area of local government. The chapter reviews the historical background to local government in Korea and elaborates the rules governing the status and scope of the activities of local authorities. It also deals with the internal organization of the local authorities and their democratic dimensions. Then, it discusses the functions of local authorities; the coordination of the different levels of governance, supervision, and inspection of local authorities; and local finance. Finally, it presents future policy issues regarding local government in Korea including the role of local government, decentralization, and local government reorganization.

Sang Cheoul Lee’s “Roles and Reforms of Public Enterprises” discusses how public enterprises are still playing an important role: their estimated expenditures today are almost twice as much as those of the different levels of government. On the other hand, public enterprises have been criticized severely due to excessive demands by labor unions and budgetary waste by management. The Korean government enacted the Act on the Management of Public Institutions based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Guidelines on the Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. On the basis of the act, the government has established the Committee for Public Institution Management to exercise centralized ownership over public enterprises and to enforce management evaluation strictly. It has also put in place the Public Disclosure System to strengthen the transparency of public enterprises. However, the act has not considered minority shareholder rights or competitive neutrality in public enterprises. Blurred and duplicated lines of accountability among government departments have been a chronic problem in the management of Korean public enterprises. This chapter reviews the experience of governance reform in Korea’s public enterprises as well as future tasks through relevant theoretical issues.

Jong Youl Lee and Chad Anderson’s chapter, “Urban Development,” details the historic and contemporary growth of cities in heavily urbanized Korea, beginning with basic terms related to urban development, so critical to national development in Korea. The government took an active role in urban development following the devastation of the Korean War. Urbanization initially followed a common pattern in Korea familiar to developing nations, moving from clearing informal settlements off of high-value land to make way for private development in the 1950s to gradually more participatory and inclusive methods through the twentieth century. However, conflict has continued in urban development right up to the present, and the new millennium has seen redevelopment and cultural and environmental development in Seoul counterpoised against a new welfare paradigm de-emphasizing physical development. Current Korean local governments use market-compatible development tools such as business subsidies through tax abatements, lower interest rates, cheap land, and enterprise zones as well as planning and public-private entrepreneurialism. Korea has used most development methods in its modern history, making it a good example for comparison. The chapter reviews some of the best-known development projects in Korea, including new town developments, Seoul’s Cheonggye-cheon restoration, and New Songdo.

Seunghwan Myeong’s chapter, “Electronic Government,” argues that e-government is more than just deploying information technologies. It requires consideration of various configurations and types of e-government implementation. For example Korea has been driven towards building an Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) infrastructure since its government realized that building an information-oriented society is directly associated with national competence. The country has emphasized the development of ICT-related businesses and information-oriented public administration systems, and as a result, e-government has become more diverse and efficient. However, it is very difficult to provide a standardized model of e-government since each country has a different historical and political background as well as a different level of technical expertise. E-government study should not fall into the dichotomy between art and science in the era of governance. It should entail both consensus building and effective implementation, while selecting a good leader to orchestrate good governance for good performance. The bureaucratic and New Public Management (NPM)-oriented e-government model is declining in popularity because of the narrow and managerial perspective while ignoring differences in philosophy, history, culture, politics, and government among countries. People involved in e-government in the future will need the capability to predict and analyze in a timely manner, the ability to dialogue and moderate with local and global clients, and a philosophy for balancing democracy and efficiency.

Part III of this book deals mainly with accountability and innovation issues. The authors investigate a variety of issues ranging from anti-corruption and administrative control efforts for securing transparency to government reform and innovation for responding to the demands of citizens.

Sung-Jun Myung’s chapter, “Administrative Control: Ensuring Accountable Bureaucracy,” argues that the marked increase in citizen demands and specialization in society led to the rapid growth of the executive branch in its size and mandates. Announcing the advent of the administrative state, the dominance of the executive and its relative empowerment disrupted the balance of the three branches, allowing more discretionary power. As a way to ensure the responsibility of the executive, administrative control has continued to take an important place in the field of public administration. All three branches – the legislative, executive, and judicial – have taken more active approaches since the authoritative regimes have stepped down. The control system employed thus far is necessary for advancing democratic governance and preventing an oversized government bureaucracy from exercising discretionary power improperly. The National Assembly, Korea’s legislative body, ensures administrative responsibility by exercising its power to investigate government affairs and to hold open hearings to confirm high-ranking government appointees in addition to its traditional law-making activities. The judiciary is another institution that calls for responsible behaviors by the executive through interpreting laws, correcting improper administrative actions, and relieving injuries to citizens. Internal measures taken by the executive branch have been an important tool to improve their own performance as well as securing responsible behavior by its members. Self-audits by their own respective agencies, evaluation by managing agencies within the executive and the Supreme Audit Institutions, and ombudsmen are all compelled by law.

Kilkon Ko’s chapter, “Historical Review of Anticorruption Policy in Korea: Progress and Challenges,” reviews the evolution of anti-corruption policy and examines their effectiveness at controlling corruption. The review suggests that the Korean government has targeted different types of corruption with different tools. For instance, while some types of corruption such as administrative and petty corruption were effectively controlled, citizens requested a higher level of integrity in government by calling for the control of different types of corruption. The main direction of Korea’s anticorruption policies can be summarized as a shift in targets from petty to political corruption, a shift in tools from political campaigns to an institutional approach, and a shift in scope from the administrative sphere to the broader public sector and to civil society. The lesson that can be drawn from this experience is that anticorruption policy should be the result of successive and responsive efforts balancing political and institutional approaches.

The final chapter, “Government Innovation” by Kwang-Kook Park, deals with several hot issues related to government innovation. The first section investigates how government innovation has evolved from the Roh Administration to the Park Administration. The second section focuses on illuminating the diverse perspectives related to government innovation and on analyzing the key elements that individual theories of government innovation have tried to emphasize. The third section introduces two types of best practices that have been made by applying theories of government innovation to governmental agencies over the last two decades. One is the Corruption Impact Assessment developed by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. The other is e-government, including the Business Process System, E-People, the On-Line Civil Service P...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Contributors
• Preface
• 1 Understanding public administration in Korea: the need for sharing models in government reforms
• PART I Role of government
• PART II Public-sector management
• PART III Accountability and innovation
• Index