A Study on the Tasks of Public Institution Self-Audit for Activating Active Administration

As society develops, the importance of active administration in the administrative execution process is increasing as the existing legal system fails to keep up. Active administration, which began as a discussion to resolve the problems caused by the increasing inconvenience caused by conventional and passive administrative processing, has now been explicitly stipulated in the Basic Administrative Act, etc. Through this, the activation of the active administration immunity system that exempts public officials from responsibility in cases of active administration is becoming more important. This active administration is even more necessary in administrative services performed by public institutions. In order to spread active administration in public institutions, it is fundamentally necessary to prevent active administration from leading to punishment in self-audit. This means that a change in the role of public institution self-audit is necessary for activating active administration. However, the current public institution self-audit emphasizes post-event self-disciplinary audits and focuses on detection rather than prevention through policy audits. In addition, there are limitations in the internal capacity to distinguish active administration and actively encourage it. Considering that the proactive administration of public institutions is a major factor in helping the public perceive actual changes in administration, it is most urgent to change. To this end, public institutions’ self-audits need to be transformed into more progressive functions that prevent future risks of institutions rather than ex post facto detection, abolish policy audits, and strengthen internal members’ capacity for proactive administration. If there is a fundamental change in the self-audit of public institutions to exempt and encourage the members’ responsibility for proactive administration, proactive services to the public can be expanded.