The Korea Tourism Organization (KTO) received a 'B' rating in the Ministry of Economy and Finance's evaluation of public institutions for 2025, a significant improvement from last year's lowest rating of 'E.' Many in the industry had anticipated that even a 'C' rating would be a positive outcome, but the organization made a remarkable leap, moving up three grades.
While this news is certainly welcome, my first thought upon hearing the results was one of skepticism rather than celebration.
Has the KTO truly transformed from an 'E' rated organization to a 'B' rated one in just one year? If so, last year's evaluation was excessively harsh; if not, this year's assessment may be overly lenient. Either way, it raises questions about how accurately the current evaluation system reflects the realities on the ground.
Last year's 'E' rating sent shockwaves through the tourism industry. At that time, the KTO was experiencing a prolonged leadership vacuum amid political turbulence. The normalization of airline supply post-pandemic was slow, and macroeconomic indicators, such as high exchange rates, were worsening. To make matters worse, the funding structure for tourism development was also in turmoil. While the industry struggled against these unavoidable external factors, the evaluation system only presented a cold, hard 'result.'
Public institutions must demonstrate their value through performance. The question, however, is what constitutes 'performance.'
Tourism is not a manufacturing industry that produces output on a conveyor belt. The added value generated by each foreign visitor goes beyond just accommodation and airfare. It encompasses intangible assets and a comprehensive industry that includes traditional markets, local businesses, and regional festivals, ultimately enhancing national branding and increasing revisit rates.
However, these complex ripple effects have been overlooked by the annual quantitative evaluation system. This is why, immediately after last year's 'E' rating, there was widespread criticism of the evaluation as one that did not consider the realities of the field.
Examining the reasons behind this year's 'B' rating adds to the bitterness. The Ministry of Economy and Finance positively assessed the KTO's AI-based innovations, K-content marketing, and safety management systems. This raises the question: did these achievements suddenly emerge this year, or were they innovations from last year that were simply not recognized by the evaluation criteria?
The 'B' rating is undoubtedly a significant rebound. It reflects the hard work and dedication of the staff who maintained operations despite the challenges of leadership vacancies, and it marks a valuable restoration of the organization's reputation after being labeled a 'failing institution.'
However, it is crucial not to treat this result as a mere 'success story.' The questions raised by last year's 'E' rating and those left by this year's 'B' rating ultimately point to the same issue: does the current evaluation system fully capture the unique characteristics of the tourism industry?
Evaluations should serve as indicators that diagnose reality, not as shackles that distort it. While tourism can begin with numbers, it cannot be fully explained by them. Therefore, the criteria for evaluation must also be multi-layered and complex.
Just as last year's 'E' was an unjust stigma, this year's 'B' cannot be seen as a perfect answer. What truly matters is not the single letter on the report card but how accurately we can interpret the struggles of the industry and the changes it undergoes. This is the proper evaluation that the national tourism control tower must strive for, and it is the responsibility of the government to respond accordingly.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.