{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017259978425026967, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.623809523809523, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Study on the Evaluation of Government Work and the Evaluation of Local Public Enterprises

Korea is excessively and extensively evaluated, and the effectiveness of the public sector is lower than that of foreign countries compared to the level of formalization. In addition, as performance evaluation is perceived as a control means, evaluation results are not properly utilized. In particular, local public enterprises should reflect regional characteristics as they perform the function of local decentralization, autonomy and breakwater from changes in government. There is a problem with the evaluation method, which is not only an evaluation for local residents, but also an evaluation by local residents, that is, in terms of regional decentralization, the evaluation method that is becoming a means of achieving the purpose according to the government without evaluation flexibility and autonomy, and without reflecting regional characteristics. In order to solve this problem, local public enterprises need not only management for local residents but also incorporation of methods managed and evaluated by local residents First, public enterprises are not private enterprises, and the 'voluntary clearance of differences' of public enterprises that only consider efficiency like private enterprises is not management innovation for local public enterprises. The management method and performance evaluation of local public enterprises should essentially be changed to a stakeholder model by local residents. Second, in the case of local public enterprises, the process (P·D·S) model, planning, execution, and performance were decided as evaluations of a year, and the public interest index was added according to the policy necessity of the higher authorities, so that the pareto optimum of public interest and profitability suitable for the local or institutional measurement was not achieved. It should be changed to a content evaluation model, so that it can evaluate public interest and become easy to introduce a scientific method that determines effectiveness according to policy compliance. In particular, the proportion of public interest and profitability can be presented and reflected in the evaluation depending on the purpose of the institution's establishment. Third, the lack of meta-evaluation and evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the proper systematic evaluation model after evaluation in the public sector is the result of the horizontal comparative evaluation according to the short-term goal of Korea's annual performance evaluation. The validity of the purpose of the evaluation of local public enterprises, the suitability of the evaluation model, methods or indicators, and the effectiveness of the evaluation needs to be verified.