2011 EAI Special Report

 

'National Agenda' refers to a government's innovation or execution plan for a specific policy to conduct state affairs in a desirable manner. A government suggests a specific policy objective by setting a national agenda, which enables a better prediction of economic or social agencies. A specified reform plan also strengthens both internal and external trust and guarantees an effective allocation of resources by reviewing the government's priorities.

 

A government, in its early days, sets the national agenda and vision by reflecting its ideal state. The Roh Moo-hyun administration started out in 2003 by setting 12 national agendas to support its goals, which included "participatory democracy, balanced social development and peace and prosperity in the era of Northeast Asia." The Lee Myung-bak adminstration established its vision to achieve "well-off citizens, a tolerant society and strong government," and set its major five national indexes as "a government that serves the people, a lively market economy, active welfare, a country rich in talent and global Korea." The government also initiated Presidential Committees to carry out such agendas, and several institutions for planning, support and research were already in operation.

 

Along with the efforts made by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security on behalf of the President, the National Assembly also plays a crucial role in setting and executing national agendas. The primary role of the assembly is to detect agenda items that reflect public opinion and to draw up a bill accordingly. For a national agenda to develop into a policy and be systematically carried out, it requires a sufficient legal foundation and therefore against this backdrop the role of the National Assembly is emphasized. In this regard, the political direction that the members of the Assembly express regarding the national agenda becomes a critical base for carrying out a good policy that sufficiently reflects the needs of the public. The government and the National Assembly, both the main agents responsible for setting and executing the national agenda, should not merely list policies nor suggest abstract and sensational agendas. A national agenda must be consistent, easy to integrate with larger goals and clear about its priorities.

 

However, even an effective national agenda set with an attentive consideration of various possibilities may not produce the anticipated outcomes if it fails to obtain a national consensus or its priorities are blurred over time causing confusion in the execution process. In particular, a low awareness among citizens on the national agenda or governmental efforts for innovation has been criticized over the years. Such realities deter the development of a national agenda and related policies, because support and trust can only be obtained when the citizens positively acknowledge a certain policy. Therefore, public interaction is crucial in guaranteeing constructive outcomes for the national agenda. In this sense, meaningful efforts should be made to take into account the diverse interests of the public in the agenda setting process, and to avoid conflict. The inevitable disparity between what the public considers to be of immediate concern and the priorities of the government and National Assembly must also be recognized.

 

This research conducted a survey on not only the public but groups of Assembly members and specialists to determine "Korea's National Agenda" which the general public can relate to. Participants were asked to rank three core policy subjects from a selection of fields, through which this research aimed to assess the differences among each group regarding political preference. The survey was composed of 13 items including residence, education, social bipolarization, low birth rates, aging society, multiculturalism and human rights, administration and decentralization, scientific technology, constitutionalism and democracy, political reform, economic growth, environment and resource preservation. Items were categorized into either "economic (or material) values" or "social values (or ideologies)" to analyze the differences in areas of interest among groups. The general public group was comprised of 1,000 men and women over the age of 19, with 136 politicians and civil servants forming the politicians group, and 300 scholars including political scientists and administrators forming the specialists group. This study aims to identify the issues regarding eight core political fields: political institutions and governance, decentralization and the restructuring of administrative areas, national competitiveness and regulations, employment and labor, welfare, education, multiculturalism and human rights, and the environment. Additionally, this study seeks to analyze relevant public opinion and draw policy implications.

 

1. Political Institutions and Governance

 

Institutional reform and constitutional amendment are the main national agenda terms of the political institutions and governance issues. Adjusting electoral districts and expanding the proportional representation system, along with issues of power structure, such as presidential system versus the cabinet system, unitary system versus federal system, public recommendation, the presidential term of office have been the focus of the debate on political reform. Nonetheless, a survey conducted on three groups consisting of the general public, politicians, and specialists asking their priorities on core policy tasks showed different results. The general public ranked political institutional reform as their seventh priority, politicians ranked it as the sixth, while scholars ranked it as their eighth. Constitutionalism and democracy came in as the eleventh, ninth, and fourth priority, respectively. This reveals the decline of citizens' interest in political institutions following the stabilization of democracy. Although all three groups preferred constitutional amendment over maintaining the status quo, politicians were the most in favor.

 

When asked whether they suppported an expansion of the proportional representation system with the reform of the constituency system, the general public held a more negative view than politicians. Between a single-member constituency system and a multiple-member constituency system, the public favored the former while politicians and specialists favored the latter. Such a weakened perception on the importance of political reform can be understood as a result of the judicialization of politics and the diminished role of citizens. To recover from such side effects in today's highly diverged society, there must be an active transition from a majoritarian democracy that demands the sacrifice of the minority, to a consensus-based democracy that respects social minorities.

 

2. Decentralization and Restructuring of Administrative Districts

 

The most important governmental tasks in the category of decentralization and restructuring of administrative districts are the reform of the local administrative system and the expansion of the local public budget. While the former represents the structure of local government, the latter is what makes the government function properly. Thus, wisely managing these two is the key toward achieving decentralization and local autonomy. Administration and decentralization, however, ranked low in priority as core policy tasks. The likely reason is that, just as with political institutional reform, the general public is not sensitive to constituent policies such as the restructuring of administrative districts and decentralization. As a policy issue, the public showed a strong opinion on maintaining the current administrative districts. On the other hand, politicians and specialists supported restructuring. In this situation, if the reorganization of local administrative areas were to be hastily executed, politicians are likely to face opposition. They should, therefore, inform the public of the necessity of the restructuring and find a way to satisfy local residents and achieve administrative efficiency at the same time. On decentralization, all three groups supported a gradual process based on the capacity of each region. The public particularly showed a passive attitude towards decentralization. Hence, it is crucial to first resolve the local governments' financial difficulties. Even though the central government should be determined to expand local budget, local governments also need to eliminate financial hazards. Yet, the reform of the administrative system and expansion of local budget do not guarantee local autonomy. In addition to decentralization, local residents should independently deal with public affairs. In order to ensure a democratic and efficient administration in the 21st century, participatory administration of the citizens and the government must first be rooted within local communities.

 

3. National Competitiveness and Regulations

 

A reform of national regulations is crucial in deciding the means and the scope of government intervention in the market, to restrict the actions of individuals and businesses and achieve social order and national competitiveness. In general, the public, politicians and specialists supported market-oriented reform over strengthened regulations. They preferred measures that invigorate the market, such as support for business growth, for the sake of creating jobs. Nevertheless, in terms of real estate regulation, they generally agreed that an appropriate degree of regulation and governmental supervision are needed for an effective use of national territory. While the public believed that public enterprises that suffer from lax management and inefficiency should be privatized, politicians and specialists supported more governmental control. Regarding online regulations, politicians, the public and specialists all favored a guaranteed freedom among users over government supervision and regulation. On the issue of scientific technology and ethics, all three groups supported enhanced competitiveness in biotechnology-related areas rather than ethical regulations. Such results indicate that in the regulatory field, the perception of policy direction differs greatly depending on each case. Thus, in policy issues where disparities are evident and where pros and cons clash, the reform of national regulations must be directed in a way as to form a consensus among the public and to strengthen national competitiveness.

 

4. Employment and Labor

 

After the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, a social consensus was formed around the importance of creating jobs. The major issues in this area are flexibility of the labor market, deferred retirement, and youth unemployment that all involve a complex web of interests. Among them, not only the general public, but also politicians and specialists considered unemployment to be a major policy area that Korean society should deal with over the next decade. The results of the survey showed that among the general public, those that believe unemployment to be of greater importance than economic growth were in their twenties and experiencing youth unemployment, in their fifties or around the age of retirement, or more likely to be of the middle class than of the high-middle class. On the other hand, in the survey conducted on specialists and politicians on the policy issues that should be dealt as a national agenda, the two groups agreed on the importance of creating jobs. However, scholars ranked creating jobs as its first priority and youth unemployment and discrimination of temporary employees as fifth and seventh, respectively. Politicians ranked creating jobs as the second priority, and youth unemployment and the problem of discrimination of temporary employees as third and thirteenth. This showed a perception gap between the two groups. Specifically, for the question on youth employment versus deferred retirement, the general public preferred deferred retirement while scholars preferred early retirement. However, politicians showed a weak preference for either option. Also, for the question on labor flexibility versus labor rights protection, the general public supported labor flexibility while specialists chose a strengthened protection of labor rights. Among the politicians, the ruling party preferred labor flexbility while the opposition party supported a better protection of labor rights. A comprehensive and socioeconomic approach to the policies of this area is critical in dealing with such policy issues of complex interests. In addition, efforts must be made to promote employment among the most vulnerable class and earn the trust and support of the public.

 

5. Welfare

 

As polarization of income and property widens the gap between classes, the importance of welfare is increasing. Major issues in welfare are determining the welfare budget, applying universal welfare and selective welfare according to its recipients, and collecting funds to increase the welfare budget. According to the results of the survey conducted among politicians and specialists on the issue of welfare policy, politicians prioritized solutions for issues in the order of low birth rates, low income groups, expansion of free welfare, difficulties of the elderly (loneliness, illness and poverty), while specialists prioritized low birth rates, the low income groups, discrimination in the employment of social minorities and temporary employees, difficulties of the elderly (loneliness, illness and poverty), the prevention of bankruptcy of national pension funds and health insurance. The results of the survey showed that on universal welfare and tax increases, the public preferred selective welfare and tax decreases while politicians and scholars preferred universal welfare and tax increases. On expanding social welfare grants or promoting job training programs among the low income class, all three groups chose the latter. On aid expansion for child care or aid for child birth to counter low birth rates, the majority of the politicians chose aid expansion for child care. While the general public also preferred the aid expansion for child care, aid expansion for child birth received only 10% less support than the former. On either raising social insurance fee and reducing grants, or increasing the efficiency of agencies and preventing unlawful supplies, a high percentage of the three groups chose the latter. These results indicate that welfare issues must be resolved by increasing tax and complementing welfare services at the local level.

 

6. Multiculturalism and Human Rights

 

Despite the general consensus on the transition to a multicultural society, the necessary inflow of foreigners and the need to coexist, there is still an underlying hostility toward such issues. A survey conducted on the core policies related to this field showed that only 3% of the public, 10% of specialists and 1.5% of politicians chose multiculturalism and human rights. In addition to those working in the fishing and agricultural industry, the younger, the more liberal and the less educated the respondent was, the more likely that he or she would select a policy related to this field. All three groups agreed that the number of immigrant workers should be increased and supported a heterogeneous nation more than a homeogenous one. On human rights, all three groups supported student rights over stronger authority for teachers, the freedom of speech online over regulation, and greater flexibility in the labor market over stronger labor rights. Between the freedom of assembly and public order, 70.5% of the public and 48.5% of the politicians favored public order. This implies the need for better education on multiculturalism and human rights among the public and the development of a social index with which to measure its progress. More specifically, it is necessary to establish policies that would protect immigrant workers and refugees and expand the freedom of assembly worldwide.

 

7. Environment

 

Despite the global environmental crisis, Korean society still does not consider environmental issues to be of immediate importance. The public showed a strong interest in the environment by ranking environment and resource preservation as the fifth among the selection of policy-related fields but preferred that these issues be resolved along with economic development. On the other hand, specialists and politicians showed a much lower interest in the environment compared to the public. Such results reflect the social atmosphere of Korean society which turns a blind eye to environmental damage for the sake of economic recovery. Therefore, environmental issues may be dealt with through the expansion of green values, changes in national organizations and the decision making process, better international cooperation, and proactive participation of civil society as global citizens.

 

The results of the research indicate a vast difference among the public, politicians and specialists on what they perceive to be important national agendas. The public acknowledged every policy issue to have similar importance while politicians and specialists emphasized only certain issues. There were disparities even among the public based on age, class and ideological preferences. Conservative citizens were generally concerned about economic issues while liberalists showed interest in policies related to social issues such as welfare and labor. Politicians of different political parties also had different interests regarding the national agenda. Here, the difference in preferences among politicians and the public on policy issues signals a lack of communication, which may later lead to a lack of trust among the public and disrupt the process of conducting state affairs.

 

Developing national agendas that reflect the interests of the public through effective communication can better guarantee public support and win internal and external trust for the government. This study is significant in that it claims the establishment of a policy based on the interests of the public to be the ultimate goal of the government.