1. Introduction

In recent years Korea’s Island communities and the lives of islanders have undergone significant changes compared to the past. Island communities are disintegrating due to continuous population decline and aging. Additionally, the climate crisis and marine debris have created an environment where economic activities are no longer sustainable. The construction of coastal bridges on larger islands has improved accessibility (Park, S.H., 2022); however, scenic areas are increasingly being developed into large-scale tourist destinations, leading to pollution and disruption to residents’ daily lives caused by tourist-generated waste and emissions.

As of the end of 2022, there are a total of 467 inhabited islands in South Korea, with 272 in Jeollanam-do, accounting for 58.2% of the total, followed by Gyeongsangnam-do (77) and Incheon Metropolitan City (38). The island areas have a total population of about 820,000, with Gyeongsangnam-do accounting for 39.3% of the total, or more than 320,000 people living on islands, followed by Incheon Metropolitan City and Jeollanam-do. Jeollanam-do is home to a total of 160,000 islanders, a decrease of about 20,000 from 2015 (Park, S.H., Hwang, D. H.: 7). The number of households has also decreased by about 3,000 from 2015 to 87,900, a result of both natural and social decline. Island depopulation results in more than just the loss of physical spaces; it represents the erosion of unique ways of life and cultural heritage as islands transition from being inhabited to uninhabited (Margaras, V., 2016).

Island communities have a notably higher average age compared to other regions of the country, and the lack of young people to support the islands makes it difficult to deliver community projects (Matanle, P., Rausch, A. S., 2011.). In addition, Korean island villages are characterized by widespread inheritance of economic fishing rights and a relatively strong tendency to exclude outsiders. There are very limited sources of economic income other than the primary industry—which, in the case of most islands, is fishery—which limits the security of economic sustainability. Moreover, as the amount of land owned by outsiders increases, public development is constrained by high costs (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2019). Unlike in the past, the concept of spontaneous development led by islanders as key stakeholders is gradually fading. There also remain reservations and discomfort within the community around the idea of returning to the island (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2019). In addition, 35 years of island development projects have seriously damaged the aesthetic value of island villages. Currently, Korean island village landscapes lack harmony with their natural surroundings. Overly urbanized tourist accommodations, excessive coastal development, brightly colored roofs, and cluttered outdoor advertisements disrupt the traditional aesthetic of islands and fishing villages (Park, S.H., Hwang, D. H., 2021). Furthermore, the lack of restoration of excavations made during road construction and maintenance, neglect of construction-related incisions in hilly areas due to overdevelopment, lack of maintenance of various facilities, and neglect of coastal garbage are common on Korean islands.

Since 1988, the Korean government has established a Comprehensive Island Development Plan and promoted various development projects, but it has often been an “island policy without islanders” (Shin, S. H., 2021). Development plans that ignore the unique identity of islands are no different than those applied to tourist destinations on the mainland, making it difficult for the islands to stand out in an increasingly competitive tourism market. The direction of island development projects so far has been vague, and it is necessary to shift to a policy direction that promotes sustainable development of islands through investment centered on facility projects. Policies that are locally based and can improve the quality of life of island residents are a prerequisite for “sustainable island regeneration” (Hong S.K., Grydehøj, Adam., 2022).

Accordingly, this study addresses three core questions: (1) What historical and institutional contexts shaped Korea’s island policy? (2) How has the policy paradigm evolved over time? (3) What strategic policy directions are required to ensure sustainable island development in the future? By answering these questions, the study develops a policy paradigm analysis model and offers critical policy recommendations.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Policy Paradigm Shift Theory

Policy refers to deliberate governmental actions designed to achieve desirable future outcomes. These actions evolve continually to adapt to changing objectives Hogwood, B., Peters, B. G. (1983) categorize policy change into four types—policy innovation, policy maintenance, policy succession, and policy termination—according to the content type classification. Policy changes are driven by factors such as goals, instruments, environment, target groups, and implementation methods (Jo, S. Y., 2021). Theories that explain policy change include the policy window model, the policy actor model, the frame model, and the policy paradigm shift model. The policy paradigm shift model is an important empirical model of policy change.

The concept of a policy paradigm adapts Khun’s (1970) paradigm theory, originally developed for scientific research, to the context of policy studies. “A policy paradigm is a framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only policy goals and the means used to achieve them, but also the nature of the problems to be addressed,” according to Hall (1993), who applied the concept of policy paradigm to study the process of economic policy change in the United Kingdom. Policy change can be understood in the same vein as Khun’s science of normality, where policy change is composed of three dimensions of change: the first and second of these dimensions are minor adjustment of levels and methods within the system; however, at the third level of change, the system itself changes because it is influenced by changes in ideas or values (Hall, Peter A., 1993). The first level involves adjustments to policy instruments without altering overarching policy goals, focusing on routine decision-making. Secondary change still does not alter the policy objectives but instead develops new policy instruments to achieve those objectives. The tertiary change is the stage where the policy environment, policy goals, and policy instruments change rapidly; this is called a policy paradigm shift Jo, S. Y., 2021). Paradigm shifts necessitate the establishment of new authority. From a neo-institutionalist perspective, this involves rationalizing policy goals and creating institutional processes to overcome reliance on heuristic decision-making. Table 1 summarizes Hall’s (1993) classification of policy paradigm shifts, highlighting the key distinctions across levels.

Hall (1993) posits that paradigm shifts occur gradually, progressing through distinct stages: he categorizes the process as stabilization of the paradigm, accumulation of variation, an experimentation period, an undermining of authority, a contestation period, and a new paradigm settlement period. First, the existing paradigm passes through the stabilization period, and then, when variables that are difficult to explain by the paradigm appear and accumulate, the experimenter tries to change the policy gradually, for instance by promoting new policies to control these variables. If the policies of the experimental period fail, the authority and influence of the existing paradigm is damaged, and various paradigms by policymakers, politicians, stakeholders, and so on emerge to replace it. Among them, the paradigm that gains dominance and authority is established as a new policy paradigm.

The theory of policy paradigm shifts is characterized by historical, idea, and institutional features (Jo, S. Y., 2021). First, Hall (1993) argues that policy paradigm shifts are historical processes which characterize the historicity of policy paradigm shift theory by explaining diachronic policy changes. Scholars of the historicity of Hall’s policy paradigm shift model have verified the usefulness of the model by applying it to cases of contemporaneous policy changes, and have suggested modifications and supplements to the model according to case-specific characteristics. Second, the ideationally related policy paradigm shift theory applies Khun’s paradigm concept to policy research, and since Heclo’s (1978) research, considering the role of ideas in the policy process has become a challenging task for policy scholars, and policy paradigms have emerged as a major research topic. In this regard, scholars have proposed an idea variable suitable for social science research that applies the concept of paradigm (Heclo, H., 1978). Third, the institutionalization theory of policy paradigm shifts is the best-known research method that links ideas and institutions, centering on the concept of paradigmatic policymaking. From an institutionalist perspective, Campbell (2002) analyzes the causal system of policy paradigms and proposes three elements: the decision-making process through which the ideas of policy actors influence policy outputs; the process through which ideas influence the implementation of institutions through regulations and procedures that control policy outputs; and the study of the structure of political discourse and language types through which policy ideas are communicated in the policymaking process.

The policy paradigm shift model differs from policy change and policy frame change in that it is a “change in the explanatory structure itself” that can explain the change from a broader perspective, unlike policy frame change based on a short-term change in policy or a change in cognitive structure Lee, J. Y., 2009). It is also useful for explaining diachronic policy change as a historical process, and is characterized by the ability to identify the importance of ideational factors in policy production, and to identify the relationship between policy paradigms and policy change centered on institutions.

2.2 Research Framework

The research utilizes Yin’s (2014) case study methodology, suitable for exploring complex historical phenomena through in-depth document analysis. This approach enables the tracing of institutional transitions and the identification of paradigm shifts across multiple policy stages. The study draws on legislation, official government documents, press materials, and prior academic research.

In applying Hall’s (1993) policy paradigm framework, the study distinguishes among different phases—paradigm formation, stabilization, experimentation, and idea adoption. This model enables a diachronic understanding of policy transformation and reveals how institutional learning, political drivers, and stakeholder engagement influence policy shifts.

3. Analyzing the Paradigm Shift in Korea’s Island Policy

3.1 The Development of Island Policy by Era

This study uses a case study approach to explore the evolution of Korea’s Island policy paradigm (see Table 4).

Despite being marginalized in the 1960s, islands saw sporadic, small-scale development initiatives. Before the Island Development Promotion Act of 1986, island policies lacked a legal foundation, resulting in fragmented, ministry-led projects (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2014). The trajectory of island development policies reflects shifts in national priorities, with a gradual evolution from neglect to comprehensive planning under successive administrations.

3.2 Policy Paradigm Shift

3.2.1 Policy Paradigm Formation

South Korea’s development policies traditionally focused on major cities and growth hubs. This unbalanced growth strategy left island areas neglected and underdeveloped. Along these lines, island policies in the 1960s were largely ignored in favor of policies centered on large cities and some areas with growth potential (Shin, S. H., 2021: 89). However, even when national development policies were enacted, island areas were treated as part of the coastal region. In the late 1960s, the Ministry of the Interior initiated special administrative measures aimed at fostering development in underdeveloped regions.

In the 1970s, the Saemaul Movement began to unfold, and island communities, like other rural areas across the country, felt its influence. The movement fostered awareness of development needs, leading to village-level projects (Lee, M.S., 2013). Related ministries, including the Ministry of the Interior, had been implementing special regional development projects since the late 1960s, focusing on production infrastructure (Park, J. K., 2017: 136). However, these lacked adequate links with nationwide land development projects and did not have much development effect. The Ministry of the Interior developed an administrative-level Island Comprehensive Development Plan, aiming to have an impact across the whole country. However, its effectiveness was limited by its lack of legal foundation (Shin, S. H., 2021: 89).

Legislative initiatives for formalizing island policies commenced in 1974, marking an important step toward institutionalizing regional development. On December 9, 1974, Representative Kim Sang-young and 20 other lawmakers proposed the Island Development Promotion Act (Bill no. 090287), but the bill was withheld from the plenary session and expired. Later, in November 1980, the Ministry of the Interior prepared a bill to enact the Development Promotion Act for Disadvantaged Areas, which included islands, but its progress was suspended because the then Minister of the Interior ordered a halt on the grounds that financing was uncertain (Ministry of the Interior, 1982).

3.2.2 Policy Paradigm Stability

In the 1980s, the island regions were designated as a target area in a specific regional plan for the entire country, and a comprehensive plan for the island regions was established, but a lack of legal support hindered the plan’s implementation (Park, J. K., 2017: 136).

In 1981, Jung Shi-chae, a member of the National Assembly whose district included Jindo island, Jeollanam-do, collected data from Japan and other foreign countries and gathered opinions from experts and scholars in the field to prepare the text of the Island Development Promotion Act. Jung proposed the draft bill to a policy meeting of the Democratic Justice Party in August 1981, but it was not submitted to the 1981 regular session of the Diet due to lack of time for review (Shin, S. H., 2021: 99). He then submitted it to the policy committee of the Democratic Justice Party again in 1982 to propose it to the regular National Assembly, but the deliberations were put on hold due to the claim of some lawmakers that it was “premature due to Korea’s fiscal conditions,” and the proposal was defeated.

In 1983, Jung resubmitted the bill to the Democratic Justice Party. However, it faced resistance due to competing regional priorities and fiscal concerns among National Assembly members who argued that the mountainous and remote areas were more underdeveloped. It was then introduced to a regular session of the National Assembly in 1985. However, any bill that requires budgetary support must go through the government’s consultation process, or parliamentary legislation, which requires consultation with the relevant ministries, namely the Ministry of Economy and Planning, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Construction; but again, the bill faced strong opposition from the Ministry of Economy and Planning Jung S. C., 2016: 159–160).

The bill, which had stalled in the National Assembly due to the changing political environment, was again proposed by 45 lawmakers, including Jung Shi-chae, on November 27, 1986; it was referred to the Interior Committee the following day, and passed in its original form on December 10, 1986, at the 12th session of the National Assembly (Jung S. C., 2016: 159–160). Finally, on December 17, 1986, the bill was presented to the 20th plenary session of the 131st National Assembly and passed in its original form. It was then sent to the government on December 24, 1986, and promulgated on December 31, 1986. In the end, it took 11 years from the time Representative Kim Sang-young proposed it and 5 years from the time Representative Jung Shi-chae made his attempt to push it to completion, before it was finally enacted.

Thus, in 1986, the Island Development Promotion Act was enacted, and a Comprehensive Island Development Plan was prepared accordingly, thus establishing a legal basis for stable and viable island policies (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2014). In addition, the Ten-Year Plan for Island Development was implemented in 1988, two years after the promulgation of the Act. This was originally a temporary measure that was to be in effect only until December 31, 1997, so it was necessary to amend the law to establish a second ten-year plan, but this was removed by an amendment on December 30, 1995. According to articles 6 and 8 of the Act, the Comprehensive Island Development Plan was established for the period of the first ten-year plan (1988–1997), the second ten-year plan (1998–2007), the third ten-year plan (2008–2017), and the fourth ten-year plan (2018–2027), with the fourth plan currently being implemented.

The first Comprehensive Island Development Plan was implemented for 479 islands during the period from 1988 to 1997 (Hong S.K., Grydehøj, Adam., 2022). The plan’s goals were as follows: first, improve the living conditions of islanders by maintaining and expanding various infrastructure; second, increase income and improve welfare by focusing on production and income infrastructure; and third, inspire the desire to settle in these areas by developing the islands comprehensively as “islands of return from islands of departure” (Yun et al., 1997: 26). The development strategy was presented as: first, comprehensive development of each island to bridge the gap with the mainland; second, the formation of living areas centered on large islands to alleviate the isolation of small islands; third, maximum development of the local characteristics of each island in harmony with development and conservation; and fourth, motivation for settlement through the establishment of economic self-reliance (Yun et al., 1997: 26).

3.2.3 Policy Paradigm Experimentation

In the 1990s, the Comprehensive Island Development Plan began to be implemented in earnest (Kim et al., 2013). This plan aimed to revitalize the long-standing segregated settlement conditions and the local economy, and promoted projects related to improving the living conditions, increasing income, and bettering the welfare of islanders.

The 2000s marked a paradigm shift in the perception of Korea’s islands, driven by socioeconomic changes and increased tourism. Along with social and environmental changes, such as the improvement of national income, the introduction of a five-day work week, and a significant upswing in tourism, the public perception of the islands has changed significantly (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2014). The Comprehensive Island Development Plan sought to focus on typification and characterization in island development, while other policies began to pay more attention to fostering marine tourism. In the 2010s, the Comprehensive Island Development Plan sought to develop each type of island in a characteristic way based on its natural, cultural, and historical resources. At the same time, the government focused internally on policies that could provide more substantial income growth and improved quality of life for island communities.

In response to the continued depopulation and deterioration of island areas despite the first plan, the second Comprehensive Island Development Plan (1998–2007) established development plans for each of the 410 islands targeted for development by location type—including near-island, clustered, and isolated—with a focus on bridging the gap to the mainland and that between different islands (Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2014: 211). In order to create “attractive and livable islands,” the third Comprehensive Island Development Plan (2018–2017) sought to categorize islands through various characteristics, considering spatial distribution, centrality, and livability, and to establish a comprehensive development plan for each type. The Korean government categorized the characteristics of island areas into natural/ecological, cultural experience, and industrial leisure types, and proposed development plans for each type of resource. A defining feature of the third plan was its emphasis on active resident participation in formulating development strategies, enhancing accountability and effectiveness in the process of formulating comprehensive development plans, and ensuring that central and local governments would work together to implement projects (Park, J. K., 2017: 138).

From the first plan to the third, the total investment amounted to KRW 3.1 trillion (KRW 2.2 trillion in national expenditures). As a result, development of production infrastructure such as small-scale fishing harbors and tourism facilities, expansion of infrastructure such as water supply, self-sufficient energy supply systems, and road facilities, and construction of land and sea bridges were achieved. However, it has been pointed out that the promotion of policies that reflect the characteristics of the islands was weak Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2019). In particular, it has been pointed out that there was a lack of systematic support for resident participation, inadequate policy formulation at the level of the islanders, promotion of projects centered on government policies, limited access to public services and infrastructure for daily living, lack of support for tourist convenience, and lack of integrated planning.

3.2.4 Adopting New Ideas

The 2020s witnessed the introduction of Island Day, the world’s first national holiday dedicated to recognizing the value of islands; this was established and implemented to promote the value and raise awareness of islands. Meanwhile, an island research institute was established to systematically manage island areas at the central government level to establish a structure where practical policies and projects can be carried out for the benefit of islanders (Hong S.K., Grydehøj, Adam., 2022). In addition, the central government’s Island Development Review Committee was established based on the appointment of private members to expand opportunities for private participation in island policies.

The current policy phase, embodied in the Fourth Comprehensive Island Development Plan (2018–2027), introduces a resident-focused development model under the vision of 'Rediscovering the Value of Islands.' This plan emphasizes decentralized governance, quality-of-life investments, and ecological restoration. However, contradictions remain, particularly between sustainability objectives and ongoing tourism and infrastructure expansion.

3.3 Characteristics of the Island Policy Paradigm Shift

Since the inception of the Comprehensive Island Development Plan, there have been two major changes. The first was the removal of the ten-year time limit in 1995. Efforts to legislate the Island Development Promotion Act, initiated in the 1970s, faced repeated setbacks due to the opposition of the Economic Planning Agency, who cited difficulties in financing, and from lawmakers due to the perceived privileging of certain regions (Shin, S. H., 2021: 99–101). However, efforts during the period of the first plan did not significantly improve the underdeveloped nature of the islands; thus it was that, through political efforts, the ten-year time limit was removed in 1995, ensuring the continuity of development support for the islands Shin, S. H., 2021: 120). The second major change was the introduction of a comprehensive subsidy system. In 2010, the Special Act on National Balanced Development was amended to introduce a comprehensive subsidy system for some of the accounts in the Special Account for Balanced Development in order to grant autonomy to local governments. As a result, the existing method of state funding, which was provided by each ministry on a project-by-project basis, has changed to a system where some ministries are responsible for budget execution and management by regions. Under the comprehensive subsidy system, island development projects were converted into autonomous local self-organization projects and divided into ‘special situation areas’ (islands identified as relatively underdeveloped due to their geographical conditions and regulatory restrictions) under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and ‘growth promotion areas’ under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport.

The objectives of the Comprehensive Island Development Plan have changed as follows (see Table 5). Firstly, under the first plan, projects were categorized by function, but with the fourth plan, they were categorized by purpose. Secondly, while successive plans aimed to classify islands by geography and socioeconomic traits, these efforts lacked practical implementation and recognition. Under the current (fourth) plan, it cannot be said that the past attempts to categorize the islands have been successful, insofar as residents and officials do not even know the types of islands. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss whether this categorization should continue. Thirdly, there has been an ongoing effort to monitor results since the first plan. However, given that this is not currently successful, it is necessary to review past successes, needs, and ways to improve. Fourthly, plans are gradually being formulated through the expansion of public participation—a cornerstone of democracy. However, there is a limit to the short-term perspective of solving current problems. The short terms in office of elected officials, such as mayors, city councilors, and governors, may see them prioritize budget allocation to projects that residents most desire in the immediate future, which can hinder long-term development. Therefore, it is necessary to be vigilant and ensure resident participation. Finally, over time, plans have increasingly incorporated islands’ unique locations and socioeconomic conditions, and are characterized by bottom-up planning centered on tangible projects that residents genuinely want to see delivered (Park, J. K., 2017: 139).

4. Conclusion

This study has explored the historical evolution of Korea’s island development policies, uncovering a transition from fragmented, infrastructure-focused strategies to more integrated and sustainable approaches. Over the decades, policy directions have mirrored national priorities, emphasizing socioeconomic revitalization, environmental conservation, and improved quality of life for island residents.

Despite notable advancements, persistent challenges—such as depopulation, aging populations, and limited community involvement—continue to hinder sustainable island development. The analysis underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift, prioritizing the well-being of island residents, supporting localized economic activities, and integrating ecological preservation with community-based initiatives. Furthermore, policies must adapt to address the broader impacts of climate change and foster resilience within island communities.

For sustainable island development, policies must prioritize residents’ well-being over economic expansion. This entails a shift from supply-side infrastructure investments to demand-driven, community-led regeneration models. Policymakers should recognize potential contradictions, such as tensions between tourism growth and environmental goals, and plan accordingly through adaptive governance and inclusive planning frameworks.

The foundational principles of the ten-year Comprehensive Island Development Plan should be redefined. These principles must prioritize efficient facility utilization, income generation to enhance residents’ quality of life, environmental restoration, protection of life and property, equitable provision of basic services, and shared prosperity through balanced development (Park, J. K., 2017: 147–148).

The goals of island policies also need realignment. While tourism remains an important factor, the primary focus should be on improving the lives of islanders, who are the original stewards of these areas. Once the residents’ needs are met, policies can then extend to creating enjoyable and sustainable experiences for tourists. Ultimately, the aim of island tourism should be the sustainability of the islands and their communities.

Ultimately, Korea’s island policy must transition to a governance paradigm that embraces bottom-up participation, place-based innovation, and long-term resilience. Doing so will help secure islands not merely as touristic or economic zones, but as thriving, dignified habitats anchored in cultural heritage and sustainability.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from Mokpo National University in 2022.

References

1. Baker, A., 2013. The gradual transformation? The incremental dynamics of macroprudential regulation. Regulation & governance, 7 (4): 417–434. doi:10.1111/rego.12022.
2. Campbell, J. L., 2002. Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy. The Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 21-38.
3. Hall, Peter A., 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain, Comparative Politics 25(3): 275-296.
4. Heclo, H., 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King(eds.), The American Political System. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Research.
5. Hogwood, B., Peters, B. G., 1983. Policy Dynamics, New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press.
6. Hong S.K., Grydehøj, Adam., 2022. Sustainable Island Communities and Fishing Villages in South Korea: Challenges, Opportunities and Limitations. Sustainability, 14(24), 16657; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416657
7. Howlett, M., 1994. Policy paradigms and policy change. Lessons from the old and new Canadian policies towards aboriginal peoples. Policy studies journal, 22 (4), 631–649. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1994.tb01494.x.
8. Jo, S. Y., 2021. An Analysis on the Policy Paradigm Change of Casino Industry Policy: Application of Hall’s Policy Paradigm Shift Theory, Graduate School of Hanyang University, Doctoral thesis. (In Korean with English abstract)
9. Jung S. C., 2016. My Life, My Thoughts. Book Publishing Olae.: 130-169.
10. Khun, T. S., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Kim, J., 2012. The reflection on the Islands Development Policies and Alternatives for Sustainable Islands Making, Island Culture, 40: 427-456. (In Korean with English abstract)
12. Kim, J.E., Hong, S.K., Lee, K.A., 2013. The analysis of public perception associated with island policies in Korean Government. J. Korean I., 25 (1): 41~59. (in Korean with English abstract)
13. Lee, J. Y., 2009. A Study of Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Focused on Japanese Policy on Women, The Korean Association of Contemporary Japanese Studies. 29., pp.171~174. (In Korean with English abstract)
14. Lee, M.S., 2013. Study of Saemaul Undong and the Role of Government from the Perspective of Development State Theory: The usefulness of the developing country application. Rural Economy, 36(3), KOREA RURAL ECONOMIC INSTITUTE: 53~72. (In Korean with English abstract)
15. Margaras, V., 2016. Sparsely populated and under-populated areas. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing (September). Available online: Briefing European Parliamentary Research Service (europa.eu) Accessed: 13/12/25].
16. Matanle, P., Rausch, A. S., 2011. Japan’s Shrinking Regions in the 21st Century: Contemporary responses to depopulation and socioeconomic decline. New York: Cambria Press.
17. Ministry of the Interior., 1982. Island Comprehensive Development Plan 1985-1989.
18. Oliver, M., Pemberton, H., 2004. Learning and change in 20th-century British economic policy. Governance, 17 (3), 415–441. doi:10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00252.x.
19. Park, J. K., 2017. A Study on Promoting Island Development Policy to Improve the Quality of Life: A comparison of institutions in Korea and Japan, Island Culture, 50: 129-152. (In Korean with English abstract)
20. Park, S. H., 2022. Changing island society following the opening of the island bridge and Sustainable Development of Island Society of Korea. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 11(1).
21. Park, S.H., Hwang, D. H., 2021. A Study on Issues and Policy Directions of Changing Island Societies: Focusing on the Policies for the Development of Islands in Jeollanam Province, The Journal of Korean Island, 33(4):1~19. (In Korean with English abstract)
22. Shin, S. H., 2021. The present and future of island policy: Policies that foster the value of the island and the happiness of island residents, Seoul: ParkYeongSa: 89-159.
23. Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2014, A Study of the Change in Consciousness among Island Residents in Korea Related to Policy: Using the Survey of Resident Consciousness in 1995 and 2011, Island Culture, 44: 203-235. (In Korean with English abstract)
24. Shin, S.H., Park, S.H., 2019, An Empirical Study on the Improvement of Quality of Life in the Island areas, The Journal of Social Convergence Studies, 3(2): 67-80. (In Korean with English abstract)
25. Wilder, M., Howlett, M., 2014. The politics of policy anomalies: bricolage and the hermeneutics of paradigms. Critical Policy Studies, 8(2): 183~202.
26. Yin, Robert K., 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Yun, S. H., Kim, S. K., Kim, J. D., 1997, Research on Policy measures to Promote Island Development. Korea Maritime Institute. 178: 22-44.