[The Editors' Verdict] Why Active Administration Is Difficult

Seong-Yeop Lee, Professor at Korea University Graduate School of Technology Management and Director of the Technology Law Policy Center

The impact of administration on the daily lives of citizens today is immense in both scale and scope, ranging from the approval of massive national projects to various regulations for infectious disease prevention. While there is a moral imperative for public officials to actively engage in solving social problems, in reality, fear of audits and disciplinary actions often leads to complacency and passive administration. To address this, the government has established institutional solutions.

First, there are the Audit Board’s active administration exemption rules and prior consulting system. Introduced in 2008 and codified in the Audit Board Act in 2015, the exemption rules relieve individuals under audit from disciplinary or reprimand demands if they have actively handled their duties for the public good, such as improving unreasonable regulations, without intentional or gross negligence.

The prior consulting system, introduced in January 2019, allows public officials facing difficulties in decision-making due to interpretation issues of regulations or guidelines during active administration to seek the Audit Board’s opinion in advance. If the work is carried out according to the Audit Board’s consulting opinion, it is considered to meet the exemption criteria, and no disciplinary or status-related responsibility such as warnings is imposed.

In May 2019, as a legal basis for active administration, presidential decrees introduced the Active Administration Operation Regulations and Active Administration Operation Guidelines. According to these regulations, “active administration” refers to acts by public officials who actively handle their duties based on creativity and expertise for the public interest, such as improving unreasonable regulations. “Passive administration” refers to acts where public officials infringe on citizens’ rights or cause national financial losses through inaction or neglect of duty. Each ministry forms an Active Administration Committee and implements awards for active public officials, institutionalizing active administration.

However, practical results still seem insufficient compared to the ideal legal framework. There are several reasons for this. First is the difference in perspectives with the political sphere. A recent example is the differing views between the financial authorities and politicians regarding the recipients of COVID-19 disaster relief funds. From the public officials’ standpoint, this could be seen as passive administration causing financial losses due to neglect of duty. Second, conflicts of interest between ministries are a factor. Recently, multiple ministries have competed for leadership over online platform regulations and online video service (OTT) policies. This may correspond to a type of passive administration under the guidelines, where actions are taken arbitrarily prioritizing one’s own organization or interests rather than public convenience. Third, the still high barriers of existing legal systems remain. For example, the MyData project, which has been suspended due to shareholder eligibility issues, falls under this category.

Nevertheless, there are visible achievements. For instance, the regulatory sandbox can be seen as an outcome of active administration, as it involves actively interpreting and applying regulations in response to environmental changes such as new technology development. Also, the Ministry of Science and ICT’s net neutrality guidelines, introduced as a successful conflict management case by OTT stakeholders at the recent 4th Industrial Revolution Committee conference, represent active administration by handling work through proactive conflict resolution in situations of conflicting interests according to the guidelines.

Active administration is a system that directly and faithfully implements the constitutional provision that public officials are servants of the entire people and accountable to the citizens. It is hoped that active administration will be further revitalized by overcoming differences in perspectives with the political sphere, inter-ministerial conflicts of interest, and barriers of existing legal systems.

Seong-Yeop Lee, Professor at Korea University Graduate School of Technology Management and Director of the Technology Law Policy Center

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.