[비즈한국] There is a staple promise that inevitably appears whenever election season rolls around: "Abolishing corporate regulations." The argument is that regulations must be eased for businesses to breathe and for the economy to recover. When you think about it, it’s strange. If regulations were truly that excessive, could South Korea have grown into a top 10 global economic powerhouse in such a short period of time? Is a country that simultaneously underwent rapid industrialization and democratization really suffering from more excessive regulation than other developed nations?
Many people label our country a "Republic of Regulation." However, South Korea's overall business environment consistently ranks high in the World Bank’s Doing Business report and the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index. Our administrative efficiency, ease of starting a business, and e-government levels are exceptionally high. Of course, it is an undeniable fact that regulations remain strong in certain key areas, such as the labor market, industry-specific licensing, and the governance structures of conglomerates. There are reasons for this.
Labor market regulations are the result of a social consensus on job security formed after the 1997 IMF financial crisis. As "protecting regular employees" became the top priority following mass unemployment, dismissal requirements became stringent, which in turn led to shrinking youth employment and the proliferation of non-regular workers. This regulation is less a simple policy and more a defensive line created to respond to social instability.
Industry-specific licensing regulations have acted as a minimum safety net for industries with high public interest, such as healthcare, finance, and education. However, there are not a few instances where these have morphed into mechanisms for protecting interest groups or where the regulatory process has become opaque. This is why criticisms regarding "favors for former officials" and "license peddling" continue to arise.
Regulations on conglomerates were an attempt to resolve the unfairness of an economic structure centered on large corporations that became heavily concentrated during the era of rapid growth. Civil society and the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector demanded fair competition against a structure that maintained control through circular shareholding and internal trading, leading to the formation of the Fair Trade Act and various oversight systems. In short, they function as devices for maintaining market order rather than as measures to suppress businesses.
As such, South Korea’s regulations are not so much excessive in most areas, but rather selective regulations formed within historical and social contexts. The question is whether they are being adjusted appropriately according to the changing times and industrial structure.
The "deregulation" emphasized by some presidential candidates is a simple and clear message that appeals to voters, but the reality is not so simple. Industry grows on the foundation of trust and order. This is why we need regulatory innovation that is predictable, fair, and reflective of technological and social trends. Abolishing regulations is not always the answer. The direction we must take is to redesign our regulatory framework to fit the current era.
In fact, the newer the industry, the more sophisticated regulation it requires. In fields where technology advances rapidly—such as fintech, bio, artificial intelligence, and autonomous driving—without clear standards and guidelines on how that technology integrates with society, social trust in the industry will collapse. If trust collapses, capital, talent, and consumers will all leave. Regulation does not prevent industrial growth; it plays a role in laying the foundation for that growth to continue in a healthy manner.
What is important for businesses is not the removal of regulations, but a "predictable" regulatory environment. Demanding that unreasonable regulations be reduced is different from denying regulation itself. Even if regulations exist, if they are transparent, consistent, and change with the trends of the times, businesses are willing to compete within them. In fact, markets with zero regulation or inconsistent, shifting rules are what make business activities difficult.
Therefore, the path we must take is not to eliminate regulations, but to redesign them. This must be a systematic innovation that considers industry-specific characteristics and social trust, in line with the changing times. The purpose of regulation is not suppression, but coordination; it should provide direction rather than mere control.
"Deregulation" may be effective as an immediate political slogan. However, arguments that we must abolish all regulations at once, while ignoring the social context and historical experience hidden behind those words, could eventually lead to the destruction of the industry's foundation of trust.
Regulation is not the enemy of industry, but another expression of healthy and sustainable development. The key is design, not abolition; and direction, not volume.