Administrative reform in South Korea: New Public Management and the bureaucracy

Abstract

This article analyzes the political dynamics of South Korea’s recent administrative reform. We argue that successive South Korean governments’ New Public Management-inspired reform programs have only achieved partial success. In particular, they have largely failed to attain their ultimate goal – i.e. significant weakening of the traditionally strong elite bureaucracy in policymaking. The bureaucracy in the country has not become weakened as a result of the reform. Rather, the central government ministries have augmented their power and institutional autonomy. Those who were in charge of designing and implementing reform measures were bureaucrats themselves who were supposed to be the ‘target’ of the reform. Such situation, in which the reformers were expected to reform themselves, has resulted in numerous incidences of sabotage, delay, obstruction, and distortion of the reform. This article concludes that it is crucial to consider the local contexts in which reform initiatives are adopted, interpreted, accepted, legitimated, and concretized for implementation. Points for practitioners Administrative reform often brings unintended consequences. New Public Management-inspired reform, with its intention to weaken the strong elite bureaucracy, could ironically result in the augmentation of the bureaucracy. The main reason for this is because it is usually the bureaucrats themselves who design and manage the process of administrative reform. It is also the elite bureaucrats who define, operationalize, and implement specific reform measures. Therefore, it is crucial for the reform supporters to ensure adequate popular oversight mechanisms outside the bureaucracy at various stages of the reform process, such as citizen monitoring or civic participation.

Art at Executive Agency: Measuring the Performance of Korea’s National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art

“…Without undergoing any major systematic and legal adjustments, the appointed museum directors during the branch expansion period (2009-2018, one more branch in Cheongju was inaugurated in 2018) were expected to prove their abilities as organizational leaders, art specialists, promotors, fundraisers and skilled business managers, all at the same time. Th is unrealistic situation is similar to that of the NPM reform that was argued as a "failure" in South Korea, due to the lack of consideration of the local culture (Im, 2003) and the bureaucratic tendency to remain in traditional form (Kim & Han, 2015).…”

What makes hybrid insourcing successful: A new public–private partnership model for social welfare services

“…Until the late 20th century, the private sector's role in social welfare was subordinated to the state. Then, with the wave of neo‐liberalism since the financial crisis in 1997, which demonstrated the inefficiency of the public sector, the new public management paradigm has been dominant (Kim & Han, ). The limitations of the traditional outsourcing model and the new contracting‐out system became apparent, as discussed earlier, and a new type of PPP has been sought by academics and policymakers.…”

The Political Process of Bureaucratic Reform: Wonosobo Regional Government Experience from 2011-2015

“…Conflictual interaction in the context of bureaucrats versus bureaucrats, for instance, may happen due to differing perspectives and disagreement among bureaucrats regarding the urgency of reform or the most appropriate concept of bureaucratic institutional arrangements. The interaction of bureaucrats versus bureaucrats also happens when a part of the bureaucracy has in fact become a target of bureaucratic reform itself, thereby leading to resistances manifested in the form of efforts undertaken to thwart, delay, and even sabotage the process of bureaucratic reform (Kim & Han, 2015). Such reality should have a serious implication, particularly, on proreform bureaucrats; in which they are required to possess the political skills necessary for conducting two things, namely overcoming resistance from within the bureaucracy and garnering support from the stakeholders of bureaucratic reform.…”