LEE Sang-Hak (Policy Committee Chairman, Transparency International Korea)
Establishing a transparent culture in our society by launching the ‘Public-Private Partnership Council on Transparent Society’ (PPP) against corruption is one of the most important tasks of our current administration. The Korean anti-corruption movement through public-private partnership measures goes a long way back in history. The most notable one would be the anti-corruption movements done by the ‘Korean Pact on Anti-Corruption & Transparency'(2005-2008), which began in 2005. As the convention gradually lost its power, other movements started to take place, such as the ones done by ‘Council for Transparent Trust Social Policy’ (2009-2012) and ‘Korean Network on Anti-Corruption and Transparency’ (2014 -2017).[1] In this context, the ‘Public-Private Partnership Council on Transparent Society’ (‘PPP Council’ from now on) was launched under the Moon Jae-In administration and has been underway for nearly two years. As of 2019, the PPP Council has adapted a dual system to operate; the Public-Private Policy Council for Transparent Society(‘Central PPP Council’ from now on for clarification) centered towards Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and the regional Public-Private Partnership Council operating under 16 metropolitan and provincial governments. In addition to this dual system, sector-specific councils, including the Council for Transparent Society of Public Enterprises, are also operating on various levels. As a result, this article will be mainly focused on suggesting measures to strengthen public-private partnership against corruption with its emphasis on Public-Private Partnership Council on Transparent Society.
Perhaps the PPP Council’s most celebrated success would be the fact that it has adopted a system of duality, being both central and regional. This system allows the PPP council to be highly effective when dealing with complicated issues regarding corruption[2] and attain its purpose of “establishing anti-corruption measures led by citizens.”[3] Furthermore, its institutional foundation composed of instructions and regulations, along with the anti-corruption projects that are taking place by public-private partnerships with various parties, could be considered as a substantial milestone. In particular, the fact that consensus of different individuals is being made through the process of developing diverse anti-corruption agendas and the discussion of the three-step process (Specialized Division – Working Council – Main Council) over the past two years bears its particular significance in South Korean society, where the importance of social dialogue among citizens was traditionally deemed weak. Further steps are also being taken to re-facilitate Convention on Transparent Society, which used to be enforced on a national level during the Roh Moo-Hyun Administration.
So far, the PPP Council could be understood as a stage where we recruit people to form groups and make various endeavors. In other words, specific activities are still taking place, although the overall blueprint has already been made. In the case of the Central PPP Council, projects are mainly being done through the process of developing and deciding upon anti-corruption policies. On the other hand, for projects of regional PPP Council, it is understood that they are mostly done by meetings, educational seminars, or discussions.
Considering the fact that the PPP Council is at the point where they must actively seek future projects, a discussion on the form and content of its projects would be necessary so that it could achieve its purpose of establishing a transparent society against corruption. Stemming from this zeitgeist, this article will strive to suggest a few measures on the next steps of PPP Council.
First and foremost, the PPP council should form an internal consensus on its value and role. Even though the PPP council is about to mark its 2nd anniversary, its members are yet to have a comprehensive understanding of their importance and purpose.[4] As a result, there would be an inevitable hardship when it comes to facilitating their projects under a weak internal consensus. To accelerate its work by forming an internal agreement, an overall discussion on its role and projects is essential through various PPP council channels such as debates and roundtables.
Second, more active communication between various PPP councils, such as central and regional, is necessary. Each PPP council of different categories, whether it be central or regional, should develop organizational structures and activities that could suit their respective characteristics. However, adequate communication between each council would be beneficial for their actions, as it would allow them to share experiences, brainstorm new ideas, and work with each other. This communicative process could be done independently by some PPP councils but also could be led by the central PPP council.
Third, the PPP council should strengthen its process of examining the implementation of already submitted policies that were devised by themselves. The policies agreed at the PPP council are reported to the Anti-Corruption Policy Consultation Council and delivered to related ministries. To enhance the effectiveness of these agreements reached the PPP council, the council should make more effort to increase the implementation rate by examining the implementation of policies delivered to other sectors, including the government.
Fourth, the PPP council should find a way to reflect citizens’ voices on the policymaking process. In addition to the opinions of the participating units in the PPP council, ordinary citizens’ opinions should be reflected in the discovery of policy agendas. To do so, opinions collected thorough surveys of each organization and the “People’s Thoughts Box,” the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission’s initiative, should be actively taken into account in the policymaking process.
Fifth, the PPP council should actively strive to facilitate its policymaking. Up until now, the central PPP council’s work was mainly focused on formulating anti-corruption policies. This was mostly done in three steps; the specialized division was setting policy agenda and formulating policy, which was later examined thorough a working-level council’s discussion and a final confirmation of the PPP council. However, some limitations remained as the specialized division could not always produce high-quality policies all by themselves. The limited number of scholars could not cover diverse sectors needing professionals, not to mention the budget limit in mobilizing external resources to produce policies.
Nonetheless, the PPP council must become the public forum to discuss anti-corruption policies. This could be done in two ways; research as many policies as possible in the specialized division and conduct active discussions in other divisions such as working-level or PPP council. In particular, the work of the specialized division that researches policy could be significantly reinforced. Needless to say, the government could also work on strengthening the role of the secretariat that supports policy research (Policy Support Division) if necessary. An active discussion in a public forum could form a firm foundation that allows an exchange of opinions to evolve into collective action.[5] Along these lines, the fact itself that various parties are participating in building anti-corruption policies would mean a lot to anti-corruption movements in general. However, this would undoubtedly require the motivation and effort of participants, not to mention the government’s support on the policies.
Sixth, the PPP council should become a central axis of collective action against corruption. Put differently, it could become a stage of different actors acting together against corruption. Law and regulations have certain limits when it comes to rooting out corruption and establishing a transparent society. Obviously, there is nothing more important than the law in anti-corruption movements. However, to create a transparent society, establishing a transparent culture against corruption in the overall society should be done as well as the obvious legal endeavors. In this sense, the PPP council could play a significant role as it could establish a social consensus.
The process of establishing anti-corruption policies and building a consensus through discussion is invaluable in itself. The PPP council’s significance could be found in the outcome of its activities, but the process could be as important as the result itself. If those outcomes could result in various participants’ actions against corruption all across the nation, it will significantly impact our society as a whole and lead South Korea on its way of becoming an advanced country of integrity.
An excellent example of this could be done in three-step; first, discuss preventing the conflict of interests in the PPP council, second, based on these opinions, build the guideline that could fit each organization’s characteristics, and to the possible extent that each participant could voluntarily fulfill, and lastly, put it into action. If the PPP council could make this happen, it would create a significant outcome that could implement the culture of preventing conflicts of interest in our society. Under this system, it would be particularly important for each participant to make guidelines to act accordingly. Additional changes could also be made if the National Assembly builds guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest among lawmakers, which would consequently be implemented and executed by lawmakers themselves.
Seventh, an active attitude of each party is essential. A transparent Korea, as well as the very purpose of the PPP council, is only achievable when various organizations of various sectors (e.g., economic, vocational, academic, media, civil, public, etc.) actively participate in PPP council’s project, propose policies, and push agendas that each sector could do. To be more specific, the active participation of civic groups is especially important.[6] The PPP council needs a strategic outlook to draw active participation from the current participants while proposing their vision or role and consider expanding the number of participants in the near future.
Last but not least, there should be a mutual understanding between the public and private on strengthening governmental roles and each party’s role.[7] There is nothing more important for a government than to make efforts on its policy with a willingness to produce substantial results in public-private partnership (PPP). The government’s willingness on its policy plays a vital role in this particular matter as some doubts still linger on the government’s actual will on anti-corruption policy through PPP and the effectiveness of PPP governance policy.[8] In addition, various efforts are also being called to enhance mutual understanding of the role between the public and private sector in PPP.
[1] You, Han-Beom. “Assessment and Solutions on Anti-Corruption Public-Private Partnership Councils: What Will Be the Next Administration’s Anti-Corruption Organ?” Citizen’s Coalition for Economic Justice et al. 2017; Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. “Masterplan for a Transparent Society,” Feb 2018.
[2]. Many international organizations, including Transparency International, consider the collective action of different parties concerned as highly crucial during the process of solving corruption issues. Quoting from Han Chang-Hee (2019 Integrity Defense Industry Seminar, 2019), “Since corruption is highly complicated, both from a socio-cultural and historical perspective (…) a single approach from a single perspective would not be very useful.”
[3] Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. “A Five-Year Comprehensive Anti-Corruption Plan,” Feb 2018.
[4] Quoting from Kim Hae-Mong (2017 Korea Integrity Conference, Network for a Transparent Society, 2017), “Instead of an authentic PPP system based on PPP philosophy (…) a plausible system only on the surface, but with varying thoughts (…)”
[5] Katz, Elihu. “Rediscovering Gabriel Tarde.” Political Communication, 23 (3), 263-270. 2006.
[6] Lee Jin-Hyung (Anti-Corruption Transparency Policy Debate, KNACT, 2018) asserts that a so-called ‘social energy’ for establishing a transparent anti-corruption culture in our society would run out when civic organizations become less dynamic, and their relationship with the government turns out distant. Ryu Hong-Beon (Anti-Corruption Transparency Policy Debate, KNACT, 2018) also emphasizes the importance of the civil society taking charge by saying, “The government-led system is likely to restrict private-led participation and exacerbates governmental dependence. It should be backed up by accountability and the leading of participating organizations.
[7] Lee, Sang-Min. “The Direction of Public-Private Cooperation to Improve Regional Transparency.” 2017 Korea Integrity Conference, Transparent Social Practice Network, 2017.
[8] Ryu Hong-Beon (Anti-Corruption Transparency Policy Debate, KNACT, 2018) raises suspicion on the government’s willingness on this particular matter since “the fact that anti-corruption policies are the current tasks of this administration might result in implementation as a mere formality.” Park Geun-Yong (Anti-Corruption Transparency Policy Debate, KNACT, 2018) agrees on this sentiment by saying that “Intervening less in the discussion in the name of ‘private autonomy’ may be an act of avoiding responsibility. It might eventually lead to only achieving the mere outcome of forming organizations while leaving out the real outcome of substance; implementing policies through managing organizations.”