Saving the Korean Local Council
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Yunsoo Lee
July 28, 2020
Last year, Yechon local councilors in South Korea assaulted a travel assistant during their business trip to the United States. They claimed that they have blurted out their wrong behaviors in a moment of overwhelming emotion and then simply uttered a few words of apology to citizens. These infuriated the Korean citizens. As a result, Mr. Park and Mr. Kwon were expelled from Yechon local council. Despite the grave problem, they sued Yechon local council for nullifying their expulsion. These incidents are worth reflecting on regarding local councils in South Korea. The theoretical advantage for a local council speaks for itself. Unfortunately, however, it is creating several problems in practice. To be sure, now a local council finds itself in a very untoward situation, losing public trust. Nonetheless, I believe that a local council is still worth maintaining under some conditions.
Theoretically, a local council is expected to boost the quality of citizens’ life. A local councilor plays a role in reflecting local constituencies’ preference better than members of the National Assembly do. Politicians in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, are often too obtuse to catch what local citizens want. On the contrary, local councilors have a leg up on identifying the needs and preferences of local citizens because their jurisdiction is quite limited and they do not need to spend their time on central government level issues. As such, citizens are more likely to be satiated with public services.
In practice, however, there can be a moral hazard. Local councilors could pretend to look servile and are willing to pay lip service when they are candidates. Once elected, on the contrary, local councilors may no longer pay attention to the local constituencies for nearly four years. In other words, they can become sluggards. The complacency of local councilors is possible because their performance rarely matters for the length of their tenure. Furthermore, they seem too extravagant for using citizens’ tax money. Local councilors sometimes enjoy lavish ceremonies or fancy facilities. Additionally, they often take advantage of fringe benefits funded by taxes. For example, one local councilor of Gawchon City went to Toronto for a business trip. Allegedly, this trip was not for Gwachon people but for visiting his son. In response to the criticisms from citizens, he gave a halfhearted apology to the Korean people but refused to apologize, especially to Gwachon citizens, because he maintained that the trip was for them. His message puzzled numerous citizens. To be sure, this kind of moral hazard disparages raison d’etre of a local council.
Now that I have talked about the problem, let’s turn the attention to the solutions. Of primary importance is transparency. Transparency is what gets citizens to have a good local council by correcting the behaviors of local councilors. One of the obstacles to identifying wrongdoings of a local councilor is secrecy. In order to making local councilors disciplined, citizens should rein local councilors in by observing what they do. Under the perception of being watched, local councilors are more likely to restrain themselves. Based on the hard evidence generated by a higher level of transparency, citizens can evaluate local councilors, and local councilors should elucidate their actions. Seoul Metropolitan local council made decisions on broadcasting their meetings in real time. This is the proper way to move toward greater transparency.
Furthermore, punishing appropriately is also the important ingredient for a well-functioning local council. It is hard to deter unqualified candidates before elections because candidates somehow disguise their true intentions or characteristics. Gary Becker, a Nobel Laureate economist, provided a fascinating portrait of when people commit the crime. According to his idea, people weigh the benefits and costs of committing offenses. After calculating the probability of apprehension and the severity of punishment, one makes a decision on whether he or she commits a crime. Abuse of power is not a venial offense, and a local councilor’s personal wrongdoing cannot be detached from the overall governance. The harsh punishment can reduce the corruption of local councilors because they are afraid of losing their career and future welfare.
Although a local council is designed to enhance the welfare of citizens, local councilors possibly misuse their power. I suggest that transparency and harsher punishment can be the answers to solve this problem. Over the last several decades, Korea has made strides at democracy. The fate of the Korean local council hinges in big part on citizens. To have local government accountability, citizens cannot become lax with their representatives. This is the price of having good representatives.
Author: Yunsoo Lee is an assistant professor at School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University. He holds a PhD in public administration and a master degree in public policy. His main research interests are public management, citizen trust in government, and airport.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Saving the Korean Local Council
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Yunsoo Lee
July 28, 2020
Last year, Yechon local councilors in South Korea assaulted a travel assistant during their business trip to the United States. They claimed that they have blurted out their wrong behaviors in a moment of overwhelming emotion and then simply uttered a few words of apology to citizens. These infuriated the Korean citizens. As a result, Mr. Park and Mr. Kwon were expelled from Yechon local council. Despite the grave problem, they sued Yechon local council for nullifying their expulsion. These incidents are worth reflecting on regarding local councils in South Korea. The theoretical advantage for a local council speaks for itself. Unfortunately, however, it is creating several problems in practice. To be sure, now a local council finds itself in a very untoward situation, losing public trust. Nonetheless, I believe that a local council is still worth maintaining under some conditions.
Theoretically, a local council is expected to boost the quality of citizens’ life. A local councilor plays a role in reflecting local constituencies’ preference better than members of the National Assembly do. Politicians in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, are often too obtuse to catch what local citizens want. On the contrary, local councilors have a leg up on identifying the needs and preferences of local citizens because their jurisdiction is quite limited and they do not need to spend their time on central government level issues. As such, citizens are more likely to be satiated with public services.
In practice, however, there can be a moral hazard. Local councilors could pretend to look servile and are willing to pay lip service when they are candidates. Once elected, on the contrary, local councilors may no longer pay attention to the local constituencies for nearly four years. In other words, they can become sluggards. The complacency of local councilors is possible because their performance rarely matters for the length of their tenure. Furthermore, they seem too extravagant for using citizens’ tax money. Local councilors sometimes enjoy lavish ceremonies or fancy facilities. Additionally, they often take advantage of fringe benefits funded by taxes. For example, one local councilor of Gawchon City went to Toronto for a business trip. Allegedly, this trip was not for Gwachon people but for visiting his son. In response to the criticisms from citizens, he gave a halfhearted apology to the Korean people but refused to apologize, especially to Gwachon citizens, because he maintained that the trip was for them. His message puzzled numerous citizens. To be sure, this kind of moral hazard disparages raison d’etre of a local council.
Now that I have talked about the problem, let’s turn the attention to the solutions. Of primary importance is transparency. Transparency is what gets citizens to have a good local council by correcting the behaviors of local councilors. One of the obstacles to identifying wrongdoings of a local councilor is secrecy. In order to making local councilors disciplined, citizens should rein local councilors in by observing what they do. Under the perception of being watched, local councilors are more likely to restrain themselves. Based on the hard evidence generated by a higher level of transparency, citizens can evaluate local councilors, and local councilors should elucidate their actions. Seoul Metropolitan local council made decisions on broadcasting their meetings in real time. This is the proper way to move toward greater transparency.
Furthermore, punishing appropriately is also the important ingredient for a well-functioning local council. It is hard to deter unqualified candidates before elections because candidates somehow disguise their true intentions or characteristics. Gary Becker, a Nobel Laureate economist, provided a fascinating portrait of when people commit the crime. According to his idea, people weigh the benefits and costs of committing offenses. After calculating the probability of apprehension and the severity of punishment, one makes a decision on whether he or she commits a crime. Abuse of power is not a venial offense, and a local councilor’s personal wrongdoing cannot be detached from the overall governance. The harsh punishment can reduce the corruption of local councilors because they are afraid of losing their career and future welfare.
Although a local council is designed to enhance the welfare of citizens, local councilors possibly misuse their power. I suggest that transparency and harsher punishment can be the answers to solve this problem. Over the last several decades, Korea has made strides at democracy. The fate of the Korean local council hinges in big part on citizens. To have local government accountability, citizens cannot become lax with their representatives. This is the price of having good representatives.
Author: Yunsoo Lee is an assistant professor at School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University. He holds a PhD in public administration and a master degree in public policy. His main research interests are public management, citizen trust in government, and airport.
Follow Us!