This research utilized Hoek et al(2005)'s broad concept of public accountability - vertical accountability, internal accountability, customer accountability and social accountability - and constructed a survey questionnaire for employees in public institutions in Korea based on the 4 different concepts of accountability.
The authors also categorized the approximately 300 public institutions in Korea into 6 types based on two combined criteria - classification by law and service functions. The authors then conducted ANOVA, Sheffe tests and AHP on the nearly 1000 questionnaire responses to find out about the perceptions and priorities of the employees in the 6 types of public institutions.
The results of ANOVA and Sheffe post hoc tests showed that in terms of vertical accountability and internal accountability, public institutions managing assets(type 6) were ahead of the other 5 types of institutions, while public enterprises(type 1) excelled in customer accountability. Public institutes which promote research and education(type 5) showed unsatisfactory results in social accountability compared with the other types.
The results of AHP analysis showed that in general, customer accountability was found to be considered most important, followed by social accountability,
internal accountability and vertical accountability.
One important founding was that nowadays not only in the private sector but also in the public sector, customer accountability and social accountability are regarded as more important than vertical accountability which was the traditionally most emphasized aspect of accountability. There were also mild differences about the priorities among the 6 types of public institutions. Public enterprises(type 1) and culture & living service related public institutes(type 3) took a more serious view about sustainable management than the other types of institutions.
This study concluded that improving the management evaluation system, the auditing system, and the performance management system were required to enhance accountability in public institutions. The specific policy recommendations of this study are the following. To improve the management evaluation system, independence of the committee for management evaluation should be strengthened, the individual committee member's professionality should be reinforced, and evaluation indicators should be more reasonable. In order to improve the auditing system, external audit should be minimized while internal audit should be maximized. In addition, external auditors should increase their professionality and reinforce their impartiality. To improve the performance management system, the evaluation of customer oriented projects should be increased and performance based service must be reinforced.
공공기관 책임성 제고방안
서울 : 한국행정연구원
|Series Title; No||KIPA 연구보고서 / 2008-17|
|Subject Country||South Korea(Asia and Pacific)|
|Subject||Government and Law < Public Administration|