Impact evaluations in South Korea and China

Haeil Jung, Ruodan Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)328-349
Number of pages22
JournalAsian Journal of Political Science
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Sept 2


  • Causality
  • Impact Evaluations
  • Natural Experiments
  • Quantitative Methods
  • Social Experiments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations


Dive into the research topics of 'Impact evaluations in South Korea and China'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this