Easier Set Than Done: Stakeholder Engagement as Public-Private Partnership in Regulatory Policy of South Korea

  • Received : 2019.06.21
  • Published : 2019.08.31


An emphasis on public-private partnership (PPP) in the regulatory policy process can overcome the challenges hindering regulatory effectiveness with the emergence of fast developing technologies and new industries. This study attempts to evaluate quantitatively different aspects of institutional settings of South Korean regulatory policy in terms of stakeholder engagement as PPP, using evidence-based data released by the OECD. From the results of the principal component analysis, South Korea can be evaluated as being at a very good level overall in its institutional establishment. Nevertheless, the fact that the outcome of regulatory reforms in South Korea is still insufficient compared with this well-established system suggests that the country should concentrate on improving system operation. Consequently, this study makes policy suggestions to improve regulatory effectiveness through PPP by supplementing the facets that are well-equipped but not feasible with respect to regulatory policy cycle, regulatory governance, regulatory method, and conflict resolution.


  1. Armitage, S., 2016, Analysis to Support an Assessment of Korea's Approach to Occupational Health and Safety Management, Health & Safety Laboratory.
  2. Arndt, C., A. C. Baker, T. Querbach, and R. Schultz, 2015, 2015 Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance: Design, Methodology and Key Results, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 1, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  3. Borzel, T. and T. Risse, 2005, "Public-Private Partnerships: Effective and Legitimate Tools of International Governance?" in Grande, E. and L. W. Pauly (eds.), Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-First Century, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, pp. 195-216.
  4. Choi, B., 2002, "Reorganization of the Position and Structure of the Regulatory Reform Committee," KAPA@Forum, 100, pp. 25-31.
  5. Choi, M. H., 2015, "An Empirical Study on Factors of Effectiveness of Co-regulation and Measures for More Utilizing Co-regulation in Korea," Korean Review of Crisis and Emergency Management, 11(3), pp.285-307.
  6. Choi, Y.-S. and M. Lee, 2009, A Study on Utilizing Co-regulation II, Korea Institute of Public Administration.
  7. Chosun Ilbo, 2017a, The Entire Seoul Metropolitan Area Became a Factory Complex (, accessed 11. 16. 2018).
  8. Chosun Ilbo, 2017b, Hearing on Revision of Bioethics Law Ended after Spinning the "Squirrel Wheel," (, accessed 11. 1. 2018).
  9. Cleveland, W. S., and R. McGill, 1984, "Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), pp.531-554.
  10. Deighton-Smith, R., A. Erbacci, and C. Kauffmann, 2016, Promoting Inclusive Growth through Better Regulation: The Role of Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 3, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  11. Dochtermann, N. A., and S. H. Jenkins, 2011, "Multivariate Methods and Small Sample Sizes," Ethology, 117, pp.95-101.
  12. Edaily, 2018, Deregulation of DTC Genetic Testing in Crisis to Return to Waste (, accessed 12. 21. 2018).
  13. Financial Service Commission and Financial Supervisory Service, 2015, Improvement Plan for Shadow Regulations including Administrative Guidance.
  14. Forcino, F. L., 2012, "Multivariate Assessment of the Required Sample Size for Community Paleoecological Research," Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 315, pp.134-141.
  15. Gabriel, K. R., 1971, "The Biplot Graphic Display of Matrices with Application to Principal Component Analysis," Biometrika, 58(3), pp.453-467.
  16. Hinterleitner, M., and F. Sager, 2017, "Anticipatory and Reactive Forms of Blame Avoidance: of Foxes and Lions," European Political Science Review, 9(4), pp.587-606.
  17. Hong, S., and T. K. Kim, 2018, "Public-Private Partnership Meets Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of H-JUMP School," Public Money and Management, 38(4), pp.297-304.
  18. Hong, S. M. and J. W. Lee, 2009, "Deliberative Governance for Consensus Building and Institutional Design," Korean Journal of Public Administration, 47(1), pp.21-45.
  19. Kang, J.-M., 2013, "Problems and Improvement of Regulatory Reform Review," Economic Reform Issue, 2013-03.
  20. Kim, C.-H., 2015, Guidance for Vitalizing Public-Private Partnership Projects in Infrastructure, Special Committee on Budget and Settlement of the National Assembly.
  21. Kim, C.-S., 2014a, "Trilemma of the Korean Bureaucracy," Journal of Governmental Studies, 20(1), pp.35-73.
  22. Kim, H.-J., 2014b, Factors for Lowering the Perception of Regulatory Reforms and Challenges: Policy Suggestions for Regulatory Reforms that the Public and Businesses Recognize, KERI Brief, 14-19.
  23. Kim, H.-J., 2017, "Finding Regulatory Agenda of the New Administration," Proceedings of the 6th KIPA-KAPA Government Innovation Forum.
  24. Kim, J.-H., J. Kim, S. Shin, and S. Lee, 2011, Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects: Case Studies from the Republic of Korea-Volume 1: Institutional Arrangements and Performance, Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
  25. Kim, K.-K., S. W. Lee, and J. Shim, 2018, "Public-Private Partnership Meets Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of H-JUMP School," Korean Public Management Review, 32(2), pp.237-265.
  26. Kim, Y.-S., 2006, "Freedom and Regulation on the Internet: A Study of Korean Style Coregulatory Model," Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 20, pp.85-118.
  27. Lee, H.-W., and J.-K. Kim, 2015, "Spear of Regulatory Reform: Improvement of the Implementation System," Journal of Regulation Studies, 24, pp.3-43.
  28. Lee, J.-H., 2014, Improvement Measures for Regulatory Reform System, Issue Paper, 2014-03, Korea Institute of Public Administration.
  29. Lee, K.-H., 2016, "Technological Regulations: Cases and Policy Implications," Journal of Law and Economic Regulation, 9(2), pp.143-160.
  30. OECD, 2015, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  31. OECD, 2017, Regulatory Policy in Korea: Towards Better Regulation, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  32. OECD, 2018, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, Paris: OECD Publishing.
  33. OECD. (accessed May 30, 2019).
  34. OECD. (accessed Nov. 13, 2018).
  35. Office for Government Policy Coordination, 2018, Guidelines for the Preparation of Regulatory Impact Analysis.
  36. Regulatory Reform Committee, 2018, White Paper on Regulatory Reform 2017.
  37. Sagong, Y., 2005, "A Crash between Ideals and Culture in Regulatory Policy," Journal of Korean Policy Studies, 5(2), pp.43-62.
  38. Schwab, K., 2018, The Global Competitiveness Report 2018, Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  39. Seo, J.-H., 2009, "A Case Study on Co-regulation of Wireless Internet Contents in Korea: Characteristics and Implications," Korean Society and Public Administration, 20(2), pp.137-162.
  40. Shaukat S. S., T. A. Rao, and M. A. Khan, 2016, "Impact of Sample Size on Principal Component Analysis Ordination of an Environmental Data Set: Effects on Eigenstructure," Ekologia (Bratislava), 35(2), pp.173-190.
  41. Shim, Y.-H., 2002, "Who Should Be the Agency of Self-Regulation of Cyber Sexual Violence?: Based on In-Depth Interviews of ISP (Internet Service Providers) Workers," Informatization Policy, 9(2), pp.54-74.