정부 정책효과 측정에 대한 개선방안 연구 = A Study for Improving the Policy Outcome Measurements of the Korean Central Government

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This research is intended to examine the Korean government's performance evaluation system and suggest policy recommendations to enhance its efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability. Since the Framework Act on Government Performance Evaluation was enacted in 2006, the Korean government has considered policy performance as being an important criterion in evaluating its public policy and service. However there have been some criticisms that the measurement and evaluation of policy outcomes is still insufficient, mainly due to the conceptual ambiguity of performance measurement (and policy outcomes) and the inadequacies of a performancecentered system. Therefore, there is a growing necessity for a systematic policy outcome measurement and evaluation process.
In order to accomplish this, this research has three specific purposes. First, it illustrates and suggests multilateral improvements for measurements of government performance by analyzing the government's policy outcome measurements. Second, it analyzes and diagnoses the current central government's evaluation system and describes improvements for those measurements. thereby contributing to the establishment and management of an efficient government performance evaluation system. Third, it assists in the development of public policy regarding a government performance evaluation system, and proposes policy directions and measurements to establish and manage a more efficient performance measurement system focused on policy outcomes.
The scope of the research includes the central government's entire evaluation system under the Korean government’s performance evaluation system. It consists of a three-part analysis that is, the analysis of the status of the Korean system, cases studies of foreign countries, and an analysis consisting of surveys and in-depth interviews. First, it diagnoses and analyzes the current status of the Korean government’s performance measurement system according to the analysis criteria of policy outcome measurements, which are drawn from the literature on Korea and other countries' government performance and policy outcomes. The analysis covers 22 governmental ministries' policy evaluation documents and reports across various policy areas and stages―for example, policy planning, making, implementation, and results.
The second analysis examines the measurement and analysis of policy performances and outcomes in three foreign countries, including the United States, the United Kingdoms, and Australia. In particular, the case studies investigate a variety of research methods ―for example, experimental design analysis, quasi-experimental design analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and value-for-money analysis. The research methods are widely and frequently adopted in measuring and analyzing policy performance and outcomes by many countries and international institutions.
Third, for this research surveys and in-depth interviews were conducted targeting 100 public officials and 114 external experts, in order to assess their awareness of the overall status and level of government policy outcome measurement and analysis. Additionally, whether there was a difference in the level of awareness between these two groups was also measured. Based on the analysis results, it finds out what issues and drawbacks there are in the current governmental system of policy outcome measurement and evaluation, and draws and suggests improvement of measurements in a multilateral and synthetic way.
This research proposes a variety of measurements for improving the government policy outcome measurement system with regards to three aspects, that is, the agents of system of evaluation (who), evaluation targets and content (what), and evaluation methods (how). In particular this research recommends 1) strengthening the capabilities of evaluation agents and the systematic connection of evaluation system (e.g. introducing a monitoring and evaluation system, developing policy outcome measurement education programs, enhancing expertise in policy outcome evaluation, installing a policy outcome sub-committee, establishing a governance for mid- to long-term policy outcome measurement and evaluation, etc.), 2) re-establishing evaluation targets and enhancing the specificity and systemicity of evaluated items (e.g. setting up a mid- to long-term road map, segmenting the measurement and evaluation of policy outcomes, suggesting a framework for mid- to long-term expected policy outcomes, enhancing connectivity between policy plans and evaluation reports, making and utilizing policy impact reports, etc.) and 3) standardizing and systematizing evaluation methods (e.g. establishing evaluation criteria on policy outcomes, introducing a performance information system on policy outcomes, standardizing economic analysis methods, utilizing stakeholder-centered qualitative analysis methods, utilizing a policy outcome grading system based on expert interviews, making the analysis of policy outcome factors mandatory, developing and utilizing a policy outcome measurement manual, establishing a manual monitoring system, etc.). They are presented in two dimensions, short-term and mid- to long-term improvement measurements.