Abstract
In this paper, we review the past two decades of administrative reform in South Korea and argue that the dominant models and theories in the fi eld, i.e., New Public Management (NPM), post-NPM, and traditional public administration have been in a state of fusion in implementing measures without a coherent reform model. We observe that the reform movements can neither challenge nor undermine the traditional bureaucracy and maintain that they are the result of a complex mix of both environmental events and contextual factors. We specifi cally examine the co ncrete change and development of administrative reform during the Kim Dae Jung (1998- 2003), Roh Moo Hyun (2003-2008), and Lee Myung Bak (2008-2013) administrations in South Korea. Among the cases being considered are the restructuring of government ministries, the executive agency system, and rationalization of public enterprises, as well as such performance management schemes as the evaluation system for government departments and the Open Position System. We conclude that the developmental state and the hierarchical bureaucracy are still salient in South Korea’s inconsistent administrative reform since the 1990s and that it is crucial to design a prudent reform strategy to achieve a more effective public sector.
Highlights
The traditional public administration (PA) has been criticized for not responding to the needs of the public, the public sector reform movement, known as New Public Management (NPM), continually gained momentum over the last two decades to provide a seemingly salient alternative to the traditional model of PA
In this paper, we review the past two decades of administrative reform in South Korea and argue that the dominant models and theories in the field, i.e., New Public Management (NPM), post-NPM, and traditional public administration have been in a state of fusion in implementing measures without a coherent reform model
According to Osborne (2006, pp. 377-387), these include PA from the late nineteenth century through the late 1970s or early 1980s, followed by the second mode of NPM that lasted until the start of the twenty-first century, and an emergent New Public Governance (NPG), which is a kind of post-NPM agenda
Summary
The traditional public administration (PA) has been criticized for not responding to the needs of the public, the public sector reform movement, known as New Public Management (NPM), continually gained momentum over the last two decades to provide a seemingly salient alternative to the traditional model of PA. 377-387), these include PA from the late nineteenth century through the late 1970s or early 1980s, followed by the second mode of NPM that lasted until the start of the twenty-first century, and an emergent New Public Governance (NPG), which is a kind of post-NPM agenda The arguments for these theoretical changes can play a key role in strengthening and legitimizing the need for reform by claiming that similar developments take place elsewhere in the name of improving public management. The administrative reforms have been in a state of NPM and pro-NPM hybridity, in addition to a classical PA re-emphasis on bureaucratic central control as well as state capacity From this perspective, we submit the argument that the state and the bureaucracy, which have embraced developmentalism since the 1970s, remain as salient as the market or private sector, even in times of ostensible retooling of the South Korean government since the late 1990s.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
