Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity

Article
The Political Economy of E-Government Innovation and
Success in Korea
Mark Turner 1 , Joseph Kim 2 and Seung-Ho Kwon 3, *

1 School of Business, University of New South Wales, Campbell, Canberra 2612, Australia
2 School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne 3001, Australia
3 Korea Research Initiatives, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-2-9385-4466

Abstract: Over the past two decades, Korea has established and maintained itself as one of the world’s
leaders in e-government. This study explains why this has happened by using a political economy
analysis. Qualitative case study methods have been utilized to enable sensemaking of Korea’s
successful e-government development trajectory. Five complementary factors have been identified to
account for this success. They are the legacy of the developmental state in defining government’s
role in economic development; the impact of democratization on the nature of e-government services
and provision; the shock impact of the Asian Financial Crisis that led to accelerated e-government
development; the creation and maintenance of an effective policy process; an effective system of public
administration. These factors have provided both the drivers and context for sustained successful
e-government development. While the Korean experience supplies lessons for other countries’ e-
government development, the whole model is not replicable as it is based on the particularities of
Korean development.

Keywords: e-government; Korea; political economy; ICT development; e-government policy;

informatization

Citation: Turner, M.; Kim, J.; Kwon,

S.-H. The Political Economy of
E-Government Innovation and
1. Introduction
Success in Korea. J. Open Innov. In the 1980s and 1990s, New Public Management (NPM) was hailed as a paradigm
Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145. shift in public administration theory and practice, the successor to bureaucracy as the
https://doi.org/10.3390/ desired mode of public management [1,2]. It was held to be a radical innovation that
joitmc8030145 would bring about major changes in the conduct of government affairs. However, at the
Received: 28 July 2022
same time, another innovation in public sector management was slowly emerging and
Accepted: 12 August 2022 without fanfare—e-government (electronic government). This application of information
Published: 14 August 2022 and communications technologies (ICTs) to the business of government has grown to
be the most significant innovation in public administration over the past four decades.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Its incremental advance was eventually heralded as the inevitable way of the future for
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
conducting government business as reflected in Dunleavy et al.’s bold claim that “New
published maps and institutional affil-
Public Management is dead—long live digital era governance” [3]. The appeal of NPM had
iations.
waned and, in some countries, failed to make much impression. However, e-government
advanced everywhere across the globe in all countries, albeit at different rates and levels of
development. Many institutions, researchers, and consultants have written about the rising
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. importance of e-government in the conduct of public affairs and copious advice has been
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. given as how to develop it [4–7].
This article is an open access article Implemented well, e-government promises a range of benefits. It can increase effi-
distributed under the terms and ciency within government, provide more accessible services to citizens and businesses,
conditions of the Creative Commons enable citizen access to information, save time and money in administration, and facili-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tate participation of citizens in governance. In short, e-government has the potential to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ add greatly to public value [5,8,9]. However, there are criticisms such as the use of e-
4.0/).

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030145 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 2 of 15

government for increased surveillance, intrusion of privacy, inequality of access, questions

of information security, and whether it can be trusted [10,11].
Whatever the arguments over e-government, it continues to be used more and more
across the globe. Innovation in e-government is a constant as governments make incremen-
tal changes in its deployment and extension into more areas and operations of governance.
However, it is evident that success is unevenly distributed between countries with the rich
Organization for Co-operation and Development (OECD) states generally having superior
service compared to those in the developing world. One of the exemplars of OECD-country
success is Korea. It has achieved and maintained a leading position in global e-government
rankings. Incremental innovation has been evident and persistent since the country’s
government decided to embrace and pursue e-government in the 1990s. This paper seeks
to understand what has made this possible. Thus, the questions guiding the research were
“Why and how has South Korea been able to attain and maintain such global prominence
in e-government?” Our contention is that the explanation lies in the political economy of
South Korea. The application of ICTs to governance occurs in a context, and that context is
what this article seeks to understand. It is widely acknowledged that the implementation
of e-government is not simply a technical matter. Access to the requisite technology is
certainly important but it is the drivers of innovation and governments’ willingness and
abilities to respond to them that are the principal reasons for success and failure. Through
examination of the political economy of innovation in Korea, we can gain a deeper un-
derstanding of Korea’s e-government success and determine how far the lessons of this
country are more widely applicable [12–14].

2. E-Government Innovation and Success in South Korea

As a first step in this analysis, it is important to provide evidence of the success of
e-government innovation in Korea. This can be gained from international comparative
surveys, notably, the originally annual but later biennial global survey conducted by the
United Nations since 2003 [15]. This survey is the most rigorous, comprehensive, and
respected of its kind and allows comparisons between countries.
When the survey started in 2003, South Korea was already demonstrating its advanced
status in the application of e-government solutions (see Table 1). It ranked thirteenth
of 191 countries in its E-government Development Index (EGDI) and sixteenth in its E-
participation score. EDGI is a composite index that incorporates various measures that
show the willingness and capacity of a country’s administrations to use ICTs to deliver
public services. The nature and measurement of its component parts have been adjusted
over the years to take account of developments in e-government. The E-participation index
is a supplementary measure of citizens’ online use of services incorporating scores for such
things as consultation, information-sharing, and engagement.

Table 1. Korea: Rankings and Scores in the UN E-Government Survey 2003–2020.

E-Government E-Government
No. of Countries E-Participation E-Participation
Year Development Development
Surveyed Ranking Score
Index Ranking Index Score
2003 191 13 0.74 16 0.48
2004 191 5 0.86 7 0.77
2005 191 5 0.87 5 0.87
2008 192 6 0.83 2 0.98
2010 192 1 0.88 1 1.00
2012 193 1 0.93 2 1.00
2014 193 1 0.95 2 1.00
2016 193 3 0.89 4 0.97
2018 193 3 0.90 2 1.00
2020 193 2 0.96 3 1.00
Source: UN E-Government Survey 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 3 of 15

In 2004, Korea’s positions in the two indexes jumped to fifth and seventh and eventu-
ally reaching first place on both in 2010. Since then, Korea has maintained its position in
the world’s top four countries for e-government development and currently sits second
and third among 193 countries in the 2020 report. Achieving and sustaining this level of
attainment in e-government requires constant innovation as it is a moving field in which
changes in technology, demand, and possibilities require experimentation, imagination,
organization, and commitment to stay ahead.

3. Methodology
The article utilizes methods drawn from political economy to identify, elucidate, and
analyze the reasons for Korea’s consistent success in e-government innovation and perfor-
mance. As the name suggests, political economy is fundamentally concerned with the inter-
actions between political and economic processes, but the researcher may also need to step
into cultural and social systems analysis in search of explanations [16]. Political economy
studies seek to identify the interactions between structures, institutions, and actors to under-
stand the course of events. There is, however, no single unified approach. Rather, political
economy analysis can be likened to a family of approaches that incorporate both qualitative
and quantitative methodologies [17–19]. They are, by definition, inter-disciplinary.
This article adopts the qualitative case study as its vehicle for examining and making
sense of e-government in Korea [20,21]. It is an exploratory case study in that it seeks to
provide in-depth analysis of the subject and can be the basis for theorizing or contribute
to testing theory. This is achieved by focus on “sensemaking”, the process of interpret-
ing situations [22,23]. People create “plausible explanations . . . that seem reasonable to
them” [24]. The methodology was designed for application to organizational change but
can be applied to other change situations such as the introduction and development of
e-government in South Korea. It could even be argued that the institutional analysis that is
characteristic of much political economy study such as this one is a clear example of the
search for sensemaking as the organizations of government, business, and society are those
involved in the e-government change process.
The data in this study are drawn from a range of published sources including govern-
ment reports and statistics; reports and statistics from international organizations; academic
research and commentary in books, journals, conference papers, and occasional papers;
media reports. The first task was to identify the key decisions and events in the history of
e-government in Korea so that the trajectory of innovation and success could be determined.
This timeline assisted in the interrogation of the qualitative data drawn from the various
sources listed above. Data collection and analysis were treated as simultaneous interrelated
processes. Recurrent themes emerged as the authors proceeded with this mode of inquiry.
By comparing findings relating to the questions of “why has the phenomenon developed
like this?” and “how has it developed?”, the authors were able to identify five major drivers
of e-government success in Korea. Each of the academics concerned has expertise on the
topic, considerable experience in conducting qualitative research, and strong publication
records. It is argued that these attributes enabled us to identify, classify, and interpret the
available data to provide the “plausible explanations” required in sensemaking. It is clear
that these explanations cannot be entirely objective. This is not feasible in qualitative re-
search. However, the important thing is that the explanations are credible to the academics
undertaking the process and to a wider audience of readers.

4. The Causes of Success

The beginnings of e-government in Korea can be traced back to 1987 with the five-
year National Information Network Establishment (1987–1991) that aimed to digitize five
priority areas of public sector management [25]. The main objective was to increase the
internal efficiency of government although information gradually became accessible to
citizens on the internet and some service activities made their first appearance. Other
areas of public administration were added to the digitization initiative before the 1997
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 4 of 15

Asian Financial Crisis hit the Korean economy severely [26]. The way out of this crisis
involved e-government policy being subsumed into broader economic reform that involved
the ICT sector as the engine for post-Asian Financial Crisis growth [27]. E-government
development was linked to promises and visions for more innovative and productive
government characterized by transparency and trust. As the public service became more
familiar with e-government applications in the early 2000s and citizens became more ready
to make their voices heard, demands arose for more efficient, more convenient, and a
faster speed of service delivery through e-government. Plans were unveiled to create a
“world-class” e-government based on continuous innovation and investment [25]. With
an advanced ICT infrastructure in place and the rapid increase in ownership of mobile
phones using the wireless network, the pace of e-government development and scope
increased. In recent years, the government has recognized the emergent technology trends
of AI (artificial intelligence) and blockchain and has sought ways to incorporate these
developments into e-government while the COVID-19 pandemic forced the government to
respond to increased demand for non-face-to-face services and even innovate to provide
world-leading high-tech e-government solutions to contact tracing [28]. The commitment
to e-government was most evident in the 2017 announcement that the government aimed
to have 80% of services digitized by 2025. Thus, the government once again ventured into
advanced digital technologies to offer a portfolio of projects that will keep South Korea at
the forefront of e-government [29].

4.1. The Legacy of the Developmental State

At the end of the Korean War in 1953, Korea lay in ruins and was seen as one of the
least developed countries in the world. However, starting in the 1960s, Korea underwent
a remarkable transformation based on high levels of sustained economic growth and, in
1995, was officially classified as a high-income country by the World Bank [30]. Welfare
indicators also showed remarkable improvement as registered in its ranking as a country
with “very high human development” [31]. The economic “miracle” was achieved through
a particular policy mix that emphasized rapid economic growth through industrialization
and innovation. Economic development was not left to the market [32]. There was strong
state control of the process, resolute leadership, an élite bureaucracy, and a concern with
performance legitimacy to justify authoritarian regimes [33]. These characteristics made
Korea an exemplar of what became known as the “developmental state”.
While the forces of economic liberalization have weakened the original model of the
developmental state, elements of it have been retained and are evident in contemporary
policy-making. The new arrangements have seen the Korean government change its role
in economic development from “commander-in-chief” to “senior partner” [34]. However,
it still searches for and acts upon developmentalist opportunities [35,36]. One of those
opportunities has been e-government. It has been perceived as part of a bigger picture
from the start. It has been a component of the government’s vision and pursuit of ICT
development as a key driver for post-AFC economic development. Effective e-government
is seen as a major contributor to enhancing national competitiveness. It provides an
environment that assists businesses and hence facilitates economic development. It also
provides a lucrative export market from the sales of e-government systems and thus boosts
both employment and national income (see Table 2). However, to remain competitive,
e-government in South Korea must be innovative. It needs to be seen as a leader in the
field. This requires government incentives, assistance, and direction. This is the legacy of
the developmental state. It is still acting as the “senior partner” in e-government, seeking
opportunities and finding ways of exploiting them. Such support for e-government and
the ICT industry more broadly has enjoyed continuous government support whatever
the regime.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 5 of 15

Table 2. Exports of Korean e-government systems to foreign governments.

Year 2008 2012 2017 2020

Export revenue from e-government system KRW 30.4 KRW 342.1 KRW 236.1 KRW 449.7
sales to foreign governments million million million million
Number of e-government systems exported Not Applicable Not Applicable 180 324
Number of e-government systems exported 30 Not Applicable 72 79
Source: Ministry of Interior and Safety, 2012 and 2020.

4.2. Democratization
The first three decades of the developmental state in South Korea were under au-
thoritarian regimes, but in the 1980s, citizens and civil society became increasingly vocal
and assertive in their demands for political change, forcing the country to transition to
democratic rule [37]. This can be viewed as a critical juncture in the development of e-
government, which is an event or series of events that direct history along a particular but
not necessarily predicted path [38]. The redirection of history for e-government was that
it enabled citizen voices to be heard and put pressure on government to act on popular
demands in the development of e-government. Previously, it had been the state that had
decided on service delivery based on the politicians’ and bureaucrats’ perceptions. Now,
citizens had political influence and elected governments needed to understand and respond
positively to what the people wanted. Otherwise, the politicians risked being voted out of
office at the earliest opportunity. Bureaucrats were also made more accountable for their
actions or inaction.
For e-government, this meant that the state had to commit to its further development
in line with popular demands. E-government needed to extend its scope to include more
areas of government activity, provide more services, improve existing services, be sensitive
to citizen needs, open up to participatory modes of operation, and respond in a timely
manner to citizen demands. Greater government accountability and transparency were also
integral parts of democratization that gave citizens greater influence over e-government
development [39].
Evidence of the effect of democratization on e-government can be clearly seen on the
Ministry of Interior and Safety website [40]. There is stress on innovation to better meet
citizen needs, to provide seamless and secure services, to create human-friendly interfaces,
to strengthen citizens’ data sovereignty, and to build an inclusive digital ecosystem. Further-
more, e-government is specifically tasked with promoting innovation through collaboration
with the private sector.
Academic opinion tends to support such claims. One evaluation argues persuasively
that South Korea is “leading the world” in e-government innovation and services [41].
Another stresses the service orientation of government’s innovations in e-government
and the customization of services to meet the needs of different types of customers [42].
The empowerment of citizens is identified in a further analysis of e-government in two
cities [43]. Citizens’ political efficacy has been encouraged by government feedback and
the system that enables it. While there are criticisms of some initiatives and institutional
arrangements, the dominant picture is of democratization going hand-in-hand with e-
government innovation.

4.3. The Asian Financial Crisis (AFC)

In 1997–1998, Korea was badly hit by the Asian Financial Crisis, exposing problems
with the country’s model of economic development. Other developmental states in East
Asia fared much better. By contrast, in South Korea, the GDP growth rate tumbled to −5.1%
in 1998, the stock market suffered large losses, the country’s credit rating was downgraded
from A1 to B2, the currency weakened, unemployment grew from 3% to 7%, and financial
institutions revealed large portfolios of nonperforming loans [44]. These shocks to the
system demanded a rapid and radical response. South Korea was anxious to escape from
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 6 of 15

the conditionalities that accompanied the economy’s bailout by the International Monetary
Fund at the earliest opportunity. The Kim Dae-jung government was thus desperate to
find a new engine of growth to revive the economy and opted for the promotion of high
value-adding technology and knowledge-based industries. As an important component of
this, ICT was selected as a key strategic industry. The government’s new economic vision
and policies facilitated the significant advancement of the nation’s ICT infrastructure. For
instance, the Cyber-Korea 21 project was launched in 1999 and included initiatives such as
offering personal computers to the public at low prices, developing high-speed internet
infrastructure, and compulsory free computer education for students [41]. It also provided
the clear objective to establish e-government for the purposes of improving the overall
productivity and efficiency in various parts of the South Korean economy and society.
As the South Korean economy entered the 21st century, the government’s explicit vi-
sion was one to transform that economy from a labor-intensive one to a capital-, technology-,
and knowledge-based economy in which technological innovation and the rapid creation
and transfer of knowledge would be crucial for maintaining competitiveness in global
markets [45]. E-government was thus reformed to better respond to the new challenges.
Thus, the government introduced one-stop-for-business (G4B) initiatives such as the Korea
ON-line eProcurement System (KONEPS) as a single window public procurement ser-
vice [46,47]. The Korea Customs Service launched the UNI-Pas system, which was a fully
automated customs administration system utilizing the latest ICT technology to reduce
time and costs in registration and quarantine processes for exports and imports.

4.4. Effective Policy Process

From the start of the developmental state in the 1960s, the Korean government has
consistently demonstrated an effective policy process. Such a process should ideally be
forward-looking; outward-looking; innovative, flexible, and creative; evidence-based; in-
clusive; joined-up; incorporate review; involve evaluation; learn lessons [48]. While Korean
governments have not scored consistently highly on all these criteria, it has been apparent
that many features of an effective policy process have been evident and have contributed
to the country’s economic success, for example, the move from import-substituting light
industries in the 1960s to heavy and chemical industries in the 1970s and 1980s, and more
recently into cultural industries [49,50]. Each of the criteria will be briefly discussed below
to demonstrate how they relate to e-government development.
Policy in Korea has a history of being forward-looking, the first criterion of the ideal
type of effective policy process [48]. Long-term goals have been typical, although there
has always been space for adjustments to cope with change in the environment such as
altered economic circumstances. The policy process has always been outward looking with
constant environmental scanning to gain knowledge of what is happening elsewhere in the
world, such as in technology development. Korea’s policymakers have also been innovative,
flexible, and creative. Indeed, the story of policy since the 1960s has been one of moving
upward through different stages of innovation [51,52]. The country’s industries moved
from assembly skills for basic production in the 1960s through to original own-design
manufacture in the 1980s, eventually moving up to frontier R&D involving advanced
innovation in the 2000s. The concerted government push for ICT and e-government
development has largely occurred in this last and most advanced stage of innovation.
Policy in Korea has generally been anchored in an evidence-based approach, although
problems and new opportunities have sometimes emerged to cause re-thinking of particular
policies. Inclusivity was not a feature of the policy process during the authoritarian years
but has slowly made advances after democratization. E-government follows this trend
with growing levels of public consultation for e-government initiatives. A defining feature
of a joined-up policy process is that it looks beyond institutional boundaries to strategic
objectives. Such objectives have been typical of the South Korean policy process and
have involved cooperation between public and private sectors and the use of centralized
authority to ensure that different government institutions make their required contribution
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 7 of 15

to the strategic objectives. Finally, review and evaluation have been prominent elements of
the South Korean policy process. They have clearly been integral to the development of
e-government as demonstrated by the succession of white papers and other government
documents that have charted the path of e-government in the country.
The Establishment Phase for e-government in South Korea commenced with providing
the legal basis through The Information Network Expansion and Promotion Act of 1986.
This was followed by the first Comprehensive Plan for Information Network in 1987
that provided the strategy for improving service quality through national information
networks [26]. The second Comprehensive Plan for Information Network was released in
1992 and aimed to improve efficiency and speed while prioritizing six ministries, especially
those concerned with crucial aspects of economic development. The nature of the policy
process was top-down.
The e-government Expansion Phase (1992–1996) was notable for the Promotion of
Informatization Act of 1995, which led to the Plan for the Promotion of Informatization
in 1996. The Ministry of Information and Communication, which was responsible for
the policy, aimed to establish high-speed information networks to connect households,
government agencies, educational and research institutes, private enterprises, and health
services within Korea and overseas [26]. In the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis,
the Kim Dae-jung administration designed A Comprehensive Plan for E-Government
1998. It prioritized the reform of public administration services to be more citizen-oriented
including performance standards and provisions for transparency [53]. As this work
proceeded and the extent of e-government rapidly expanded, there was a perceived need
to revise its legal basis for e-government. Thus, The Promotion of Informatization for the
Implementation of E-Government Act was passed in 2001, the world’s first e-government-
dedicated legislation [54,55]. It stipulated the operating principles for the implementation
of e-government and the digitization of government services [55].
Table 3 sets out the development of major e-government policies in the Maturity Phase
of e-government under successive presidencies from 2003 onward. This phase continued
the consistent incremental extensions and improvements to Korea’s e-government. The
persistent theme has been to utilize an integrated approach to facilitate cooperation and
information-sharing among government departments and with the public using increas-
ingly advanced technologies to improve efficiency and supply more convenient services
to the public. First, the Roh Moo-hyun government (2003–2007) crafted roadmaps for
31 e-government projects using four implementation strategies: integrating with public
administration reforms; undertaking user-oriented projects; setting specific goals and eval-
uating achievements; integrating with the policy for the promotion of the ICT industry [25].
The Lee Myung-bak government (2008–2012) commenced with the National Informatiza-
tion Plan containing 19 e-government projects [26]. It also drew up the Smart Government
Development Plan to extend the existing PC-based e-government service platforms to mo-
bile internet platforms. There were efforts to converge technologies for user convenience,
encourage citizen participation, and embrace advanced technologies. The Park Geun-hye
government (2013–2017) introduced Government 3.0 as its overarching strategy and sought
improved efficiency through information-sharing and using a common platform among
government agencies [56]. It comprised four strategies: creating efficient and capable
government; creating a happy and safe society; providing customized services; improving
the productivity of e-government [47]. The Moon Jae-in government (2017–2022) explicitly
attempted to integrate e-government policy into the government’s broad strategy of an
ICT-led Fourth Industrial Revolution [57]. The government aimed for more innovative
information infrastructure for e-government through advanced digital technologies [58].
This was evident in the six key areas of service delivery selected for digital enhancement
under the vision, “Better World Open Digitally”.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 8 of 15

Table 3. E-government Policy During the Mature Phase of E-government Development in South Korea.

President Roh Moo-hyun Lee Myung-bak Park Geun-hye Moon Jae-in

Period 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013–2017 2017–2022
Main e-government E-government Smart Government Digital Government
Government 3.0
strategy roadmaps Development Plan Reform Plan
Creating “competent
Promoting public
knowledge Open government Developing artificial
participation; Linking
Objectives government”; promoting information intelligence-centered
services of government
Integrating the delivery sharing government
departments
of public services
Establishing
Establishing the open customized virtual
Promoting information
original government assistant for
Online participation; integration and sharing
document system; administrative services;
Key e-government Establishing digital tax for administrative
Creating an integrated Developing electronic
projects and national welfare services; Establishing
administrative portal certificate using
systems e-government standard
service system blockchain technology;
framework
(Government 24) Expanding the use of
cloud-based services
Source: Ministry of Interior and Safety, 2012 and 2020.

4.5. Effective Administration

A final political economy factor that explains Korean success in e-government is the
capability of the public sector. E-government has been effectively implemented over the
past three decades by government employees in a variety of government agencies. The
public servants are educated and skilled and have utilized processes that have led to
desired outcomes. The administrators have been involved in policy design as well as
implementation and have thus been a major element in the effective policy process that has
characterized e-government.
Korea’s contemporary bureaucracy was built under the authoritarian leadership of
the developmental state and proved itself essential to the achievements of that model
of economic development. It was a “bureaucracy-driven model” [59]. This post-Korean
War administrative apparatus contained aspects of both Western public administration
and Confucianism [60,61]. The latter led to an organizational culture that emphasized
group over individual interests and gave strong support to the structures of hierarchy
and centralization. The bureaucracy created under the developmental state was seen to
be hard-working and disciplined, oriented to group solidarity with appointments based
on merit, and promotion on a combination of both merit and seniority [62]. There was
also an acceptance of bureaucratic discretion in relation to societal and other government
actors [63]. However, the bureaucracy was not without problems. For example, corruption
was much in evidence under the authoritarian developmental state, although it was never
allowed to “overwhelm or take precedence over economic development” [59]. In addi-
tion, government administration was sometimes viewed as having typical bureaucratic
dysfunctions such as too much red tape and lack of responsiveness and accountability
to citizens. Despite these issues, the developmental Korean bureaucracy can be seen as
change-oriented. Indeed, its major purpose in the authoritarian era was to transform the
Korean economy from underdevelopment to high income. Thus, it became accustomed to
planning and managing change in society and state. Even internally, there were reforms to
modernize bureaucratic operations such as the simplification of processes and introduction
of zero-based budgeting under President Chun [59]. According to Cho and Kim, it was an
“entrepreneurial bureaucracy” [60]. This involved the political leadership, political appoint-
ments, and the career civil service working together as a team to bring about sustained
economic development. The legacy of this entrepreneurial bureaucracy can be clearly seen
in the development of e-government in Korea. The bureaucracy has consistently planned,
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 9 of 15

innovated, and implemented in e-government. It has maintained Korea as the leading

global exemplar of e-government.
While the Korean bureaucracy was somewhat insulated from societal pressures during
the authoritarian era, democratization in the late 1980s and 1990s changed this and ne-
cessitated major adjustments in its operation [59]. Government became more accountable
to citizens as ideas of democracy and participation took root. The World Values Surveys
between 1981 and 2001 tracked the move toward stronger self-expression among the pop-
ulation who gathered the confidence to increasingly place demands on government, a
situation not experienced by the bureaucracy under authoritarian rule [64]. Furthermore,
democratization provided the space for civil society to thrive. Citizens could and did
organize to put pressure on government such as for the extension of the emergent welfare
society. Such scrutiny of government action also helped to reduce the corruption that had
become so entrenched in the Korean bureaucracy [65].
E-government first emerged in the final days of authoritarian rule and was initially
state-driven. However, as democratic values became more embedded and citizens more
confident to express themselves, e-government approaches had to be modified. It was
now also democracy-driven. There was increasing attention in government to the views
of citizens and state organizations were forced to respond in a timely manner to citizen
demands and seek citizen views about e-government services. Bureaucrats no longer
simply followed government instructions. They were now more accountable to citizens.
What citizens wanted and expected became a major driving force for bureaucratic action
on e-government [42].
For the visions and plans for e-government to be realized by the Korean bureaucracy,
it was vital to have sufficient funds and to allocate them to good effect. Examination of the
budget allocations for the development and implementation of e-government provides a
picture of substantial financial commitment to R&D and projects to improve and extend
services [66]. In the early years of informatization, the government’s budget was primarily
targeted at infrastructure [67]. The amounts were modest until massive increases in funding
in 1995 (see Table 4). This financial boost reflected the increasing importance attaching to
ICT and e-government developments, especially in terms of potential productivity gains in
government and the private sector.

Table 4. The Government Budget for Informatization Projects 1990–1996.

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Budget allocation
10.2 13.6 14.5 5.1 7.8 100.0 147.0
Establishment of (KRW billion)
informatization % of total budget for
infrastructure informatization- 13.8 14.4 14.0 2.9 3.0 27.4 35.1
related projects
Source: National Computerization Agency; Gookga Jeongbohwa Baekseo (National Information White Paper).
National Computerization Agency: Seoul, 1993–1997.

The steep increase in funding continued in 1997 but the Asian Financial Crisis led to
a brief plunge in investment in 1998 as budget stringency was applied to all government
organizations and activities (see Table 5). However, funding recovery was swift and there
was a significant upward trend up to 2004. There were at least 20 e-government projects
each year between 1998 and 2004 in this “expansion phase” of e-government. The scope of
projects was extended beyond ICT infrastructure and computerization for internal efficiency
to include more initiatives in service delivery, transparency, and technology development.
In addition to the allocations listed in Table 5, there were other projects paid for from the
government’s Informatization Promotion Fund.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 10 of 15

Table 5. The Government Budget for Informatization Projects 1997–2004.

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

E-government Budget allocation

328.5 260.8 318.4 389.3 490.2 571.6 559.1 618.8
projects and reforms (KRW billion)
for improving % of total budget for
administrative informatization 51 36 37 32 33 35 34 37
efficiency projects
Budget allocation
Expansion of 22.5 167.8 175.1 262.5 321.7 402.8 401.8 416.0
(KRW billion)
information
communication % of total budget for
infrastructure informatization 4 23 20 22 21 25 25 25
related projects
Source: National Computerization Agency; Gookga Jeongbohwa Baekseo (National Information White Paper).
National Computerization Agency: Seoul, 1998–2005.

Government funding for e-government projects was maintained at high levels in the
2000s as set out in Table 6. While amounts budgeted by different presidents have varied
somewhat, the commitments have remained high, demonstrating continuity between
administrations in support for e-government and ITC more generally as integral to the
realization of Korea’s vision for the Fourth Industrial Revolution [68].

Table 6. The Government Budget for E-government Projects 2003–2022.

Roh Moo-hyun Lee Myung-bak Park Geun-hye Moon Jae-in

Administration
Government Government Government Government
Years 2003–2007 2008–2012 2013–2017 2017–2022
Number of e-government
projects funded by 183 188 165 65
government
Total budget for
KRW 879 billion KRW 674 billion KRW 524 billion KRW 281 billion
e-government projects
Average annual budget for
KRW 176 billion KRW 135 billion KRW 105 billion KRW 94 billion
e-government projects
Source: KIPF. 2020 Jaejeong Saeop Simcheun Pyeongka: Jeonja Jeongbu Saeop 2020 (Government-funded Project
Assessment: E-Government Projects); Korea Institute of Public Finance: Seoul, 2020.

5. Discussion
The contention of this paper is that to understand how Korea achieved early success
in e-government and maintained its standing, it is necessary to utilize a political economy
analysis. Five critical factors have been identified and their importance for e-government
explained. However, they are not independent of each other. They have worked together
to strongly influence the history of e-government in Korea.
The first factor takes us back in time to the authoritarian developmental state that was
created and maintained even before the concept and practices of e-government had been
born. The developmental state left a legacy on which e-government visions and policy
could draw. It implanted the idea into the Korean psyche that the state had a major role
to play in economic development under capitalism. It was a far more interventionist role
than Western capitalist countries had adopted. It was also highly successful. While the
state could not maintain its role of “commander-in-chief” of economic development when
neoliberal forces opened up the Korean economy in the 1990s and 2000s, some of the ideas
and practices of the earlier decades were retained. Thus, it was perceived as legitimate and
right that government could still play the role of “senior partner” in the development of the
country’s ICT infrastructure, ICT services, and economic development. There were familiar
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 11 of 15

characteristics from the earlier developmental state that could be applied to e-government.
Furthermore, the role was one endorsed by government, the private sector, and citizens.
The legacy of the developmental state provided a solid foundation on which e-government
could be built, giving Korea a flying start compared to many other Western capitalist
countries and Third-World countries where developmentalism had not taken root.
The second factor that explains Korea’s e-government success also draws on the
developmental state. This is an effective policy process. Such a process has enabled Korean
governments to create realistic long-term visions for ICT and e-government, identify and
analyze policy options, and monitor and evaluate the results of implementation. It has also
involved the promotion and search for innovations that can make useful contributions to
e-government aims and targets. The external search and adoptions of public sector reform
practices is long-established in Korea. It involves seeking foreign ideas and practices,
often from Western public administration, transferring them and adapting them to suit
Korean conditions [69]. It is a rational process that acknowledges that initiatives developed
elsewhere will not fit in Korea unless they are modified to suit the country’s particular
institutional environment. The effectiveness of the policy process for e-government has
been manifested in the country’s persistently high rankings in the UN’s e-government
surveys. The process has been characterized by continuity with regular modifications as
reactions to changing circumstances such as new technology or new customer demands.
Governments of different political persuasions have maintained the overall commitment to
an ICT-driven future economy in which e-government is an integral component. Different
administrations have built on their predecessors’ work, always in pursuit of keeping ahead
of the field.
However, an effective policy process requires the skills and efforts of public servants to
make the process work. It also needs administrative practices and structures that support
staff in the pursuit of government goals. This is the third factor that explains Korean
success in e-government—an effective administration. The contemporary administrative
system took shape under the authoritarian developmental state and drew on Western
and Confucian traditions. The latter have been particularly important in determining the
character of the bureaucracy and how it works and are still significant. These include
merit-based appointment, an ethic of hard work, discipline, the importance of hierarchy,
and respect for educational achievement. This does not mean that the bureaucracy has
been unwilling to change. Far from it, the bureaucracy has a history of being at the
forefront of change since the developmental state. It was in fact constructed to make
transformative change take place. The development of e-government should be seen
as a continuation of this familiar change agent role. While there have been undoubted
problems in bureaucratic practice over the years, such as corruption, the organizations of
the state have fulfilled their assigned roles. There can be opposition to changes in internal
structures and processes and to functional allocation as in all public services. In general,
however, the Korean bureaucracy has been amenable to change. This has been of vital
importance for the development of e-government as the bureaucracy is not only tasked with
its implementation; it must also assist with policy design and evaluation, and internalize
an orientation to innovation.
The fourth and fifth factors that have significantly contributed to Korea’s e-government
success can both be viewed as critical junctures, that is, events that have led to history taking
a particular path and not necessarily a foreseen one. Critical junctures influence change.
In the case of e-government in Korea, the two critical junctures were democratization that
commenced in the late 1980s and the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998. Democratization
was a new driver for e-government. In the earliest years, government determined its
development, but, with democratization, citizens developed a voice. It became necessary
to respond to their demands for e-government services, transparency, and accountability.
Government could no longer expect citizens to simply take what was given to them.
Citizens now wanted a say in what services they wanted, the timeliness and quality of
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 12 of 15

those services, and the opportunity to participate. Democratization broadened the scope
and character of e-government by making it more citizen-centric.
The Asian Financial Crisis was a brutal shock to the economy of Korea, a wake-up call
that much was wrong with the prevailing model of development. It required immediate and
radical action. This came in the form of large increases in investments in ICT development
that also included e-government. To return the economy back on a growth track, it was
the government that provided the stimulus and direction as had been the case in earlier
developmental days. Large investments in e-government were an integral component of
this recovery plan. For e-government, it was not so much a critical juncture that changed
direction. Rather, it accelerated the development of a 21st century ICT-driven economy in
which e-government played a key role.

6. Conclusions
Korea has been at the forefront of e-government development, consistently ranked
by the UN as being in the top five countries in the world for 20 years. How has this
been achieved? It has been shown that the answer lies in a political economy analysis that
identifies a number of complementary drivers that collectively contributed to e-government
success. At the core of the explanation is an effective state, a state with a policy process
and organizations that have, over many years, have a strong record of proven production
of the intended outputs and outcomes of policy. There have also been critical junctures,
such as the Asian Financial Crisis and democratization, that have given extra impetus to
e-government development. It has also been important for e-government development that
it has been part of a broader vision of Korea’s future resting on global leadership in ICT.
While the private sector is responsible for most of the ICT development, the government
has consistently provided direction and support for a phenomenon that originated under
the developmental state but has continued into recent times. However, it is not a model of
development that others can easily replicate. This is because it has arisen from the particular
contextual factors and drivers of development found in the distinctive political economy
of Korea. Other nations can learn from Korea about specific aspects and technologies of
e-government, but they will not be able to reproduce the Korean model, as some of the
contextual factors and drivers will not be present. However, other countries can examine
Korean experience and select and modify aspects of Korean e-government development
that fit with their own circumstances. It would be useful if other country’s studies of
e-government could adopt political economy approaches that might explain the differing
levels of e-government development between nations and the particular trajectories of
individual countries. From a number of such studies, we could begin to identify key drivers,
important contextual factors, and necessary incentives for e-government development that
could lead to models of wider applicability than those provided by single-country analysis.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.T.; Investigation, J.K. and S.-H.K.; Writing—original

draft, M.T. and J.K.; Writing—review & editing, S.-H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Laboratory Program for Korean Studies through the
Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and Korean Studies Promotion Service of the Academy
of Korean Studies (AKS-2015-LAB-2250004).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hood, C. A public management for all seasons. Pub. Admin. 1991, 69, 3–19. [CrossRef]
2. Pollitt, C. Managerialism and the Public Services, 2nd ed.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1993.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 13 of 15

3. Dunleavy, P.; Margetts, H.; Bastow, S.; Tinkler, J. New Public Management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. J. Pub.
Admin. Res. Theory 2006, 16, 467–494. [CrossRef]
4. Bekkers, V. E-government and innovation: The socio-political shaping of ICT as a source of innovation. In Handbook of Innovation
in Public Services; Osborne, S., Brown, L., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 253–268. [CrossRef]
5. The World Bank. About infodev: A World Bank Group Program to Promote Entrepreneurship and Innovation; World Bank. E-Government
Primer; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Available online: https://www.infodev.org/articles/e-government-primer
(accessed on 28 June 2022).
6. OECD. The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Governance; OECD: Paris, French, 2021.
7. Gräbner Omanha IT Consulting. What is E-Government and Why Is It Important? Gräbner Omanha IT Consulting Web-
site, 2 October 2019. Available online: https://www.ao-itc.de/what-is-e-government-and-why-it-is-important/ (accessed on
25 June 2022).
8. Zhang, Y.; Kimathi, F.A. Exploring the stages of e-government development from a public value perspective. Technol. Soc. 2022,
69, 101942. [CrossRef]
9. Twizeyimana, J.D.; Andersson, A. The public value of e-government—A literature review. Govt. Info. Qtrly 2019, 36, 167–178.
[CrossRef]
10. Carbo, T. Information rights: Trust and human dignity in e-government. Int. Rev. Info. Ethics 2007, 7, 168–174. [CrossRef]
11. Colesca, S.E. Understanding trust in e-government. Engin. Econ. 2009, 3, 7–15.
12. Lee, C.-p.; Chang, K.; Berry, F.S. Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: A global perspective.
Pub. Admin. Rev. 2011, 71, 444–454. [CrossRef]
13. Pederson, K. E-government transformations: Challenges and strategies. Trans. Govt Peop. Proc. Pol. 2018, 12, 84–109. [CrossRef]
14. Ingrams, A.; Manoharan, A.; Schmidthuber, L.; Holzer, M. Stages and determinants of e-government development: A twelve-year
longitudinal study of global cities. Int. Pub. Manag. J. 2020, 23, 731–769. [CrossRef]
15. United Nations. UN E-Government Survey 2020 Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development; United
Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
16. GDRSC (Governance and Social Development Resource Centre). Helpdesk Research Report: Political Economy Methodologies,
11 January 2008. Available online: http://gsdrc.org/docs/open/hd498.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2022).
17. Weingast, B.; Wittman, D. The reach of political economy. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy; Wittman, D., Weingast, B.,
Eds.; Oxford Handbooks Online: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 783–809. [CrossRef]
18. Robinson, I. Area and international studies: Political economy. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences;
Smelser, N.J., Bates, P.B., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 719–723.
19. O’Dell, J. Case study methods in international political economy. Int. Stud. Persp. 2001, 2, 161–176. [CrossRef]
20. Cresswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2014.
21. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
22. Weick, K.E. Sensemaking in Organizations; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995.
23. Maitlis, S. The social process of organizational sensemaking. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 21–49. Available online: https://www.jstor.
org/stable/20159639 (accessed on 26 June 2022). [CrossRef]
24. Myers, P.; Hulks, S.; Wiggins, L. Organizational Change: Perspectives on Theory and Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 2012.
25. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Jeonja Jeongbu Baekseo [Electronic Government White Paper]; Ministry of the Interior and Safety:
Seoul, Korea, 2012.
26. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Kyeongje Baljeon Modyulhwa Saeop: Jeonja Jeongbu Doip [Economic Development Module Projects:
Introduction of the E-government System]; Ministry of the Interior and Safety: Seoul, Korea, 2011.
27. Chung, C-s. The introduction of e-government in Korea: Development journey, outcomes and future. Gest. Et Manag. Public 2015,
3, 107–122. [CrossRef]
28. Korea.Net. Remarks by President Moon Jae-in at the Korean Artificial Intelligence Developers Conference, DEVIEW 2019,
28 October 2019. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and Korean Culture and Information Service. Available online: https:
//www.korea.net/Government/Briefing-Room/Presidential-Speeches/view?articleId=178629 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
29. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Haengjeong Anjeon Baekseo [Ministry of the Interior and Safety White Paper]; Ministry of the
Interior and Safety: Seoul, Korea, 2019.
30. Deyo, F. The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialization; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1987.
31. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Human Development Report 2020; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
32. The World Bank. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
33. Huff, W.G.; Dewit, G.; Oughton, C. Credibility and reputation building in the developmental state: A model with East Asian
applications. World Dev. 2001, 29, 711–724. [CrossRef]
34. Cherry, J. Big deal or big disappointment? The continuing evolution of the South Korean developmental state. The Pac. Rev. 2005,
18, 327–354. [CrossRef]
35. Suh, C.-S.; Kwon, S.-H. Whither the developmental state in South Korea? Balancing welfare and neoliberalism. Asian Stud. Rev.
2014, 38, 676–692. [CrossRef]
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 14 of 15

36. Thurbon, E. The resurgence of the developmental state: A conceptual defence. Critique Internationale 2014, 63, 59–75. [CrossRef]
37. Bedeski, R.E.; Brown, J.R. The Transformation of South Korea: Reform and Reconstitution in the Sixth Republic Under Roh Tae Woo,
1987–1992; Routledge: London, UK, 1994.
38. Cappocia, G. Critical junctures. In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism; Fioretos, O., Falleti, T.G., Sheingate, A., Eds.;
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016.
39. Hahm, S.D.; Kim, K.W. Institutional Reforms and Democratization in Korea: The Case of the Kim Young Sam Administration,
1993–1998. Governance 1999, 12, 479–494. [CrossRef]
40. Ministry of Interior and Safety. Digital Government Innovation. Available online: https://mois.go.kr/eng/sub/a03/
digitalGovInnovation/screen.do (accessed on 6 July 2022).
41. O’Donnell, M.; Turner, M. Leading the world: Public sector reform and e-government in Korea. Econo. Lab. Rel. Rev. 2013, 24,
533–548. [CrossRef]
42. Cho, J.-S. Evolution of e-government: Transparency, competency, and service-oriented government with Korean government 3.0.
J. Bus. Ret. Manag. Res. 2017, 12, 62–68. [CrossRef]
43. Lim, J.H. Empowering citizens’ voices in the era of e-government: Implications from South Korean cases. Theor. Emp. Res. Urb.
Manag. 2010, 5, 19–31.
44. Coe, D.T.; Kim, S.-J. (Eds.) Korean Crisis and Recovery; Papers Presented at a Conference in Seoul, Korea, 17–19 May 2001, IMF.
Available online: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/seminar/2002/korean/ (accessed on 10 July 2022).
45. Kim, J.; Choi, S.O. A comparative analysis of corporate R&D capability and innovation: Focused on the Korean manufacturing
industry. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 100. [CrossRef]
46. National Information Society Agency. Gookga Jeongbohwa Baeksuh [National Information White Paper]; National Information Society
Agency: Seoul, Korea, 2007.
47. National Information Society Agency. Gookga Jeongbohwa Baeksuh [National Information White Paper]; National Information Society
Agency: Seoul, Korea, 2014.
48. Strategic Policy Making Team. Professional Policy Making for the Twenty First Century; Cabinet Office: London, UK, 1999.
49. Haggard, S. Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in Newly Industrializing Countries; Cornell University Press: Ithaca,
NY, USA, 1990.
50. Kwon, S.-H.; Kim, J. The cultural industry policies of the Korean government and the Korean Wave. Int. J. Cult. Pol. 2014, 20,
422–439. [CrossRef]
51. Miao, Y.; Song, J.; Lee, K.; Jin, C. Technological catch-up by East Asian firms: Trends, issues and future research agendas. Asia Pac.
J. Manag. 2018, 35, 639–669. [CrossRef]
52. Hobday, M. Innovation in East Asia; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1995.
53. Chung, C.S. Jeongja Jeongburon [E-Government Theory]; Seoul Economics and Management: Seoul, Korea, 2009.
54. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Jeonja Jeongbu 50 Nyeon [Fifty Years of E-Government]; Ministry of the Interior and Safety: Seoul,
Korea, 2017.
55. KIPF. 2020 Jaejeong Saeop Simcheun Pyeongka: Jeonja Jeongbu Saeop [2020 Government-funded Project Assessment: E-Government
Projects]; Korea Institute of Public Finance: Seoul, Korea, 2020.
56. Park, E.H.; Lee, J.-W. A study on policy literacy and public attitudes toward government innovation-focusing on Government 3.
0 in South Korea. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015, 1, 23. [CrossRef]
57. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. 2020 Nyeon Jeonja Jeongbu Soochool Siljeok Josa [2020 E-Government Export Report]; Ministry of
the Interior and Safety: Seoul, Korea, 2020.
58. Chung, C.S. Woorinara Jeongbohwa Mit Jeonja Jeongbu Jeongchaek 30 Nyuneui Byeonhwa [Changes in Informatization and E-government
Policy Over the Past 30 Years]; Information Communication Technology Platform: Seoul, Korea, May 2020; pp. 3–30.
59. Im, T. Introduction: Bureaucracy and Korean development. In The Experience of Democracy and Bureaucracy in South Korea; Im, T.,
Ed.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. xvii–xxxviii.
60. Cho, Y.H.; Kim, Y.S. The cultural roots of entrepreneurial bureaucracy: The case of Korea. Pub. Admin. Qtrly. 1993, 16, 509–524.
61. Lee, H. The study on the role of Confucian culture for East Asian economic development. Int. Ass. Area Stud. 2008, 12, 165–191.
62. Oh, K. Bureaucracy-Think Tank Partnership Powered Korea, Brookings, 12 March 2010. Available online: https://www.brookings.
edu/articles/bureaucracy-think-tank-partnership-powered-korea/ (accessed on 10 July 2022).
63. Tao, J.L. Weber and Confucius in East Asia: The great experiment. In Public Policy in the Asian Century: Concepts, Cases and Futures;
Bice, S., Poole, A., Sullivan, H., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018; pp. 65–86.
64. Kim, S. Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? Pub. Admin. Rev. 2010, 70,
801–810. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40802376 (accessed on 10 July 2022). [CrossRef]
65. Lee, K.; Choi, S.O.; Kim, J.; Jung, M. A study on the factors affecting decrease in the government corruption and mediating effects
of the development of ICT and e-government. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 41. [CrossRef]
66. Jin, S.; Lee, K. The government R&D funding and management performance: The mediating effect of technology innovation. J.
Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 94. [CrossRef]
67. Song, H.J.; Cho, T. Hankookeui jeonja jeongbu: Seongkwawa gwaje [E-government in Korea: Its achievements and challenges].
Inforzn Pol. 2007, 14, 20–37.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 145 15 of 15

68. Yang, H.; Kim, S.Y.; Yim, S. A case study of the Korean government’s preparation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Public
program to support business model innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 35. [CrossRef]
69. Turner, M. Public sector reform and national development in East and Southeast Asia: Specificity and Commonality. In Public
Policy in the Asian Century: Concepts, Cases and Futures; Bice, S., Poole, A., Sullivan, H., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK,
2018; pp. 209–236.