Impact evaluations in South Korea and China

Haeil Jung, Ruodan Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)328-349
Number of pages22
JournalAsian Journal of Political Science
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Sep 2

Fingerprint

South Korea
China
evaluation
empirical method
public policy
causality
public administration
trend
evaluation research
data quality
demand
evidence
Group

Keywords

  • Causality
  • Impact Evaluations
  • Natural Experiments
  • Quantitative Methods
  • Social Experiments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Impact evaluations in South Korea and China. / Jung, Haeil; Zhang, Ruodan.

In: Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, 02.09.2017, p. 328-349.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jung, Haeil ; Zhang, Ruodan. / Impact evaluations in South Korea and China. In: Asian Journal of Political Science. 2017 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. 328-349.
@article{54ccb453a5ee47fa8c3c065ba57ffd30,
title = "Impact evaluations in South Korea and China",
abstract = "While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.",
keywords = "Causality, Impact Evaluations, Natural Experiments, Quantitative Methods, Social Experiments",
author = "Haeil Jung and Ruodan Zhang",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/02185377.2017.1373685",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "328--349",
journal = "Asian Journal of Political Science",
issn = "0218-5377",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact evaluations in South Korea and China

AU - Jung, Haeil

AU - Zhang, Ruodan

PY - 2017/9/2

Y1 - 2017/9/2

N2 - While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.

AB - While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.

KW - Causality

KW - Impact Evaluations

KW - Natural Experiments

KW - Quantitative Methods

KW - Social Experiments

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029514721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029514721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02185377.2017.1373685

DO - 10.1080/02185377.2017.1373685

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 328

EP - 349

JO - Asian Journal of Political Science

JF - Asian Journal of Political Science

SN - 0218-5377

IS - 3

ER -