IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v15y2025i1p25-d1566235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trends in InsurTech Development in Korea: A News Media Analysis of Key Technologies, Players, and Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Yongsu Lee

    (Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul 03767, Republic of Korea)

  • Hyosook Yim

    (Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul 03767, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

This study aims to understand how InsurTech has developed in Korea. To achieve this, we collected InsurTech-related news articles published in the Korean media over the past eight years. Using a relatedness analysis based on the TopicRank algorithm, a text-mining technique, we extracted the top keywords associated with InsurTech by year. The extracted keywords were analyzed and discussed in terms of development trends: which technologies gained prominence over time, who the key players were, and what solutions were introduced. The analysis revealed several key trends in InsurTech’s development in Korea. First, regarding changes in InsurTech technology, blockchain and the Internet of Things initially garnered significant attention, but artificial intelligence and big data later emerged as more critical technologies. Second, in terms of market players, government agencies and research institutes initially created forums for discussion, such as seminars to draw social attention to InsurTech. Over time, innovative startups entered the market, general agencies specializing in insurance brokerage gained prominence in the online marketplace, and the entry of Big Tech platforms further diversified the market. Finally, in terms of InsurTech-related insurance solutions, early attention was focused on developing new products. However, the trend gradually shifted toward improving the accessibility and convenience of existing insurance services. Additionally, asset management and payment settlement services—linked to financial services beyond traditional insurance—emerged, along with new concepts such as healthcare, which reshaped the approach to insurance services. This study contributes to understanding how InsurTech has evolved by identifying key trends in emerging technologies, leading market players, and innovations in the insurance value chain. The Korean case provides insights that may help explore similar patterns in other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongsu Lee & Hyosook Yim, 2025. "Trends in InsurTech Development in Korea: A News Media Analysis of Key Technologies, Players, and Solutions," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:1:p:25-:d:1566235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juma'h, Ahmad H. & Li, Yuan, 2023. "The effects of auditors’ knowledge, professional skepticism, and perceived adequacy of accounting standards on their intention to use blockchain," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    3. Volosovich Svetlana, 2016. "InsurTech: challeges and development perspectives," International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Economy, CyberLeninka;ROSTranse Trade F Z C, issue 3 (5), pages 39-42.
    4. Braun, Alexander & Schreiber, Florian, 2017. "The Current InsurTech Landscape: Business Models and Disruptive Potential," I.VW HSG Schriftenreihe, University of St.Gallen, Institute of Insurance Economics (I.VW-HSG), volume 62, number 62.
    5. Farbmacher, Helmut & Löw, Leander & Spindler, Martin, 2022. "An explainable attention network for fraud detection in claims management," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 244-258.
    6. Diane Holt & Ralf Barkemeyer, 2012. "Media coverage of sustainable development issues – attention cycles or punctuated equilibrium?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cao, Siqing & Lyu, Hanjia & Xu, Xian, 2020. "InsurTech development: Evidence from Chinese media reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Jie Liu & Shujun Ye & Yujin Zhang & Lulu Zhang, 2023. "Research on InsurTech and the Technology Innovation Level of Insurance Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Iván Sosa Gómez & Óscar Montes Pineda, 2023. "What is an InsurTech? A scientific approach for defining the term," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 26(2), pages 125-173, July.
    4. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    5. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    6. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    8. Benjamin C. Wilde & Eva Lieberherr & Andrew E. Okem & Johan Six, 2019. "Nitrified Human Urine as a Sustainable and Socially Acceptable Fertilizer: An Analysis of Consumer Acceptance in Msunduzi, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, April.
    9. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    10. Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    11. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    13. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    14. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    15. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    16. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    17. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    18. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Iván Sosa & Óscar Montes, 2022. "Understanding the InsurTech dynamics in the transformation of the insurance sector," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 25(1), pages 35-68, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:1:p:25-:d:1566235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.