[Insight & Opinion] Three Conditions for Successful Social Reform

The keyword "reform" is a staple topic that emerges whenever a new government takes office. However, achieving the desired reforms has been difficult for any administration so far. What is the reason?

The word "reform" evokes a sense of urgency. It creates an obsession that reform plans must be developed quickly and implemented promptly. As a result, every government has hurriedly introduced various reform measures, but they have fallen short of expectations. Reform cannot be achieved by rushing. "Reform" means fundamental change. However, the subjects of reform are intricately intertwined, making fundamental change not as easy as it sounds. For this reason, reform often starts grandly but ends insignificantly.

How can reform be done properly? First, it is necessary to acknowledge that reform takes a long time. One must accept the fact that there are almost no reforms that can be completed within a five-year government term and start from there. A long-term perspective and sustained effort are required. It is also necessary to recognize that reform faces strong resistance and opposition. Humans inherently prefer the continuation and stability of the current situation over change. Moreover, reform inevitably involves changes and shifts in numerous interests, so resistance and opposition are bound to be strong.

Nevertheless, reform must succeed. For example, how can we create the talents and competitiveness required by the future without educational reform? Here are some suggestions for the success of major social reforms such as educational reform and labor reform. First, spend sufficient time to create a social consensus. Reform based solely on conclusions made by the government or a group of experts is difficult to gain public sympathy. Even if it takes time, persistently conduct public opinion surveys and other methods to derive a social consensus that the general public can accept and empathize with. Only then can resistance be overcome and momentum secured.

Second, appropriately delay the implementation timing. For example, agree to implement reforms 10 or 15 years later, regardless of government changes. By postponing the implementation to a mid- to long-term future point, the acceptability among stakeholders can be increased.

Third, establish a proper dedicated system to create and implement reform plans. Reform is unlikely to succeed with the current committee system that dispatches civil servants and temporarily utilizes experts on a part-time basis. Even if a small task force (TF) is created, it should be composed of the best people who can work full-time on the reform tasks for several years.

If such a proper dedicated organization is formed to derive social consensus and the implementation timing is delayed to a mid- to long-term future point, the likelihood of successful reform will proportionally increase.

Taking educational reform as an example, the current National Education Committee is composed of representative groups of various stakeholders, making it difficult to serve as a dedicated organization for creating reform plans. A permanent organization such as an educational reform TF, composed of neutral and responsible experts, is separately needed. Furthermore, this TF should be able to exist for a certain period regardless of government changes. The educational reform TF can lead the process of deriving social consensus and propose implementing the consensus at an appropriate future point, such as 10 years later. For instance, if a social consensus on the college entrance exam is reached, it can be decided to apply the new system starting in 2035, 12 years later, when the current 7-year-old children enter university. Social reform requires a mid- to long-term perspective, social consensus, and proper leadership as essential conditions.

Kim Hyungon, Director of the National Assembly Future Institute