Beyond Traditional Models: Analyzing Tuition Policy Change with Brand-new Conceptual Framework

The university tuition policy is a critical issue from the perspective of "Who should bear the cost of higher education services?" It's a significant higher education policy intertwined with many societal interests and a political agenda, drawing substantial attention from educational policy authorities and the political realm. Research on university tuition fees has largely focused on the justification and development direction of tuition policies in terms of educational finance, social and historical interpretations, and analysis of tuition fee determination processes. Some previous studies have used the Multiple Streams Framework for policy formation and change analysis, but they generally rely on the traditional Kingdon model, resulting in a superficial description of policy change phenomena. 

Efforts have been made to refine and apply these models in educational policy analysis, both domestically and internationally. This study combines the Modified Multiple Streams Framework (M-MSF) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to analyze University of Seoul's half-price tuition policy. It explores the roles of policy and political leaders in agenda and decision windows, the interaction of advocacy coalitions in policy change, and explains the characteristics found in the debate over the abolition of half-price tuition at University of Seoul. The research spans from 2006 to June 2023, focusing on the policy's introduction and the debate over its abolition, with comprehensive analysis using systematic literature reviews, university records, city council data, and stakeholder interviews.

Findings

This research ventures beyond the frequently utilized Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) in domestic policy analysis in South Korea, adopting the refined M-MSF to articulate more clearly the variety of actors involved in the policy formation and change processes. It integrates the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to capture the interplay among these actors, thereby holding both theoretical and practical significance. The study delineates the utility and limitations of the M-MSF and ACF as follows:

1. First, by conceptually separating the 'policy entrepreneurs' from 'political entrepreneurs' through the distinction of 'policy windows' and 'political windows', the study unveils the distinct existence and functions of actors operating within these two spheres. This approach allows for the control and exploration of the impact of policy alternatives proposed by policy entrepreneurs, revealing the inadequacies of the traditional MSF in capturing the full range of policy influencers.
2. Secondly, the study calls for a fundamental reassessment of the applicability of MSF's core assumptions within the unique context of South Korea, particularly in terms of the concept and explanatory power of 'policy entrepreneurs'. The University of Seoul half-tuition policy case study illustrates the challenges in clearly identifying these actors within the strong ideological and political currents prevalent in South Korean educational policy. The study suggests that the M-MSF's concept of 'political entrepreneurs' may offer a more nuanced explanation of policy phenomena in such contexts.
3. Thirdly, the research finds that the ideological or belief systems underlying advocacy coalitions may not always align with actual policy and political choices. This highlights a limitation in ACF's ability to fully account for the decision-making processes in South Korean policy formation and change, where political motivations and public opinion often override ideological commitments. The case study of University of Seoul's half-tuition policy across different periods exemplifies the varying influence of political streams in the South Korean context.

Discussion

Synthesizing the findings, this study proposes moving away from the traditional perception rooted in the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), which rigidly identifies actors with 'entrepreneurial spirit' as policy entrepreneurs. Instead, it suggests understanding this as a dynamic concept within the policy stream, acknowledging that such entrepreneurship might not be exclusively exercised by specific individuals or organizations. This perspective recognizes the collective manifestation of entrepreneurial spirit by various actors in policy formation and change processes.

Furthermore, the study highlights the need for future research based on the new problem recognition that M-MSF does not specifically address: 'What differentiates political entrepreneurs from policy decision-makers?' Instances like Park Won-soon's dual role as both political entrepreneur and policy decision-maker in 2011-12 provide ample ground for this exploration. It also suggests revisiting critiques that the MSF, by rigidly differentiating policy entrepreneurs from policy decision-makers, may fail to accurately explain policy phenomena.

The study also emphasizes the need for empirical investigation into the assumption that advocacy coalitions active in the 'window of opportunities' differ from those in the 'window of policies'. The policy window encompasses stakeholders from the opportunity window and additional participants. However, during the introduction of the half-tuition policy at University of Seoul, Park Won-soon's transition from a political entrepreneur to a policy decision-maker within the politically inclined Seoul Metropolitan Council made it challenging to observe the dynamics of interaction between these coalitions. Therefore, further research utilizing a combined model of M-MSF and ACF in different policy cases can provide deeper insights into the interactions of advocacy coalitions across these windows. 

Moreover, when researchers use MSF, M-MSF, and ACF frameworks, along with their key conceptual components, they must recognize that these were developed and evolved in the United States and critically reflect on their explanatory power and applicability to the unique policy phenomena of South Korea. Policy analysis models are fundamental frameworks for viewing phenomena, and efforts should be made to refine these models through recontextualization, considering the nuances of each country and system.

Conclusion

The study concludes that in South Korea's distinct socio-political landscape – characterized by its Confucian heritage, a centralized and top-down political system with concentrated presidential power, and a highly polarized political environment – policy changes are often driven by shifts in ruling coalitions and advocacy groups, rather than through conventional legislative processes. This context presents a challenge to the explanatory power of frameworks like ACF, suggesting a need for more context-specific approaches to understanding policy dynamics in South Korea.

In addition, policy implications can be drawn by noting the almost invisible role of policy entrepreneurs in the decision-making process. In the University of Seoul half-tuition policy case, policy entrepreneurs might have existed but were likely few in number or faced structural limitations in influencing policy formation. Moreover, for the opinions and proposals generated by experts within policy communities to be effective, their adoption by political entrepreneurs is essential, rendering the role of policy entrepreneurs difficult to discern. Hence, emphasizing the participatory role of various stakeholders, especially experts and researchers who can act as policy entrepreneurs, is crucial for fostering a system and culture conducive to evidence-based policy learning and decision-making.

*Disclaimer

This is an executive summary of the research paper "Kim K., Jo S., Kim S., & Lim K. (2023). Analysis of University of Seoul’s Tuition Fee Policy Changes Using the Modified Multiple Streams Framework and Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Journal of Politics of Education, 30(4), 297-331. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52183/KSPE.2023.30.4.297.