Th e author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

"The Moon Jae-in administration sought a major energy transition but ended up spending five years mired in debates over nuclear power. That was deeply regrettable."

Those words, delivered at a policy forum titled "Carbon Neutrality and a Desirable Energy Mix" held at the National Assembly Members' Office Building on Dec. 30 last year, stood out in the opening remarks by Climate, Energy and Environment Minister Kim Sung-hwan. What made them striking was the minister's frank acknowledgment of what he described as the Moon government's failure. On the same day, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission approved the operation of Saeul Unit 3, a nuclear reactor whose construction had been suspended during the Moon administration. With electricity demand set to surge amid the rapid expansion of AI, the decision felt like a rare moment of relief.



The Moon government's nuclear phaseout policy has formally been replaced under the Lee Jae Myung administration with the language of an "energy mix." Yet it remains unclear whether the shadow of the previous approach has truly lifted. The most contentious issue is new nuclear power plants. The Climate Ministry has effectively sent two reactors included in the 11th Basic Plan for Long-term Electricity Supply and Demand back to square one for reconsideration. The policy forum itself marked the beginning of what officials call "public deliberation" on the issue. While such processes are often framed as tools for managing social conflict, they have also served as a way to postpone difficult decisions. That pattern was common under the Moon administration, and similar doubts surfaced at the forum. One business executive appealed to policymakers, saying that while energy mix debates matter, they should also consider how to secure competitive energy when core industries such as steel are faltering and, ultimately, how the country will make a living.



From the outset, the current administration has been acutely conscious of its predecessor and eager to draw distinctions. Shortly after the presidential election, a senior economic official said bluntly, "We are different from the Moon government. There is no place here for amateurs or half-baked theorists." Within the administration, there was a shared assessment that the Moon government had failed, particularly on the economy. That failure, especially in addressing bread-and-butter issues, was seen as a decisive factor in losing power after a single term. Officials often traced the root cause to amateur governance trapped in ideological dogma. This helps explain why the current government stresses pragmatism and competence. President Lee has summed it up by saying that solving people's livelihoods should be the only ideology.

Six months into the new administration, the question is whether that promised differentiation is taking hold. The makeup of key economic posts suggests both continuity and change. As before, figures with Keynesian leanings who emphasize an active role for government and fiscal policy are prominent. But unlike the past, there has been no return to theories such as "income-led growth," concepts with little grounding that once dominated policy discourse. Several Cabinet members, including Deputy Prime Minister for Science and Technology Bae Kyung-hoon and Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan, bring experience from the corporate sector.

Still, as the nuclear debate shows, it is hard to say the government has fully embraced pragmatism. At crucial moments, it often hesitates. Business leaders who have attended meetings with the president say Lee understands corporate realities in greater detail than expected and approaches problems in a practical way. At the same time, they note the existence of clear red lines. Chief among them are the interests of labor unions, a core support base. As a result, despite pleas from the semiconductor industry facing intense global competition, e...