Republic of Korea Action Plan Review 2021-2023

This product consists of an IRM review of the Republic of Korea’s 2021–2023 action planAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen.... The action plan is made up of 14 of commitments, evaluated as 16 commitments in this report to reflect distinct milestones 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, and 4.2. To aidMore and better information about aid helps partner countries and donor institutions plan and manage aid resources more effectively, parliaments and civil society to hold governments accountable for t... clarity and assessment, the IRM clusters 2.1 and 2.2, as well as 4.1 and 4.2. This review analyzes the strength of the action plan to contribute to implementation and results. For commitment-by-commitment data, see Annex 1. For details regarding the methodology and indicators used by the IRM for this Action Plan Review, see Section IV: Methodology and IRM Indicators.

Overview of the 2021–2023 Action Plan

This action plan was developed through online engagement and mostly reflects government-proposed initiatives. While overall ambitionAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should “stretch government practice beyond its current baseline with respect to key areas of open government.” Ambition captures the po... is limited, the plan includes new policy areas such as participatory budgeting and social and digital inclusionPrioritizing digital inclusion — such as by expanding broadband access to remote areas or removing barriers to affordable internet — helps ensure all citizens have the opportunity to participate. .... Effective implementation will require leadership by implementing agencies and strengthened CSO participation.

The Republic of Korea joined the OGP in 2011. This report evaluates the design of the Republic of Korea’s fifth action plan. It includes 14 commitments, evaluated as 16 commitments in this report to reflect distinct milestones. The action plan is organized into three priority areas: strengthening civic space and public participationGiving citizens opportunities to provide input into government decision-making leads to more effective governance, improved public service delivery, and more equitable outcomes. Technical specificatio...; tackling corruption; and promoting inclusive digital innovation. Two commitments have substantial potential for results. Compared to the previous action plan, commitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action... design reflects greater specificity. To aid clarity and assessment, this report clusters commitments related to social inclusion (2.1 and 2.2) and participatory budgeting (4.1 and 4.2).

This action plan was developed through online engagement and mostly reflects government-proposed initiatives. Through the public consultation process, the government received 140 proposals that were later reviewed by the Open Government Forum Korea (OGFK), the country’s multistakeholder forum. However, most of the final commitments were suggested by government agencies. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all OGFK activities were conducted online.[1] Budget and time for deliberation were some of the challenges that affected the inclusion of more CSO proposals on the final plan. The OGFK mandate did not ensure strong participation by implementing agencies. Recently, the OGFK institutional framework was upgraded from the ministerial to prime ministerial level, aiming to strengthen both the implementation and co-creation processes in the current and future action plan cycles.[2]

This action plan carries forward previous commitments on open data and citizen engagement in policy making. Some potentially transformative policy areas, such as disclosing court decisions and transparent beneficial ownershipDisclosing beneficial owners — those who ultimately control or profit from a business — is essential for combating corruption, stemming illicit financial flows, and fighting tax evasion. Technical..., were left out of the action plan as the OGFK could not determine which government agencies would be responsible for implementation. In terms of emerging policy areas, the action plan introduces new commitments on social inclusion, participatory budgeting, and whistleblower protection.

The action plan offers promising opportunities for progress on participatory budgeting and whistleblower protection. Commitments 4.1 and 4.2 could substantially improve participatory budgeting processes. They could broaden the national Participatory Budgeting Citizens’ Committee and contribute to the uptake of participatory budgeting among local governments. Commitment 6 could modestly strengthen whistleblower protection by guaranteeing confidentiality and providing financial support.

Most of the action plan’s commitments have modest potential for results. Proposed initiatives like the commitment on citizen engagement in policymaking (Commitment 3) continue existing government policies, but do not clarify to what degree they intend to introduce new initiatives. For some commitments, concretizing milestones and indicators could improve potential impact. To illustrate, Commitment 9 offers a critical opportunity to institutionalize civil society engagement in policymaking, but would benefit from clearly delineating the scope and intended outcomes of the planned civil society committee and ordinance. Other commitments have weak relevanceAccording to the OGP Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should include a clear open government lens. Specifically, they should advance at least one of the OGP values: transparency, citizen partic... to OGP values. Commitment 10, for example, aims to promote digital inclusion through expanding access to internet and training on digital skills. While the commitment can contribute to other action plan initiatives, it does not directly leverage planned improvements in digital access to facilitate citizen-government engagement or access to government information.

Likewise, Commitments 2.1 and 2.2, aimed at enhancing employment of women and people with disabilitiesA government is not open unless it is accessible to all, and governments are working to ensure people with disabilities are afforded equitable services and opportunities to participate. Technical spec..., could more fully articulate their open government lens. While the commitments incorporate some information disclosure, they could strengthen opportunities for participation by focusing on mechanisms for women and people with disabilities to play an active role in policymaking. Both initiatives represent important steps to guaranteeing inclusion of these traditionally marginalized groups in the public and private sectors. The commitments’ implementation would benefit from specifying the planned methods to improve job candidates’ preparation, broaden recruitment, and ensure advancement. A working group of government ministries, participating private sectorGovernments are working to open private sector practices as well — including through beneficial ownership transparency, open contracting, and regulating environmental standards. Technical specificat... institutions, and CSOs could be fruitful in identifying barriers to recruitment or advancement of women and people with disabilities, and in offering solutions that could be tried and tested across sectors.

Commitment 11 could broaden its scope as it continues a Ministry of Interior and Safety initiative on participatory responses to local issues using science and information and communication technology (ICT). In 2020, eight local governments collaborated with CSOs on projects,[3] with ten additional projects planned under the commitment.[4] Although the commitment does not substantially expand the number of projects, it does introduce Self-Solving Groups and Living Labs as new mechanisms for participation.[5] Self-Solving Groups can include residents’ concerns in projects, while Living Labs are oriented toward promoting, applying, and spreading technology. Clearly defined roles for each of the participating groups, particularly regarding project selection, can ensure full citizen participationAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, citizen participation occurs when “governments seek to mobilize citizens to engage in public debate, provide input, and make contributions that lead to m... More in raising issues and exploring solutions. To address potential barriers to participation for vulnerable populations, the projects could incorporate CSOs that work directly with these populations.

Effective implementation of the action plan will require leadership by implementing agencies and strengthened CSO participation. To support continuity of commitments in cases of staff turnover, implementing agencies will need to ensure proper transfer of institutional knowledge about the open government process, as well as continued engagement with CSOs, communities of practice, and beneficiaries of the action plan’s initiatives.

Promising Commitments in the Republic of Korea’s 2021–2023 Action Plan

The following review looks at the three commitments that the IRM identified as having the potential to realize the most promising results. This review will inform the IRM’s research approach to assess implementation in the Results Report. The IRM Results Report will build on the early identification of potential results from this review to contrast with the outcomes at the end of the implementation period of the action plan. This review also analyzes challenges, opportunities, and recommendations to contribute to the learning and implementation process of this action plan.

Table 1. Promising commitments

[1] Government of the Republic of Korea, OGP The 5th National Action Plan 2021–2023 Korea (OGP, Jul. 2021), https://bit.ly/3zIDVN6.

[2] Min. of the Interior and Safety, questionnaire by IRM, 7 Feb. 2022.

[3] Jihwan Park (OpenNet), correspondence with IRM, 13 Feb. 2022.

[4] Min. of the Interior and Safety Public Engagement Division and Min. of Science and ICT Space and Big Science Policy Division, questionnaire by IRM, 7 Feb. 2022.

[5] Ohyeon Kweon (Code for Korea), interview by IRM, 21 Feb. 2022.