The MIT Press, 2016. 258 pages. Paperback. $35.00. ISBN: 9780262529495.This book can act as a valuable guide to governments and policy practitioners seeking to form and implement science and technology policy. First, the author points out several excluded areas in science and technology policy that have resulted from complex political, cultural, and historical contexts as well as information controlled problems by a few elite bureaucrats and politicians. This is a kind of "Undone Science." Then, the theories and concepts regarding Social Movements Studies and Science and Technology Studies are reviewed with different dimensions to emphasize mobilization for public interests. The roles of various civilian organizations, including business corporations, community groups, and networks of science experts are important for materializing the public interests when civilian organizations are participate in public policy processes (Hess, 2016; 201). The complexity of modern science and technology policy is increasing, because various citizen for social equality and improvement of quality of life are expanding. Because this policy area is full of huge uncertainty and variability, there might be a kind of fallibility given that a few elites make exclusive policy decisions. Therefore, an open-door policy process might be necessary to negotiate and arbitrate with diverse stakeholders. Meanwhile, if there are many players in policy process, it can cause conflicting goals for governments to pursue and prioritize when in implementing policies due to the diversification of values. Hence, it is an important matter in which direction the governments should enforce the policies. There can be two conflicting vectors in implementing policy, seeking stability, or instability. Seeking stability refers to the pursuit of planning and control to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, seeking instability often takes the form of policy innovation, original attempts, and pioneering. The top-down approach to implementation ensures stability, while the bottom-up approach to implementation creates more instability compared with the top-down approach. The top-down approach can bring stability of public administration to governments because this way has functional rationality and governments can obtain normativity and legitimacy of public administration and policy implementation. However, there is a less probability that sufficient discussions between various parties involved in science and technology policy will be reflected in this policy process. In the case of the bottom-up implementation, the situation or context surrounding policy can be diversely interpreted though the policy objective may become ambiguous due to dynamic interactions. Aligned with the book, bottom-up policy practices might be expanded in science and technology policies because several policy participants including citizens, community organizations, and other stakeholders are open to engagement in the policy process. These days policy is the product of compromises, and ...

In this study, we examine the association between the success of participatory budgeting and a number of variables that characterizes the participatory process in light of the participatory budgeting recently adopted by autonomous districts in Seoul. Specifically, we consider three variables (the number, attendance rate, and level of expertise of the participatory budgeting committee members), and examine the association between these three variables and the success of the participatory process, as measured by the amount of budget included in the official budget of the district. We find that only the level of expertise of the committee members has a significantly positive association with the measured level of success of the participation.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to address whether labor union members’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction are more influenced by labor union utility than those of nonunion employees. This study uses data from the Korean Labor and Income Panel Study published by the Korea Labor Institute. The study’s methodology employs panel data regression analysis. The findings are that labor union utility increases workers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction and that these effects are positively greater for labor union members than nonunion employees.

No abstract