The shaping of an institution is a historical process influenced by the internal and the external environment. Thus, it is not easy to project the long term and macro future directions of the evaluation system without understanding the institutional environment in terms of macro perspectives. Study of the evaluation system in the past was largely focused on the fragmentary and myopic aspects of performance measurement indicators or methods in terms of micro perspectives. This study intends to view the evaluation system from the macro perspectives by adding new viewpoints based on the historical institutionalism and to analyze the stages of the development in Korea and Japan in comparative perspectives. This allows the proper understanding of the evaluation system with its birth and development.
Since Japan and Korea have similar administrative cultures and close relations with each other, it is meaningful to analyze the shaping and the development of the policy evaluation system in both countries in comparative perspectives.
The momentum of birth and change of the policy evaluation system in each country is distinguished between domestic change and the change of international environment. The institutional context which limits the policy-making is composed of 3 components: political context; bureaucratic context; and non-government organizations and media context. Since the current and the future institutional decisions are made by the institutional environment and the policy actors, we areexpected to recognize the demand for the future change or the generation and provide appropriate responses by looking at the responsive efforts for policy change diachronically as a result of the interaction between external constraints and internal factors.
Korea first introduced the Institution Evaluation system after the economic crisis in 1998 with the tradition of the Inspection and Analysis System and the Inspection and Evaluation System since early 1960s and made the first Framework Act on Government Performance Evaluation in 2001. Soon after the first Act, the second new Framework Act on Government Performance Evaluation was made to strengthen the Institution Evaluation System and went into effect in 2006. Unlike Japan, the Korean evaluation system was reinforced with the introduction of the second Framework Act without much opposition from the bureaucrats of the government.
In Japan, the power of the bureaucrats is much stronger while that of the Prime minister is much weaker than that of the President in Korea. After the breakdown of the Liberal Democratic Party regime in 1993, Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto implemented “Hashimoto Administrative Reform.” As a part of the
reform, a policy evaluation system was introduced in Japan for the first time without much resistance from the bureaucrats. The policy evaluation system is intact in spite of the increasing demand for the change of the system. On the other hand, in Korea, the transition toward the integrated government performance evaluation system was easier than in Japan due to the strong position of the President and the weak resistance of the bureaucrats which intensified the orientation of the unique Institution Evaluation System in Korea.
This study tries to link and reduce the gap between theory and the real policy change, focusing on the inclusive aspects of synergetic and sometimes confrontational dynamics. With the emphasis on the dynamics of the institutions, this study attempts to be differentiated from other studies that neglect the importance of the institutional dynamics which lie beneath the changes in policy.
한국과 일본의 정책평가제도 변천과정 비교 분석
서울 : 한국행정연구원
|Series Title; No||KIPA 연구보고서 / 2007-11|
|Subject Country||Japan(Asia and Pacific)
South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
|Subject||Government and Law < Public Administration|