The Burgeoning but Still Experimental Practice of Deliberative Governance in South Korean Local Policy Making: The Cases of Seoul and Gwangju

Abstract

Research on deliberative governance does not include many case studies on South Korea. We analyze deliberative governance in the Seoul and Gwangju Metropolitan Governments, drawing comparisons and lessons for operating effective deliberative governance to promote consensus building, citizen empowerment, and legitimation of policy choices through collective decision making. The two cases incorporate the characteristics of deliberative governance to a limited degree and in an experimental stage. Based on a comparison of the two cases, we discuss the application and limitations of deliberative processes along with suggestions for potentially improving the practice of deliberative governance in the South Korean context.

Digital citizen empowerment: A systematic literature review of theories and development models

“…(3) Deliberative Governance (DG), a form of governance where every policy decision is based on deliberations with the citizenry and adopts both the elements of consensus decision-making and majority rule (Park et al, 2017); (4) Digital Activism (DA), the most citizen-inclusive approach that incorporates feedback and diversity in priorities even through online platforms (Bucy & Gregson, 2001).…”

“…In 1980, Joseph M. Besettee introduced the concept of Deliberative Governance, representing a democratic setup where deliberations are central to the decision-making process. The idea behind this concept was the belief that modifications and adjustments could be made to individual interests to create policies for the common good (Park et al, 2017). Researchers have discussed this method of engagement and outlined characteristics of successful deliberations in a democratic setup.…”

“…Local administrations also stand to improve in time by preparing the younger generation for participating in local democratic governance and using deliberative platforms (Thijssen & Van Dooren, 2016). The process of deliberative democratic decision-making may suffer when citizens, politicians, and administrators are strongly divided by ideology, religion, regional issues, ethnicity, generations, and other socio-political schisms, economic disparities, and identities (Bay-Meyer, 2013;Hendriks et al, 2013;Park et al, 2017;van der Merwe & Meehan, 2012). It is also essential to validate and generate support for deliberative decisions made with the public to legitimise the actions of reg-neg committees or the policy jury, ensuring acceptance and sustainability for such initiatives.…”

“…Scholars have discussed factors that facilitate and ensure the successful implementation of such initiatives targeting DG: first, inclusive participation of all stakeholders; second, setting up of an unbiased information-sharing infrastructure to break the silos; third, promotion of shared leading and mutual understanding of issues; fourth, setting up ground rules to run neutral debates with a focus on consensus-building; and fifth, designing an ICT platform based on these rules to facilitate transparent and open discussion on policy decisions. Similarly, factors that may hinder such practice are noted in the literature as: first, deeply divided representation based on creed, caste, religion, and other social constructs; second, the problem of elite capture, which may lead to concentration of power in place of distribution; third, an unbiased commitment of the state in providing support to these initiatives; and fourth, ensuring that the ICT tools used in the PB initiative are actively targeting the marginalized without bias so that the expected social goals can be achieved (Park et al, 2017;Saguin, 2018).…”