Assessing the Core Criteria for Optimal Regulation of the Private SECURITY Industry in Republic of KOREA

Abstract

International survey of the private security industry has rejuvenated interest in its study, in what has been a period of intensive growth internationally over several decades. Regulatory survey and analyses have been conventionally confined to Australia, Britain and North America, while devel-opments in other world regions remain unassessed. This article is intended to inform and document the the recurring issues and challenges associated with the security industry in Republic of Korea. This article examines growth and diversification; regulation focusing on oversight practices; and offers a critique of the industry, as well as discussions on areas of possible improvement in regula-tion. The findings suggest that, although sustained intensive growth is evident, such growth has not been representative of a comprehensive scheme, and as such partial coverage of security tasks, minimal underwriting of competency standards, and insufficient attention paid to proactive moni-toring and support remain ongoing issues. In light of the challenges outlined above, this article has discussed the range of strategies that could be pursued to complement a more comprehensive set of reforms, thereby optimizing the overall system. The major recommendation centers around three discussion areas. First, there ap-pears to be a case for the policymakers to spread the legislative umbrella to embrace greater cov-erage of security tasks beyond the basic categories of static/armed guarding, close protection, cash-in-transit and alarm service, so that entry into the industry is controlled and monitored. Sec-ond, training has conventionally given a low priority due to ground that a two-year compulsory military service experience is adequate. Such assumption has resulted in a situation where the competency requirement is being avoided or neglected. Concurrently, there appears to be a case for the regulators and industry associations to engage in developing certified standards aimed at raising the bar of professionalism. Third, regulators should take advantage of cost-effective ad-vances in monitoring programs in order to address the complexity of crime problems and benefit the industry in general.