｢공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률｣의 개선 방향- 공공단체, 공공기관, 공기업, 민영화에 대한 단상 -

Today, among various types of decentralization of administrative powers, the decentralization to public institutions refers to delegating administrative tasks or public projects, which originally should be performed by the state itself, to public institutions. In the Korean context, the core aspect of the general law on decentralization to public institutions, the “Act on the Management of Public Institutions,” lies in the designation and classification criteria of public institutions and the consequent effect of performance evaluations. However, despite distinct differences in the specific nature of duties carried out by each public institution, uniform criteria -namely, financial investment- have been used for designation and classification, and uniform profitability standards applied for evaluations. This approach has resulted in unequal treatment and risks undermining efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, ultimately compromising the original objectives and purposes of establishing public institutions. Considering the original intent behind decentralizing administrative authority, it is necessary to determine the balance between the values of “public interest and accountability” and “profitability and autonomy.” In this regard, a more functional classification based on the actual content of the institutions' responsibilities would be appropriate. Specifically, public institutions could be categorized as follows: “quasi-governmental institutions” performing authoritative state administrative tasks; “monopolistic public enterprises” undertaking commercial and industrial duties essential to sustaining citizens' livelihoods; “non-monopolistic public enterprises” conducting profit-oriented activities already prevalent in private markets, such as aviation, transportation, construction, and finance; and “other public institutions” engaged in non-authoritative, non-profit activities such as research, academia, and charitable functions. Next, for quasi-governmental institutions and monopolistic public enterprises, which prioritize public interest and responsibility, the weighting of profitability metrics in their evaluations should be reduced, and privatization is considered inappropriate. Conversely, non-monopolistic public enterprises should place greater emphasis on profitability and autonomy, and privatization is strongly encouraged. Regarding “other public institutions,” although they are designated and classified under the law, the absence of specific legal regulations renders such classification practically meaningless. Furthermore, administrative rules, without proper legal grounds, impose regulations on these institutions. Therefore, it is necessary either to formally establish clear legal grounds for such regulations or to abolish these administrative rules altogether.