OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key Findings. Presentation at the launch of the report by Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini. www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy-in-korea-9789264274600-en.htm

1. OECD REGULATORY
POLICY REVIEW OF
KOREA – KEY FINDINGS
& RECOMMENDATIONS
Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini
Regulatory Policy Division, Directorate for Public Governance, OECD
NRC-OECD Joint Seminar on Regulatory Reform in Korea
Seoul, 23 May 2017

2. Agenda
1. State of play – Key findings
2. Going forward - Key recommendations
3. Connecting the dots - Conclusions

3. Reviewing Korea’s regulatory system
over time
2000
2007
2017

4. 1. State of play

5. Building blocks of a mature regulatory
system in place
• Ministerial meeting on regulatory reform
• Regulatory Reform Committee
• RIA and Cost-in Cost-Out system
• Regulatory Reform Office within the PMO
• Network of units responsible for regulatory
reform across central administration and
local government
• Sinmungo/petition system
• SME Ombudsman

6. Korea performing above average on
stakeholder engagement for primary laws…
Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four
separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure
excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and
Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%).
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

7. …and on stakeholder engagement for
subordinate regulations
Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The
maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

8. Korea performing above average on RIA
for developing primary laws…
Note: The results apply exclusively to processes for developing primary laws initiated by the executive. The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four
separate categories of the composite indicators. The maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four. This figure
excludes the United States where all primary laws are initiated by Congress. In the majority of countries, most primary laws are initiated by the executive, except for Mexico and
Korea, where a higher share of primary laws are initiated by parliament/congress (respectively 90.6% and 84%).
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

9. …and on RIA for developing
subordinate regulations
Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The
maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

10. Korea performing above average on ex
post evaluation for primary laws…
Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The
maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

11. …and on ex post evaluation for
subordinate regulations
Note: The vertical axis represents the total aggregate score across the four separate categories of the composite indicators. The
maximum score for each category is one, and the maximum aggregate score for the composite indicator is four.
Source: OECD (2015), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238770-en

12. Opportunities to take the regulatory system
to the “next level” by making it more…
• Strategic  vision on the
direction of regulatory policy
• Targeted  focus on significant regulations
and policies
• Proactive  more responsibilities and
accountability to central administrative
agencies/ministries
• Inclusive  wider range of stakeholders
involved in the regulatory processes and
institutions

13. 2. Going forward

14. Leadership and oversight
• Keep momentum for reform through
electoral/political cycle…
• Re-focus the role of RRC on significant regulation
and secure wider representation
• Focus the role and functions of RRO/PMO on
steering and significant regulation
• Regular exchanges among regulators on particular
sectors, topics, or applications to facilitate
learning, continous improvement and capacity
building
• Greater ease-of-use and harmonisation of the
various databases and registry systems

15. Practices – The UK Regulatory Policy
Committee
• Validating performance against government target
• Ensuring the impacts on small business are
properly considered
• RPC publishes all opinions – including red ones
• RPC writes to Ministers responsible for a ‘not fit
for purpose’ opinion
• Publication of departmental league tables on
quality of impact assessments
• Published reports
• Use of RPC work amongst parliamentarians

16. Regulatory quality management &
assessment
• Incentives, oversight and accountability
mechanism to deal with low-burden
regulation at the ministry level
• Submit RIAS and CICO to the National
Assembly
• Create a permanent regulatory quality check
system within the National Assembly
• Systematically measure improvements of
regulatory quality
• Expand CICO to include also public safety
and social costs

17. Practices – Law Evaluation Dept of
Chile’s Chamber of Deputies
• Methodology
– technical analysis
– citizens’ perception
• Tools
– online questionnaires
– online chats
– focus groups
– Workshops
• Reporting
– Published reports
– Use of findings for discussion on law amendments

18. Practices – Measuring regulatory costs
in Germany
• Checklist for identifying direct & indirect
costs
– Line ministries take responsibility
– Guide: criteria, examples,
• Data
– Prices  Federal Statistical Office
– Consultations with businesses early in the process
• Quantitative & qualitative
– Qualitative estimates when lacking hard data

19. Stakeholder engagement and transparency
• Assess current engagement methods and focus on the
initiatives that work for citizens and businesses (new
entrants and incumbents)
• Take into consideration the evolution of stakeholder
engagement from “listening” towards proactive
dialogue
• Wider use of modern engagement methods backed by
capacity support (e.g. use of social media and use of
behavioural insights when possible)
• Early engagement already in the design of regulation
with wider group of stakeholders
• Systematic early consultation on bills originating in
the National Assembly

20. Practices – Encouraging the use of
social media across government
• France
– meetings, exchanges and seminars run by the Service
d'information du Gouvernement (SIG) within the
Prime Minister’s Office
• Netherlands
– Network of social media practitioners
– Wiki (“Civil Servant 2.0”) to gather and exchange
information on good practices
• United States
– Social Media Community of Practice
– Over 200 federal government social media managers

21. Practices – Engaging stakeholders
through behavioural insights in Colombia
• Focus
– Reform of the consumer protection regime for the
communications market (telecom services)  consumers’
welfare
• Methodology/key steps
– Surveys and interviews of consumers across 17 regions
– Consumer psychology exercises exploring the decision making
process of users
– Analysis of results with OECD experts on regulatory policy,
behavioural economics, digital government and data analytics
– Revised draft regulation consulted with users and operators on-
line and through working groups
• Results
– Simplified contracts
– Salient consumption information
– Salient price information

22. Compliance, inspections & enforcement
• Further develop a risk-based approach to
enforcement and inspections
• Develop a shared information system on
probability and impact of risks (data on
compliance and inspection activities)
• Co-ordinate across local governments
(regional-regional and regional-sub-
regional)

23. Practices – Risk forecasting for food
inspection in Chicago
• Chicago’s Department of Public Health (CDPH)
– 15 000 food establishments – about 36 inspectors
• Algorithm to prioritise inspections
– Partnership – CDPH + Public Health + Innovation +
Private Insurance + Civic Consulting Alliance
– Use of Chicago’s open data portal (over 600 datasets)
– Results from previous sanitary inspections, weather
data, sanitation complaints etc.
• Results
– Critical violations discovered 7 days earlier

24. Small and medium-sized enterprises
• Streamline SME RIAs into general RIA
system
• Allow extra time for compliance
• Report regularly on impact of regulatory
policies on SMEs to the RRC (cumulative
assessment of the effect of the regulatory
policies on the performance of SMEs)
• Reduce compliance costs and facilitate
compliance

25. Practices – Facilitating compliance
through the UK Primary Authority scheme
• What it is
– Legally recognised partnership
– Businesses and a single local authority/fire & rescue
authority
– Open to all businesses but particularly useful for small
businesses – limited capacity and resources to address
regulatory challenges
• What it does
– Guidance, advice, and feedback to businesses
– Single authority primarily responsible for inspection and
compliance for businesses operating across jurisdictions
– Interactive online platform -- updates on the scheme and
agreed inspection plans

26. 3. Connecting the dots

27. • Government
– Centre of Government
– Sector ministries/central administrative agencies
– National Assembly
– Regional and local
• Non-government
– Business - SMEs
– Citizens
– Research institutions
– Others
Actors

28. • Policy
– Evidence-based
– Data
– Methodology
• Institutions
– Capability
– Quality standards
– Governance (who does what)
Tools

29. • Top down
– Oversight
– Performance reports
– Accountability
• Bottom up
– Opportunity:
• Training
• Recognition and responsibility
– Evidence and influence
Incentives

30. • Enforcement and inspection
– Compliance promotion
– Risk-based
– Evidence for ex-post reviews
• Behavioural insights
– Better choices
– Greater compliance
– Better design of regulation
Delivery

31. Regulatory policy is a means to an end…
Who cares about
RIA?!...will I sell
more walnut
cookies?!

32. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264274600-en
Faisal.naru@oecd.org
Filippo.cavassini@oecd.org
감사합니다
Thank you!