Reinventing the Interventionist State: The Korean Economic Bureaucracy Reform under the Economic Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While market institutions experience extensive neoliberal reforms facing the exogenous pressure for economic openness and liberalization, what institutional changes have taken place within the old interventionist state apparatuses, especially the economic bureaucracies in the state‐led economies? This paper attempts to shed light on this question by analyzing the institutional reform process of the powerful South Korean economic bureaucracy, the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MOFE), in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Drawing attention to the politics of the MOFE reform, this paper shows that the financial crisis opened a rare window of opportunity to the reformist political leader, President Kim Dae‐Jung. President Kim actively reinterpreted the challenges posed by the financial crisis and utilized them as a rationale for establishing a new agency, the Ministry of Planning and Budget (MPB) , to strengthen his reform initiative in post‐crisis Korea. Despite the façade of neoliberal ideals and slogans for deregulation, the essential goal of the key actors involved in the reform policy‐making process and the final institutional choices made by them were both a far cry from the retreat of the interventionist economic bureaucracy. The active political intervention in the process of bureaucratic institutional reform, as well as the evolution of the MPB's functions since the financial crisis, suggests that it is too simplistic to argue that the Korean interventionist state will simply wither away in the era of economic globalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".