한국지방행정연구원

The measures and methods for addressing social issues under the leadership of the central government are characterized by universality and expertise. However, policy issues in modern society are typically complex and ill-structured, which has led South Korea to continuously work toward transferring central authority to local governments so that local communities can autonomously solve their various regional problems.
Nevertheless, the issue of concentrated power in the central government continues to be raised. Despite ongoing efforts to decentralize, both the central government and locals governments have made limited progress in actively transferring responsibilities. There are even ongoing doubts about the effectiveness of decentralization.
This study aims to evaluate South Korea's decentralization policies, identify the issues that arise from various perspectives, and explore directions for implementing more effective decentralization policies. The main research findings are summarized as follows:
The evaluation model for decentralization policies was developed based on the considerations at each stage of the decentralization process. In particular, to evaluate the decentralization policy, six criteria were established: economic deregulation, enhancement of local government employees’ capabilities, improvement of efficiency, promotion of local autonomy, enhancement of appropriateness, and securing responsiveness. These criteria were used to derive an evaluation index for the decentralization policy.
Applying this decentralization policy evaluation model, the study analyzed the problems associated with decentralization policies at each policy stage. The results revealed similar issues in both metropolitan and local governments.
First, from a procedural perspective, several issues were identified, including the insufficiency of financial measures, problems arising from the delegation of administrative tasks with an executional nature, concerns regarding expertise, difficulties in timely decentralization, and a tendency to focus on unit-based task delegation.
On the outcome side, decentralization policies generally received positive evaluations. In particular, respondents expressed strong support for the validity of decentralization across all methods. They also noted a significant increase in the interest of administrative entities due to decentralization.
Third, from an impact perspective, it was highlighted that policies which fail to consider regional characteristics may actually exacerbate regional disparities. Therefore, careful scrutiny is needed in implementing such policies. It was also suggested that local governments should be granted greater autonomy to independently carry out the powers and responsibilities that have been decentralized to them.
When comparing the evaluation indices for decentralization policies by function, it was found that the decentralization evaluation index varied across different functions. Additionally, the evaluation indices for both uniform and differentiated decentralization methods differed depending on whether the decentralization was for metropolitan or local governments.
In particular, areas directly affecting residents' lives had higher decentralization evaluation indices, and uniform decentralization was found to be more effective in these areas. On the other hand, for functions that require more reflection of regional characteristics, differentiated decentralization was found to be more effective.
Finally, a dynamic analysis aimed at exploring ways to enhance the performance and impact of decentralization policies, as well as to strengthen feedback loops, revealed that the effectiveness of decentralization policies could be reduced if resistance from central administrative agencies and delays in financial support for local governments occur. Furthermore, scenario analysis based on key policy tools showed that the most effective means for achieving notable policy outcomes and impacts were: promoting decentralization policies, strengthening local government efforts for differentiated decentralization, enhancing fiscal decentralization efforts, and controlling resistance to decentralization policies from central administrative agencies.
Based on the above discussion, the following institutional recommendations are proposed: First, a flexible decentralization approach that reflects regional conditions and the characteristics of tasks should be considered. Second, decentralization policies should focus on functions rather than individual tasks. To achieve this, legal provisions that allow for comprehensive delegation of powers should be established. Third, efforts to establish financial measures during the early stages of decentralization and to strengthen fiscal decentralization should be prioritized. However, financial support should be viewed as a tool to establish a foundation for smooth decentralization, rather than as an end in itself. Fourth, the decentralization policy evaluation index can be used as a means to measure the effectiveness of decentralization policies in South Korea. However, follow-up studies are needed to address the limitations of the current evaluation index, which is based on perception surveys.
And the Operational Recommendations are proposed: First, systematic management measures for post-decentralization tasks should be developed. Until now, there has been no attention given to the tasks or responsibilities transferred to local governments. Therefore, a system should be established to closely evaluate post-decentralization activities, ensuring that decentralization policies move in the right direction. Second, there is a need to strengthen the capabilities of local governments, particularly in terms of expertise. To support this, continuous efforts, such as consulting and training programs, should be explored to enhance the capacity of local governments.