This research intends to draw implications for digital governance establishment by analyzing how the president’s leadership has worked in the digital government innovation promoted in South Korea over the past 30 years. This research examines the process of digital government development in South Korea from the 1990s onwards, chronologically and in the order of presidential administrations. The analysis proceeds from the following three perspectives: the political characteristics of digital government, the presidents’ leadership on government innovation through digital government process, and the composition of a strong cross and joint governmental promotion system. The implementation of digital government is not simply about a computerized government. Driving digital government means the overall transformation of government. From this point of view, to successfully implement digital governance, we must approach it from a highly political perspective. The implementation of digital government in South Korea has been continuously pursued as a national agenda. Since South Korea has a well-established high-speed information and communication infrastructure, e-Government and digital government innovation have been promoted as national agendas regardless of regime change. However, in this process, the president’s leadership determined the success or failure of digital government innovation. Therefore, the most important success factor for digital government innovation is securing policy sustainability regardless of administration change.

The first enactment of a single national e-government act took place in Korea in 2001. Subsequently, the United States enacted its electronic government act in November 2002. Unified e-government acts in Korea and the United States have since been established and enforced for nearly two decades, and provide interesting case studies for examining the long-term influences of the e-government act on national e-government and digital government policies. The e-government act of the United States is much more comprehensive than the e-government act of Korea. The US e-government act focuses on strengthening the federal government’s ability to regulate the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s role in e-government implementation. The OMB has overall jurisdiction over the e-government promotion process and will continue to consult with ministries on appropriate budget support for each project. In contrast, the e-government law in Korea is based on electronic document processing as the basic viewpoint and has been downgraded to a level that supports document reduction and electronic processing of documents, rather than a comprehensive law that can support e-government projects. The comparative case study of e-government acts in Korea and the United States revealed that, from the standpoint of digital government transformation using information technology, it is most important to promote digital government policy directly from the ministry that manages the budget, or to establish a dedicated organization under the ministry to secure strong coordination while linking it with the budget.

<!--field: Abstract-->The Korean e-Government began with the e-Government portal site (www.egov.go.kr) on November 1, 2002. After going through continuous efforts in e-Government and national informatization, Korea has become one of the global e-Government leaders - obtaining the highest scores in ‘E-government Development Index’ and ‘E-participation Index’. In addition, many of Korea’s e-Government practices until now have been introduced to the world as the best cases and received worldwide acknowledgement. The success factors of Korean e-Government are summarized as a strong political leadership, clear vision and policy objective, project’s strategic priority and human & financial resource distribution. The future e-Government is being developed towards seamless and consolidated services, based on the e-Government projects that have been promoted so far. The new e-Government strategies will be taken into account from various perspectives, especially in terms of strategy, e-Government services, citizens’ eparticipation and strengthened infrastructure for e-Government. The Korean e-Government is now progressing, however, it still has a long way to go to reach full interactive service delivery and government integration. <!--field: -->

The government plans to absorb conflicts caused by policy problems, have a goal orientation, and solve problems through policy implementation. This process is meaningful in that it can reduce the goal ambiguity of the organization and achieve results. In other words, goal setting and optimal alternative selection based on a comprehensive analysis of the situation can achieve government performance. The global achievements in e-government in South Korea and Denmark also follow this initiative. However, the shift from e-government to digital government requires a change in approach to planning. In other words, rather than planning a rational-comprehensive approach to find the optimal solution, it requires a social and political approach or an incrementalism approach with the participation of various stakeholders. This point of view is similar to the study of a regional innovation system that aims to innovate through a network of multiple participants. It is also consistent with the perspective of open innovation, which creates knowledge through internal and external exchanges and breaks down organizational boundaries.

This paper delineates the smart city (SC) concept in a South Korean context and, based on this conceptual definition, it forecasts the expected implementation timeline of the country’s SC pilot projects. Through the use of a three-round policy Delphi methodology, a consensus on the SC concept was reached, with an emphasis on a citizen-centric paradigm. The Delphi panelists predict that South Korea’s SC projects will be completed by 2030. However, the realization of its full-service SC capabilities is expected by 2035. These findings highlight the need for SC policies to prioritize citizens’ satisfaction and quality of life rather than only focusing on technological efficiency. Moreover, this study advocates using phased goal-setting in SC projects to emphasize the importance of integrating urban infrastructure with citizens’ daily lives. Based on these key findings, this study draws policy implications that can help SC policy practitioners.