[Editorial] Welcoming the first meeting of the Regulatory Rationalization Committee: Remove “bad regulations”

We welcome the government’s convening of the first plenary meeting of the Regulatory Rationalization Committee and its full-scale launch of regulatory reform. The fact that the President personally chaired the committee and presented regulatory reform as a core task of the national growth strategy is highly significant in that it clearly reflects an awareness that the outdated regulatory system can no longer be left untouched in an era of low growth and intensifying global competition in AI.

Regulation is not good simply because there is more of it, nor is less regulation always desirable. What matters is whether regulation is designed to promote free economic activity and innovation, or whether it functions as a shackle that suppresses the autonomy and creativity of the market.

In that regard, it is noteworthy that this committee was launched not under the simple label of “regulatory reform” or “deregulation,” but under the name of “regulatory rationalization.” The direction of strengthening necessary regulations while boldly overhauling unnecessary and inefficient ones is sound in principle.

In particular, it is desirable that the need to shift to a so-called “negative regulation” approach in advanced technology and high-tech industries has been raised. With a positive regulation approach that examines one by one whether each new technology and service may be permitted, it is impossible to keep pace with rapidly changing global competition.

Only by shifting to a system in which anything not prohibited by law is permitted in principle, and in which problems are addressed swiftly and precisely when they arise, can companies innovate and industries grow. For the Korean economy to regain its growth potential, the basic philosophy of regulation must change from prior control to one centered on ex post responsibility and principles.

It is also meaningful that various cases were discussed together at this meeting, including school zone speed regulations, mandatory closure days for large discount stores, ride-sharing services, and the issue of early abortion medication. This shows that regulatory rationalization is not a matter for specific industries alone, but a task directly tied to people’s daily lives, consumer choice, entry into new industries, and administrative accountability.

Uniform regulations detached from reality, outdated regulations maintained to protect vested interests, and de facto barriers to entry created by legal vacuums and passive administration are representative examples of “bad regulations.” Such regulations do not protect safety or the public interest; rather, they only increase inconvenience, costs, and social inefficiency.

The government’s plan to promote large-scale regulatory special zones, the so-called mega special zone initiative, is also worthy of recognition in its intent to expand regional autonomy and strengthen growth hubs. However, regulatory rationalization must not remain limited to selective exceptions and fiscal support for particular regions or industries. If regulatory exceptions operate as exceptional benefits, this could become not genuine regulatory reform but another form of policy discrimination. Special zones must serve, above all, as testing grounds for institutional reform, and their results must lead to nationwide institutional improvement.

What the government should do is not choose certain sectors for support, but make the rules themselves fair and simple so that anyone can freely take on challenges and compete.

The Center for Free Enterprise (CFE) hopes that this Regulatory Rationalization Committee will uphold three principles going forward.

First, it must boldly overhaul unnecessary permit, authorization, reporting, and prior review regulations that restrict the free economic activities of citizens and businesses. Second, it must not leave protectionist regulations that obstruct consumer choice and market competition in place under the name of the “public interest.” Third, regulations that are truly necessary, such as those concerning life, safety, and the environment, must be designed to be clear, predictable, and based on the principle of minimum infringement.

Good regulation is not regulation that replaces the market, but regulation that establishes order so that the market can function properly. Bad regulation, by contrast, is regulation that blocks innovation, restricts competition, and protects vested interests.

The government must now move beyond merely reducing the number of regulations and advance toward reform that changes the quality of regulation. In that sense, the first meeting of the Regulatory Rationalization Committee is worthy of welcome as a starting point.

What matters is not declarations but action. We hope the government will use this discussion as an opportunity to boldly remove outdated bad regulations and work even harder to establish market-friendly good regulations that support freedom, competition, and innovation.

2026. 4. 16.

Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [논평] 규제합리화위원회 첫 회의 개최 환영... '나쁜 규제’ 걷어내고' 좋은 규제’ 시장친화적 설계해야

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2026-04-16

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=comment&pn=1&idx=28807