Formulating the SLR Plan

We began by setting a clear protocol to define the review topic and to enhance the clarity of the research process. Typically, an SLR protocol includes research title, background, objectives and key questions, a preliminary review of existing literature, search strategy, and selection criteria, among other elements. This protocol helps minimize omission and ensures reliability and validity (Mulrow, 1994). The most crucial component here involves articulating the “key questions” (Cho & Song, 2015). Accordingly, we formulated the following three key questions and integrated them into our literature selection process: (1) Does the study explain or interpret the concept of a “guaranteed state” and provide its own perspective on the topic?, (2) Does it incorporate or adapt the concept of a guaranteed state in a particular field to make policy-related (or otherwise similar) recommendations? (3) Does it explore ways to generalize the guaranteed state concept through case studies that apply it to a specific setting?

We searched four major academic databases commonly used by Korean researchers—Google Scholar, DBpia, RISS (Korean Education and Research Information Service), and KISS (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information)—using keywords designed to capture the notion of the guaranteed state within the social sciences, such as “social security”, “universal welfare” and “Guaranteed State.”. To better reflect the discourse on the guaranteed state within the context of Korean social science research, the keyword selection was refined to include terms such as “governance,” “public–private partnership,” and “welfare provision.” These terms were selected to align with key themes across the legal, administrative, and welfare domains, thereby enhancing the relevance and comprehensiveness of the literature search. Several international scholars have elaborated key dimensions of the guaranteeing state, including welfare regime typologies, governance quality, and social investment priorities (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Taylor-Gooby, 2004; Bambra, 2005; Teorell & Rothstein, 2008; Morel, 2012). Thus, the selected keywords are not only representative of domestic discourse but also closely aligned with internationally established conceptual frameworks related to the guaranteeing state. This thematic convergence enhances the validity of the analytical categories used in this review and affirms the relevance of Korean scholarship in the global context. We limited our analysis to studies published after 2008, as this marks the beginning of scholarly efforts in Korea to explore the applicability of the guaranteed state concept within the national legal and institutional framework. Given that this study aims to examine the potential application of the guaranteed state to a specific policy domain, it was necessary to focus on more recent research reflecting this evolving discourse.

In particular, Kim and Hong’s (2008) study incorporated the concept of the guaranteeing state into the domain of legal institutionalization, contributing to its theoretical and practical foundation. Building on this, Hong (2009) sought to broaden the scope of domestic research by applying the guaranteeing state theory to the Korean context, thereby expanding the discourse surrounding its applicability within national policy and administrative frameworks.

Furthermore, we limited our analysis to articles published in KCI-registered journals (which meet certain scholarly standards) and excluded dissertations and monographs. Two researchers independently reviewed the retrieved literature based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. When disagreements arose, each researcher first re-examined the disputed study individually. They then engaged in a discussion to compare their interpretations and reasoning. If a consensus was still not achieved, a joint review was conducted to resolve the discrepancy and finalize the decision. This multi-step consensus process helped ensure consistency in the selection and classification of studies and enhanced the overall reliability of the review.

Literature Selection and Exclusion

At this stage, we applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria set out in the protocol to select studies relevant to our research objectives. Typically, at least two researchers conduct this process independently, resolving disagreements through discussion or by involving a third researcher. Commonly, the PRISMA flow diagram is used to visually present the literature selection sequence.

From the initial pool of 109 retrieved articles, we removed duplicates and any studies that did not use the guaranteed state terminology in ways aligned with our research aims. This yielded 24 articles for the first round of screening. There were no articles for which the full text could not be obtained. Next, we reviewed the titles and abstracts to evaluate whether the content and design met our inclusion criteria; all 24 articles passed this step with no additional exclusions.

In the full-text review, we closely examined each article’s aims, methodology, subject matter, and core findings to confirm alignment with our inclusion criteria. We excluded articles for any of the following three reasons: (1) the guaranteed state concept was not directly discussed; (2) the guaranteed state concept was discussed only superficially without covering the core arguments; or (3) although the concept was addressed, the study did not explore its application in other social science fields, thus rendering it unsuitable for our purpose. Consequently, 20 articles were ultimately included.

We then classified and analyzed these 20 articles based on how they applied the guaranteed state concept in the social sciences. Specifically, we sorted them into three thematic categories: (1) constitutional and legal approaches (10 articles), (2) political and administrative approaches (7 articles), and (3) economic and welfare policy approaches (3 articles). We illustrated this selection process through a PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1), clarifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria at each stage to ensure transparency and replicability.

View original

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the literature selection process based on PRISMA guidelines.

Results of the Systematic Literature Review on the Guaranteed State

As noted, our search produced 20 articles. After careful examination, two researchers jointly categorized the articles based on how they applied the guaranteed state concept within the social sciences. Each researcher conducted an independent review, resolving any disagreements through discussion. This process resulted in three classifications: constitutional and legal approaches, political and administrative approaches, and economic and welfare policy approaches. Below, we summarize the main themes and conclusions from each category.

Constitutional and Legal Approaches

We identified 10 articles that explored the guaranteed state concept from constitutional and legal perspectives (see Table 1). These studies examined how the guaranteed state concept has been interpreted and applied in areas such as administrative law, regulation, legal reform, risk management, and the protection of citizens’ safety. They generally argued that modern administrative law is evolving toward strengthening regulation and management to achieve social protection, thereby positioning the guaranteed state as more than merely a provider of welfare but also as an active regulator (Gye, 2013).

One study analyzed the link between the guaranteed state and green growth policies, emphasizing that the guaranteed state must also consider environmental policies and legal reforms to facilitate sustainable development (Kim, 2014). Another article critically examined the limitations of legal regulation and policy under the guaranteed state, pointing out the risk of excessive intervention and inefficiency if regulations are not balanced with effective governance (Park, 2015). Meanwhile, research on the constitutional basis of the guaranteed state (Hong, 2016) highlighted the alignment of the guaranteed state with constitutional principles, stressing the importance of legal legitimacy for policy implementation.

Furthermore, other works (Jung, 2015) studied how a German-informed guaranteed state concept can be adapted to modern administrative law and public policy, proposing a roadmap for future development. Another study (Sung, 2015) examined how the guaranteed state extends beyond mere welfare provision to include social risk prevention and management, advocating an “e-government” approach to enhance technological capabilities. In addition, research on national safety and the guaranteed state (Lee, 2016) tied the concept to constitutional responsibilities for protecting citizens’ lives, suggesting that the guaranteed state evolve to prioritize safety and risk prevention alongside the provision of welfare.

Overall, these studies demonstrate that the guaranteed state concept has been adopted and expanded in various legal contexts, including administrative law, regulation, environmental protection, risk management, and citizen safety. Significantly, the literature emphasizes that the guaranteed state is not merely an extension of the welfare state but rather a contemporary model that integrates risk prevention, regulatory innovation, environmental stewardship, and technological advancement. Hence, the guaranteed state balances ultimate responsibility for public welfare with modern forms of governance—relying on a dynamic fusion of legal, policy, and regulatory mechanisms.

Political and Administrative Approaches

Table 2 summarizes seven studies that focus on how the guaranteed state concept is understood in political science and public administration. The guaranteed state has been highlighted as a crucial idea for redefining the role and responsibilities of government in contemporary public administration. Notably, numerous studies emphasize that it constitutes a shift away from direct state intervention and toward collaboration with private actors to deliver public goods and services more efficiently.

For instance, Kim & Hong (2008) analyzed how the guaranteed state could shape personal information protection by promoting “regulated self-regulation,” wherein the state sets foundational guidelines while delegating regulatory activities to private actors. Cho (2012) advocated for “guarantee-oriented administrative law” in the era of public–private partnerships, arguing that the state should focus on coordination and supervision rather than direct administration. Kim (2017) examined how the guaranteed state aligns with “new order administrative law” in Germany, demonstrating that modern governance relies on the state’s coordination of multiple societal actors rather than on command-and-control regulations.

In addition, Kwon (2016) looked at local governments’ roles under the guaranteed state, contending that local authorities must share responsibility for public service delivery and coordinate with private partners. Hong (2016) and Jung (2015) explored ways for the guaranteed state to serve as a new national role model, harmonizing administrative efficiency with citizen rights. They highlighted that the shift toward information-based governance and public–private cooperation requires redefining the scope and form of state intervention. Kim (2022) expanded on this perspective by discussing the “digital platform government” and its potential to facilitate guaranteed state principles, stressing that technology can promote both efficiency and citizen accessibility.

Synthesizing these studies reveals that the guaranteed state concept has permeated contemporary political and administrative discourse by promoting public–private collaboration, self-regulation under state oversight, and more flexible governance structures. Researchers argue that central and local governments alike should participate in designing frameworks that balance state responsibility with private-sector autonomy while leveraging digital tools for administrative innovation.

Economic and Welfare Policy Approaches

Finally, three articles fell under the economic and welfare policy classification. They examined how the guaranteed state concept plays out in balancing the market and public welfare. Unlike traditional welfarestate discourse, these studies proposed that a guaranteed state should transcend mere welfare provision to coordinate and regulate a broad array of socioeconomic actors.

Park (2024) emphasized the importance of balancing competition and regulation, drawing on Germany’s legal impact assessment system. According to this study, the guaranteed state should maintain fair competition while using regulation to protect socially vulnerable groups, harmonizing public interest with market mechanisms. The paper highlighted that regulatory legislation must adhere to the principle of proportionality so as not to overly hinder economic sustainability.

Pyo & Ko (2021) analyzed the adoption of the guaranteed state concept in early childhood education, suggesting that building a public–private cooperation system can enhance the public nature of education. They proposed that the state should define broad principles of publicness and provide financial support, while the private sector contributes expertise and operational flexibility—thereby minimizing the state’s fiscal burden without sacrificing quality or equity in essential social services.

Lim (2016) examined the conceptual distinctions between the guaranteed state, welfare state, and “caring state,” underlining that the guaranteed state focuses not only on providing welfare but also on supporting broader social sustainability through regulatory frameworks and policy tools. The study noted that while a caring state stresses direct welfare provision to vulnerable groups, the guaranteed state aims for a balanced approach, combining public and private efforts under the state’s ultimate responsibility.

In summary, these articles view the guaranteed state as a more flexible policymaking framework than traditional welfare-state models, one capable of preserving market functions while ensuring protection for citizens. They stress the state’s role in designing policy and legal tools that integrate both competition and welfare goals—evident, for example, in legislative impact assessments. Moreover, forging strategic public –private collaboration, exemplified in the early childhood education sector, is highlighted as a prime avenue for the practical realization of guaranteed state ideals.

An Integrated Framework for Realizing a Sports Guaranteed State

The following section synthesizes legal, administrative, economic, and welfare policy perspectives and proposes a framework for implementing the guaranteed state concept in the sports sector.

Constitutional and Legal Perspectives

From a constitutional standpoint, properly institutionalizing the guaranteed state concept in sports requires framing sports not merely as a recreational activity but as a dimension of basic rights for ensuring public health and quality of life (Park, 2022). However, because the Korean Constitution lacks explicit provisions that treat sports as a fundamental right, there is a risk that sports could be marginalized in broader state policies (Jeong & Lee, 2019). This omission makes it difficult for citizens to demand specific rights related to health and well-being via sports, potentially conflicting with the guaranteed state principle that prioritizes public health and welfare.

Another constitutional and legal issue involves insufficient or overlapping regulations in the sports sector. While a guaranteed state model suggests that the government promotes social protection through regulation and managerial capabilities (Zheng et al., 2024), sports in Korea remains highly compartmentalized among professional, grassroots, and school-based systems, often leading to duplicative administrative procedures and regulations. Consequently, such fragmentation produces administrative inefficiencies, undermines policy effectiveness, and complicates the creation of proactive safety and risk-prevention measures in sports contexts (Baek & Seo, 2022). Although safety concerns for athletes, spectators, and facilities arise frequently, the current system largely addresses accountability ex post, rather than focusing on comprehensive, preventive governance (Shilbury & Ferkins, 2015). One root cause is the absence of an integrated governance structure within administrative law and public policy (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016). Despite sports’ close links with welfare, the environment, and regional development, fragmentation among the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, the Ministry of Education, and local governments impedes coordinated long-term planning.

To address these issues, some scholars propose an amended or reinterpreted constitutional clause that formally recognizes sports as a fundamental right and a state obligation (Berch, 2023). This would clarify that the state, local governments, and public institutions must ensure sports accessibility for all citizens—a principle that could be codified through subordinate legislation such as the National Sports Promotion Act (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016). Meanwhile, rationalizing the regulatory structure—by eliminating unnecessary overlaps, reinforcing core regulations on safety and fairness, and aligning with sustainability targets—could enhance regulatory efficiency (Zheng et al., 2024).

Establishing a comprehensive risk-prevention and safety-management system is also vital, echoing the guaranteed state’s emphasis on preemptive risk mitigation (Lim & Kwon, 2021). Just as the guaranteed state advocates a forward-looking regulatory stance, sports authorities should implement an integrated control tower for facilities inspection, injury prevention, and emergency response, reinforcing ex ante rather than ex post measures. Legal support could be expanded within the National Sports Promotion Act, or through standalone sports safety legislation (Zheng et al., 2024).

Additionally, an intergovernmental “Sports Integrated Governance Commission,” involving the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, local governments, and private sports organizations, has been proposed (Berch, 2023). Such a commission could mitigate policy overlaps and conflicts, enshrine the constitutional basis for sports as a right, link sports with environmental and sustainability goals, and maintain public safety (Lim & Kwon, 2021).

A future-oriented idea under discussion is the development of an e-government platform for sports-related matters (Kim, 2022). A centralized digital platform for managing sports facility inspections, event administration, participation data, and infrastructure information could reduce administrative costs, enhance public convenience, and improve transparency and trust (Shilbury & Ferkins, 2015). Incorporating smartphone applications would further increase accessibility, maximizing public value in sports administration. Another innovative approach is a “Sports Impact Assessment” (SIA), modeled on environmental impact assessments. An SIA would evaluate new sports facilities or major sporting events for their impacts on local communities, public health, the economy, and the environment, ensuring accountability in policy decisions—a principle well aligned with the guaranteed state concept (Jeong & Lee, 2019).

Financing risk-sharing mechanisms is likewise important; for example, mandatory sports safety insurance or the promotion of local sports cooperatives could address budgetary constraints while empowering communities. Finally, linking sports, welfare, and environmental sustainability—through “sustainable sports cities,” for instance—could exemplify how a guaranteed state merges social welfare, risk management, and ecological stewardship via a sports-based strategy (Zheng et al., 2024). In short, integrating guaranteed-state principles into the sports sector requires constitutional recognition of sports as a fundamental right, reorganization of regulatory systems, enforcement of safety and risk management, establishment of integrated governance mechanisms, and adoption of forward-looking innovations such as e-government platforms and SIAs (Park, 2022; Jeong & Lee, 2019).

Political and Administrative Perspectives

Realizing the guaranteed state concept in Korean sports also necessitates establishing how national and private sectors share responsibilities and how collaborative governance should be reorganized (Kim, 2021). The guaranteed state aims to secure public welfare and safety but does so by respecting market functions and private autonomy, rather than relying on unilateral state-led approaches (Bendell, 2011). However, Korea’s sports administration has not fully adopted regulated self-regulation, frequently oscillating between fully state-driven and excessively marketdriven approaches—undermining policy efficiency.

A major limitation lies in the ambiguity of responsibility-sharing between the government and private actors. Although the guaranteed state defines the government as the ultimate guarantor while actively engaging private expertise, Korea’s reality often involves either heavy government intervention or near-exclusive reliance on private initiatives (Baek, 2020). Consequently, the state’s role as a policy “coordinator” is weakened, hampering both civic participation and effective management. Legal and institutional frameworks also do not clearly delineate sports governance, resulting in overlapping authority among government bodies, private entities, and local communities.

Public–private partnership (PPP) models remain insufficiently reflected in Korean sports governance, particularly at the local-government level. Under guaranteed state theory, local governments should lead regionally tailored sports policies while encouraging private-sector engagement. In practice, however, sports policies often polarize between central-government leadership and private market ventures (Han, 2022). This hinders local authorities from effectively utilizing community organizations, sports clubs, and businesses to co-develop governance models that merge public interest with innovation (Suzor, 2020). Consequently, efforts to deliver region-specific grassroots sports and services for disadvantaged populations remain fragmented (Hao et al., 2023).

Further concerns have emerged over the incomplete use of digital platform administration in sports (Nalyvaiko, 2019). Although digital tools and big data could improve safety monitoring, event management, participant tracking, resource allocation, and overall policy evaluation, the Korean sports administration generally lacks integrated digital systems (Lee, 2021; Ekholm, 2017). This hinders transparency, accountability, and the proactive administrative approach required by a guaranteed state model.

To tackle these challenges, scholars recommend (1) clarifying the boundaries of government responsibility versus private self-regulation and (2) institutionalizing public–private partnerships (Thing, 2010). Concretely, the state could establish safety, fairness, and ethical standards while delegating day-to-day sports operations to local governments and private organizations, retaining ultimate responsibility (Baek & Seo, 2022). A “Sports Governance Committee” could facilitate collaborative decision-making among local communities, civil society, private businesses, and local governments (Kim, 2021; Bendell, 2011). Such an approach would help balance public interests with the specialized competencies offered by private actors, aligning with guaranteed-state principles that emphasize synergy between public responsibility and market-driven efficiency (Lee, 2023). Strengthening local government authority, introducing data-driven administration, and expanding civil-society and privatesector participation could advance a guaranteed-state model that effectively harmonizes equity and efficiency in sports governance.

Welfare and Economic Policy Perspectives

Korean sports policy has traditionally been approached from cultural and leisure perspectives, with less attention paid to its integration within welfare and economic initiatives (Kim, 2020). As a result, sports has not been systematically harnessed to enhance both economic performance and social equity—key goals of a guaranteed state (Lim, 2016). Policies to boost private sports industries rarely link effectively with public infrastructure or support for vulnerable populations. Furthermore, government grants or tax incentives tend to be sporadic rather than part of coherent, ongoing strategies (Rosentraub, 2009). Consequently, it remains difficult to optimize synergy between economic growth and social equity in the sports sector (Lee & Park, 2022).

One underlying structural issue is the lack of clearly delineated responsibility between national agencies and private sectors (Cho, 2019). For instance, studies on early childhood education proposed that essential social services be jointly borne by the government and private providers. Yet in Korean sports, public intervention and private investment still operate at opposite extremes (Katelouzou, & Zumbansen, 2020). Supporting public facilities and assisting underserved groups require stable funding and clear lines of accountability; yet because these are lacking, it is challenging to simultaneously ensure sports access for all and to develop competitive market-oriented sports industries (Yoo & Kang, 2021).

Another concern is the ambiguous position of sports within broader welfare and economic policy agendas (Baek & Seo, 2022). Although the guaranteed state theoretically provides a flexible framework for linking diverse policy instruments—covering social security, risk management, sustainability, and more—the Korean policy arena largely confines sports to the domain of “culture and tourism” in government structure and budget classifications. Consequently, sports’ contributions to caregiving services, job creation, regional development, and other socio-economic goals remain underexplored (Heinemann, 2005).

Deficiencies in legislative impact assessment and regulatory innovation further exacerbate these challenges (Jedlicka et al., 2020). In Germany, for example, laws and regulations undergo rigorous impact assessments to balance economic viability with social welfare, effectively operationalizing guaranteed-state concepts. However, such assessments are scarcely applied to sports legislation in Korea, making it difficult to align policy with the dual objectives of economic development and social protection (Kim, 2020).

To overcome these constraints, several strategies can be considered. First, incorporating legislative impact assessments that evaluate both economic and social outcomes when enacting or revising sports-related laws would help maintain a balance between market principles and welfare values (Rosentraub, 2009). Second, establishing a clear public–private partnership structure with explicit cost-sharing schemes would clarify which responsibilities and financial burdens are borne by which parties, ensuring that sports services for disadvantaged populations and market-based initiatives can coexist (Baek & Seo, 2022). Third, stronger interministerial collaboration and legal coordination may help integrate sports into broader frameworks—such as local economic revitalization, social equity programs, and public health campaigns (Jedlicka et al., 2020). This could involve bundling local sports promotion with community economic development, presenting sports not simply as consumption or leisure but as a multifaceted policy instrument (Heinemann, 2005).

Furthermore, explicit constitutional or legal provisions for a minimum state role can ensure safety, equity, and public access to sports infrastructure while respecting market autonomy—a hallmark principle of the guaranteed state (Heinemann, 2005). In the longer term, pilot projects or innovative programs could demonstrate how the guaranteed state might function in sports. For instance, designating certain regions as “sports welfare and economic zones” could combine tax benefits, regulatory flexibility, and public investment (Rosentraub, 2009). Similarly, a “sports voucher plus private matching fund” system could reduce fiscal pressures on the government while expanding access for low-income groups. These initiatives might be accompanied by rigorous legislative and ethical oversight to safeguard both citizens and industry participants. Another possibility is fostering public–private hybrid “sports social enterprises,” in which the government and local authorities provide initial support, eventually enabling private entities to operate independently while offering sports opportunities to marginalized communities—merging market logic with welfare goals under a guaranteedstate framework.

In sum, from the standpoint of welfare and economic policy, the guaranteed state provides a framework for moderating social risks and promoting equity without undermining market functioning (Baek & Seo, 2022). Applying it effectively in the sports sector requires tighter integration of welfare and economic initiatives, a well-defined collaborative arrangement between the government and private entities, and a rigorous system of legislative impact assessment. By designing sports policy to support public health, community development, social cohesion, and other public benefits, policymakers can realize the guaranteed state’s broader aim of harmonizing market efficiency with the collective good.