Abstract
This study aims to provide a new three-way typology of policy legitimacy (i.e., substantive legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and feasibility-centered legitimacy), while taking into account the relationship between politics (elected officials) and administration (unelected officials) as one of the most significant but under-discussed issues in the studies of policy legitimacy. This analytical framework is used to investigate the empirical case of South Korea’s cultural policy. The sequential causal relations between the three types of legitimacy and policy outcomes are then discussed. The case analysis demonstrates that the substantive and procedural legitimacy achieved in the earlier stages of the policy process were not enough to guarantee a successful policy outcome, and hence, feasibility-centered legitimacy was needed as a necessary condition for policy success. If there is a lack of consistency among the three types of legitimacy and coordination issues between elected and unelected officials in the legitimization process, seemingly legitimate policies could have unsuccessful outcomes. This study will contribute to the theoretical advancement of policy legitimacy and to the empirical examination of the legitimization process in recently democratized countries like Korea.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All interviews cited are listed in the “Appendix” at the end of the article.
Here, elected officials or politicians include parliamentary members, political executives and their appointed civil servants, while unelected officials refer mainly to bureaucrats in the executive branch. During the policy process within electoral-representative democracy, policy decisions normally flow from elected representatives to unelected government officials. Elected politicians are generally concerned with the interests and preferences of the constituencies they represent, as their foremost priority is to be reelected. In contrast, unelected bureaucrats govern the population but have never had to stand for election. Moreover, the people are increasingly governed and regulated by bureaucrats, and elected politicians depend upon these bureaucrats to execute political agendas.
Here, “policy incubation” refers to the situation in which political actors “take the idea up, reshape it, adapt it to their political needs, publicize it, and put it into the ongoing culture of decision-makers” (Polsby 1984, p. 153). “Emotive appeals” consist of “evaluative elements including the symbols and discourse used to frame a policy problem and its solution, and scholars of public policy recognize that language plays an important symbolic role shaping the policy agenda” (Wallner 2008, p. 425).
The KPAF and 16 other arts and culture groups, organized into an association of artists’ representatives, formally proposed their cultural policy draft to all presidential candidates on October 15, 2002 (Pressian 2002). In response to this policy demand, Presidential candidate Roh pledged to introduce a new art support system (National Election Commission 2005).
As discussed in the incubation period, the appointment issue was interpreted as a political issue due to the historical context of Korea.
The MCT, as an expert in this policy field, sought to persuade politicians by utilizing professional information and knowledge from other countries, with a particular focus on the UK and the US (Presidential Advisory Committee for Policy Planning 2008, p. 24).
However, there were some positive evaluations, especially in terms of cultural democracy. The following quote by an expert advised against negative evaluations: “The purpose of establishing the ARKO was not to provide a panacea to resolve all policy problems in the field of cultural policy, but to focus on informing artists of the importance of fairness and cultural democracy. Thus, changes to the committee system itself can be seen as benefits to the arts and culture field in Korea.” (Interviewee 6).
With regard to this scandal, newspaper editorials clearly reflected societal cleavages. The conservative newspapers argued that the ARKO was occupied by left-wing artists who allocated funds only to their acquaintance and that this unfair allocation was the hidden political intention of the Roh administration (Dong-A Ilbo 2007; Munhwa Ilbo 2007). On the other hand, the progressive newspapers lamented the unsuccessful implementation of the ARKO, while emphasizing how to overcome the genre egoism (Kyunghyang Shinmun 2007; Hankyoreh 2007).
The process of policy non-design means that policy decisions are more highly contingent and driven by political bargaining and opportunism than result from careful deliberation and assessment (see Howlett and Mukherjee 2014).
References
Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia's next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Art Council of Korea (ARKO). (2005). Report for preparing to set up the ARKO (in Korean).
Atkinson, M. M., & Coleman, W. D. (1989). Strong states and weak states: Sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 47–67.
Carboni, N. (2010). Changing relationships between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary democracies. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 90–109.
Coser, L. (1977). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2003). 244th Culture and Tourism Committee 1st minutes. December 16 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004a). 245th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 2nd minutes. February 20 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004b). 245th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 3rd minutes. February 23 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004c). 246th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 1st minutes. March 9 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004d). 246th Culture and Tourism Committee 4th minutes. September 13 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004e). 250th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 1st minutes. September 15 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004f). 250th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 2nd minutes. November 17 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004g). 250th Culture and Tourism Sub-Committee 3rd minutes. November 29 (in Korean).
Culture and Tourism Committee (CTC). (2004h). 250th Culture and Tourism Committee 13th minutes. December 7 (in Korean).
Digitaltimes. (2003). Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) fee is linked to other proposed bill. November 26 (in Korean).
Dong-A Ilbo. (2007). The ARKO exposes the problem of cultural power. July 10 (in Korean).
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckstein, H. (2000). Case study and theory in political science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method. London: Sage.
Galston, W. A. (2006). Political feasibility: Interests and power”. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, A. L. (1980). Domestic constraints on regime change in U.S. foreign policy: The need for policy legitimacy. In O. R. Holsti, R. M. Siverson, & A. L. George (Eds.), Change in the international system. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gilabert, P., & Holly, L.-S. (2012). Political feasibility: A conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60(4), 809–825.
Gorski, P. S. (2003). The disciplinary revolution: Calvinism and the rise of the state in early modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hanberger, A. (2003). Public policy and legitimacy: A historical policy analysis of the interplay of public policy and legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 36, 257–278.
Hankook Ilbo. (2003). Both the KOAF and the KPAF support the establishment of the ARKO. November 25 (in Korean).
Hankyoreh. (2007). The crisis of the ARKO: To overcome genre egoism. July 10 (in Korean).
Hansen, K. M., & Ejersbo, N. (2002). The relationship between politicians and administrators—A logic of disharmony. Public Administration, 80(4), 733–750.
Herald Economy. (2007). In arts and cultural policy, the harm of “code appointments” by Roh becomes real. February 22 (in Korean).
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.
Kangwon Ilbo. (2005). The revised culture and arts promotion law. April 19 (in Korean).
Koo, G. (2000). Campaign pledges of the presidential candidates for cultural policies in the 1990s in Korea. Chung-Ang Journal of Public Administration, 14(1), 139–152. (in Korean).
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2009). Public policy (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kwon, H. J. (1999). The welfare state in Korea: The politics of legitimation. London: Macmillan.
Kyunghyang Shinmun. (2003). Any artist should not be discriminated by the culture and arts promotion fund. August 31 (in Korean).
Kyunghyang Shinmun. (2007). The crisis of the ARKO and arts. July 16 (in Korean).
Lee, H. K. (2012). Progress without consensus: ‘Instituting’ arts council in Korea. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(3), 323–339.
Lee, J. (2014). What happens after the passage of reform initiatives? Two dimensions of social policy reform in Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(1), 190–209.
Legislation and Judiciary Committee (LJC). (2004). 251th Legislation and Judiciary Committee 1st minutes. December 23 (in Korean).
Lett, D., Hier, S., & Walby, K. (2012). Policy legitimacy, rhetorical politics, and the evaluation of city-street video surveillance monitoring programs in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, 49(4), 328–349.
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.
Mahoney, J., Kimball, E., & Koivu, K. L. (2009). The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative Political Studies, 42(1), 114–146.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT). (2003). Paper for the public hearing on revision of the culture and arts promotion law. Seoul: MCT. (in Korean).
Montpetit, E. (2008). Policy design for legitimacy. Public Administration, 86(1), 259–277.
Munhwa Ilbo. (2007). I was fully ostracized by leftist literature. July 31 (in Korean).
National Election Commission. (2005). The 16th presidential election policy report (in Korean).
Ohmynews. (2003). Would politicians really burn down their own house to get rid of a rat? December 18 (in Korean).
Ohmynews. (2004). Novelist Hwang said “long and tedious panhandling is over”. April 6 (in Korean).
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (2nd ed.). London: Pinter Publishers.
Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 180–196.
Peters, B. G. (1987). Politicians and bureaucrats in the politics of policy-making. In J. E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice. London: Sage.
Polsby, N. (1984). Political innovation in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Presidential Advisory Committee for Policy Planning. (2008). The creation of the Arts Council Korea putting artists at the center of arts policy (in Korean).
Pressian. (2002). We want a cultural president. October 16 (in Korean).
Ramesh, M. (2004). Social policy in East and Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Ringen, S., Kwon, H. J., Yi, I., Kim, T., & Lee, J. (2011). The Korean state and social policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rothstein, B. (2008). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. Working Paper 2008: 2, Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg.
Scharpf, F. W. (1998). Interdependence and democratic legitimation. MPIfG (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies) Working Paper 98/2.
Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 321–338.
Smoke, R. (1994). On the importance of policy legitimacy. Political Psychology, 15(1), 97–110.
Svara, J. H. (1998). The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 51–58.
Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183.
Wallner, J. (2008). Legitimacy and public policy: Seeing beyond effectiveness, efficiency, and performance. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 421–443.
Woo-Cumings, M. (Ed.). (1999). The developmental state. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Yonhap News. (2004). Interview with Minister of the MCT Lee Chang-dong. March 12 (in Korean).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2052898).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Interviewees
Appendix: Interviewees
Interviewee | Affiliation | Interview date | Status (in 2003) |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | MCT/TF member | April 25, 2013 | Policy adviser to the Minister/TF member |
2 | MCT | November 9, 2012 | Secretary manager |
3 | KCAF | January 19, 2013 | Senior manger |
4 | KCAF | March 11, 2013 | Manager |
5 | TF member | March 12, 2013 | Private expert |
6 | University | February 1, 2013 | Professor |
7 | University | November 22, 2013 | Professor |
8 | KPAF affiliated artist | April 22, 2013 | Sculptor |
9 | KOAF affiliated artist | March 15, 2013 | Sculptor |
10 | N/A (neutral to both interest groups) | May 1, 2013 | Painter |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, C., Lee, J. & Chung, C. Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea. Policy Sci 48, 319–338 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2