IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v44y2025i4p443-457..html

Ministers as policy intermediaries in presidential systems: evidence from a conjoint survey experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Don S Lee
  • Min H Kim

Abstract

This study examines how ministers serve as policy intermediaries between the presidential office and government ministries. Drawing on the policy intermediary framework, we provide insights into the necessity of assessing ministers based on potential for policy intermediation that extends presidential influence. Specifically, we investigate what qualifications and characteristics in ministers should be prioritized as policy intermediaries through the perspective of presidential staffers in South Korea. Using a novel conjoint experimental design, we test how various ministerial attributes―their career background, political and civil service experience, demographic characteristics, and leadership and coordination styles―influence evaluations by 179 presidential staffers of 2,144 hypothetical ministerial profiles. The results indicate that experience constructed within the executive and legislative branches and political party is essential for a qualified policy intermediary. Moreover, ministers who can act in the interests of the president’s office, rather than those who represent the ministry’s interests, are perceived as desired policy intermediaries. Overall, this study contributes novel insights by providing rare access to presidential staff evaluations of ministerial capacities vis-à-vis effective policy intermediation between politics and administration.

Suggested Citation

  • Don S Lee & Min H Kim, 2025. "Ministers as policy intermediaries in presidential systems: evidence from a conjoint survey experiment," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 44(4), pages 443-457.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:4:p:443-457.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puaf040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    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:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:4:p:443-457.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.