(EDITORIAL from Korea Times on Sept. 2)

The resignation of Kim Yong-beom, President Lee Jae Myung's chief policy secretary, should not be viewed as a routine personnel change. Instead, it should serve as a wake-up call prompting the administration to reevaluate its approach to economic policy formulation and implementation. This development marks a significant shift, occurring roughly 15 months after Kim's appointment as the administration's inaugural chief policy secretary.

His departure coincided with mounting criticism over economic and financial policies, particularly the introduction of single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and growing concerns about market volatility and investor losses. The timing is particularly noteworthy, as the administration had, just two days prior, announced a Cabinet reshuffle, during which Kim was initially retained in his position.

However, his subsequent resignation indicates that the government could no longer afford to dismiss the growing calls for accountability.

The incident raises a more profound question: Who should be held accountable when a major government policy leads to unforeseen consequences? While a presidential policy secretary is not merely an executor of decisions handed down from above, their role entails coordinating competing interests, identifying potential risks, and alerting the president when a particular policy may be misguided or premature.

In this regard, accountability goes beyond assigning blame. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that power is exercised responsibly.

The controversy surrounding single-stock leveraged ETFs serves as a prime example of this dilemma. Although the government and financial authorities had valid reasons to consider regulatory reform, addressing concerns about regulatory asymmetry between domestic and overseas markets, merely having good intentions does not ensure the success of a policy.

The lesson learned here extends beyond the administration's economic philosophy. The government's ambitious agenda, encompassing capital-market reform, industrial policy, artificial intelligence investments, and housing policy, necessitates a policy environment that maintains market and citizen confidence. Economic policy thrives when it establishes credible rules, allows markets to function freely, and intervenes only when genuine market failures or excessive risks threaten the broader economy.

The appointment of Kim's successor is, therefore, of utmost importance. The president requires a policy chief who is politically loyal yet professionally independent. This individual must be capable of challenging assumptions within the presidential office, communicating openly about policy risks, and listening to external perspectives.

A politician who merely echoes the president's views offers little value. Instead, the most valuable counsel comes from someone willing to deliver difficult news before a policy failure transforms into a political crisis. The government should refrain from declaring the matter closed merely due to Kim's resignation. If he steps down as a convenient means to appease the public, the administration risks learning little.

However, if his departure prompts a comprehensive review of the policy-making process, encompassing regulatory impact assessments, interagency coordination, communication with financial markets, and investor protection, the resignation could indeed be a turning point. There is another reason why this matter holds significance. The Lee administration is relatively new, providing ample time for course correction.

Economic policy mistakes are inevitable for any government; failing to learn from them, however, is not. The key takeaway for Korea is not to engage in another round of political blame but to foster a government capable of distinguishing between legitimate reform and reckless experimentation, between political messaging and economic reality, and between defending a policy and correcting it when circumstances change.

Kim Yong-beom has acknowledged political responsibility by stepping down, and this gesture should be respected. However, accountability extends beyond one man's resignation. The true test will be whether President Lee capitalizes on this opportunity to restore confidence in his administration's economic decision-making. While markets do not demand perfection from governments, they do expect predictability, competence, and credibility.

Citizens, in turn, demand something equally fundamental: a government willing to admit its mistakes and capable of rectifying them. Kim's resignation, therefore, should not be seen as the culmination of a controversy but rather as the commencement of a much-needed policy reset.