Abstract
If happiness is accepted as the goal of national development, of course, public policy must be transformed into a happiness-driven policy. In the past, we have focused on happiness as the output of policy, but now, on the contrary, the development goal of happiness should determine policy. Then, what conditions are required for the successful pursuit of such a happiness policy? To answer this, an understanding of the characteristics of happiness as a policy goal must be preceded.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Change history
18 May 2022
A correction has been published.
Notes
- 1.
For the diffusion of policy innovation, in addition to active efforts, it is necessary to strengthen the automatic mechanism for the diffusion of policy innovation through reform of the government structure. For the automatic diffusion of innovation, the decentralized governing structure is more advantageous than the centralized governing structure. In the centralized structure, the diffusion of policy innovation may occur in a short period of time, but uniform application of innovation may cause inefficiencies, and policy continuity problems may arise depending on the effectiveness of monitoring and acceptance of the governing unit. On the other hand, in a horizontal decentralized structure, the speed of diffusion of innovation may be comparatively slow, but there is an advantage of diffusing innovative policies suitable for local conditions by an automatic control mechanism for policy diffusion among decentralized governing units. That is, in a situation where the innovation policy is not forced downward, good policy innovation initiated by one policy unit is widely diffused due to the voluntary acceptance of neighboring or other units, but bad policy changes are automatically blocked due to the rejection or indifference of neighboring units, thereby enabling sustainable policy diffusion that fits the local situation (Gray, 1973; Lee, 2004; Walker, 1969).
- 2.
The concept of technodemocracy is useful to understand the justification of governance based on cooperation between the government and civil society. The ideal society can be said to be a technodemocracy, a political system in which technocracy based on expert judgment of technocrats and democracy based on public opinion are harmonized (De Sario & Langton, 1987). Such a society is neither a limited democratic society as supported by elitists, nor is it a populistic society in which participation is maximized as supported by democrats. In a technodemocratic society, it is expected that public happiness can be pursued more effectively by appropriately harmonizing the stability and demands of society, avoiding the arbitrary domination of professional bureaucrats or the seditious driving of public opinions. Such a technodemocratic society can be called cooperative democracy in that it is based on cooperation between the state and citizens (Lee & Kim, 2018: 582).
- 3.
The extension of the “decision process” can be expressed as an extension of the boundary of “policymaking process.” This is because, like decision-making, “policy” is a term applied not only to decision-making in the public domain, but also to decision-making in the private sector. Therefore, in fact, in defining governance, whether it is expressed as “decision” or “policymaking” is basically a matter of terminology, and virtually there is no difference in content. Nevertheless, policy is often understood as an abbreviation of public policy, and in that case, the conceptualization of governance expressed as “policymaking” may be misunderstood as referring only to public governance, excluding private governance. To prevent this misunderstanding here, governance is defined using the term “decision.” However, in defining the concept of governance, this paper intentionally avoids using the term “governing” as in many literatures. This is because such a definition seems to have some tautological connotations. Of course, considering that the core of governing lies in decision-making, and that governing has a wider semantic scope than decision-making, it is not wrong to define governance using governing. Also, there is little difference in meaning between the two. However, I prefer to define governance by using the term “decision” than “governing,” focusing on the brevity and clarity of conceptualization.
- 4.
Pierre and Peter (2000) distinguish between “governance as structure” and “governance as process.” “Governance as structure” refers to the different institutional arrangements and the inclusion of societal actors under new conditions, and “governance as process” refers to the interactions among structures. This distinction largely corresponds to the distinction between the actor aspect and the decision method aspect presented here.
- 5.
Market-centric and citizen-centric governance can be integrated into society-centric governance. For example, Robichau (2011) classifies these two types as society-centric governance in contrast to state-centric governance.
- 6.
This relative nature often induces confusion about the distinction between types of governance. For example, Denhardt and Denhardt describe governance as old public administration, New Public Management (NPM), and new public service (NPS). These correspond to government-centered, market-oriented, and citizen-centered governance, respectively, and each type has its own characteristics. In the old public administration, the decision mode is hierarchy, the role of the government is rowing, and civic status is clients or constituents. In NPM, the decision mode is market, the role of government is steering, and civic status is customers. In NPS, the decision mode is collaboration (or network), the role of government is serving, and civic status is citizens. This distinction has the advantage of making it easy and concise to understand the differences between types of governance. A problem is whether everyone agrees to equate NPM with market-type governance. Basically, the NPM is an administrative paradigm that is open to market principles while maintaining the centrality of government, and thus, it can be said that it has an intermediate character between old public administration and market-oriented governance (Yoo, 2012: 176). If we pay attention to the introduction of marketism in government, we will understand the characteristics of NPM as market-oriented governance, and if we pay attention to that, notwithstanding the ingraftment of marketism, traditional government is the main body, we will understand the characteristics of NPM as government-centered governance. Considering that market-oriented governance focuses on the relationship between government and the market, whereas NPM focuses on management issues within the government, NPM may be classified as a government-centered governance. However, regardless of the type of governance, the centrality of the government is maintained to a considerable extent. Then, although NPM focuses on internal management issues of the government, and the centrality of government maintains in the decision process, it can be understood to be closer to the market-oriented type. This discussion is due to the fact that the centrality of the government is substantially maintained regardless of the type of governance, albeit different degrees.
- 7.
Similarly, Doeveren (2011) criticizes that existing scholars and aids donors paid less attention to defining their components, identifying the possible trade-offs between their components, specifying their optimal values, and result of governance.
- 8.
It is also argued that governance theory, unlike traditional theory on government, makes no prejudgment about which social actors are most central to the pursuit of collective goals (Peters and Pierre 2012). However, in most cases, governance theory focuses on expanding the role of private actors other than the government uniformly.
- 9.
Competence is used interchangeably with capacity. In the dictionary sense, competence refers to the potential to perform work effectively, and capacity refers to the magnitude of the potential to perform work. But the distinction between the two is not always clear, and the practical benefit of the division is not great.
- 10.
Overall, these efforts can be expressed as government innovation efforts. Government innovation is defined in various ways. For example, Berry (1994) defines government innovation as a series of processes for recognizing government policy and administrative issues, discovering and producing information or knowledge, and employing administrative programs or policies. Osborne et al. (1998) understand government innovation as a fundamental reform of a government organization or public service system to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of public organizations. According to them, government innovation is not about changes in the political system (e.g., electoral campaigns, parliamentary reform, etc.), nor does it mean just the reorganization or reduction of government organizations. It does not mean the abolition of administrative waste or an efficient government, nor is it the same as privatization either. Government innovation should be understood as an effort to strengthen the competence of the government as a whole, including meaningful changes in the structure, personnel, functions, and policy processes of the government.
- 11.
In this regard, Barber (2003: 21) argues for the importance of political discourse in asserting participatory democracy.
References
Azmat, F., & Coghill, K. (2005). Good governance and market-based reforms: A study of Bangladesh. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(4), 625–638.
Barbalet, J. M. (1988). Citizenship Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press.
Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
Barber, B. R. (2006). A place for us: How to make society civil and democracy strong. Hill and Wang.
Barry, B. (1967). The public interest. In A. Quinton (Ed.), Political philosophy (pp. 112–126). Oxford University Press.
Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322–330.
Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Bok, D. (2010). The politics of happiness: What government can learn from the new research on well-being. Princeton University Press.
Bovaird, T. E., & Löffler, E. (Eds.). (2009). Public management and governance. Routledge
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. Wiley.
Campbell, J. L., Hollingsworth, J. R., & Lindberg, L. N. (1991). Governance of the American economy. Cambridge University Press.
Carson, L., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2005). Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries, polls, and forums. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 120–138). Jossey-Bass.
Cho, S. (2005). Rethinking the concept of governance. In: A paper presented at the winter conference held of the Korean Public Administration Association, Seoul, Korea (Korean).
Choi, B. (2002). Governance and citizen participation. In S. Kim, I. Kang, J. Kim, J. Kang, B. MOON, J. Y. Lee, J. H. Lee, T. Yoon, B. Choi, H. Park, & W. Chae (Eds.), Understanding governance (pp. 246–252). Daeyoung Publishing (Korean).
Crawford, G. (2006). The World Bank and good governance: Rethinking the state or consolidating neo-liberalism? In A. Paloni & M. Zanardi (Eds.), The IMF, World Bank and policy reform (pp. 109–134). Routledge.
Conover, P. J. (1991). Political socialization: Where’s the politics? Political science: Looking to the future (Vol. 3, pp. 124–152).
Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. CQ Press.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. M. E. Sharpe.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
De Sario, J., & Langton, S. (1987). Citizen participation and technocracy. In J. De Sario & S. Langton (Eds.), Citizen participation in public decision making (pp. 3–18). Greenwood Press.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2019). Well-Being interventions to improve societies. In J. Sachs, R. Layard, & J. F. Helliwell (Eds.), Global happiness and wellbeing policy report 2019 (pp. 95–110). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Duley, J. S. (1981). Field experience education. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities and a changing society (pp. 600–613). Jossey-Bass.
European Commission. (2001). European governance—A white paper. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf
Galston, W. A. (1988). Liberal virtues. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1277–1290.
Ghose, R. (2005). The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance. Space and Polity, 9(1), 61–75.
Graham, J., Bruce, A., & Tim P. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Policy Brief No.15. https://www.academia.edu/2463793/Principles_for_good_governance_in_the_21st_century. Accessed May 2, 2020.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174–1185.
Greenberg, E. S. (Ed.). (1983). The American political system: A radical approach. Little, Brown & Co.
Gyford, J. (1991). Citizens, consumers, and councils: Local government and the public. MacMillan Education Ltd.
Heinrich, C. J., Lynn Jr, L. E., & Milward, H. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(suppl_1), i3-i19.
Helliwell, J. F., Sachs, J. D., Adler, A., Bin Bishr, A., de Neve, J. E., Durand, M., ... & Seligman, M. (2019). How to open doors to happiness. In J. D. Sachs, A. Adler, A. B. Bishr, dN. Jan-Emmanuel, M. Durand, E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard, & M. Seligman. Global happiness and wellbeing policy report 2019 (pp. 9–26). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Hyden, G., Court, J. (2002). Governance and development: Sorting out the basics. World Governance Survey Discussion Paper 1. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/4094.pdf Accessed May 2, 2020.
IMF. (1996, September 29). Communiqué of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund. Press release no. 96/49.
Jessop, B. (1997). The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: Preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance. In A. Amin & J. Hausner (Eds.), Beyond market and hierarchy: Interactive governance and social complexity (pp. 95–128). Edward Elgar.
Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2008). Governance indicators: Where are we, where should we be going? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(1), 1–30.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2007. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6870. Accessed May 2, 2020.
Kiely, R. (1998). Neoliberalism revised? A critical account of World Bank conceptions of good governance and market friendly intervention. International Journal of Health Services, 28(4), 683–702.
Kim, E. (2011). Local good governance: A research framework. Journal of Korean Politics, 20(2), 209–234. (Korean).
Kim, M. (2005). Local governance and residents’ political participation. Korean Society and Public Administration, 16(3), 325–347. (Korean).
Kim, S., Kang, I., Kim, J., Kang, J., Moon, B., Lee, J. Y., Lee, J. H., Yoon, T., Choi, B., Park, H., & Chae, W. (2002). Understanding governance. Daeyoung Publishing (Korean).
Kjær, A. M. (2004). Governance. Polity.
Knight, B., Ghigudu, H., & Tandon, R. (2002). Reviving democracy: Citizens at the heart of governance. Earthscan.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Sage.
Landell-Mills, P., & Serageldin, I. (1991). Governance and the external factor. In Proceedings of the World Bank annual conference on development economics. World Bank.
Lee, J. (2002a). Formation and governance. Journal of Governmental Studies, 8(1): 3–91. (Korean).
Lee, M. (2002b). Review article: Conceptualizing governance: Governance as social coordination. Korean Public Administration Review, 36(4), 321–339. (Korean).
Lee, S. J. (2004). Policy diffusion in local governments and time: A case study on local acts for administrative information disclosure. Journal of Local Government Studies, 16(1), 5–25. (Korean).
Lee, S. J. (2016). Introduction: From process-based governance paradigm to goal-based governance paradigm. Korean Public Administration Review, 50(4), 1–10. (Korean).
Lee, S. J., & Kim, H. (2018). The theory of citizen participation. Parkyoungsa (Korean).
Lee, S. J., & Oh, Y. (2013). National happiness and government 3.0: Understanding and application. Hakjisa (Korean).
Lee, S. J., & Yoon, D. (2005). Conceptualizing the capacity of local governments. Journal of Local Government Studies, 17(3), 5–24. (Korean).
Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2010). Has governance eclipsed government? In R. F. Durant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 669–690). Oxford University Press.
Manasan, R. G., Gaffud, R., & Gonzalez, E. T. (1999). Indicators of good governance: Developing an index of governance quality at the LGU level (No. 1999–04). PIDS (Philippine Institute for Development Studies) Discussion Paper Series. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/187390/1/pidsdps9904.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2020.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. Free Press.
Mathews, D. (1999). Politics for people: Finding a responsible public voice. University of Illinois Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American Psychologist, 28(1), 1–14.
Minogue, M., Polidano, C., & Hulme, D. (1998). Introduction: The analysis of public management and governance. In M. Minogue, C. Polidano, & D. Hulme (Eds.), Beyond the new public management: Changing ideas and practices in governance (pp. 1–14). Edward Elgar.
Mirabile, R. J. (1997). Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training & Development, 51(8), 73–78.
Mott, S. C. (1993). A Christian perspective on political thought. Oxford University Press.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernizing governance: New labour, policy and society. Sage.
Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P. D., & King, D. C. (1997). Why people don’t trust government. Harvard University Press.
O’Conner, J. (1973). The fiscal crisis of the state. St. Martin’s Press.
OECD. (2007). Glossary of statistical terms: Good governance. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7237.
Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the welfare state, J. Keane (ed.), MIT Press.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. A Plume Book.
Osborne, D., Plastrik, P., & Miller, C. M. (1998). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Political Science Quarterly, 113(1), 168–169.
Ostrom, E. (2000). The danger of self-evident truths. Political Science & Politics, 33(1), 33–46.
Peters, B. G. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. University Press of Kansas.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2012). Urban governance. In P. John, K. Mossberger, & S. E. Clarke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of urban politics (pp. 71–86). Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. St. Martin’s Press.
Ranson, S. (1988). From 1944 to 1988: Education, citizenship and democracy. Local Government Studies, 14(1), 1–19.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). Governance and public administration. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance (pp. 54–90). Oxford University Press.
Robichau, R. W. (2011). The mosaic of governance: Creating a picture with definitions, theories, and debates. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 113–131.
Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E. O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge University Press.
Rothstein, B. (2012). Good governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 143–154). Oxford University Press.
Schachter, H. L. (1995). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: Two models for improving government performance. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 530–537.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002a). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002b). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Anchor Books.
Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3–38). Cambridge University Press.
Smith, B. C. (2007). Good governance and development. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Sparrow, P. R. (1996). Competency based pay too good to be true. People Management, 22–25.
Stanton, T. K. (1983). Field study: Information for faculty. Human Ecology Field Study Office, Cornell University.
Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. Jossey-Bass.
Stein, R. M. (1990). Urban alternatives: Public and private markets in the provision of local services. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Stoker, G. (2000). Urban political science and the challenge of urban governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Suttles, G. D. (1969). The social order of the slum: Ethnicity and territory in the inner city. University of Chicago Press.
The Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighborhood: The report of the commission on global governance. Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (1997). Human Development Report.
United Nations. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. Oxford University Press.
Van Doeveren, V. (2011). Rethinking good governance: Identifying common principles. Public Integrity, 13(4), 301–318.
Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795–814.
World Bank. (1989) Sub-Saharan Africa: From crisis to sustainable growth. A long-term perspective study. World Bank.
World Bank. (1992). Governance and development. World Bank.
World Bank. (1994). Governance: The World Bank’s experience. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-2804-2 Accessed March 17, 2009.
Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273–285.
Yates, D. (1977). The ungovernable city: The politics of urban problems and policy making. MIT Press.
Yoo, M. (2012). Public administration. Pakyounsa. (Korean)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee (2022). The Factors of a Successful Happiness Policy. In: Public Happiness. Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89643-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89643-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89642-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89643-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)