Korea Mapping Report

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) Korea Mapping Team Summer 2020

Mary Nkechi Ogbuehi, Project Lead Ashley Ahn Lindsey Lapinski Jungyun Lee Shinui Cindy Kim Sean (Soohyoung) Kim Natasha Kossovsky Lucy Popko

ABOUT THE THINK TANKS AND CIVIL SOCIETIES PROGRAM (TTCSP)

The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania conducts research on the role policy institutes play in governments and civil societies around the world. Often referred to as the “think tanks’ think tank,” TTCSP examines the evolving role and character of public policy research organizations. Over the last 30 years, the TTCSP has developed and led a series of global initiatives that have helped bridge the gap between knowledge and policy in critical policy areas such as international peace and security, globalization and governance, international economics, environmental issues, information and society, poverty alleviation, and healthcare and global health. These international collaborative efforts are designed to establish regional and international networks of policy institutes and communities that improve policy making while strengthening democratic institutions and civil societies around the world.

ABOUT THE LAUDER INSTITUTE

The Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies offers an M.A. in international studies and conducts fundamental and policy-oriented research on current economic, political, and business issues. It organizes an annual conference that brings academics, practitioners, and policymakers together to examine global challenges such as financial risks, sustainability, inequality, and the future of the state.

ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

The University of Pennsylvania (Penn) is an Ivy League school with highly selective admissions and a history of innovation in interdisciplinary education and scholarship. A world-class research institution, Penn boasts a picturesque campus in the middle of Philadelphia, a dynamic city that is conveniently located between Washington, D.C. and New York, New York the University of Pennsylvania was founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1740 to push the frontiers of knowledge and benefit society by integrating study in the liberal arts and sciences with opportunities for research and practical, pre-professional training at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Penn is committed to meeting the full demonstrated need of all undergraduates with grant-based financial aid, making this intellectually compelling integration of liberal and professional education accessible to talented students of all backgrounds and empowering them to make an impact on the world.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 3

Introduction 4

Literature Review 6 Government-Think Tank Relations & Think Tanks’ Effect on Public Policy 7 Government Think Tanks 7 Local Government Think Tanks 9 Private Think Tanks 11 Scholarly Policy Research Institutes 12 Republic of Korea in Global Context & Asia Pacific 14 India 15 China 17 Japan 19 Australia 20 Singapore 22 Republic of Korea 23 Think Tank Geographic Distribution 25

Methods & Techniques 31

Key Findings & Conclusions 31

Bibliography 33

Introduction

Over the course of the summer of 2020, the Korea Mapping Team, a subgroup of the Asia Data Collection team, conducted research to identify and map think tanks in the Republic of Korea (ROK). Spearheaded by Dr. James McGann of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies

Program at the University of Pennsylvania, the goal of the project was to create a comprehensive database of think tanks located within the Republic of Korea (ROK). ROK was chosen as a subject of research because it has traditionally been under-researched in global think tank data collection. The mission of this project was to determine the number of and identify think tanks currently operating in ROK. Moreover, team members were tasked with conducting granular research on think tanks within the region, including their location, their affiliations, and the topics most frequently researched by think tanks. Another objective of this mapping project was to conduct regional analyses on the Asia Pacific region in general. Specifically, information collected from think tanks in ROK by the Korea Mapping Team was compared with the information collected from the China, Japan, India and Taiwan Regional Mapping teams to produce a regional analysis. Initially, project leaders utilized the Internet and targeted keyword google searches as a starting point for data collection. Aided by Hankyung Magazine and the database they provided, the team began by compiling a spreadsheet of prominent South Korean think tanks. The team then looked at the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program 2019 Global Go-To Index in its data collection phase to find think tanks that had previously been rated by TTCSP in the region. Finally, team members looked at top universities, government institutions, and for profit corporations around the country to find think tanks. Through a combination of the above methods, team members were able to compile an extensive list of top institutions in the region. The Hankyung list, in tandem with our knowledge of think tanks from the Index, was used to create Internet searches to find affiliated think tanks. Email and contact information the team found was located via the publicly available websites of think tanks in ROK. Throughout the course of the project, team members compiled a literature review which discusses the history and development of research institutions in ROK. The literature review was also intended to discuss the function of think tanks in public policy in the region. Ultimately, the team sought to construct as extensive a list as possible of think tanks in ROK. The Korea Mapping team looked to create a representative sample and then draw conclusions about the demographics of ROK think tanks. The team found 300 think tanks over the course of the project. Analyses were then conducted on the information collected. Our analyses looked at the top three policy areas that think tanks in the region research, the years in which the think tanks were established, their affiliations, and their locations within the ROK. Through these analyses we endeavor to present a more complete picture of the think tank industry within the Republic of Korea and the Asia-Pacific region at large. Going forward, we have a solid base on which the TTCSP program can build to explore more think tanks and in greater depths.

Literature Review

This literature review will take an overview approach to think tanks in the Republic of Korea. This first section will discuss Juan Felipe Lopez Aymes’s interpretation of a “Knowledge Regime” in the context of South Korea’s think tank development from 1945, the first stage of think tank development, to the early 1960s. The following section will provide a timeline that delineates the major points of think tank development and think tank-government relations from the 1960s to the middle of the think tank boom in Korea, the 1990s.

“Knowledge Regime” & South Korean Think Tank Development

In his piece, “Formation and Evolution of the Knowledge Regime and the Development Process in Korea,” Juan Felipe Lopez Aymes explores the relation between the political system to its knowledge regime. Aymes defines a knowledge regime as “a set of actors, organizations, and institutions that produce and disseminate policy ideas that affect how policy-making and production regimes are organized and operate” (Aymes, 2014). Knowledge regimes in the context of this report are think tanks. This literature review will explore the typologies, and development of think tanks in the Republic of Korea.

During the post-colonial era, the Republic of Korea was under a very centralized and dictatorial leadership. Economic development and public policy issues were in the strict hands of the government alone, with some outside input from US officials (Aymes, 97). This changed under the presidency of Park Chung-Hee which is considered the beginning of the development state of think tanks (Aymes, 2014).

During this era the first think tank was formed, the Korean Development Institute (KDI). It was established in 1971 and allowed for a non-government structured entity to have a voice in government affairs (Aymes, 2014). It must be noted that KDI is a government funded entity, not a part of the formal structure of government. However it had more autonomy than most institutions during its founding. KDI functioned as a fount of economic policy research. The success of KDI paved the way for more institutions focused on economics to be founded. Think Tanks at this time, were a departure from the centralized policymaking that Park Chung-Hee was known for (Aymes, 2014).

In the 1990s, the democratization era in ROK, the space for ideas and their production increased again. This is credited to political changes that occurred in the late 80s, when the Republic of Korea had free & open elections in 1989. With the new government and more expanse for ideas, new organizations not dedicated solely to the economy emerged. Such institutions include the Citizens Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ) (Aymes, 2014). CCEJ and NGOs were new actors in public policy and in the creation of ideas and their dissemination. However, the consistent issue of gaining access to policy makers persists to this day. There is

7 still a political culture in which the president’s vision for the country, particularly the economy, is predominant. Think tanks with access to the president and policymakers research and formulate policy to make the vision possible (Aymes, 2014).

Government-Think Tank Relations & Think Tanks’ Effect on Public Policy

In this section, we will explore the relation between Korean think tanks and the government, the role of Korean think tanks, and the effect of think tanks on public policy from the 1960s through the present. We break down think tanks into the following affiliation categories: national government, local government, private, and scholarly think tanks. Within the category of private think tanks, we provide further categorization as civil society, political party, or corporate.

Government Think Tanks

The majority of influential Think Tanks in South Korea are government affiliated and funded (Kim, 2014). The development of government think tanks in Korea began in the 1960s and 1970s with think tanks such as the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) in 1966 and the Korea Development Institute (KDI) in 1971 (이시욱, 2018). The end of the 1970s saw the creation of specialized Think Tanks by the government financial department (이시욱, 2018). Historically, government think tanks lacked autonomy, were dependent on government funding, and were susceptible to influence by the administration or government department with which they were affiliated and from which they received funding, resources, and support. Following South Korea’s democratization, there was a push to promote think tank autonomy (Kim, 2014; 이연호, 2009; 이시욱, 2018). The Research Center Establishment law helped think tanks establish their own independent board of directors. However, think tanks found it challenging to establish complete independence from government departments as it was difficult to conduct research without departments’ funding and support. Scholar Yeon-Ho Lee explains in “The Role of Think Tanks in Making Small Government: The Cases of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Korea” (작은 정부를 만들기

위한 싱크탱크(Think Tank)의 역할 : 미국, 영국의 사례와 한국), eventually, rather than functioning as national research centers, government think tanks effectively became government department think tanks, influenced to produce subjective research that strengthened the affiliated department’s position. This resulted in conflicting research among government think tanks that promoted individual think tank’s departments rather than national development (이연호, 2009). Compounding the issue of independence, in addition to the factor of economic dependence, there is also systematic bureaucratic influence. The Blue House maintains the power to appointment directors of public think tanks. Officially, since 1999, directors are chosen by committees under oversight of the Prime Minister's Office. However, in practice, the directors chosen are a reflection of the government’s agenda and the views of the President (Kim, 2014). Currently, there continues to be formal and informal influence on think tanks receiving government support and funding (이연호, 2009). Scholar Sung Chull Kim points out in “Politics, Knowledge, and Inter-Korean Affairs : Korean Public Think Tanks Not as Policy Advocates but as Knowledge Producers” that successful think tanks in Korea are government-funded (2014). Despite, or perhaps as a result, of government influence, government-funded think tanks have had decisive influence on the creation of government policy since the beginning of the Industrial phase (이시욱, 2018). Government thinks tanks have assumed the same role as government organizations. Not only do they suggest long term vision for economic growth and national development, they also contribute to and assist in the policy making and implementation process. As such, government think tanks contribute to national development and, as scholars Yoon-Won Hwang and Man-Hyeong Heo argue in “Researching the Policy Role of Provincial Government Think Tanks: Longitudinal and Cross-Section Comparative Analysis” (지방정부 싱크탱크의 정책역할 연구: 연구실적의 종단면 및 횡단면적 연구주제 비교분석을 중심으로), have become essential to national progress (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010). Lee supports this claim, states that Korean government think tanks have substantial weight and effect on policy (이연호, 2009). In addition to shared government affiliation, Scholars Thomas Kern and Alexander Ruser suggest that cultural homogeneity between think tank members and policy makers may be a

9 factor in the high volume of transmission of think tank ideas to implementation as policy, as both groups share similar educational backgrounds and social networks (2010). Expanding on the role of government-funded Korean think tanks, Kim notes that these think tanks function as research institutions and not advocates (2014). Especially regarding contentious topics such as North-South Korea relations and issues, government think tanks steer clear of new and potentially controversial proposals and fall in step with the government’s position. Additionally, government bureaucrats are not interested in presenting potentially controversial ideas to their superiors and thus are not inclined to entertain new ideas from think tanks (Kim, 2014). As such, a central challenge government-funded think tanks continue to face is lack of autonomy and the issue of government dependence (이시욱, 2018).

Local Government Think Tanks

1991 saw the introduction of the provincial autonomy system and the strengthening of provincial governments’ policy development capacity. Thereafter, provincial governments realized the need for provincially-lead policies that address their districts' needs. To support this need, they created their own think tanks. The central government’s think tanks served as the model upon which local governments’ based their think tanks, resulting in shared organization structure and ability across the country. At first, these think tanks were established with city ordinances. Then, in 2000, a bill regarding provincial autonomous government research center establishment and operation was passed that provided provincial governments with a legal basis for establishing and operating their own think tanks. With the central government’s permission, city councils nationwide established 15 think tanks, also known as development research centers. The capacity and size of these think thanks rivals that of central government think tanks (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010).

In the present time, the central government is increasing its policy making ability and capacity. Hwang and Heo state that this shift is correspondingly having a negative effect on the policymaking capacity of local governments. Under the rigidity and strength of the central government-oriented system, Hwang and Heo argue that local governments are trapped in the role of passively implementing the policies decided by the central government, rather than creating policy that matches the needs of their province (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010). This is a particularly important problem as the role of provincial government think tanks is to address issues relevant to their local communities. For example, think tanks in cities tend to focus more on environmental issues while think tanks in more rural areas tend to focus on issues such as economic development. Hwang and Heo argue that as societal issues become more complex and the government becomes more specialized, the role of policy knowledge production becomes ever increasingly critical. This role is assumed by think tanks, thus resulting in their increasing importance. Correspondingly in local governments, the policy role of local government think tanks will increase, and the role that think tanks play in policy making will expand beyond the level of knowledge production (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010). In addition to the restrictive central government system, a critical challenge local government think tanks face is that their policy recommendations and research are limited to the scope of local government. Because there is no knowledge sharing network that connects the local government think tanks, the policy knowledge of these centers is province-specific. Even if local government think tanks attempt to cross provincial borders, the usefulness of their information in solving larger-scale problems is met with skepticism (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010). Local government think tanks also have to deal with the diversification of the types of research centers and think tanks that have emerged in the provincial sphere. These organizations include policy advocacy group’s think tanks, central government research organizations located in the province, and other research organizations launched by the provincial government. Hwang and Heo

11 explain that this new crop of organizations brings with it the issue that the information being provided is in many cases influenced by the group producing it. With think tanks playing the crucial role of knowledge providers, this issue is one with which that local government think tanks will have to grapple (황윤원 & 허만형, 2010).

Private Think Tanks

The first corporate private think tank was the Korea Economic Research Institute established in 1963 under the Federation of the Korean Industries; however, it was not until the 1980s when corporate think tanks became widespread. In 1981, the Corporation Think Tank Establishment Announcement and Recommendation System was introduced and led to the establishment of private think tanks operating under large corporations such as Samsung and LG. In the 1990s, the types of think tanks diversified to include civil society think tanks. The 2000s then built on the progress of the prior decade and propelled an expansion of the role of civil society think tanks. In 2004, the Political Party Law Amendment made establishing political party policy research centers, or think tanks, mandatory, thus spurring the creation of political party think tanks (이시욱, 2018). Kim argues that private think tanks are under-developed in South Korea. Government think tanks are the central, successful think tanks (2014), while the private think tanks that do exist have minimal funding and small staff sizes. Lee explains that policy information and policy making is centralized under the government, so there is less of a need to look externally at private think tanks for policy knowledge. They argue that the central reason for the underdevelopment of South Korean private think tanks is the preventative form of the central government bureaucracy which tries to monopolize the policy knowledge production and policy making process (이연호, 2009). Currently, of the private think tanks that exist, many are affiliated with civil organizations, and others are affiliated with corporations and religious groups (Kim, 2014). Corporate think tanks

12 in particular wield a significant amount of market influence (이시욱, 2018). Surveying the private think tank landscape in South Korea, there is a lack of medium and large scale civil society think tanks and an absence of non-partisan political party think tanks as a result of the think tank political party factionalism system (이시욱, 2018). Overall, the most critical challenge private think tanks face is the issue of a lack of funding (Kim, 2014), and corresponding lack of influence.

Scholarly Policy Research Institutes

University-affiliated research centers have seen their fair share of increase in influence and numbers. As the South Korean government sought to incorporate high-end technology into their economy, rather than only relying on manufacturing industry, South Korea experiences a huge demand for locally developed technologies, rather than mere replicas and foreign imported technology. To develop the research capacity, active government support started from 1990 government projects that focussed on establishing science-focused and engineering-focused research centers (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). Between 2007 and 2015, government funding more than doubled to more than 1.6 million USD (SRC/ERC, n.d.). After almost three decades ever since 1990, the number of university-affiliated research centers has grown to 5092 and 3822 full-time researchers in the same year (National Research Foundation of Korea, 2019).1 However, even with this massive number of research centers, a commonly diagnosed problem with university-affiliated institutions is that their research directions are often dictated by the government and other funding sources. Therefore there isn not much autonomy in terms of research directions (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). This issue seems to be common across many think tank environments in South Korea, as the issue of autonomy and independence from the national government seems to plague local government think tanks as well. The role of university-affiliated centers is quite simple. They are to provide scholarly evidence for governmental policy making. In 2018, 1313 research centers focussed on social

1 Only in this section of the report is the word “research center” and “think tank” used interchangeably, leading to a substantial difference in the total amount of think tanks that the Korea Mapping Team has identified and the amount of scholarly policy research think tanks that the literature review has exposed. Some institutions that would fall under the “think tank” definition (see McGann, 2020) seems to not consider themselves as think tanks. Conversely, organizations, such as political party-affiliated research centers that are most accurately described as “interest groups”, consider themselves think tanks. Furthermore, the proliferation of the term “think tank” to refer to loose coalition of academics and businessmen that directly work for presidential or regional election candidates has rendered the term meaningless (see Woo, 2015). The author is regretful that the definition of “think tank” in discussing scholarly policy research think tanks deviates from the rest of the paper.

13 sciences (National Research Foundation of Korea, 2019). However, a substantial portion of the funds (35%) goes directly into research and development efforts that focus on infrastructure and equipment development (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). There are numerous challenges that university-affiliated research centers face. First, there are many that are inactive or do not have enough personnel. This is a result of universities in the 1990s rushing to set up research centers because of increased demand as the South Korean government emphasized research and development as a key industry for economic growth. In fact, in 2012, only 53% of identified research centers were identified to be active (Science and Technology Policy Institute). Second, many of these institutions center around one university professor, making interdisciplinary work almost impossible (Ministry of Education and Science Technology, 2011). This is also an issue as university-affiliated institutions lack the ability to market themselves and communicate amongst each other to share work progress. They also oftentimes lack an identity that is distinct from the professor that the research center is centered around (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). Lastly, there is a large discrepancy between the amount of research institutions and the amount of full time researchers. As mentioned above, even though there are more than 5,000 university-affiliated research centers in 2018, there were only 3822 full time researchers. Therefore, many of these research facilities desperately lack human resources. Moreover, without continued government financial support, it is unlikely that many centers would be able to continue their operations as they cannot stand alone financially (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). In order to promote university-affiliated think tanks, the South Korean government must value network connections between universities, rather than relying on individually-cultivated academic ties, such as alumni networks, for cooperation between research institutes. Not only would this allow existing research centers to share their work progress more efficiently, but would also revitalize think tanks that are less active at the moment (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). Furthermore, this would allow government financial support to be used more efficiently, as university-affiliated research centers would not be competing against each other, but rather cooperating with each other (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012). Moreover, national and regional governments should allocate their funds in a way that would promote these think tanks to not only cooperate with each other but also to readjust their structure in terms of human resources or marketing capability so that these research centers can be financially self-sufficient (Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2012).

This overview of Korean think tanks serves as a foundation for the remainder of the report. The government still has a dominant role in public policy and is willing to fund research institutions such as universities and local governments to garner policies. Though research is conducted to promote policies, government funding restricts autonomy. This may render think tanks hesitant to offer any innovation that could be seen as controversial or out of step with the image the policymakers are promoting. Next we will explore our methods and analysis of think tanks.

Analysis & Data Collection

Republic of Korea in Global Context & Asia Pacific

As part of Dr. McGann’s think tank initiative, we will look at the global, regional, and country context of think tanks in the Republic of Korea. Our goal this summer was to identify think tanks in ROK not previously contacted, reach out to previously identified think tanks, and send emails to these institutions asking them to create or update their profiles with the Think Tank & Civil Societies Program. Once that had been accomplished we were to work to utilize the survey data we received to conduct an Asia-Pacific comparative analysis of countries with relatively the same population, GDP, and development. In this report we will discuss our comparative analysis with the following countries, India, Japan, Australia, and Singapore. At the end we will give an extensive analysis of the data we collected on ROK think tanks. Areas of comparison will be in think tank typology, policy areas, budget, number of staff, and year of establishment. To keep our results standardized across the numerous research projects that were conducted this summer at TTCSP, there were 15 policy areas that research could be categorized in: Defense & National Security, Domestic Economics, Education, Energy & Resources, Environment, Foreign Policy & International Affairs, Domestic Health, Global Health, International Development, International Economics, Science & Technology, Social Policy, Transparency & Good Governance, Food, and the last is Water.

According to the 2019 Global Go to Index, there are 8,248 think tanks identified around the world. In the Asia-Pacific region the Index has identified 1,829 think tanks, the 3rd most populous think tank region globally. 60 think tanks have previously been identified in the Republic of Korea. Within the categories of the Global Go to Index, India, Japan, and China have been categorized together as their population of think tanks is larger. The first country we will conduct a comparative analysis of is India. Per the Global Index India has at minimum 509 think tanks. We will be using data from 29 completed TTCSP surveys.

India

The typologies represented in the graph above are based on the 27 surveys that were completed. These typologies are according to the Global Go to Index that Dr. McGann has outlined in his work: Autonomous & Independent, Quasi-Independent, Quasi-Governmental, University affiliated, Government affiliated, and For-Profit. The definitions have been fleshed out extensively in the Index. For India 74.3% of think tanks that completed the survey identified themselves as autonomous & independent. This typology is unrestrained in its work as they are not tied to any interest group or the government which may influence their research. The second largest typology identified by our data are quasi-governmental and government affiliated think tanks. The distinction between these types is that government think tanks are directly associated with the formal structure of government, while quasi-governmental institutions are think tanks that are funded almost exclusively by the government but aren’t part of the government institutional structure. In addition to think tank typology the policy areas will also be explored.

Per the data we collected as part of the Asia-Pacific Data Team, we visualized the data we received to present our findings. Amongst the 27 Indian think tanks that completed the survey, Domestic Economics was the most prevalent policy area researched, at 22%. Domestic Economics covers a wide range of topics, such as macro and microeconomics, trade, investment, and interest rates (McGann, 2019). The second largest policy area identified in India is Defense & National Security at 14.6%. This policy area studies military and defense policies. These policy areas indicate that these are of high importance to Indian research and policymakers.

As there have previously been 509 think tanks identified in India but only 29 think tanks responded to our survey these graphs are not accurate portrayals of Indian think tanks. Instead, this is a glimpse of understanding in our current knowledge about think tanks in India. There is an India Mapping Project as well this summer, their report will have more in depth research and portrayals of India think tanks, as well as more identified think tanks than previously discussed here and in the 2019 Global Go to Index. Our next country is within East Asia and has the second largest number of think tanks in the Asia Pacific region: China.

China

In China, there have been 507 think tanks identified so far. The graph above is based off of 1287 think tanks and their typology was determined by researchers according to the think tank’s website. The largest think tank institutions presented are university affiliated at 54.47%. The second largest think tanks are government affiliated at 22.2%.

This graph is based off of 1,211 think tanks, and research areas were determined by researchers using the institution's websites. In policy areas Domestic Economics outstretches all other areas of research. Given China’s recent economic strides it's not surprising that think tanks would invest their resources into this area. The second largest policy area graphed that is part of the aforementioned 15 is social policy. Social Policy pertains to social issues such as healthcare, inequalities, and immigration (McGann, 2019). We continue our comparative analysis to another East Asian country: Japan

Japan

The 2019 Global Go to Index has identified 128 think tanks previously. From these institutions 14 think tanks responded to our survey. Based on the data received we created the graph above. 30.8% of Japanese think tanks designate themselves as Autonomous & Independent. This is similar to India’s survey results, in which a plurality of responding think tanks have deemed themselves free from outside influence. The second largest think tank distinction in the above graph is quasi-independent. Institutions under this typology a think tank is autonomous from the government but has a leading interest group or donor that provides funding and has influence over operations (McGann, 2019). Though this data is not a true representative sample of the estimated think tanks in Japan, 128, this does give insight into how much importance is placed on autonomy in both Japan and India.

Domestic Economics is once again the leading policy area in our analyses, in Japan from our data, its 21.6%. The second largest policy area is Foreign Policy & International Affairs at 21.6%. This policy area focuses on world affairs within the region or at an international level (McGann, 2019). The last two countries in our comparative analysis are in the Oceania region of Asia, Australia and Singapore.

Australia

There have been 42 think tanks identified by the Go to Index previously. 7 Australian think tanks responded to the TTCSP survey so we are basing the following on these surveys. Like China, which had a significantly bigger sample size, Australian universities responded more to the survey and thus have a plurality within our visualized data at 42.9%. The second largest think tank type presented above is autonomous & independent think tanks at 28.6%.

Of the 7 completed surveys, Foreign Policy & International Affairs was the largest portion in policy areas at 28.6%. The institutions that were focused on Foreign Policy were majorly university affiliated. The second largest policy area we were able to record was a tie between Domestic Economics & Education at 14.3%. Institutions that focused on these subjects were a mix of government institutions, universities, and autonomous & independent. Also, the majority of think tanks we recorded were able to boast numerous research focuses within their institution. This points to a staff and resources large enough to support more than one research project at a time. Our final country of analysis is for a country that has the least amount of think tanks within this report but one in which we were able to almost achieve a representative sample of think tank data: Singapore.

Singapore

The 2019 Global Go-To Index identified 18 think tanks in Singapore. These results are based on the 5 institutions that completed the TTCSP survey. In terms of focus area, Foreign Policy & International Affairs is the top policy area at 40.0%, followed by Science & Technology, Social Policy, and International Economics which all seem to be of equal importance at 20.0%. This top priority mirrors that of Japanese think tanks. Referencing the below graph, it can be noted that the majority of think tanks in Singapore are university- affiliated, whereas the rest are autonomous. Universities handle much of the research in Singapore, given that there exist 6 autonomous universities of significant size within the country despite its small population.

From the 5 completed think tank surveys, the overwhelming majority of think tanks that responded were university affiliated, which can be seen clearly from the 75% university affiliation presented above. The other think tanks represented were autonomous & independent. Sadly we are missing every other kind of think tank besides the two above in our survey results. Though 5 institutions out of an estimated 18 is closer to a representative sample, the think tanks that did respond have unbalanced the results.

This is the end of our country analysis, across the Asia Pacific region it was noticeable that universities were a large part of the think tank population, especially in China, Australia, and Singapore. The second dominant think tank type was autonomous & independent. This report will now explore the Republic of Korea, and at the end of our report summarize in more depth the country analysis.

Republic of Korea

The purpose of our mapping project this summer was to not only perform a comparative analysis but to also discuss Korean think tanks and identify them. Through the course of our project we have identified 241 new institutions, bringing the estimated think tank number to 301. Additionally, we suspect that 27 think tanks have closed recently, within the past 24 months. From the ROK think tanks the team emailed throughout the course of this month, 21 institutions have completed or updated their profile. The upcoming graphs are based on 21 institutions that completed their profile: these graphs will review the average administration staff, research staff, and budget by the typology.

In this graph the average number of administrative staff is measured by the typology of think tanks. On average, quasi-independent think tanks have 64.5 administrative staff members. This is a significant number above all other types of think tanks represented in this graph. It must be noted that the most common think tank that completed the surveys were autonomous & independent think tanks. Though 21 institutions is not a representative sample of the estimated think tank population, 301 think tanks, it is noteworthy that quasi-independent think tanks are showing to have more resources.

Next is the average number of research staff, and again quasi-independent think tanks are seen to have greater access to research staff on average in comparison to any other institution type. On average there are 60 research staff members available to these institutions, especially over universities.

Once again quasi-independent think tanks have more resources available to them over any other institutions. These figures are with outliers incorporated into the figures. We will also provide figures for non-outlier budget averages. These graphs were unique in that quasi- independent think tanks were shown to have greater access to all three types of resources, despite not being the most represented think tank type within the survey. Our mapping project also includes figures on location of think tanks across the Republic of Korea, year of establishment, and policy areas. We will not discuss geographic distribution.

Think Tank Geographic Distribution

When we began this mapping project, we did not know how many think tanks were in the Republic of Korea, so we set out to find as many think tanks as possible over the course of the summer. In total we were able to acquire information on 300 think tanks. From our collected think tanks, we analyzed the locations, policy areas, and date of year of think tank founding. We made sure to add Korean related topics to represent the full range of policy areas available. Our first area of analysis are the locations of think tanks across the Republic of Korea.

From our analysis 73.8% of think tanks in the ROK are based in Seoul. This is not surprising as Seoul is the capital of the country, with greater access to the government, its leaders, and funding. Additionally, influential political parties are also stationed in Seoul. Outside of Seoul we noticed that many maritime think tanks were based in Busan, the second largest city in ROK. This makes sense as Busan is a port city and the fishing industry is large in that part of the country.

As we see above, the majority of the think tanks are university affiliated. In particular, three Seoul universities were educational institutions that had a wide variety of think tanks. These institutions are Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University. As we noticed the trend of Seoul based university think tanks, we purposefully searched for

27 universities outside of Seoul, the most prominent one being Pusan National University. Pusan National boasts an expansive think tank selection that rivals the Seoul based universities. We attribute the large percentage of university think tanks during the course of this study to information availability.

During this project, universities were the easiest and most noticeable think tanks our team came across. Universities were eager to promote their academic and publication successes and provided access to their reports in English, Korean, or both languages. Websites were also easy to navigate and were available not only in Korean, but in Chinese, Japanese, and English. This points towards an emphasis on international exposure and engagement that more domestically focused think tanks may not exhibit.

The second attribute that contributes to the large percentage of university think tanks is government funding. A clear example of this is Seoul National University (SNU). Seoul National is a public university that receives funding from tuition, donations, and the government. SNU prides itself on being a national research institute, which comes with the benefits of being able to dedicate think tanks to Unification to economic development and international affairs. As described in the literature review, we know that these scholarly institutions can lack autonomy due to government funding and adhering to safer proposals. This is an acknowledgement of one of the factors as to why university think tanks are such a strong proponent of think tanks in the Republic of Korea.

The second largest think tank affiliation we came across were institutions we found to be autonomous and independent at 18.3%. We determined that think tanks belonged in this category by reviewing mission statements, publication records, and introductory sections in reports and other publications. For these think tanks we found it harder to determine whether they belonged in this institutional category as financial records were cumbersome to find in comparison to other think tank institutions.

We used these metrics to identify interests, bias, and funding from outside sources. Using these methods, we were able to decipher more easily the interests and funding organizations, not explicitly clear to us utilizing only one metric. In certain cases, a think tank would be open with their financial statements. In cases such as these we reviewed membership fees; who could become a member, and the proportions of funds given by members. As the project continues over time, we will be more agile and critical of how we categorize institutions as independent & autonomous.

The third largest affiliation we found in the Republic of Korea is with government at 17%. This is not surprising as the development of think tanks started with the government and eventually branched out, especially during the 80s and 90s, as discussed in the literature review. Government institutions such as the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS), which is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ think tank, are directly part of the government as

28 opposed to being funded exclusively by them. These institutions have greater access and influence on policy makers than university affiliations and independent/autonomous think tanks. While they are the third largest institute affiliation they hold more influence. We will now begin our analysis of the top three focus areas of all of the think tanks we collected.

Date Founded

The first South Korean think tank, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) was founded in 1918, and from its first appearance until the 60s, the South Korean Think Tanks began to spring up. On the other side, as we can see from the graph above, there was a think tanks boom in 1978~2017. During this period, a total of 203 South Korean think tanks were established, and this figure accounts for 67% of all South Korean Think Tanks.

Policy Areas

We analyzed policy areas for each 300 South Korean Think Tanks and, we determined its policy area into 15 categories based on 2019 Global Go To Index: Defense & National Security, Domestic Economics, Education, Energy & Resources, Environment, Foreign Policy & International Affairs, Domestic Health, Global Health, International Development, International Economics, Science & Technology, Social Policy, Transparency & Good Governance, Food, and Water. To classify think tanks into these 15 categories, we sifted through the official web site of each think tank, and we also checked its research publications and research programs. We added a total of 300 think tanks, but due to ambiguity in its research area, there are 18 think tanks which we couldn’t determine its policy area.

The first top-focus area of South Korean think tanks is Domestic Economics. Through the South Korean Think Tanks database researched by Korea Mapping Team, we can see that 69 think

30 tanks principally contribute to Domestic Economics research. And besides, the thirteen think tanks of them also research international economics. On the other hand, there are thirteen corporate think tanks which contributed to domestic economics and the majority of them were established by banks. Since the role of the national bank is indispensable for a national economy and, they have high-quality resources to do economic research, that's an efficient situation to develop the quality of research.

The second focus area is Science & Technology. Furthermore, when it refers to Science & Technology, it also includes sustainability, sustainable development and renewable energy. According to KISTEP2 National Science-Technology Capabilities Evaluation 2019, Korea has ranked seventh in the OECD countries. In this regard, we can point out the relation between national scientific and technological power and the importance of think tanks. According to our database, there are 38 think tanks that principally contribute to Science & Technology research and each think tank is specialized in certain branches of science. For instance, through the following institutes, we can see the variety of the research area within the Science & Technology category: Artificial Intelligence Institute of Seoul National University (AIIS), Advances Institutes of Convergence Technology of Hanyang University, Digital Convergence Research, Hanyang Institute for Phonetics and Cognitive Sciences of language, Brain and Motivation Research Institute and Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM).

The third focus area is Foreign Policy & International Affairs. As we can see in the graph above, there are 36 South Korean think tanks which contributed to Foreign Policy & International Affairs. Within these 36 think tanks, East Asia Institute and East Asia Foundation are think tanks that concentrate on the East Asia region. Also, we found a think tank that focuses on one country as the Chinese Studies Institute of Korea University. By last, there are four think tanks that research unification, peace, and military affairs, such as Peace & Democracy Institute, Jeju Peace Institute, Institute for Unification Education, and Korea Institute for Military Affairs. We can point out the existence of these four think tanks as characteristic of South Korean Think Tanks caused by the division of Korea.

2 Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning

Methods & Techniques

In order to improve the current database of think tanks in the Republic of Korea and identify all the current existing think tanks, we compiled a list of ROK think tanks that were not already in the 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. Hankyung Magazine greatly contributed to our research by providing our team with their complete list of 198 think tanks. Of the 198 think tanks, we added 193 to our database as seven think tanks were inactive. We then emailed the approximately 200 South Korean think tanks, inquiring about other think tanks they may know of that have started in the past 24 months. Of these think tanks and those in the 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, we messaged think tanks via email and Facebook, requesting they update or add information — annual budget, mission statement, number of research staff, number of administration staff, key research programs, etc. — of their think tank in the TTCSP Global Think Tank Database. All emails affiliated with think tanks were found from websites or affiliated websites, such as universities or research papers with contact information provided. No data phishing technology was used to find contact information. The last ten think tanks were chosen specifically from universities outside of Seoul that had websites and publications available to the public (in English or Korean) and from corporations that were not represented yet in the database. From the think tanks in the 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, we researched their affiliations which included autonomous & independent, quasi-independent, university, political-party, government, quasi-governmental, and for-profit. An autonomous and independent think tank is a public policy research organization that has significant independence from any one interest group or donor and is autonomous in its operation and funding from the government. A quasi-governmental think tank is one that is autonomous from the government but influenced by an interest group, donor, or contracting agency that predominantly funds the think tank operations. A university think tank is a public policy research center that is affiliated with a university. A political-party think tank is an organization that is formally affiliated with a political party. A government think tank is a public policy research organization that is part of the structure of government. A quasi-governmental think tank is one that is funded exclusively by government grants and contracts but is not a formal part of the government structure. A for-profit think tank is one that operates as a business in the interest of making revenue (McGann, 35-39).

Key Findings & Conclusions

Throughout the course of this project, the Korea Mapping Team made 3 key findings in our discoveries regarding the status of think tanks in the Republic of Korea. To briefly highlight a few key findings: we now estimate that there are approximately 300 think tanks that we have identified to exist in ROK. The majority of these think tanks are located in Seoul, due to the plethora of university based public policy institutions. Our team identified Domestic Economics, Science & Technology , and Foreign Policy & International Affairs as the top three policy areas for think tanks in ROK. Between 1978 and 2007, South Korea experienced a think tank boom. This boom was propagated by many different factors. The South Korean economy was expanding as the country democratized, resulting in not just more intellectual freedom for its people but also more global connection and influence throughout the nation. South Korea became integrated globally as a result of the Seoul Olympics of 1988, which raised ROK’s international recognition and influenced foreign policy, ultimately leading to the establishment of diplomatic ties with countries throughout the world. Through this global influence and rapid development of the economy, think tanks began to permeate the country, and have continued to grow in number and rapport ever since. Our literature review additionally produced important conclusions not found in the data analysis. ROK think tanks ultimately deal with issues of autonomy in the face of the government. Given the government’s conservative nature, it is not eager to engage in risky policy strategies. This occasionally proves to be problematic, as the government in essence has a monopoly on policy making and is not quick to adopt change. There also exists a lack of cooperation and communication not just between think tanks and the government but also between think tanks in general. Although some collaboration exists, ROK think tanks tend to operate independently of one another. Despite these issues, the status of think tanks in ROK is positive. There is a vast range of think tanks that focus on a variety of policy areas and the top think tanks tend to engage in both regional and global discourse, as evidenced by their participation in the Global Go-To Index and the Asia-Pacific Summit. In conclusion, our team produced many important findings regarding the status of think tanks in ROK which will ultimately serve as a baseline for future research. Despite our thorough analysis, it is apparent that there is more to explore in this area. The next project on Korean think tanks should delve deeper into think tanks outside of Seoul, exploring their policies and influence within their respective regions. Additionally, the next project should update and explore the most recent developments in ROK think tanks and pinpoint more explicitly the overall trends of these think tanks.

Bibliography

Aymes, J. (2014). Formation and Evolution of the Knowledge Regime and the Development Process in Korea. Korean Studies, 38, 91-123. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from

34 www.jstor.org/stable/24574889

Hankyung (2019). 2019 Daehanmingug 100dae singkeutaengkeu chong-gwal pyo [2019 South Korea Top 100 Think Tanks] Retrieved July 19, 2020 from https://magazine.hankyung.com/business/article/2019022501213000011

황윤원, 허만형 (2010). 지방정부 싱크탱크의 정책역할 연구: 연구실적의 종단면 및 횡단면적 연구주제 비교분석을 중심으로.[ A study on the policy role of local government think tanks: focusing on comparative analysis of research topics in longitudinal and cross- sectional areas.Retrieved July 20, 2020 fromhttp://www.kalgs.or.kr/bbs/pds.php?bo_table=data&wr_id=1022&stx=&pds_year=&sca=& pds_subcate=&pds_subject=&pds_name=&pds_content=.

Kern, T. & Ruser, A. (2010). The Role of Think Tanks in the South Korean Discourse on East Asia. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004193871/B9789004193871-s008.xml.

Kim, P. (2007). Singkeutaengkeueui baljeongwa jeongchaekyeongu [Development of Think Tanks and Policy Research]. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from http://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/landing/article.kci?arti_id=ART001053783

Kim, S. C. (2014). Politics, Knowledge, and Inter-Korean Affairs : Korean Public Think Tanks Not as Policy Advocates but as Knowledge Producers. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from http://s- space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/91965.

Korea Development Institute (2020). Vision & Mission. Retrieved July 19, 2020 from http://www.kdi.re.kr/kdi_eng/about/president_message.jsp

Korea Development Institute (2020). KDI Economic Outlook 2020- 1st Half. Retrieved July 19, 2020 from http://www.kdi.re.kr/forecast/forecasts_outlook.jsp

Korea Economic Research Institute (2009). Hangug yeogdaejeong-gwon-ui juyo gyeongjejeongchaeg [Main economic policies of the previous Korean government] Retrieved July 19, 2020 from https://www.keri.org/web/www/research_0201?p_p_id=EXT_BBS&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state =normal&p_p_mode=view&_EXT_BBS_struts_action=%2Fext%2Fbbs%2Fview_message&_E XT_BBS_messageId=100741

Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (2020).2019 gugga gwahaggisulhyeogsin- yeoglyangpyeong-ga [National Science-Technology Capabilities Evaluation 2019]

이연호 (2009). 작은 정부를 만들기 위한 싱크탱크(Think Tank)의 역할 : 미국,

영국의 사례와 한국 [The Role of the Think Tank to Create a Small Government: The United States, Britain, & Korea]. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01221022.

이시욱, KDI (2018). Think Tank의 중요성과 역할 [The Importance and Role of Think Tanks]. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from http://kdi.re.kr/common/seminar_down.jsp?fno=Fe00Wh8kbqCbF31llvtV3A%3D%3D&fty=IK KLJlukyUcpG4EmUThiYg%3D%3D.

McGann, J. G. (2019). 2019 Global Think Tank Summit. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/ttcsp_papers/7

Ministry of Education and Science Technology. (2011). Daehak yeonguryuk jaegoreul weuihan daehakbuseolyeonguso woonyeongjeewon chaejae gaeseonbangan [Policy Initiatives for Increasing University’s Research Competency through Improvements to the Operations of University-Affiliated Research Centers]. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from http://www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/search/detail/report/reportSearchResultDetail.do?cn=TRKO2018000003 68

National Research Foundation of Korea. (2019). 2019 Daehakyeonguhwaldongshiltaejosa Bunseokbogoseo [Analysis Report of Investigation of Actuality of University Research Efforts]. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from https://www.nrf.re.kr/cms/board/library/view?menu_no=419&o_menu_no=421&page=&nts_no =127682&search_type=NTS_TITLE&search_keyword=&nts_cat=REPORT_L_02

Science and Technology Policy Institute. (2012). Policy Initiatives for Enhancement of University’s Research Competitiveness by means of University Research Centers. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from http://www.stepi.re.kr/app/report/view.jsp?cmsCd=CM0012&categCd=A0201&ntNo=744

United Nations (2015) The Sustainable Development Agenda. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/