Institutional Presidency and National Development

Part of the The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific book series (PEAP, volume 13)


In the process of the rapid development in Korea during the past six decades, the state administration played a leading role and, by its nature, the president's executive leadership has been one of the most important factors. This chapter analyzes the changes in, and continuity of, the institutional characteristics of the presidential executive leadership, focusing on its practices reflecting public values such as political accountability, democratic responsiveness, the neutral competitiveness of administrative bureaucracy, policy capabilities, and so on.


Prime Minister Executive Branch Democratic Transition Executive System Executive Leadership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aberbach, J. D. (1990). Keeping a watchful eye: the politics of congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  2. Board of Audit and Inspection. (2008). 60-year history of the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea. Seoul: Board of Audit and Inspection.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, J. P. (1992). The institutional presidency. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, C., & Szablowski, G. J. (1979). The superbureaucrats: structure and behavior in central agencies. Toronto: MacMillan of Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Cho, S. J., & Im, T. B. (2010). Organization theory of Korean public administration (in Korean). Pajoo: Bobmoonsa.Google Scholar
  6. Chung, C. K. (1994). Economic leadership of the presidents of Korea (in Korean). Seoul: Korea Economic Daily.Google Scholar
  7. Dickinson, M. J. (1997). Bitter harvest: FDR, presidential power and the growth of the presidential branch. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dunleavy, P., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Core executive studies in Britain. Public Administration, 68(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: a public administration polemic (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ham, S. D. (1999). The Korean presidency (in Korean). Pajoo: Nanam.Google Scholar
  12. Han, S. (2010). Political resources and prime minister of partaker (in Korean). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University. Google Scholar
  13. Heclo, H. (1975). OMB and the presidency—the problem of “neutral competence”. The Public Interest, 38(Winter), 80–98.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Edited with an Introduction by C.B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. Huntington, S.P. (1991). The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: the growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jung, Y.-D. (1996). Reforming the administrative apparatus in Korea: the case of the “civilian government”. International Review of Public Administration, 1(1), 253–290.Google Scholar
  18. Jung, Y.-D. (2004). The bureaucracy of the first republic of Korea. In J. Moon & S. Kim (Eds.), Korean history in the 1950s (in Korean) (pp. 127–164). Seoul: Sunin.Google Scholar
  19. Jung, Y.-D. (2005). Stateness in transition: the Korean case in a comparative perspective. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 3(3), 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jung, Y.-D. (2007). The challenges of public administration reforms in Japan and South Korea. In D. Argyriades, O.P. Dwivedi, J.G. Jabbra (Eds.), Public administration in transition: a fifty-year trajectory worldwide. Essays in honor of Gerald E. Caiden (pp. 119–141). London: Vallentine Mitchell.Google Scholar
  21. Jung, Y.-D. (2010). Change and continuity of the civil service system in Korea. Keynote speech at the international conference on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Examination Yuan of the Republic of China, Taipei.Google Scholar
  22. Jung, Y.-D., & Kim, C. (2007). The institutionalisation of representative democracy in Korea, 1948–2007. In F. Grotz & T.A.J. Toonen (Eds.), Crosing borders: constitutional development and internationalisation. Essays in honour of Joachim Jens Hesse (pp. 136–152). Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.Google Scholar
  23. Jung, Y.-D., Kwon, Y., Kim, G. (2002) A function analysis of the office of government policy coordination. Research report. Korean Political Science Association, Seoul, December 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Jung, Y.-D., Lee, Y.-H., & Kim, D.-S. (2011). Institutional change and continuity in Korea’s central agencies, 1948–2011. Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 26(1), 21–48.Google Scholar
  25. Jung, Y.-D., Yoo, H.-J., Lee, Y.-H. (2010). The executive leadership in South Korea, 1948–2010: from charismatic to institutional presidency. Paper presented to Working Group VII on Leadership, Governance and Public Policy at the 28th international congress of administrative sciences. International Institute of Administrative Sciences and the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration, Bali.Google Scholar
  26. Jung, Y.-D. (2012). The evolution of institutional presidency in Korea, 1948–2011. Japanese Review of Political Society, 1(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  27. Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(December), 1057–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, C.-N. (2006). Leadership for nation-building: Korean Presidents from Syngman Rhee to Kim Dae-jung (in Korean). Seoul: Seoul National University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, H.-B. (1968). Korea: time, change and administration. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, J. Y. (2008). Woonam Syngman Rhee, who is he?. Seoul: Pai Chai Academy.Google Scholar
  31. Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. Edited by P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  32. Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: the case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moe, T. M. (1993). Presidents, institutions, and theory. In G. C. Edwards, J. H. Kessel, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Researching the presidency: vital questions, new approaches (pp. 337–386). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. (1998). A history of Korean government organizations (in Korean). Seoul: Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.Google Scholar
  35. Peters, B.G., Rhodes, R.A.W., Wright, V. (Eds.) (2000). Administering the summit: administration of the core executive in developed countries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Rockman, B. A. (1984). Legislative-executive relations and legislative oversight. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9(3), 387–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose, R. (1984). The capacity of the president: a comparative analysis. Studies in Public Policy No. 130. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenbloom, D. (1993). Public administration (3rd ed.). New York: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Yoo, H.-J., & Lee, Y.-H. (2010). Historical analysis on the development of an institutional presidency. Korean Public Administration Review, 44(2), 111–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Public AdministrationSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations