IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v48y2015i3p319-338.html

Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Chisung Park

  • Jooha Lee

  • Changho Chung

Abstract

This study aims to provide a new three-way typology of policy legitimacy (i.e., substantive legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and feasibility-centered legitimacy), while taking into account the relationship between politics (elected officials) and administration (unelected officials) as one of the most significant but under-discussed issues in the studies of policy legitimacy. This analytical framework is used to investigate the empirical case of South Korea’s cultural policy. The sequential causal relations between the three types of legitimacy and policy outcomes are then discussed. The case analysis demonstrates that the substantive and procedural legitimacy achieved in the earlier stages of the policy process were not enough to guarantee a successful policy outcome, and hence, feasibility-centered legitimacy was needed as a necessary condition for policy success. If there is a lack of consistency among the three types of legitimacy and coordination issues between elected and unelected officials in the legitimization process, seemingly legitimate policies could have unsuccessful outcomes. This study will contribute to the theoretical advancement of policy legitimacy and to the empirical examination of the legitimization process in recently democratized countries like Korea. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:3:p:319-338
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atkinson, Michael M. & Coleman, William D., 1989. "Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 47-67, January.
    2. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:65:y:1971:i:03:p:682-693_13 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, March.
    5. Pablo Gilabert & Holly Lawford-Smith, 2012. "Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(4), pages 809-825, December.
    6. Scharpf, Fritz W., 1998. "Interdependence and democratic legitimation," MPIfG Working Paper 98/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee, 2020. "Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 637-665, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chris F. Wright, 2017. "Employer Organizations and Labour Immigration Policy in Australia and the United Kingdom: The Power of Political Salience and Social Institutional Legacies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 347-371, June.
    2. Michael Haus & David Sweeting, 2006. "Local Democracy and Political Leadership: Drawing a Map," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 267-288, June.
    3. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    4. Carmen Heinrich & Christoph Knill & Yves Steinebach, 2025. "Analyzing industrial policy portfolios," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(1), pages 87-109, March.
    5. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    6. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    7. Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez & Valentina Auricchio & Marzia Mortati, 2022. "Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 89-136, March.
    8. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    9. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    10. Ching Leong, 2017. "Hajer’s institutional void and legitimacy without polity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 573-583, December.
    11. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    12. B. Ayça Ataç-Studt, 2025. "Balancing effectiveness and legitimacy: resettlement of property owners in flooded areas," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(16), pages 19163-19187, September.
    13. Adam Wellstead & Sarah Giest & Ishani Mukherjee & Anat Gofen & Bryan Evans, 2025. "Peak policy lab or chasing windmills? The overlooked issue of misaligned policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(2), pages 267-286, June.
    14. Siangulube, Freddie S. & Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. & Reed, James & Moombe, Kaala. B. & Sunderland, Terry, 2023. "Multistakeholder platforms for integrated landscape governance: The case of Kalomo District, Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    15. Franz Urban Pappi & Christian H. C. A. Henning, 1998. "Policy Networks: More Than a Metaphor?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 553-575, October.
    16. Yahua Wang & Leong Ching, 2013. "Institutional legitimacy: an exegesis of normative incentives," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 514-525, December.
    17. Myrto Tsakatika, 2005. "Claims to Legitimacy: The European Commission between Continuity and Change," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 193-220, March.
    18. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    19. Reyes Renny & Romano Alessandro & Sottilotta Cecilia Emma, 2015. "Regulatory Impact Assessment in Mexico: A Story of Interest Groups Pressure," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 99-121, June.
    20. Citi, Manuele & Rhodes, Martin, 2007. "New Modes of Governance in the EU: Common Objectives versus National Preferences," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 1, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:3:p:319-338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.