This article analyzes the occurrence, development, results, and special features of policy gridlock in South Korea's green growth (GG) policy from a political–economic perspective. Analysis is based on the claim that the relationships that the government has formed with other relevant policy actors—including the National Assembly, market players, and civil society—underpin the critical political–economic causes of the gridlock. Research results show that the characteristics of the relationships that the government has formed with those actors, as well as the complex interactions among them (such as intervening in other actor–government relationships and pursuing either conflict or cooperation with one another), have functioned as direct causes of policy gridlock. Based on these findings, the article explores the theoretical implications of the study of policy gridlock and the comparative international implications for global efforts toward GG, while considering South Korea's intermediate position in the global GG community.
Related Articles
Related Media
Film Clips: President M. B. Lee. . “Green Growth—Korea's Key to a Better Future.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6KE‐NDDJE
Democracy Now. . “South Koreans Fill the Streets of Seoul to Continue Protest against U.S. Beef Imports.” http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/7/south_koreans_fill_streets_of_seoul
Kosch O'DonnellJill. . “Korea's 97 Billion Dollar Question: What Is Green Growth?” The Asian Foundation. June 15. http://asiafoundation.org/in‐asia/2011/06/15/koreas‐97‐billion‐dollar‐question‐what‐is‐green‐growth/
After the democratisation of South Korea in 1987, political discourse on ‘big government’ nearly disappeared, largely because it recalled past authoritarianism. Authoritarian states are highly likely to employ ‘big government’ – exerting policy influence over the distribution of private resources – to sustain their political power, and Korea’s authoritarian state was no exception. Thus, newly inaugurated President Moon Jae-in’s official implication that he would pursue big government is notable, because he claimed to represent pro-democracy groups that opposed both historical authoritarianism and the former president’s undemocratic governance. In this context, this study examines external and internal political-economic factors behind the revival of big government discourse in Korea. Results show that critical factors included the lack of pressure in the global capitalist market and the dominance of governmentalists over marketists in the political-economic discourse influencing the administration’s maintenance and expansion of its political foundation.
It is generally perceived that administrative decentralization reform in young democracies is a promise to improve democracy from below. Yet, in terms of democratic development, the impact of this process is ambivalent, and can be described as a paradox of reform. This article argues that preemptive countermeasures that offset problems predicted to emerge as the reform proceeds should be formulated as part of the reform through introducing a preventive policy paradigm in the area of democratic reform policy. This is to alleviate or prevent the creation of the paradox and to contribute to democratic development through enhancing people's satisfaction with the newly democratized government. To this end, this study examines administrative decentralization reform in South Korea and Indonesia and uncovers these reforms' paradoxes. These two cases are particularly worthy of study, since their young democratic governments lack countermeasures against predictable reform problems, intensifying the paradox. I argue that the implications drawn from these two cases for methods of enhancing democratic development in other young democracies are worth heeding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.