Technology is a driving force in shaping civilisation. Human history, viewed as a succession of civilisations, has developed from agricultural communities into the modern digital society following a technology cycle of innovation, growth, maturity and decline.
The nineteenth-century industrial revolution radically transformed human relationships, the economic system and social structures, and it critically influenced the creation of the capitalist system. One of the drivers in that revolution was the invention of technology and its adaptation for use in society. However, humanity has faced unprecedented challenges and opportunities since the dawn of digital technology over the last three decades or more. A class of scholars variously described the phenomenon with phrases such as ‘the digital revolution’, ‘the third industrial revolution’, ‘the fourth industrial revolution’, ‘the mobile society’, ‘digital transformation’, and ‘the artificial intelligence era’.
Over the last few decades, information and communications technologies (ICTs) markets have experienced multiple turbulent events, including the dot.com bubble, the emergence of the information society, the mobile revolution, the debate on artificial intelligence and the Covid-19 pandemic. During this period Korea gained its reputation as the leading country in digital development. However, communications policymakers and authorities in Korea had to face unprecedented innovations as well as political power shifts. (Notwithstanding that whenever new platforms emerge, the process of communications policymaking is accompanied by contesting interests and conflicts among stakeholders.)
Globally, the discussions on communications development and public policy have been well documented and a variety of theories put forward. The socioeconomic development of Korea has drawn attention from academia, intergovernmental organisations and experts worldwide, and there is a broad volume of literature examining various dimensions of the country’s politics, economy and culture. New phrases such as ‘the Korean Wave’, ‘the miracle of Han river’, or ‘one of the four Asian Dragons’ have been coined to describe the development of Korea. However, no article can appropriately address the country without exploring the development of communications in Korea, since communications development has been closely embedded in the nation’s political, economic and social contexts.
The shaping of ‘connected Korea’
The achievement of democracy in the civil uprising of 1987 paved the way for the rapid development of digital technology in Korea. The telephone penetration rate reached 46.54 per 100 inhabitants in 2020, from only about 0.36 in 1960 when industrialisation had begun. Mobile subscriptions per 100 inhabitants was recorded at 137.54 in 2020, in contrast to average mobile subscriptions in the Asia-Pacific region of 15 per 100 inhabitants. High-speed fixed broadband, including a 10G network, is now available in every corner of the country, while globally 2.6 billion people remain unconnected. These achievements can be largely attributed to the early construction of the high-speed broadband network at the beginning of the 2000s, which led to the development the internet economy. 4G mobile subscriptions reached almost 98 per cent in the 2010s and Korea launched the world’s first nationwide commercial 5G network in 2019.
Although it is difficult to isolate a single key factor for these achievements, there is no doubt that the early adoption of new technologies and the proactive formulation of policy initiatives have made Korea one of the leading countries in digital development. Policies and initiatives aimed at technological innovation have played a key role despite frequent political power changes. (The presidency of Korea is limited to a single five-year term.) This has helped to shape a ‘connected nation’ through well-organised digital infrastructure but also accelerated ‘digital capitalism’.
Digital capitalism and policy risk
The stakeholders in the communications sector – policymakers, regulatory agencies, market operators and consumers – have also experienced the challenges and benefits of an unpredictable environment. Digital capitalism has given birth to giant global tech firms, and at the same time the demise and fall of ICT firms which failed to embrace technological innovation. One of the conspicuous changes was that business and industry evolved at an unprecedented pace. Policies and regulations were not able to keep up and concerns rose among critics and stakeholders. Despite the attempts by successive governments to foster the industry, the authorities have often been accused of a lack of leadership in guiding the market’s development, or of inflexible regulations which repress innovation.
Policies and initiatives aimed at technological innovation have played a key role despite frequent political power changes.
The development of new communications technologies, including from LTE to commercial 5G networks, from fixed broadband to mobile broadband and mobile applications, AI, the internet of things and cloud computing have all significantly reshaped global, regional and local communications markets, creating new relationships among stakeholders. Despite the consensus on the social and economic benefits driven by digital and communications technology, opinions on who should lead its development are sharply conflicting. Free-market advocates, or liberalists, argue that socially desired communications development can be achieved through market principles and little public intervention is required. Others claim that the government or policymakers should be the essential players leading the advancement of the communications market. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that governments, regulatory bodies and policymakers are the major stakeholders in communications development.
Features of digital development in Korea
During this period, some distinct features of Korean communications policy emerged. First was an understanding that the socio-cultural value and perception of technology is a significant factor in its successful development. Contrary to the argument of technological determinism, the diffusion of technology is not sufficient to prove technical feasibility. Associated benefits and risks must also be considered in order for the adoption of technology to generate socially and economically desirable outcomes.
Second, the scope of communications policy goes beyond conventional boundaries and the communications sector is recognised as a critical pillar of national economic policy. On the surface, communications policy appears as the expansion of conventional policy or as just one element of broader public policy. However, the development of digital technologies demonstrates that communications policy is a core part of the strategy to advance the national economy and is therefore subject to a highly political agenda. Regardless of changes in administrations, policy priority has been given to the communications sector.
Third, the emergence and introduction of new digital technologies has raised questions about the governance structure and accountability of the communications sector. One of the most severe problems is the widening gap between a market, whose development is accelerating through innovative technology, and incumbent regulatory frameworks. The lesson on how this challenge should be addressed lies not in changing the governance structure but in promoting flexibility and cooperation among stakeholders in the sector.
Fourth, unlike previous technology-oriented initiatives, recent communications policies place humans at the centre of development. In AI, for example, there has been an emphasis on rejecting the substitution of humans with machines or technology.
Finally, it should be recognised that the government and policymakers have played a critical role in advancing Korea as one of the leaders in ICT development. The early adoption of digital technologies and efforts to set out new initiatives have contributed to the country gaining its reputation as an ICT powerhouse. Despite criticisms of state orientation and strict interventions, communications authorities have demonstrated the vision and leadership necessary to encourage investment and the sustained development of the sector.
The conundrum of communications policy
The main concern of the operators is to pursue commercial interests – embracing technology for marketization and revenue generation. In comparison, policymakers have faced the conundrum of how to enhance socially desired goals. If they failed to address emerging problems in the market, they would be accused of policy failure. These challenges are common to communications policymaking in every nation.
One can identify five dilemmas facing communications policymakers during Korea’s digital development history. They can be summarised as: losing legitimacy or revising capacity; market forces or public bureaucracy; communications policy or economic policy; convergence or sectoral regulation; and cooperation or disunity.
First, the legitimacy of communications policy is being questioned. Those who believe in the market mechanism have raised their voices to oppose public intervention. The expansion of the digital economy combined with the invasion of giant tech firms has tested the capacity of national communications policy. The diffusion of the internet and cross-border platforms and services has made some existing regulatory frameworks obsolete. And the empowerment of supranational bodies in conjunction with globalisation increasingly raises the question of national communications policies. For these reasons the conventional rationales for public intervention in the communications market have been severely undermined in an environment of ‘digital capitalism’.
Second, policymakers face a challenge over whether to adopt the market principle or to implement interventions. The triumph of capitalism over communism in the 20th century paved the way for digital capitalism – which certainly works through the market principle. However, failures in the digital market provide the primary justification for public intervention.
There have been two opposing claims over whether market failures can be corrected through government intervention. Some argue that the state has to restrain its power in order to avoid distorting the market, while others suggest that it is essential to intervene in the market in order to secure the public interest. In practice, it is a daunting task for policymakers or regulatory bodies to implement regulatory measures for correcting a failed market mechanism, even when they are invited to do. Regardless of the cause of the market dysfunction, policymakers are required to fix it despite opposition from market advocates, who argue that less regulation is better than any intervention. The ongoing issue is how to strike a balance between the free-market system and state intervention that protects the public interest without disrupting the functioning of the market.
Third, there is a growing focus on how communications and economic policy should be harmonised. As digital technologies increasingly underpin the economy, economic policy is becoming inseparable from communications policy as a whole. This raises questions about the identity of communications policy: how to set up a governance system to achieve established goals in both the economic and technological spheres; policymakers’ capacity to combine the economy and technology; and whether policymakers and regulatory authorities have to be more flexible, or adopt a collaborative approach to address policy. In short, the blurring of the boundary between economic and communications policies has created contested interests among regulatory agencies.
Fourth, convergence is a critical weapon of communications policymakers. The definition of convergence has not yet reached a consensus, but it is generally agreed that it refers to the eroding boundaries between telecommunications, broadcasting, the internet and the mobile device, propelled by innovation. Over the last two decades of the 21st century, the emergence of new types of platforms driven by convergence and innovation has presented new opportunities to corporations. The so-called three levels of convergence –‘technological’, ‘service’ and ‘industrial’ – have called for a review of the existing regulatory regimes, undermining the legitimacy of sectoral regulation.
Who leads? A new role for the communications authority
While all of the industries and the authorities concerned have attempted to embrace digital transformation, a question remains over the role of the communications authority. Are their responsibilities still relevant to the market? How should their remit and duties be redefined to focus on technological development and digital capitalism? There are three issues to consider. First, the scope of ICT technologies is too broad to be covered by communications policymakers only. Second, the grey area of economic policy and communications policy needs to be addressed, as noted above. Lastly, there are growing conflicts of interest between communications and non-communications policymakers.
It could be argued that even with further technological evolution the jurisdiction of the communications authority would remain the same. This is because the legacy of a communications authority is hard to override, even if another authority has the capacity to adopt the emerging technology. I argue that the accumulated expertise in communications policymaking cannot be replaced by other authorities, despite its declining influence on the industry. My proposal is that the communications authority should be redesigned as a ‘platform authority’ that coordinates various industries and other agencies. It allows the communications authority to take exclusive charge of the fundamental issues of technology while the other authorities work on its adoption and utilisation in their respective sectors.
Communications policymakers have usually faced the five dilemmas I describe during the process of policymaking, from setting the policy agenda to the implementation of strategies. These dilemmas are intertwined and provide useful insights to understand and navigate communications policy. I argue that empowering the communications authority by redefining its obligations in the rapidly changing market will enable it to provide leadership in a ‘platform and collaboration role’. The increasing criticism and decreasing legitimacy of communications authorities calls for a redefinition of their commitments and the adoption of new strategies to develop effective regulations and promote the communications industry.
Digital Technology and Communication Policy in Korea: from infrastructure to artificial intelligence by C Y Son is published by Lexington Books. This article reflects the personal views of the author and does not represent the official position of the affiliated institution.
and then