earticle

영어

Soon-Eun KimThe purpose of this study is to analyze various forms of urban public service reform and frameworks of regulations attached to the reform. Since the 1990s Korea as well as Japan succeeded in reforming delivery vehicles for urban public services, including executive agencies, competitive tendering, contracting out, designated manager and private finance initiative, etc. It was also found that different frameworks of regulations were coined not only in laws and by-laws in order to maintain public nature of urban public services even though their delivery systems were reformed. This study shows that Japan has been more successful in reforming urban public services in terms of quantity and quality of reform. While Japan has adopted a variety of ways and means for producing urban public services such as executive agencies, public-private competitive tendering, contacting-out, designated manager and private finance initiative, Korea had not depended on public-private competitive tendering and designated manager. The number of executive agencies at the local level in Korea is only three whereas that of executive agencies at the local level in Japan is more than 100. In addition, the breadth of regulation attached to means of reform measures in Japan is wider and deeper than that of Korea. In particular, regulation of information opening and democratic control are strongly emphasized in Japan in comparison with Korea.