Public Opinion Briefing No. 99: Key Policy Areas for Korean Society in the Next Decade

Public Opinion Briefing No. 99: Results of a Survey of the General Public and Political Elites for EAI Governance Roundtable <Exploring National Agendas 2011>

1. Survey Overview

2. Survey Results on Policy Areas

3. Comparison of Preferences Between the General Public and Political Elites

4. Comparison of Internal Perception Gaps: Political Elites Show Convergence, While Gaps Between Strata are Pronounced Among the General Public

1. Survey Overview

Korean society today is experiencing a routinization of conflict and confrontation among various social actors in the major policy decision-making and implementation processes at the national level, since the full-scale transition to democracy in 1987. This is also evidence of the fragility of governance, which centers on 'consultation' and 'cooperation' among key actors regarding national policy issues.

Politics lies at the heart of this fragile governance. In Korean society, politics cannot escape criticism that it functions primarily as a representative actor for political elites, rather than exercising accountability and capability as a social coordinator or representative. As a result, numerous agendas that define the character of our society remain at the center of social controversy without presenting any tangible achievements, and in fact, we witness them functioning as mechanisms of conflict and confrontation. As long as this situation persists, it is not only impossible to expect the normal functioning of governance, but there is also an increasing likelihood that the initiative for key national agendas will be ceded not to politics, but to other actors, namely the bureaucracy armed with expertise on policy issues or civil society effectively voicing collective demands based on solidarity. However, considering that most of the social issues currently at the center of social debate, such as welfare, labor, polarization, and education, are problems that must be resolved through political power rather than by any single social actor or the market, it is by no means desirable for politics to remain a political vacuum in social issues.

One prescription for the maturation of governance at this juncture is to identify social issues that the sovereign citizens consider important, prioritize them, and present them to political elites to normalize the role and power of politics. To this end, the research team (Team Leader: Lee Sook-jong, President of EAI) initiated research in mid-January 2011 by conducting a "Survey on National Agendas in Korean Society" to identify urgent and important national agendas from the perspective of the public and to understand their preferred approaches or policy directions for each national agenda.

The main survey content was composed of questions designed to identify key policy areas for the next decade, focusing on agendas that have been repeatedly included as campaign pledges in past presidential and general elections, and topics that have been continuously reported as social issues in the media recently. The survey was conducted through telephone interviews with 1,000 respondents from February 14th to 15th for the general public, and face-to-face interviews with 136 political elites (members of the National Assembly and Grade 4 aides) from March 2nd to 9th. The same questionnaire was used to present a map of national agendas based on the comparison of survey results, aiming to contribute to revitalizing policy competition in the upcoming presidential and general elections.

This issue brief aims to comparatively analyze the key 'policy areas' that should be prioritized in Korean society over the next decade, based on the main findings of the "Survey on National Agendas in Korean Society" project, comparing the general public and political elites. Here, policy areas were focused on domestic governance, considering the expertise of the project research team, and thus, foreign affairs, security, unification, and economic sectors are excluded. Including 'other,' there are 13 options, and respondents were asked to select their top three priorities. The detailed list of the 13 policy areas is as follows:

[Policy Area Options]

2. Survey Results on Policy Areas

1) General Public Survey Results

- Overall Government Policy Priorities for the Next Decade: Jobs > Low Birthrate and Aging Population > Economic Growth

● When the response rates for the 1st to 3rd priorities are summed and then averaged, 'jobs' and 'low birthrate and aging population' emerge as the most frequently cited areas. 'Jobs' had the highest response rate at 15.4%, followed by 'low birthrate and aging population' at 14.2%. The third highest response rate was for 'economic growth' (11.4%), which maintains high social interest, followed by 'education' (11.0%), 'environment and resource conservation' (10.2%), and 'social polarization' (9.3%). The response rate for 'political reform' was also relatively high at 9.2%, indicating the public's interest in politics. Reflecting the escalating housing crisis and unstable real estate market, 'housing' also accounted for 5.8%. 'Multiculturalism and human rights' (4.8%), 'science and technology' (4.1%), 'rule of law and democracy' (3.0%), and 'administration and decentralization' (0.7%) showed relatively lower response rates compared to other surveyed areas. Additionally, a small percentage of respondents selected 'other,' but this was only 0.5%.

[Figure 1] Comprehensive Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for the General Public (%)

- The top two policy areas competing for 1st to 3rd priority are Jobs and Low Birthrate/Aging Population

● Considering the nature of the questions, which asked for 1st and 3rd priorities, we also examined the distribution of response rates for each priority. For the 1st priority, there were two differences compared to the overall results in [Figure 1]. First, the rankings were sometimes reversed. 'Jobs' remained the highest with a 19.6% response rate, but 'economic growth' with a 14.4% response rate overtook 'low birthrate and aging population.' Another characteristic is that the response rates for 'jobs' and 'economic growth' were 4.2 percentage points (P) and 3.0 percentage points (P) higher, respectively, compared to the overall results. This suggests the magnitude of importance and urgency that the public feels for these two policy areas. For the 2nd priority, the response rates were high in the order of low birthrate and aging population, jobs, education, economic growth, and environment and resource conservation. For the 3rd priority, the order was low birthrate and aging population, jobs, environment and resource conservation, education, and political reform.

● Consequently, 'jobs' and 'low birthrate and aging population' consistently showed the highest response rates, with only the ranking varying from 1st to 3rd priority. 'Education' and 'environment and resource conservation' also showed similar trends and relatively high response rates. In the case of 'political reform,' it ranked fifth in the 3rd priority, indicating that its urgency is somewhat lower compared to its importance. Furthermore, for policy areas such as 'social polarization' and 'housing,' which are receiving attention from politicians and the media, the response rates were relatively low, revealing a gap between public perception and these areas.

[Table 1] Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for the General Public by Priority

2) Political Elite Survey Results

- Overall Government Policy Priorities for the Next Decade: Jobs > Social Polarization > Low Birthrate and Aging Population

● When the survey results for the 1st to 3rd priorities are aggregated, 'jobs' had the highest response rate at 21.1%, followed by 'social polarization' and 'low birthrate and aging population' at 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. 'Housing' and 'political reform/education' were ranked fourth to sixth, showing a significant gap in response rates compared to the aforementioned policy areas. The response rate for housing was 8.1%, and for political reform/education, it was 7.6%. 'Economic growth' (5.4%), 'environment and resource conservation' (4.2%), 'rule of law and democracy' (3.2%), and 'multiculturalism and human rights' (2.5%) showed relatively low response rates, indicating a gap with the previously mentioned policy areas. Additionally, the response rates for 'science and technology,' 'other,' and 'administration and decentralization' were all below 1.0%, suggesting a low level of interest among political elites in these policy areas.

[Figure 2] Comprehensive Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for Political Elites (%)

- Jobs, Social Polarization, and Low Birthrate/Aging Population are Prominent in 1st to 3rd Priorities

Examining the response results for the 1st to 3rd priorities reveals a concentration of response rates in three policy areas. First, for the 1st priority, the response rate for 'jobs' reached 30.1%. 'Social polarization' and 'low birthrate and aging population' also showed relatively high response rates at 24.3% and 18.4%, respectively. However, 'education,' which followed, was 6.6%, and 'political reform' and 'housing' also had relatively low response rates of 5.9% and 5.1%, respectively. A similar trend is observed for the 2nd priority. Responses were generally concentrated in 'social polarization' (22.1%), 'jobs' (19.9%), and 'low birthrate and aging population' (16.2%); only 'housing' showed a response rate above 10% at 11.0%. In the 3rd priority, 'low birthrate and aging population' garnered a response rate of 21.3%, widening the gap with other options. The second highest response rate was for 'jobs' (13.2%), and 'social polarization/political reform' (12.5%) ranked third.

[Table 2] Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for Political Elites by Priority

3. Comparison of Preferences Between the General Public and Political Elites

1) Common Ground

- 1st Priority Policy: "Jobs"

- Low birthrate and an aging population are also high-priority policy areas.

● Comparing the survey results of the general public and political elites based on the aggregated average of response rates from 1st to 3rd priorities, we can identify commonalities in the key policy areas for the next decade. First, for the general public, the response rates were high in the order of jobs, low birthrate and aging population, economic growth, education, and environment and resource conservation. For political elites, the order was jobs, social polarization, low birthrate and aging population, housing, and education. Synthesizing these results, we find a commonality in that both groups showed the highest response rate for 'jobs,' reflecting the significant policy weight of jobs in Korean society. 'Low birthrate and aging population' was also identified as a key policy area that requires urgent and important attention in Korean society, ranking second in the general public survey and third in the political elite survey.

[Figure 3] Comparison of Survey Results on Key Policy Areas Between the General Public and Political Elites

2) Differences

- Divergent Views on Economic Growth, Social Polarization, and Resource/Environment Conservation

- General Public Emphasizes Social Values, Political Elites Emphasize Economy

● Differences were also observed in policy areas other than jobs and low birthrate/aging population. First, regarding economic growth: as shown in [Figure 3], the general public still cited economic growth as an important policy area, with a response rate of 11.4%, indicating high expectations for overcoming economic difficulties through growth. However, for political elites, the response rate was only 5.4%, possibly due to a lack of prescriptive measures or a focus on the top three policy areas as outcomes of social phenomena. Regarding social polarization, the general public showed a response rate of 9.3%, while political elites showed a significantly higher rate of 19.6%. Differences were also found in environment and resource conservation: the general public's response rate was 10.2%, while political elites' rate was less than half at 4.2%. Considering the importance of environment and resource conservation, this difference in results between the two groups can be understood as stemming from a difference in perspective. While the next 10 years represent an imminent future for the general public, it is a relatively distant future for political elites, considering their four-year terms.

● The difference in response rates between the economic and social value domains for the general public and political elites. Excluding 'other,' the 12 remaining areas can be broadly categorized into 'economic (or material)' and 'social value (or ideological)' domains. The economic domain includes 'jobs,' 'housing,' 'social polarization,' 'low birthrate and aging population,' 'science and technology,' and 'economic growth.' The social value domain includes 'education,' 'multiculturalism and human rights,' 'administration and decentralization,' 'rule of law and democracy,' 'political reform,' and 'environment and resource conservation.' Analyzing the distribution of response rates for the general public and political elites in these categories reveals an interesting point: as shown in [Figure 4], political elites have a higher response rate in the economic domain compared to the general public. Conversely, as shown in [Figure 5], the general public shows a higher and more evenly distributed response rate in the social value domain compared to political elites.

● In reality, the general public showed a relatively even distribution of response rates across policy areas, while political elites showed a higher response rate in the economic domain, indicating a pronounced perception of importance for these policy areas. This difference in results can be attributed to the more diverse and broader composition of the general public compared to political elites. It can also be interpreted that political elites tend to pay more attention to politically accessible issues and those that can yield tangible results in the short term, such as in the economic domain. For instance, 'social polarization,' which received the highest response rate among political elites, has solidified its status as a social issue through ongoing debates on universal welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy. Similarly, 'jobs' involves various issues such as youth unemployment, extending retirement age, and non-regular employment, which have been subjects of prolonged debate.

[Figure 4] Comparison of Survey Results in the Economic Domain (%) [Figure 5] Comparison of Survey Results in the Social Value Domain (%)

4. Comparison of Internal Perception Gaps: Political Elites Show Convergence, While Gaps Between Strata are Pronounced Among the General Public

1) Comparison Among Political Elites

- Little Difference in Perceived Priorities Between Ruling and Opposition Parties

- Intense Policy Competition Expected on the Top Three Priority Tasks

● If strengthening consultation and cooperation among actors is an essential prerequisite for overcoming immature governance, politics is required to play a greater role compared to other groups, in line with political accountability. In particular, for consultation and cooperation among actors, politics must accurately grasp the public's views and utilize them in policy competition. If the public's views diverge, politics must strive to revise or supplement policies through political parties or to educate and persuade the public. Furthermore, if accurately grasping the public's views, i.e., the popular will, and presenting a future vision and engaging in policy competition between parties are important for the upcoming 2012 general and presidential elections, the significance of the aforementioned process is even greater.

● There are two characteristics found when analyzing the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) and the opposition Democratic Party (DP) and other parties. First, there is little difference in the response rates for policy areas between the ruling and opposition parties. As shown in [Figure 6], there are no significant differences in the rankings or response rates of policy areas cited by political elites of the ruling and opposition parties. The only policy area showing some difference is 'social polarization.' In fact, for the ruling party, the response rates were highest for jobs, low birthrate and aging population, and social polarization, while for the opposition party, they were social polarization, jobs, and low birthrate and aging population. The response rates for these policy areas were all around 20%. Only in social polarization was there a 5.7 percentage point (P) difference, with the opposition party showing a higher rate than the ruling party.

● These results offer two implications. First, the similarity in policy areas to which political elites assign urgency and importance. Given the nature of Korean politics, which tends towards confrontation and conflict rather than cooperation and harmony between ruling and opposition parties, this suggests that tensions may escalate to gain political initiative, centered around jobs, low birthrate and aging population, and social polarization. It also signifies that social polarization is likely to become a focal point of political tension between the ruling and opposition parties. Since the opposition party, which critically approaches government policies, shows a higher response rate than the ruling party, it is more likely that the government will intensify its efforts to address social polarization.

● Second, the similar results between the ruling and opposition parties also imply a common difference from the results of the general public. This is because, as described in section 3.2) 'Differences,' the views of political elites diverge somewhat from the popular will, while the ruling and opposition parties share similar views.

[Figure 6] Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for the General Public and Ruling/Opposition Parties (%)

[Table 3] Comparative Survey Results on Key Policy Areas for the General Public, Ruling Party, and Opposition Party

2) To Better Understand Public Sentiment

- 1st Priority Key Policy Areas Identified by the Public: Jobs > Economic Growth > Low Birthrate and Aging Population > Education

- Beware of a Uniform Approach to Public Sentiment

● To accurately grasp the urgent and important national agendas from the public's perspective and their preferred approaches or policy directions, additional considerations are necessary. This includes being wary of a uniform approach to the general public. The general public cannot be categorized under a single framework. For instance, 'physical conditions' such as age can present different circumstances to individuals, influencing their judgments based on their respective positions and situations. 'Socioeconomic criteria' such as perception of social class are also likely to be relevant in determining the urgency and importance of policy areas, as they are not unrelated to individual preferences or interests. Party affiliation also serves as an important criterion for gauging 'political preference.' It is plausible that differences in policy areas may arise between citizens who support the Grand National Party and those who support the Democratic Party. Based on age as a physical condition, subjective perception of social class as a socioeconomic criterion, and party affiliation as a measure of political preference, we examined the public's views, i.e., popular will, as revealed in the survey results, in comparison with key policy areas to be addressed over the next decade. To present the analysis results concisely and effectively, only the 1st priority response results, which indicate strong urgency and importance, were used, and only policy tasks that received a response rate of 10% or higher were included to identify characteristics of response trends by variable. The results are presented in [Table 4].

[Table 4] Comparison of General Public's Policy Area Survey Results by Variable (%)

* Don't know/No answer excluded

** Results for parties other than the Grand National Party and the Democratic Party excluded

- Perceived priority differences revealed by age, subjective class perception, and party affiliation

● First, we examined the differences in response rates according to age groups. As shown in [Figure 7], the response rates for jobs were relatively low at 12.3% for those in their 30s and 16.6% for those in their 40s. For those in their 20s, 50s, and those aged 60 and above, the response rates were all above 20%. If jobs are considered stable for those in their 30s and 40s compared to other age groups, these differences in job response rates by age are understandable. Regarding economic growth, the response rates for those in their 40s and 50s were somewhat higher compared to other age groups, with 16.1% for those in their 40s and 15.6% for those in their 50s. For those in their 30s, 14.6% cited economic growth, showing a similar level to the overall average of 14.4%. For low birthrate and aging population, the response rates were relatively high for those in their 30s (17.0%), an age group with a high birthrate, and for those aged 60 and above (15.2%), an age group with a high proportion of retirees, compared to other age groups. In the case of education, the response rates were higher than the average (10.5%), with 14.8% for those in their 40s and 13.2% for those in their 30s, who are likely parents or soon-to-be parents.

● In terms of subjective class perception, differences in response rates for policy areas were also revealed, as shown in [Figure 8]. For jobs, the response rate increased in direct proportion as one moved to lower classes. Conversely, for economic growth, the response rate increased in direct proportion as one moved to higher classes. This indicates that jobs and economic growth have an inverse relationship in terms of subjective class perception. A certain trend was also found in education concerning subjective class perception. The response rate for education increased as class perception moved upward.

● As shown in [Figure 9], differences based on party support showed that the response rate among supporters of the Grand National Party was 20.6%, which is higher than the 18.7% response rate among supporters of the Democratic Party. For economic growth and education, the difference in response rates between Grand National Party supporters and Democratic Party supporters was negligible. However, regarding low birthrate and aging population, 17.4% of Grand National Party supporters and 10.4% of Democratic Party supporters responded, showing a certain difference.

[Figure 7] Comparison of Survey Results by Major Policy Area and Age Group (%)

[Figure 8] Comparison of Survey Results by Subjective Class Perception and Major Policy Area (%)

[Figure 9] Comparison of Survey Results by Party Support and Major Policy Area (%)

- A multi-faceted approach is needed, not a dichotomous prescription, for political and social issues.

● In summary, the general public exhibits differences in response rates for policy areas according to their individual circumstances, positions, and perceptions. However, the differences in response rates observed do not necessarily imply a direct correlation with the preferred policy direction. For instance, the similar response rates for economic growth and education among supporters of the Grand National Party and the Democratic Party do not necessarily mean they share the same policy direction or ideology. Furthermore, political elites, whether from the Grand National Party, the Democratic Party, the ruling party, or the opposition party, need to understand these survey results by examining the core policy areas identified by the general public as urgent and important for the next decade. They should recognize that differences in responses may indicate a lack of understanding of public opinion or a need for greater effort to gain public understanding and persuade them. Additionally, more sophisticated policy development considering the diverse criteria of the general public is warranted. While some social issues may be addressed through a dichotomous approach, given that contentious issues frequently become the center of political debate, efforts to resolve problems from various perspectives are necessary.■