Book contents
- Political Patronage in Asian Bureaucracies
- Political Patronage in Asian Bureaucracies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Patronage in Asian Political Systems
- Part I One-Party Dominated Systems
- Part II Two-Party/Multi-Party Systems
- 5 Patronage Appointment in Japanese Politics
- 6 Patronage in Mongolia
- 7 Loyalty or Expertise? The Practice of Political Patronage in Taiwan
- 8 Political Appointments in South Korea
- 9 Patronage Appointments in the Philippine Public Service
- Part III Autocracies
- Index
- References
8 - Political Appointments in South Korea
from Part II - Two-Party/Multi-Party Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2023
Book contents
- Political Patronage in Asian Bureaucracies
- Political Patronage in Asian Bureaucracies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- 1 Patronage in Asian Political Systems
- Part I One-Party Dominated Systems
- Part II Two-Party/Multi-Party Systems
- 5 Patronage Appointment in Japanese Politics
- 6 Patronage in Mongolia
- 7 Loyalty or Expertise? The Practice of Political Patronage in Taiwan
- 8 Political Appointments in South Korea
- 9 Patronage Appointments in the Philippine Public Service
- Part III Autocracies
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter provides a brief account of political appointments in the South Korean government, with a particular attention to presidential appointments. We also demonstrate why appointments of cabinet ministers warrant further scholarly attention. Then, we assess presidential appointments of ministers in an empirical manner. In the analytical section of the chapter, we first describe in detail how we have constructed a novel dataset. In presenting the analysis results, we first describe major demographic characteristics of the country’s past cabinet ministers and illustrate their major career paths prior to their ministerial appointments. We also categorize the past appointments into the six types of political patronage per Peters’ typology. Our findings reveal that, in South Korea, programmatic technocrats are the dominant group of presidential appointees regardless of regime and ministry. Among those programmatic technocrats, nearly half are former bureaucrats. Our findings also suggest that, while the vast majority of the South Korean ministers are programmatic technocrats, there are some notable differences across regimes and ministries.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Political Patronage in Asian Bureaucracies , pp. 183 - 198Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2000). In the Web of Politics: Three Decades of The US Federal Executive. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Berlinski, S., Dewan, T., & Dowding, K. (2007). The length of ministerial tenure in the United Kingdom, 1945–97. British Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 245–262.Google Scholar
Choi, S. J. (2020). Korean civil service systems from recruitment to retirement. In Moon, C. I., & Moon, M. J. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Korean Politics and Public Administration. Routledge.Google Scholar
Choi, S. O., & Park, S. M. (2013). The Establishment of Career Civil Service System in the Korean Government. Ministry of Strategy and Finance.Google Scholar
Dewan, T., & Dowding, K. (2005). The corrective effect of ministerial resignations on government popularity. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 46–56.Google Scholar
Durant, R. (1992). The American President Revisited. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Evans, P., & Rauch, J. E. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765.Google Scholar
Haggard, S., Kang, D., & Moon, C. I. (1997). Japanese colonialism and Korean development: A critique. World Development, 25(6), 867–881.Google Scholar
Hahm, S. D., Jung, K., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). Exploring the determinants of the entry and exit of ministers in Korea: 1980–2008. Governance, 26(4), 657–675.Google Scholar
HollibaughJr, G. E., Horton, G., & Lewis, D. E. (2014). Presidents and patronage. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1024–1042.Google Scholar
Hong, S., & Kim, Y. (2019). Loyalty or competence: Political use of performance information and negativity bias. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 829–840.Google Scholar
Huber, J. D., & Martinez-Gallardo, C. (2008). Replacing cabinet ministers: Patterns of ministerial stability in parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 169–180.Google Scholar
Kim, B. H., & Hong, S. (2019). Political change and turnovers: How do political principals consider organizational, individual, and performance information? Public Choice, 181(3), 291–308.Google Scholar
Kim, B. K. (1987). Bringing and Managing Socioeconomic Change: The State in Korea and Mexico. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kim, P. S. (2004). Presidential personnel innovation for presidential appointees in Korea: toward an institutional presidency. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 24(3), 235–246.Google Scholar
Kim, P. S. (2009). A case for performance management for political appointees. Public Personnel Management, 38(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohli, A. (1994). Where do high growth political economies come from? The Japanese lineage of Korea’s “developmental state”. World Development, 22(9), 1269–1293.Google Scholar
Krause, G. A., & O’Connell, A. J. (2011). Compliance, competence, and bureaucratic leadership in US federal government agencies: A Bayesian generalized latent trait analysis. Working paper.Google Scholar
Lee, S. Y., Jae Moon, M., & Hahm, S. D. (2010). Dual faces of ministerial leadership in South Korea: Does political responsiveness or administrative responsibility enhance perceived ministerial performance? Administration & Society, 42(1_suppl), 77S–101S.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. E. (2011). Presidential appointments and personnel. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 47–66.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. E., & Waterman, R. W. (2013). The invisible presidential appointments: An examination of appointments to the department of labor, 2001–11. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In Chubb, J. E. & Peterson, P. E. (Eds.), The New Direction in American Politics (pp. 235–271). Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. P., & Roberts, A. S. (2010). The triumph of loyalty over competence: The Bush administration and the exhaustion of the politicized presidency. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 572–581.Google Scholar
Ouyang, Y., Haglund, E. T., & Waterman, R. W. (2017). The missing element: Examining the loyalty‐competence nexus in presidential appointments. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 62–91.Google Scholar
Park, S., & Kim, B. S. (2014). Who is appointed to what position? The politics of appointment in quangos of Korea. Public Organization Review, 14(3), 325–351.Google Scholar
Pfiffner, J. P. (1996). The Strategic Presidency: Hitting the Ground Running (2nd ed.). University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Poocharoen, O. O., & Brillantes, A. (2013). Meritocracy in Asia Pacific: Status, issues, and challenges. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(2), 140–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rho, S. Y., and Lee, S. J. (2017) History and context of public administration in South Korea. In Berman, E. M. (Ed.), Public Administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (pp. 329–354). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sundell, A. (2014). Are formal civil service examinations the most meritocratic way to recruit civil servants? Not in all countries. Public Administration, 92(2), 440–457.Google Scholar
Waterman, R. W. (1989). Presidential Influence and the Administrative State. University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. (1994). Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Westview Press.Google Scholar