Policy Implementation Framework and Family-Friendly Work Policy: Evidence from Flex-Working Programs in South Korea’s Public Sectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to explore factors (e.g., political, organizational, cultural & institutional) that negatively influence the implementation of flex-working programs (i.e., flex-time, part-time and at-home work programs) and thus result in only a very small number of government employees (1.6 percent in 2011) taking advantage of these programs in South Korea’s public organizations. To address, this research uses Mazmanian & Sabatier’s (1989) conceptual framework of the implementation process including three groups of independent variables (e.g., the tractability of the problem(s) being addressed, the ability of the statute to structure favorably the implementation process and the net effect of a variety of political variables on the balance of support for statutory objectives) which exert an influence on the implementation process. Finally, to successfully implement flex-working programs in Korea’s public sector and to attain their primary policy goal of improving an employee’s work/life balance, this research concludes with the three suggestions on policy contents and managerial leadership.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".