중앙부처 민간위탁 종합평가 방안 연구 = Policy Alternatives for Comprehensive Evaluation of Central Government Contracting Out

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to devise a way to evaluate central government contracting out comprehensively. In previous studies, it has been pointed out that contracting out has been conducted indiscriminately by the central government, resulting in the tragic Sewol ferry disaster in part. Therefore, it is necessary to manage contracting out systematically at a governmental level. Comprehensive evaluation of central government contracting out, as provided in Article 21 of the “bill on the contracting out of administrative affairs,” which is expected to be passed by the National Assembly, should be a means for this systemic management.
This study utilizes literature review, expert seminars, the Delphi method, and in-depth interviews with public officials who are responsible for contracting out in executive branches. This study explores not only the theoretical context of contracting out, but also the statements of both critics and proponents of contracting out.
This study examines the performance and issues related to cases of contracting out carried out by the central government through conducting in-depth interviews with public officials who are in charge of contracting out and by reviewing related literature.
In this research, a model for comprehensive evaluation consists of 3 categories: ① Institutions and systems of governance to perform comprehensive evaluation, ② criteria and indicators to perform comprehensive evaluation, and ③ methods through which to make use of the results of comprehensive evaluation.
Policy directions for improving the central government’s contracting out system are as follows: ① Insourcing, or bringing administrative affairs related to the rights or safety of the people which have been contracted out back in-house, ② establishing an external professional organization, and ③ researching the actual conditions of central government contracting out.
The study suggests policy alternatives for evaluating central government contracting out comprehensively in terms of institutions and systems of governance, criteria, and indicators. In addition, a methodology for the practical application of the results of this comprehensive evaluation are proposed to secure valid evaluation.
The policy alternatives of comprehensive evaluation in terms of institutions and governance are divided into two categories. ① Alternative (1): to conduct a meta-evaluation focused on evaluating administrative departments and ministries which contract out government services, and ② Alternative (2): to conduct evaluations focused on evaluating agencies which are given in trust and administrative affairs which are contracted out.
Alternative (1) is a proposed short-term alternative while alternative (2) is a proposed long-term alternative. The criteria according to the short-term alternative are presented as follows.
Common criteria of a comprehensive evaluation by alternative (1) are ① the propriety of the selection process for administrative affairs that will be contracted out, ② the propriety of the selection process of agencies which are given in trust, ③ the propriety of the performance evaluation, management, and supervision, ④ the propriety of the establishment of a definite period of time for the reexamination of legal consignments, and the propriety of the reexamination of legal consignments. Criteria for meta-evaluation by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety are ① the faithfulness of the content of self-evaluations reported by administrative departments and agencies engaged in contracting out, ② the propriety of the process of self-evaluations reported by administrative departments and agencies engaged in contracting out, and ③ the managerial and oversight capacities of administrative departments and agencies engaged in contracting out.