The document analyzes the Korean science and technology policy system and the role of think tanks. It discusses the theoretical approaches of viewing the STI policy system as an interactive network among policy actors, political structures, and processes. It then provides a brief history of STEPI, Korea's major STI think tank, and outlines its role in providing research, policy advice, and evaluation. Finally, it maps out the potential roles of think tanks within the STI policy process and discusses implications like the need for holistic policy coordination across different policy areas and levels of government.

1. 한국 과학기술정책체제와
싱크탱크의 역할 분석
권기석 (한밭대) · 서일원(전남대)
2021년 11월 11일

2. CONTENTS
Theoretical approach: policy system & think tank
Ⅰ
Ⅲ
Ⅱ
Brief history of Korean STI think tank
STI policy system: structure and process
Discussion and Implications
Ⅳ

3. Research Background
Ⅰ

4. Theoretical approach
Ⅰ
Systematic approach
Inputs
Demands
Support
The
political
system
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
Conversion
of
Demands
into
Outputs
Intra-Societal
Environment
Extra-Societal
Environment
Feedback
Loop
Outputs
Source : Easton, D. (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Concept of Policy System
• Definition of Policy system: A system consist of policy actors leading policy
process, social environment internal and external, and their interaction
• This study regard the STI policy system as interactive and complex patterns
emerged among policy actors, political structure, and policy process. Based on
this understanding, we explore the role or function of think-tank in the policy
process

5. Definitions of Think-tank
• Still hard to reach the consensus among experts to define think tanks firmly.
• Think tanks….
 often have dynamics that must adapt to the context of culture, political,
historical, and economics of a country.
 …the independent and not profit-oriented institution (Rich, 2004, p. 11;
McGann, 2019, p. 5).
 explain well the domestic and foreign policies and its issues (Arin, 2014, p.
9).
 as the right place to provide high-quality sources and expertise to help
decision makers and being an evaluator in a government program.
 ..how to transform the people`s framework in confront with obstacle,
developing new idea for public policy, new knowledge through the strategic
thinking, credible research, and strong communications among
stakeholders (Selee, 2013, pp. 4–6).
Theoretical approach
Ⅰ

6. Definitions of Think-tank
• Policy makers often address public issues without consideration of evidence
and expertise that makes a gap between evidence to policy making process
• Policy think tank units have functions to bridge the results of research or a
scientific evidence to the stakeholders or policy makers regardless the system
and forms (McGann, 2019).
• Therefore, the think tank units can play in dual strategic role which are
producing knowledge and involving policy making process.
Source : Authors’ elaboration
Theoretical approach
Ⅰ

7. Typology of Think-tank
• First, a university without students
• Not only a place for learning and teaching but places academics as researchers.
• This form of think tanks normally conducted seminars and workshops as in common universities but in
a wider audience than students, for instance, policymakers (Abelson, 2009).
• Second, the contract research organization
• An organization that is usually granted by governments to conduct particular issues.
• This type of think tank may be placed as consultant to help their client to views the issues and provide
recommendation. In this very simplest form of think tank, the critics and recommendation tend to close
without public visibility. The purpose is to improve policy making proccess through involving limited
outside perspectives.
• Third, think tank advocacy.
• More independent and not-participant than others form of think-tank because these has usually had no
affiliation with interest parties.
• The budgeting often come from donors and sponsors and open to the public.
Theoretical approach
Ⅰ

8. The roles or functions
• First, think tank is a place as a source of policy ideas.
• In further, the idea is collected and debated by experts to popularization the ideas to policymakers.
These ideas could be not popular but may be strategic to decision makers. The role of think tank must
disseminate their idea.
• Second, think tank can play a role as government program evaluator. Think tank sometimes assess
government programs in how far its programs in reach their objectives. The think tank often evaluates
independently or working under contract.
• Third, the think tanks play as roles as source of personnel. Especially, professionals that are not
owned by the government.
Theoretical approach
Ⅰ

9. The ideal image : Think tank and political system
Theoretical approach
Ⅰ

10. STI policy system : structure and
process
Ⅱ

11. 10
STI policy system
Ⅱ
→ STI Policy structure
Source: Palmberg & Lemola (2012), p. 472

12. 11
Ⅱ
→ STI Policy structure
Source: adapted from Yang et al. (2016)
STI policy system

13. 12
Level 1: the policy coordination and cross-cutting policy formulation has been
strongly restricted by MOEF (Ministry of Economy and Finance) through the strong
budget control on other ministries. Therefore, overall policy coordination of
higher level actor has been quite limited
Level 2: the Korean ministries has developed R&D system independently as silos.
Moreover, overlapping between each ministry’s R&D agenda has been
recognized as a main barrier for the efficient implementation. Moreover,
coordination between ministries’ R&D policy and funding, mainly by Innovation
Division, is still difficult up until now
Level 3 & 4: A weak autonomy of agencies and performers at those levels as well
as insufficient delegation from the ministries regarding R&D decision making
have been still recognized as bottleneck. In addition, the optimal institutional
structure encouraging university-industry-government relation, regarding
competition and cooperation, has been still one of the main policy issues
Ⅱ
→ STI Policy structure
STI policy system

14. 13
Ⅱ
→ STI Policy Process
Figure. Anecdotal Characteristics of STI Process of Policy in South Korea
Policy initiators are mainly located inside the government
Outside initiation by social problems is very few
Policy formation is carried out by individual STI agencies,
and each ministry tends to adopt R&D programs
STI policies are mainly implement by R&D actors,
but under strong control of the government through agencies
STI think tanks draft a evaluation frameworks
and implement evaluation process quite independently
Policy
Agenda
Setting
Policy
Making
Policy
Implement
Policy
Evaluation
STI policy system

15. Brief History of
Korean STI think tank
Ⅲ

16. Korean Case : History of STEPI and main achievements
1. Birth of STEPI: the late 1980s
- STEPI has originated from the establishment of CSTP (Center of S&T
Policy) as an affiliated institute of KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology) in 1987
- The initial functions of CSTP can be explained as follows. Firstly, as a
think-tank, CSTP support ministries’ planning and implementation of
science and technology policy. Secondly, CSTP provides government,
public agencies, and private sector with the information on the R&D.
Thirdly, CSTP establishes and supports an academic hub for studies of
science and technology. Fourthly, CSTP develops methodology and
theoretical ground for evaluation for R&D. Fifthly, CSTP encourages
international cooperation. Sixthly, CSTP trains human resources.

17. Korean Case : History of STEPI and main achievements
2. Strengthening Planning and Evaluation Function: the1990s
- In 1989, KAIST has been divided into KIST as a research-oriented
institute and KAIST as a university. Therefore, CSTP has been
reorganized under the KIST. In 1993, CSTP has been renamed as
STEPI
- In 1996, STEPI has 77 researchers (50 doctoral degree holders) of
total 168 staffs, which is seven times increase compared to the birth
year 1987. Regarding disciplines of research staffs, 45% of them are
from science and engineering, 35% of them are from economics and
management studies
- In 1999, STEPI established as independent legal bodies based on
‘Act on Creation and Management of Public Research Institutes’.
According to this law, the jurisdiction of STEPI has been moved to
Prime Minister from Ministry of Science and Technology, which aims
to enhance the autonomy and expertise of public research institutes.

18. Korean Case : History of STEPI and main achievements
3. Expansion of studies of S&T policy: mid-90s and mid-00s
STEPI has carried out a hub role for actors such as university
department, academic society, and public agencies regarding
exchange of experts as well as knowledge in the area of S&T policy
studies. Against this background, STEPI has become a national think-
tank beyond a supporting agency for ministry of science and
technology.
4. Searching for the future of S&T: after 2011
Post-catch up issues emerged after 2010 has stimulated the creation
of the center for future studies in STEPI. This center produced various
national S&T agenda based on the foresight methodologies. In
addition, R&D for social problem solving has been conceptualized and
various projects are planned in this period. Interdisciplinary research,
S&T ODA, start-ups, regulation will become as important policy issues
in the upcoming era. In 2015, STEPI has moved into governmental
policy complex in Sejong special self-governing city, which encourages
opportunities for interdisciplinary approach.

19. Korean Case : STEPI’s current status and function role in the NIS
STEPI plays essential roles in the following areas.
- Researches on S&T and R&D activities and technological innovations
- Development of S&T policy alternatives
- Consultancies on technology management strategy
- Study on the relationship between S&T , economy and society
- International S&T cooperation
- Research on global S&T policy
- Collaboration with government, industry, academia, and foreign institute
- Dissemination of research outcomes
- Education and Training in its expertise

20. Discussion & Implications
Ⅳ

21. → Mapping Roles of think tank into STI Policy Process
Level 1
(high level)
Agenda
Setting
Decision-
Making
Implemen-
tation
Evaluation
PO
MSIT
MOTIE
MSS
Level 2
(Ministries
level)
Level 3
(Agencies
level)
Level 4
(R&D
Performers
level)
MOEF
MSIT
MOTIE
MSS
MOEF
PRIs
Univ.
Ind.
KISTEP
NA
BO
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
P
J
T
MSIT
MOTIE
MSS
MOEF
Agencies
Think
tank
4th
IR
PAC
ST
NRF
(Basic)
KEIT
(Appl.)
KIAT
(Appl.)
KISED
(Start.)
Discussion and Implications
Ⅳ

22. Agenda Setting Decision-
Making
Implementation Evaluation
Main Actors • P.O.
• National
assembly
• 4th IR
• PACST
• National
assembly
• Ministries
• Ministries
• Intermediary
agencies
• PRIs
• Univ.
• Industries
• NABO
• Ministries
• Intermediary
agencies
• KISTEP
Activities • Identify policy
needs
• Policy initiation
• Vision setting
• Policy priority
setting
• Selecting policy
alternatives
• Budgeting
• Performing R&D
• Provision of R&D
outcome
• Program
evaluation
• PJT evaluation
• Resource
allocation
[Required]
Functions
of Think tank
• Holistic policy
coordination
• Helping system
transition
• Screening &
adjusting goals
and needs
• Identifying &
comparing
alternatives
• Predicting policy
outcome
• Harmonizing
R&D efforts
• Diagnosis of
R&D process
• System
evaluation &
feedback
→ Mapping Roles of think tank into STI Policy Process
Discussion and Implications
Ⅳ

23. 22
→ (To-be) Positioning of think tank
Prime
Minister
Think tank
Bio
Tech
PRIs
Ministry Ministry
ICT
Tech
Basic
Science
Funding Agencies
Councils
University
Industries
I
N
T
E
R
-
M
E
D
I
A
R
Y
Discussion and Implications
Ⅳ

24. 23
Policy implications
Widely-recognized need for ‘Holistic’ policy coordination
• Implies coordinating across ‘sectors’
• Harmonizing different types of policy
• R&D, Market regulation, consumer law, environmental standards…
• Mixing up basic or long-run research with other types
• Optimal sizing the effort and finding the best level
Changing programming practice
• Widen stake-holders’ inputs
• Mixed policy instruments
Discussion and Implications
Ⅳ

25. Q & A