[2017 Study Report on Presidential Success Factors] Sustainable Public Institution Reform

Abstract

There are differing opinions on whether the public institution reforms pursued by successive governments have been appropriate and whether the reform measures have achieved their intended objectives. Historically, successive governments have tended to present bold public institution reform plans in their early stages, only to significantly scale back their goals or achievements by the mid-term. The direction and content of public institution reform for the next government should aim to minimize the trial and error of past governments and proceed from a more long-term perspective. To this end, the direction of public institution reform for the next government should be presented based on the implementation details, achievements, and limitations of past government reforms. Potential reforms for the next government could include improving the conditions of lax management, conducting management evaluations aligned with their purpose, ensuring transparency in the public institution designation system, securing autonomy in the operation of public institutions, and strengthening the expertise of management evaluation teams.

Body

“Despite public institution reforms such as the privatization of public enterprises, performance-based salary systems, restructuring, and mergers, the fact that the number of public institutions, personnel, and debt have not improved can be considered an irony of past governments' public institution reforms.”

“An expert group capable of monitoring the lax management of public institutions and determining the success or failure of investments should be involved in the evaluation of public enterprises.”

“Management evaluations for the next government need to focus on the performance of public institutions rather than on the results of government policy implementation.”

“It has been observed that the more stringent the government's control over management evaluations and the greater the evaluation burden, the more it hinders the improvement of public enterprises' management performance. Therefore, measures such as reducing the proportion of non-quantitative indicators and alleviating the evaluation burden need to be prepared.”

“The designation and classification of public institutions should be carried out consistently based on clear criteria, as they determine the level of government control over these institutions.”

“Therefore, transparency and accountability of the system should be enhanced by disclosing the specific reasons and discussion processes for the designation and classification of public institutions.”

“The next government should declare its commitment to public institution reform by announcing that it will prioritize the eradication of 'parachute appointments' and ensure autonomy in the personnel appointments of public institutions.”

“Currently, public institutions offer both competitive compensation and job security, leading to a concentration of talented individuals preferring public enterprises over private companies. Therefore, the preference for public institutions should be reduced by setting compensation levels lower than those in the private sector.”

Author

Han Seung-joonProfessor of Public Administration at Seoul Women's University. Ph.D. in Law from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France. Recent publications include “Cultural Democracy and France’s Cultural and Artistic Support Policies: Focusing on Cultural Festivals,” “A Study on the Scope and Application of Cultural Impact Assessment,” and “The analysis of the public enterprise’s competitiveness and its policy implications.”