The comparison on the two committees of the Administrative Reform Committee (ARC) and the Regulatory Reform Committee (RRC), based on institutional analysis, illuminates the similarity and difference in attribute of the committees.

First, ARC as an ad hoc advisory body, provided a basis to build an institution for regulatory reform in 1993. However, it had some constraints such as lack of  legal authority, work scope and organizational stability. As a result, the Basic Act on Administrative Regulations was enacted in 1997. RRC was established as a central body for regulatory reform based on the Basic Act on Administrative Regulations. RRC's authority and function were much more strengtened than ARC. RRC's work scope was extended to regulatory review which was mandated in the government legislation process.

Second, ARC laid a foundation on operating rules based on non-governmental perspective which focused on civilian participation and agenda setting & collective discussions between concerned parties. RRC adopted most of the operating rules from ARC regarding the process of handling reform agendas. However, RRC showed some different characteristics in agenda setting, arguments & discussions, and implementation management. RRC worked closely with government ministries rather than civilian participants and reinforced rules regarding implementation management and regulatory review based on clear legal authority.

Third, ARC handled regulatory issues raised by civilians and by itself, which was done on a case by case basis and tackled issues in part within the cooperation with stake holders. However, RRC handled all existing regulations by mobilizing all ministries. Drastic reviews were conducted in a top-down way with setting targets to reduce regulations of central ministries. It was effective in increasing public interest and business autonomy with strong support of the President.

RRC has become much more developed than ARC in institutional terms. However, RRC needs to be reinforced in institutional setting, operations and strategies because of limited power in dealing with market competition and vested interest. It is because regulatory reform is affected by political and social influence. It is necessary to secure political support in solving complex issues involving in vested interests and long-standing monopolies.