The preceding chapters discussed how and why the Korean CI policy shift took place and detailed the CI policy framework that was produced in the process. This chapter employs case studies on the Korean Film Council (KOFIC) and the Korea Culture and Content Agency (KOCCA) to examine how the espoused policy framework was put into practice by quangos that cover different genres of CI.
KOFIC and KOCCA have a few things in common. First of all, these quangos were established as a direct result of the CI policy shift that was instigated from 1998 onwards, despite the fact KOCCA was not created out of an antecedent institution as KOFIC was. Furthermore, the first chairperson of KOFIC and the first CEO of KOCCA were both former chief executives of Samsung group companies. More importantly, both organizations were considered to be flagship quangos for CI promotion in Korea. As noted earlier, KOFIC was the first quango transformed in accordance with the arm’s length principle and has been the most independent quango due to the nature of the film industry and the character of its staff. Compared to other quangos, KOCCA has received not only the biggest budget from the MCT, but also the most attention from the Korean media. The questions that will be covered in this chapter relate to whether these two representative quangos faithfully applied the new CI policy framework in their policy practices. How similarly and distinctively did they implement the key strategies of the policy framework, and why? Were there any significant changes in policy direction at either quango in the course of the implementation process? Did the governance and administration styles in and around the quangos really differ significantly? These are critical issues that will be addressed below.
First of all, I will explore the background and historical significance of the quangos’ establishment. Their organizational structures and missions will then be analyzed to trace how the policy framework was translated into specific activities. In doing so, two main sources will be mobilized. The first is comprised of official policy documents published by the quangos, such as mission statements, institutional reports, and White Papers, while the in-depth interviews I conducted with figures that played key roles in creating/managing the organizations comprise the second set of sources. I will demonstrate that despite sharing the broader CI policy framework, the two quangos developed quite different policy directions in certain aspects. The differences sprang
167 from two quangos’ different histories, industrial sectors and staff, which are as crucial as the similarities between the quangos for understanding the characteristics of Korean CI policy (field).
7.1 The Korean Film Council (KOFIC)
7.1.1 The KMPPC, the Ancient Regime
The film industry has always been one of the biggest and most popular sectors of Korean CI. In addition, several progressive figures from the industry played a pivotal role in making and then realizing DJ’s election pledges on cultural policy, including the abolition of censorship and the transformation of the Korean Motion Picture Promotion Corporation (KMPPC) into KOFIC. For these reasons, the legal groundwork for KOFIC was quickly prepared through a full revision of the Film Promotion Act in February 1999, and the quango was established in May 1999. Thus, KOFIC was not only the first quango transformed by the application of ALP, but is also held to have been the ‘most autonomous quango’ during DJ and Roh’s presidencies.
We often called KOFIC a semi-private and semi-public administrative organization. The word, ‘institution’ was intentionally avoided. This expression aimed to stress KOFIC’s independent character from not only the Culture Ministry, but also from the film industry. … Under the two governments, KOFIC led the film policy planning and the Ministry almost accepted our plans as proposed, with the exception of some minor changes to the budget part. (Hwang & Ryu, policy researchers in KOFIC, October 2009)
However, autonomy was the last thing that KOFIC’s predecessor, the KMPPC could have imagined enjoying. Although the KMPPC was founded in 1973 ‘to improve the quality of Korean films and to promote the industry’ (Motion Pictures Act, 1972), this aim was nothing but vacant rhetoric. This can be demonstrated by an examination of the list of its presidents (see Table 7.1).
The first thing to note concerning the list is that until 1995 all the presidents of KMPPC were either retired Army generals or retired civil servants. Most notably, the four presidents who took charge of the Korean film promotion between 1976 and 1988 were former generals who had previously been charged with conducting ‘troop information and education’ for the Korean Army. Therefore, film policy inevitably took the form of
168 control and regulation in the interests of the military regimes then in power. How could the films promoted by these generals have attracted domestic audiences, let alone the interest of export markets? Although the president’s role at the KMPPC was taken by people from the film industry after 1995, their terms of office were extremely short. Four different presidents served the KMPPC in only four years between 1995 and 1999. Clearly, it would have been impossible for them to form coherent and sustainable film policy. Accordingly, the performance of the KMPPC was far from visionary, and it focused on regulating the industry for easy state control of the masses (Lee, 2005; Jwa & Lee, 2006).
Table 7.1 The List of KMPPC Presidents