Background: Korea has achieved health policy objectives in pandemic management so far, namely minimizing mortality, flattening the epidemic curve, and limiting the socio-economic burden of its measures. The key to the Korean government’s success in combating COVID-19 lies with the latest digital technologies (DTs). The prompt and effective application of DTs facilitates both containment as well as mitigation strategies and their sub-policy measures. Methods: This article uses an experiential analysis based on an exploratory case study – analysis on field applications of the government’s interventions. Information is collected by qualitative methods such as literature analysis, meeting materials, and a review of various government reports (including internal ones) along with academic and professional experiences of the authors. Findings: The article presents the unique Korean health policy approaches in the COVID-19 crisis. First, DTs allow the Korean government to embrace various policy measures together listed in containment strategy, namely altering and warning, epidemiological investigation, quarantine of contacts, case-finding, social distancing, and mask-wearing. Second, DTs allow Korea to integrate containment and mitigation strategies simultaneously. Along with the above measures in containment, healthcare service, medical treatment, and prophylaxis (presymptomatic testing) within mitigation are utilized to prevent a COVID-19 spread. Conclusions: Korea develops DTs in an integrated manner in the early pandemic stage under strong and coordinated government leadership. Above all, the DTs’ functions in each pandemic developmental stage are continuously upgraded. Instead of prioritizing policy measures or strategies, therefore, Korea can implement diverse policies simultaneously by integrating DTs effectively. During the COVID-19 outbreak, DTs work as the enablers to connect these two strategies and their measures in Korea. Recommendations: DTs should be at the center of the disaster management paradigm, especially during a pandemic. DTs are facilitators and integrators of containing and mitigating strategies and their policy measures.

No abstract

Public interests in coming futures of Korea continue to be increasing. Fears on uncertainties and pending challenges as well as demands on a new but Korea-own development model trigger a quantitative increase of futures research and relevant organizations in both public and private. The objective of this paper is to review history of futures studies and national development plan and strategy linked with foresight along with its challenges and recommendations. This paper identifies drawbacks and limits of Korea foresight such as misapplication of foresight as a strategic planning tool for modernization and economic development and its heavy reliance on government-led mid- and long-term planning. As a recommendation, an implementation of participatory and community-based foresight is introduced as a foundation for futures studies in Korea. A newly established research institute, the National Assembly Futures Institute, has to be an institutional passage to deliver opinions of the public, a capacity-building platform to increase the citizen’s futures literacy, and a cooperative venue for facilitating a participation and dialogue between politicians, government officials, and researchers.

Anticipatory governance (AG) is defined as a “system of systems” that employs foresight to create future plans and execute relevant actions. Recently, various frameworks of AG have been introduced, but there is little practical information available for newcomers on how to do this. This research conducted a framework-based comparative country analysis to provide lessons learned for newcomers in the sphere of foresight-linked AG. By evaluating the AG levels of Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Korea, we found that the consequences of foresight-linked AGs were different in each country. At the same time, we also identified a common denominator, namely, future receptivity, a “human or people” capacity to accept and understand the value of foresight. Instead of temporary system changes or organizational modifications, future receptivity is an underlying element for newcomers to overcome lingering short-termism and facilitate the coordination of stakeholders concerning foresight. In conclusion, we suggest ways to promote future receptivity for newcomers. First, the government should educate and train the public and government officials to promote future literacy and future proficiency. Second, the government should provide a process for public participation such as nationwide networking that enables the public to influence their diverse future images over foresight outcomes.

Universal healthcare systems have undergone a severe stress test in the form of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. With respect to the system-embedded allocation of decision-making powers and responsibilities among actors, different modalities have been revealed in the COVID-19 responses of South Korea and the UK, respectively. This article compares and analyzes how these two countries’ healthcare systems have reacted to COVID-19. Although both have implemented similar responsive measures, the UK has recorded a higher number of confirmed cases per thousand people and a higher death rate. Based on the analysis on which this paper is built, the key differences between the two systems are the UK system’s lack of: (1) appropriate medical equipment and technologies along with the human resources; and (2) flexible policy options to incentivize healthcare providers and induce cooperation from the public in a time of national crisis. The UK’s healthcare system is now approaching a critical juncture. The expansion of internal competition, which was introduced to the system in 1991, can serve as means of initiating a resolution to the above-mentioned issues and further reform its system. Under the UK government’s close supervision and precise control, allowing non-reimbursable special medical treatment in the system and widening public choice of medical services would be a suitable policy approach promoting internal competition while at the same time maintaining the UK’s devotion to universal healthcare. The underlying implication of internal competition though is the sharing of decision-making powers and responsibilities with societal and private sectors by inducing and facilitating participation at all levels. Fighting against COVID-19 however is widely considered ‘all-out-war.’ Under the UK government’s supervision and control, it is time for society to step up and fight the pandemic together.