How Should We Study Governance in Korea?

Why Study Governance?

Many policy issues in the era of late democracy have clear limitations when understood and addressed using past paradigms such as "democratization," "power structure," and "electoral systems." In this context, discussions on governance began to emerge, primarily in American public administration circles, from the late 1990s through the early 2000s, and governance started to establish itself as a new paradigm supporting policy formulation and implementation in the era of late democracy.

While there are diverse ways to define governance, and its understanding varies across disciplines such as public administration, political science, and sociology, it appears to be broadly used in two contexts. First, it refers to the collaboration between the market, government, and civil society in policy formation and formulation. Second, it signifies the government moving away from its past autonomous approach to policy implementation in a more horizontal manner. Horizontal policy formulation and implementation require close cooperation between central and local governments, and at the regional level, direct and voluntary administrative participation by civil society actors is requested. From a sociological perspective, the participation and empowerment of these civil society actors are particularly understood as the core of governance.

The concept of governance began to be introduced and disseminated in Korean society during the administrations of the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments. As the ideologies of these two governments emphasized the importance of cooperation between the government and civil society, governance-related ideas (e.g., participation and empowerment of civil society) began to be widely applied in policy formulation and execution. The Roh Moo-hyun administration could even be considered a "governance government." However, it is also true that the process of actively reflecting the voices and demands of civil society led to prolonged decision-making and increased costs, among other side effects. In other words, the government overly advocated for a direct participatory approach, which resulted in the erosion of efficiency in policy formulation and implementation.

In this regard, discussions on governance should ultimately move towards a practical direction of identifying the problems of Korean governance and finding ways to resolve them. For this purpose, it is important to focus on the overarching framework that permeates Korean governance, rather than a micro-level approach that focuses on who the main actors are and what the issues are. While it is meaningful to choose a topic and approach it from different perspectives, even in such cases, presenting the current problems of Korean governance and a macro-level model for them is indispensable.

Above all, it is necessary to address what the crisis in Korean governance is, focusing on the problems, and how to prescribe solutions. There can be two types of problems here. One is what everyone agrees is a problem, and the other is a problem that others have not yet recognized as a problem. In addressing these, we should approach them creatively, rather than relying on standardized methods of governance research. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to explore a single framework that encompasses the problems of Korean governance.

Problems and Considerations for Korean Governance

Several factors can be considered as causes for the malfunction of Korean governance. First, there is a lack of competition and cooperation among the actors participating in governance. Second, the reality where only "autonomy" is emphasized, while autonomy and responsibility must be fulfilled simultaneously, is also a problem. Third, it takes considerable time and cost for governance networks to mature, and there is insufficient consideration for this. Finally, governance itself becoming a form of power concentration is also a problem that needs to be pointed out.

In particular, there is a need for deeper discussion on the high costs incurred in the application of governance in Korea. For example, this can be considered in relation to "invisible barriers." In Korean society, there are many informal gatherings such as alumni associations and social clubs, which are based on the unique Korean culture of strong ties and emotional connections, and these have indeed served as barriers to the realization of governance.

Furthermore, it is necessary to consider that in Korea, every individual has a desire to participate. This is closely related to the Korean political and cultural tradition that emphasizes participation. Therefore, how to converge these "desires" into the framework of governance emerges as a crucial task. However, if these desires are excessive, it can create an atmosphere of unconditional participation and a tendency to resolve everything through social movements, which may also hinder cooperation. Consequently, it has a high potential to become an obstacle to the realization of governance.

The core of governance is "cooperation," and for this, it is important for the main actors such as the government, corporations, and civil society to strive for mutual understanding and reach consensus. Securing communication channels (pipelines) and building networks that promote such cooperation and consensus and connect each other are important, but this aspect is also very weak in Korean society. In other words, while each domain is successful in terms of self-organization, they are not very successful in cooperation through communication channels.

Additionally, it is necessary to consider the underestimation of the roles of parliament and political parties in Korean governance literature. Despite the fact that the key to solving problems through governance lies in the roles of parliament and political parties, the role of these political actors is hardly discussed. As demonstrated by cases such as the legislative process of the Disability Discrimination Prohibition Act and the increasing trend of private member's bills, the roles of parliament and political parties are crucial in the process of jointly solving problems through governance. In Korea, there is much distrust in parliament, and public administration scholars who focus on governance tend to focus only on the executive function, leading to the exclusion of political actors like parliament and political parties from governance discussions. However, it is worth remembering that in international discussions on global governance, such as at the United Nations, parliament is considered an important actor.■

This summary was published by the East Asia Institute (EAI) Governance Roundtable. Recognizing the need for new governance theories and policies to understand and improve the complex conflict structures of Korean politics and society, EAI operates a Governance Roundtable for interdisciplinary research among emerging scholars from various academic fields.