Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea

Abstract

This study aims to provide a new three-way typology of policy legitimacy (i.e., substantive legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and feasibility-centered legitimacy), while taking into account the relationship between politics (elected officials) and administration (unelected officials) as one of the most significant but under-discussed issues in the studies of policy legitimacy. This analytical framework is used to investigate the empirical case of South Korea's cultural policy. The sequential causal relations between the three types of legitimacy and policy outcomes are then discussed. The case analysis demonstrates that the substantive and procedural legitimacy achieved in the earlier stages of the policy process were not enough to guarantee a successful policy outcome, and hence, feasibility-centered legitimacy was needed as a necessary condition for policy success. If there is a lack of consistency among the three types of legitimacy and coordination issues between elected and unelected officials in the legitimization process, seemingly legitimate policies could have unsuccessful outcomes. This study will contribute to the theoretical advancement of policy legitimacy and to the empirical examination of the legitimization process in recently democratized countries like Korea.

Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea

“…However, when the conservative Park government gained power, various access points to the policy process were weakened. If societal stakeholders have a restricted role in the policy process, it may be difficult to ensure policy legitimacy-in particular, input-oriented legitimacy (Scharpf 1999;Montpetit 2008;Park et al 2015). It might be erroneous to solely attribute any success or limitation of policy outcomes to the stakeholder-oriented approach to policy legitimacy, as well as input-oriented legitimacy.…”

“…However, policy legitimacy should also be assessed in terms of the ideas, needs, and interests of a diverse range of policy stakeholders, such as pressure groups, target groups, and informal policy actors (Park et al 2015;Wallner 2008). The existing literature on policy legitimacy emphasizes not so much the role and interpretation of societal stakeholders-e.g., civic associations, policy experts, pressure and target groups, and ordinary citizens-but those of political elites and central decision-makers.…”

“…Democratization changed the political landscape from one of the elite dominations to one involving competition between state elites and societal stakeholders. Although societal stakeholders' influence has increased with the process of democratization, political elites can still control more institutional resources because of the historical legacies of top-down governance (e.g., Lee and Kim 2019;Park et al 2015;Ringen et al 2011). The new relationship between the state and civil society in this more democratic context has thus been the key determinant in Korea's policy process.…”

“…Drawing critically on the twofold classification of policy legitimacy,Park et al (2015) propose three main dimensions of legitimacy: (a) substantive legitimacy, (b) procedural legitimacy, and (c) feasibility-centered legitimacy. Substantive versus procedural legitimacy or input versus output legitimacy is often deemed dual imperatives for successful policy outcomes.…”

Beyond the targets: assessing the political credibility of pledges for the Paris Agreement

“…Mechanisms for building and maintaining buy-in from stakeholders, such as stakeholder engagement, shape the legitimacy of public policies and the governments that promote them (Park, 2015;Lockwood, 2015). For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the stronger the ability of citizens to participate in the policy-making process, the stronger the credibility of a country's pledge, providing stakeholders have been consulted before the pledge is committed to.…”