Download pdf
Addressing Public Interest Violation Through Independent Anti-Corruption Bodies -A Case Study of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission in South Korea
- 1 Cornell University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
South Korea is a young, experimental democracy with a relatively effective government, often praised as a model of state-led economic development. Although civil liberties have been bolstered since the successful transition from an authoritarian state to a consolidated democracy, corruption remains a persistent concern as hierarchical and authoritarian thinking are profoundly ingrained in society. Since the 1997 Asian economic crisis spurred the emergence of a liberal consensus on government corruption, diverse public institutions and civil society organizations have been actively involved in the fight for transparency and accountability. The creation of an independent anti-corruption agency, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC), sent a strong message that the government is committed to preventing abuse of power and preserving the public interest. This paper aims to identify and understand the driving factors that led to the committee’s success in bringing transparency and accountability to the South Korean public sector, so that it may be replicated in other countries. It takes a descriptive approach to examine the strengths and weaknesses of ACRC and analyze its impact through various indirect indicators. The study reveals that the ACRC’s all-encompassing strategy for anti-corruption reform has improved the level of integrity and public awareness. However, its autonomy and power are still called into question, suggesting future improvements are needed to realize its full potential, thereby bringing about more profound changes.
Keywords
corruption, anti-corruption initiative, South Korea, ACRC
[1]. Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of economic surveys, 15(1), 71-121.
[2]. Min, K. S. (2023). The impact of corruption on government performance: evidence from South Korea. Crime, Law and Social Change, 79(3), 319-345.
[3]. Philp, M. (1997). Defining political corruption. Political Studies, 45(3), 436-462.
[4]. Kalinowski, T. (2016). Trends and mechanisms of corruption in South Korea. The Pacific Review, 29(4), 625-645.
[5]. Kim, H. (2021). S Korea presidential poll: Choosing the lesser of two evils. Elections | Al Jazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/12/22/sk-presidential-election-choosing-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils
[6]. You, K. H., Lee, I., & Park, A. (2016). Access to Government Information in South Korea: The Rise of Transparency as an Open Society Principle. J. Int’l Media & Ent. L., 7, 179.
[7]. Hahn, B. H. (1973). Factions and the Structure of Political Competition in Contemporary Korea: Some Preliminary Observations. Global Economic Review, 1(1), 59-75.
[8]. Ko, K. (2016). Historical review of anti-corruption policy in Korea: progress and challenges. Understanding Korean Public Administration, 240-259.
[9]. Min, K. S. (2019). The effectiveness of anti-corruption policies: measuring the impact of anti-corruption policies on integrity in the public organizations of South Korea. Crime, Law and Social Change, 71(2), 217-239.
[10]. ACRC. (2023). ACRC: Taking a Big Stride Forward on Transparency & Civil Rights. United Nation Development Program (UNDP). Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/seoul_policy_center/d322267f349e7d876cea6f448e734bd36f569cb9846f1d7a3bb207c2203965f1.pdf
[11]. Kalinowski, T., & Kim, S. (2014). Corruption and Anti-Corruption Policies in Korea. Hertie School of Governance (Conference Paper). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8314235/Corruption_and_Anti_Corruption_Policies_in_Korea
[12]. Lee, J., & Lee, A. (2016). Introduction to Korea’s Anti-Corruption initiative assessment. United Nation Development Program (UNDP). Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/seoul_policy_center/en/home/library/featured-publications/ACRC.html.
[13]. ACRC. (2021). 2021 ACRC Korea Annual Report. Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). Retrieved from https://acrc.go.kr/board.es?mid=a20302000000&bid=64&act=view&list_no=39554
[14]. Kim, C., & Lee, A. (2018). Introduction to Korea’s Corruption Risk Assessment: A Tool to Analyze and Reduce Corruption Risks in Bills, Laws and Regulations. United Nation Development Program (UNDP). Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/seoul/publications/introduction-koreas-corruption-risk-assessment-tool-analyze-and-reduce-corruption-risks-bills-laws-and-regulations
[15]. Schultz, D., & Harutyunyan, K. (2015). Combating corruption: The development of whistleblowing laws in the United States, Europe, and Armenia. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(2), 87-97.
[16]. Transparency International. (n.d.). Corruption Perceptions Index. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022.
[17]. FAIS. (2018). Regulatory Transformation in the Republic of Korea Case Studies on Reform Implementation Experience. The World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://regulatoryreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/REGULATORY_TRANSFORMATION_IN_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SOUTH_KOREA1.pdf
[18]. Hyung-ju, O. (2016). Little help offered on anti-graft act. The Korea Herald: Social Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20161011000804&cpv=1
[19]. Corruption Risk Forecast. (n.d.). Index of Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://corruptionrisk.org/integrity/
[20]. The Economist. (2018). Cases against two ex-presidents of South Korea fit an alarming pattern. The Economist: Asia. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/04/07/cases-against-two-ex-presidents-of-south-korea-fit-an-alarming-pattern
[21]. TRACE International. (n.d.). TRACE Bribery Risk Matrix | View Country Risk Scores. Retrieved from https://www.traceinternational.org/trace-matrix
[22]. International Budget Partnership. (n.d.). Open Budget Survey 2021. Retrieved from https://internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey-2021/
[23]. Nielsen, I. (2022). Public Perceptions of Corruption in East Asia: A Comparative Study of Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Scholarly Horizons: University of Minnesota, Morris Undergraduate Journal, 9(1), 4.
[24]. OECD. (n.d.). Understanding the Drivers of Trust in Government Institutions in Korea. OECD Publishing Paris, Retreived from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264308992-5-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9789264308992-5-en
[25]. Mo, P. H. (2001). Corruption and economic growth. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(1), 66–79.
[26]. Pellegrini, L., & Gerlagh, R. (2004). Corruption’s effect on growth and its transmission channels. Kyklos, 57(3), 429–456.
[27]. Göbel, C. (2013). Warriors unchained: critical junctures and anticorruption in Taiwan and South Korea. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 7(1), 219-242.
[28]. Van der Wal, Z. (2021). Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau: Guardian of Public Integrity. Guardians of Public Value: How Public Organisations Become and Remain Institutions, 63-86.
[29]. Quah, J. S. (2007). Anti-corruption agencies in four Asian countries: a comparative analysis. International Public Management Review, 8(2), 73-96.
[30]. Khoo Wei Quan, W (2022). Integrity and Independence of Public and Law Enforcement Officials in Singapore. Publication: United Nations and Far East Institute. Retrieved from https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/GG14/22_GG14_CP12_Singapore.pdf
[31]. Wing-Chi, H. (2013). Combating corruption: the Hong Kong experience. Tsinghua China L. Rev., 6, 239.
Cite this article
Li,C. (2023). Addressing Public Interest Violation Through Independent Anti-Corruption Bodies -A Case Study of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission in South Korea. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,21,42-51.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).