In examining the governance of national art museums, this study does not seek to identify the superiority of a single institutional model, but to analyze policy choices made under the dual conditions of the diffusion of New Public Management (NPM) and the structural contraction of public funding. Drawing on theoretical discussions of NPM, auditing culture, and the financial crisis of cultural institutions, this study develops an analytical framework consisting of three dimensions: (1) fiscal structures and the allocation of financial responsibility, (2) the institutional configuration of autonomy and control, and (3) mechanisms for safeguarding public and professional expertise. Methodologically, this study adopts a comparative case-study approach to analyze the governance of national art museums in South Korea, Japan, and France. The analysis is based on a review of policy documents, legal frameworks, and existing research, complemented by interviews with key stakeholders in the Japanese and French cases. The findings indicate that although all three countries have been influenced by NPM, they have adopted it in markedly different ways. South Korea introduced the executive agency system to enhance managerial autonomy; however, substantive institutional independence has remained limited by centralized fiscal structures and performance-evaluation mechanisms. Japan granted legal status to national museums by incorporating them as independent administrative institutions. However, performance-based management and continuous budget-reduction pressures under the medium-term planning system have intensified. France expanded institutional autonomy through multilevel governance based on cooperation between central and local governments, yet this model has exposed limitations related to fiscal volatility and employment stability. The study concludes that no universal or single solution exists for the governance of national art museums. Rather than focusing on the selection of governance types per se, future policy debates should pay greater attention to how fiscal responsibility, control mechanisms, and institutional arrangements for protecting public and professional functions are combined within specific national and policy contexts.
Kim et al. (Wed,) studied this question.