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.

Keywords

deliberative governance deliberative democracy local policy making Seoul Gwangju South Korea

Introduction

Many studies of deliberative governance focus on testing how well deliberative practices comport with the normative ideals of deliberative democracy. In the past few decades, political scientists have increasingly agreed that the legitimacy of a democracy depends in part on the quality of deliberation that informs the policy preferences of citizens and their representatives (Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012). Concepts of deliberative democracy have been developed and put into practice in many countries throughout the world (Elstub & McLaverty, 2014). Likewise, recent years have witnessed a proliferation of research projects on deliberative forms of governance (Adams, 2014; Alarcón & Font, 2014; Choi, 2014; Choi & Robertson, 2014; Elstub & McLaverty, 2014; Erman, 2013; Gutmann & Thompson, 2004; Heierbacher, 2014; Hendricks, 2009; Lukensmeyer, 2014; Melo & Baiocchi, 2006; Metze, 2011; Tang, 2015).

Deliberative governance was not a prevalent issue in the field of South Korean (hereinafter, Korean) public administration until recently. Instead, a number of Korean public administration researchers devoted particular attention to the utility and applicability of deliberation as an alternative method for conflict management and dispute resolution (Hong & Kim, 2012; Hong & Lee, 2009; Kim & Song, 2011). This is understandable because, in the past several years, Korean society has been significantly bipolarized on environmental and land development policies and some civic leaders and researchers view deliberation as a promising mechanism for resolving conflicts (Hong & Kim, 2012; Hong & Lee, 2009; Kim & Song, 2011). However, deliberation also has application to consensus building, legitimating public policy choices through collective decision making, and citizen empowerment (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004). Therefore, the focus of this research differs from previous studies on deliberation in Korean governance. Instead of focusing on conflict management, this analysis examines the practice of developing deliberative governance in local governmental policy making.

Deliberative forms of governance have been utilized in Korean local policy-making processes in various ways, and this research comparatively analyzes deliberative governance in the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) and the Gwangju Metropolitan Government (GMG). Because the application of deliberative governance is still not a mainstream Korean administrative practice, there are few cases of it suitable for research. In this respect, the cases of the SMG and the GMG are notable for their introduction, application, and practice of deliberative governance in the public sector. Moreover, these two cases provide theoretical implications and useful findings for policy diffusion in the Korean public sector.

Among a number of research questions that might be raised, this study asks the following:

Research Questions: How does deliberative governance contribute to collaboration among multiple stakeholders and how could it contribute to productive discourse regarding public affairs?

In answering these research questions, we explore the current status of deliberative governance in Korean local policy making and provide theoretical implications and future research questions for the further development of democratic forms of governance. With these objectives in mind, we first review the concepts of deliberative democracy and deliberative governance briefly based on previous studies. Then, the cases are analyzed in terms of practice, followed by a comparative analysis of the application of deliberative processes, their limitations, and possible improvements. Subsequently, conclusions and future research questions follow.

Deliberative Democracy and Deliberative Governance

Conceptual Overview

Deliberative democracy emphasizes meaningful citizen involvement in public policy formation and decision making. It seeks to overcome some of the limitations of representative democracy in which citizen input is largely through such activities as voting and membership in or affiliation with political parties and interest groups. Without disparaging the importance and benefits of representative democracy as a form of government, critics, such as Benjamin Barber (1984), consider it to be “thin” in terms of public input, direction, and, ultimately, citizens’ ability to play more than an attenuated role in many of the political decisions that affect their lives. Barber (1984) contrasted “thin democracy” with “strong democracy,” based on a much broader and deeper range of citizen engagement in governance. Today, the quest for “strong democracy” partly informs the concept of deliberative democracy. Using this conceptualization, deliberative governance can be viewed as among a variety of approaches for contributing to deliberative democracy by strengthening citizens’ roles in governance through their direct, institutionalized deliberation in public policy choices.

Deliberation

Definitions of deliberation vary among theorists as each takes a different approach to distinguishing deliberation from other forms of speech such as bargaining (Chambers, 2003). Simone Chambers (2003, p. 309) defined deliberation as debate aimed at producing reasonable opinions in which participants are willing to revise preferences in light of discussion and claims made by fellow participants. Are there any favorable conditions for effective deliberation? As shown in Table 1, a number of scholars particularly elaborate on this issue. For instance, T. Choi and Robertson (2014, p. 499) claimed that effective deliberation requires supplying enough pertinent information and facilitating sufficient discussion for building consensus among competing interests. Ideally, participants in a deliberative process share their knowledge and expertise, treat all perspectives as equally important, and base their collective conclusions on all available information (Beierle & Konisky, 2001; excerpted from T. Choi & Robertson, 2014, p. 499).

Table 1.

Favorable Conditions for Effective Deliberation.

Authors	Key points
Benhabib (1996)	All participants are considered equal, and are equally free to intervene as well as question the topics of debate
Beierle and Konisky (2001)	Sharing participants’ knowledge and expertise Treating all perspectives as equally important Considering all information available before reaching a collective conclusion
Blatner, Carroll, Daniels, and Walker (2001)	Deliberation results in a process of social learning
Roberts (2002)	Participants develop mutual understanding by interacting with each other as equals and listening empathetically to others’ concerns
Melo and Baiocchi (2006)	Discussion among ‘equal, free and reasonable’ participants as part of the decision making process Participation in deliberation must be inclusive of all people affected by the collective decision
Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2007)	Effective deliberation is undermined if stakeholders intentionally screen out information incompatible with their preferences or if they give less weight to information relevant to minority perspectives relative to the value of information provided by or pertinent to the interests of the dominant stakeholders
T. Choi and Robertson (2014)	There is enough pertinent information, engagement, and discussion to be able to forge a consensus among conflicting interests for deliberation to be effective

Source. Adapted from Melo and Baiocchi (2006, p. 590) and T. Choi and Robertson (2014, p. 499).

According to Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2007), effective deliberation is undermined if stakeholders intentionally screen out information incompatible with their preferences. In addition, effective deliberation will not occur if stakeholders give less weight to information relevant to minority perspectives relative to the value of information provided by or pertinent to the interests of the dominant stakeholders. In the same vein, it might be necessary to check participants’ preferences before voting to assess change, if any, from their original thinking prior to deliberation. It is also important to avoid unfavorable conditions such as religious fundamentalism, ideological conformity, and segmental autonomy (Steiner, 2014).

Deliberative Democracy

According to Folami (2013), the term “deliberative democracy” was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette (1980). Generally speaking, deliberative democracy is a kind of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision making, adopting elements of both consensus decision making and majority rule. Indeed, it differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not merely voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for policy and law. Simply put, the key assumptions that the modification of interests is possible and that there is potential for finding or developing common goals and agreement among deliberators distinguish deliberative democracy from direct or participatory democracy (Mansbridge, 1990, p. 24; quoted by Melo & Baiocchi, 2006).

Theorists of deliberative democracy have conceptualized the normative implications of deliberation and explored the practical decisionmaking processes that approximate those ideals (Melo & Baiocchi, 2006). Some of the key propositions on deliberative democracy can be found in Cohen (1989), Elster (1998), Bohman (1999), and Gutmann and Thompson (2004). Among others, Gutmann and Thompson’s definition captures the core elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004). They argue that deliberative democracy has the following four characteristics, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another: (a) reciprocal—the reasons should be mutually acceptable to free and equal citizens seeking fair terms of cooperation; (b) accessible—the reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience; (c) binding—the reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time (i.e., the participants do not argue for argument’s sake, they do not argue even for individual enlightenment); and (d) dynamic—it keeps open the possibility of a continuing dialogue, one in which citizens can criticize previous decisions and move ahead on the basis of that criticism (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, pp. 3-6).

Deliberative Governance

Although deliberation and deliberative democracy have become common terms in the literature of politics and public administration, unlike other forms of the “new governance” including collaborative governance, deliberative governance was a less frequently used term until recently in Korea. It is reasonable to say that deliberative governance is governance that institutionalizes a substantial level of deliberation with multiple stakeholders in the public sector for building consensus or at least minimizing levels of conflict. In other words, deliberative governance requires that participants or representatives justify decisions in institutionalized deliberative processes and give one another reasons that are generally accessible and acceptable with the aim of reaching conclusions for a multiple number of stakeholders.

Figure 1 shows how a consensus-building framework can be constructed for deliberative governance. Necessary conditions for the effective operation of deliberative governance include inclusive participation of stakeholders, neutral debate structures, ground rules for consensus building and decision making, a structure for open discussion, information sharing, and learning mechanisms. For deliberative governance to operate as intended by theorists, mutual understanding and mutual learning among participating citizens for possible consensus building are needed in a space open to all opinions. By using this framework and achieving mutual understanding and learning, deliberative governance can operate smoothly (Hong & Lee, 2009). Similarly, Dryzek (2010) discussed some of many possible additional conditions for developing deliberative capacity: (a) a shared language, (b) literacy and education, and (c) a preferential voting system allowing for the expression of more than one preference.

Figure 1.

Consensus building framework in deliberative governance.

In practice, deliberative governance is amenable to multiple institutional and organizational instantiations. Some of these, such as town meetings, are suitable for relatively small governments and others, as the discussion below indicates, may be suitable for decision making in larger metropolitan jurisdictions. State, provincial, and national models are also available. For instance, one deliberative governance approach, using “policy juries,” has garnered notable academic and theoretical support but has yet to be developed fully, widely applied in practice, or institutionalized (Dahl, 1970; Fishkin, 1991). Another approach, negotiated rulemaking, is well developed in U.S. federal-level public administration and also suitable for state-level regulatory decisions.

Policy juries

Policy juries were advocated by Robert Dahl (1970) and they are generally viewed as an antidote to the limitations of elective, but non-participatory representative democracy, or as a process that can supplement and inform decision making within administrative institutions and by elected officials. Dahl (1970, pp. 149-150) initially discussed policy juries in terms of representative groups of citizens drawn from the general population who would sit like jurors in court cases to become highly informed about specific issues and make recommendations for dealing with them. Subsequently, he advanced the idea of using a “minipopulous” comprised of perhaps 1,000 people to serve a similar function (Dahl, 1989, p. 340).

Eric Alterman (1998) explained the logic behind policy juries in terms of how conventional courtroom juries become educated with relevant information, engage in discussion, and reach decisions. He asks,

If we are willing to trust the common citizen to decide whether a man or a woman should spend life in prison, or even be executed, how can we argue that the same citizen is not capable of understanding the decisions involved in mapping the nation’s foreign [and presumably domestic] policy, once that citizen has had ample opportunity for education and deliberation? (Alterman, 1998, p. 173; see also Fishkin, 1991, pp. 81-104; Read, 2014)

Alterman’s jury would be made up of ordinary people “hired” by the U.S. public to be full-time citizens and foreign policy jurors for a single term of, say, 6 years, and their deliberations would take place in a nationally available public sphere (Alterman, 1998). Such jurors would be statistically representative of the population and be paid a decent middle-class salary for their service. A number of anti-corruption restrictions would be placed on jurors, and their decisions or recommendations would not be binding on Congress or the president (Alterman, 1998).

Smith (2012) outlined a related proposal for “citizen juries” consisting of 12 to 24 members, which can be viewed as a form of “mini-publics.” Whether these and similar ideas for deliberative governance would work to add substantial deliberative democracy elements to representative government as intended is uncertain. If policy juries are established in sufficient numbers in the future, researchers will be able to produce empirical case studies assessing their utility and develop guidelines for potentially successful implementation.

Negotiated rulemaking

Negotiated rulemaking, also called “reg-neg” (regulatory negotiation) gained significant, though somewhat experimental application in U.S. national administration in the 1980s. It was fully authorized for use by federal agencies by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and made permanent by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (Freeman & Langbein, 2000; Schuck & Kochevar, 2014; Strauss, Rakoff, Farina, & Metzger, 2011, pp. 209-212; Warren, 2011, pp. 221-226). The basic format is for an administrative agency, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to decide whether to use reg-neg or conventional rulemaking. If it chooses reg-neg, it announces its decision to form a negotiated rulemaking committee publicly in the Federal Register. Committees are generally limited to 25 members chosen from among all segments of stakeholders, including representatives from public interest groups and others who presumably can speak to broad public concerns. Where appropriate, the committee may also include non-governmental technical experts. The agency sits on the committee as an equal party to the negotiations. A convener, facilitator, or mediator usually presides over the committee’s deliberations. The committee’s objective is to develop a proposed rule for agency publication in the Federal Register for conventional notice and comment on rulemaking proceedings expected to result in its finalization.

Negotiated rulemaking can be considered a deliberative governance mechanism because (a) unanimity (consensus) on the committee is required for a proposed rule to be formulated, thus giving every member, including the agency a veto in Rousseauian fashion; (b) the agency acts as a coequal participant in the negotiations whose preferences can be blocked by the action of any other member; (c) if consensus cannot be reached on all aspects of the issues, a proposed rule may be formulated to cover those matters on which there is full agreement; (d) as noted above, a proposed rule is subsequently subject to notice and comment on rulemaking requirements, which permit any non-participant to suggest changes in the rule or that it be withdrawn; (e) with the exception of the agency, any member can resign from the committee at any time, either in protest, an effort to delegitimize the proceedings, or for other reasons; and (f) negotiated rules are subject to the same procedures for congressional and judicial review as those issued pursuant to conventional rulemaking.

From a deliberative perspective, the putative advantages of reg-neg over conventional rulemaking are as follows: (a) it is a problem-solving exercise rather than an adversarial procedure and consequently encourages broader sharing of information and a common search for creative solutions, (b) it is designed to be inclusive of all interests, (c) it is cost-effective in terms of timeliness and the creation of better quality rules, and (d) by producing stakeholder “buy-in,” it reduces compliance costs, litigation, and efforts to defeat rules through legislative action. In terms of democracy, the reg-neg process remains subject to veto by elected institutions, either directly as in the case of Congress or depending on the circumstances, indirectly through presidential action. The process and its outcome are also subject to judicial review and subordinate to the rule of law.

Whether negotiated rulemaking has lived up to its promise is a matter of contention. As with legislation, rules are context and subject matter dependent. Assessing their quality involves political and value judgments. Pareto optimality or improvement is not always attainable or ascertainable. There are often winners and losers in policy choices, and outcomes depend not only on the quality of a rule but also on its implementation, budgetary support, unforeseen developments, and unanticipated consequences. Quality also depends on the representativeness of the negotiating committee, its participants and their level of effort, and the agency.

Empirical studies show that timeliness varies widely, and litigation rates for negotiated rules may actually be higher than for conventional rules. However, to some extent, these findings may be artifacts of the criteria various agencies use in deciding whether to use negotiated rulemaking (Coglianese, 1997, 2003; Harter, 2000; Langbein & Kerwin, 2000). As Schuck and Kochevar (2014, p. 445) concluded, “reg-neg, while infrequently used, sometimes enables the government to facilitate agreements that produce good regulatory outcomes, particularly when the rulemaking implicates a well-defined set of parties and issues.”

Data and Method

This research is a comparative case study of deliberative governance applied in the SMG and the GMG. The administrative divisions of Korea include nine provinces (do), six metropolitan cities (gwangyeok-si), one special city (teugbyeol-si), and one special self-governing city (teukbyeol-jachisi). Seoul, the special city, is the capital and largest city of Korea. It forms the heart of the Seoul Capital Area, which is one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas by population. Gwangju, one of the six metropolitan cities and the sixth largest city of Korea, is geographically located in the center of the South Jeolla Province in the southwestern region of the Korean Peninsula. With a total population reaching 1.5 million by 2015, historically, Gwangju has been regarded as a center of the Korean democratization movement. In 1980, peaceful demonstrations against the military government of Chun Doo-hwan took place in Gwangju and the situation escalated into the “Gwangju Uprising” after a violent governmental crackdown. After civilian rule was reinstated, a national cemetery was established to honor the victims of the turmoil.

For the case study, we targeted two cases of deliberative governance initiatives in Korean local government: (a) the operation of the Citizens’ Hall in the SMG and (b) the practice of the Gwangju Citizens Agora 500 (GCA500) in the GMG. The Citizens’ Hall (deliberately named similar to “City Hall”) is a local government’s “open administrative space” for deliberative governance in Seoul. By contrast, the GCA500 is a mini-publics type of “event,” which was held on July 18, 2014, at the Convention Hall of the Kim Dae-jung Convention Center in Gwangju. Arguably, mini-publics have received substantial attention from both deliberative democratic theorists and empiricists in terms of being among the effective methods for institutionalizing deliberative governance. Korea is an instantiation of this global democratizing trend. Elstub (2014) contended that mini-publics are an institutional format that profoundly reflects the third-generation interpretation of institutionalizing deliberative governance approaches for promoting deliberative democracy. Whereas partisan deliberators are unlikely to amend their preferences through reasoned discourse, randomly selected non-partisan citizens in mini-publics deliberating on key agendas can manifest impartiality, changing preferences, and public interest–oriented reasoning (Elstub, 2014).

To gain an understanding of how the Citizens’ Hall functions with respect to the SMG’s efforts to promote deliberative governance, two of the authors engaged in direct observation and extensive documentary research. They visited the Hall in November 2015 to observe the organization and deliberative processes of the activities taking place, and to collect various kinds of promotional leaflets, policy brochures, and other government documents, which were later carefully analyzed and synthesized. They also analyzed the Citizens’ Hall floor plan to gain an understanding of how each part functions as space for deliberative engagement. In addition, they analyzed relevant local policy information published by the SMG on its e-book website (http://ebook.seoul.go.kr), which includes city plans, legal documents on urban administration, city policy reports, and statistics.

The GMG approach to deliberative governance was analyzed through the video source of record maintained and streamed live by the GCA500¹ and uploaded on the GMG’s official blog² as well as the official YouTube channel, Live Gwangju. The visual data are the real-time, original (non-edited) recording of the whole process of the deliberative event. Carefully examining the visual data, made it possible to view the introduction of 12 policy suggestions for deliberative discussion by the GCA500 (see Tables 4 and 5). These suggestions were presented in detail by a civil activist who represented their proponents. Moreover, as a valuable eye-witness source, the video record enables viewers to observe how deliberation and deliberative polling were implemented in a fixed time frame and how the limited time allotted affected the quality of deliberation. In addition, data were from various kinds of secondary sources including GMG’s official documents regarding the GCA500, the Gwangju City Mayor’s media interviews (newspapers), the event organizer’s website archive,³ and participants’ feedback and opinions on their blogs.

The Operation of the Citizens’ Hall in the SMG

Citizens’ input and feedback have been widely used in a variety of Seoul City’s public services, including the notable establishment and operation of an Owl Bus.⁴ The incumbent mayor emphasizes the powerful role citizens can play in shaping city policies, asserting that the strength of Seoul lies in “communication and collaboration” with the public (Park, 2014). The mayor favors harnessing the power of citizens by ensuring that they have effective opportunities to be involved in initiating, designing, and implementing policies, in other words, making citizens policy actors rather than recipients alone. He strongly emphasized the desirability of communication and collaboration with the public and the SMG has pursued several administrative innovations for these purposes as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

SMG’s Innovations for Better Communication and Collaboration in City Administration.

Onsite administration	To avoid empty talk in boardrooms or behind desks, believing that solutions are found at the site of the problem, the SMG launched a couple of new administrative ideas. The “On-Site Office of the Mayor” is to make regular visits to voiceless citizens who are usually a socially neglected class of people. The city government also launched “Listening Workshops” to reflect the opinions of the citizens in city administration and the “Citizens’ Hall” is an open venue where citizens can actively communicate and collaborate with the city government (Park, 2014).
Open administration	To achieve transparent and accountable governance for trust building, the SMG launched an online platform for citizens broadly to access public data, including official documents authorized by the city government. Citizens can submit their opinions about city administration through a website (Park, 2014). The Seoul City government introduced an “Open Data” initiative more inclusive than the Korean national government’s approach.
SNS administration	The SMG pursues active communications with citizens via SNS including Twitter, Facebook, and KakaoStory (a popular Korean SNS). The Eungdapso (meaning “response plaza”) is an integrated online channel that facilitates citizens’ ability to voice complaints (http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/key-policies/diversifying-communication-channels/eungdapso/). City officials check, in real time, the citizens’ messages on SNS and Eungdapso to respond more efficiently and effectively (Park, 2014).

Note. SMG = Seoul Metropolitan Government; SNS = social networking services.

In particular, the process of creating and operating the Citizens’ Hall shows how the SMG’s approach adopts a deliberative form of governance.⁵ The Hall, situated on the first and second basement levels of the Seoul City Hall, serves as a citizens’ lifestyle courtyard where individuals can interact and share thoughts about public policy, administration, and other matters.⁶ Although it is a part of City Hall, the city’s involvement is kept to a minimum and Seoul citizens play a leading role in the operation of Citizens’ Hall. Accordingly, Citizens’ Hall is operated by the Seoul Foundation for Arts and Culture (SFAC) and two civil society groups: the Operation Advisory Committee (comprised of expert citizens) and the Civic Planners Group (comprised of volunteers in charge of program planning and implementation).

The Hall is designed to facilitate and encourage input from citizens in such a way as to accommodate various types of public engagement programs. The Hall provides various avenues for Seoul citizens to participate in the city’s policymaking processes, and has become a vital space for the exchange of ideas among citizens. Citizens’ Hall operates programs that enable citizens to readily participate in municipal policymaking processes. The “Policy Café” program, for example, has adopted diverse means, including mobile technology, to encourage as much citizen participation as feasible. Opinions thus proffered are then discussed at workshops and evaluated at policy forums, both with citizens participating, before being developed into policies. A considerable number of the opinions collected have been adopted as policies, many of which remain in force.

In addition, the “Citizen Speech Podium” is a program that allows people to express their opinions impromptu in a relaxing setting. These opinions are then directed to relevant municipal departments for policy feasibility studies. The Citizen Speech Podium has established itself as a leading venue through which citizens shape municipal policies.⁷ The many other programs offered at Citizens’ Hall—lectures, discussion sessions, and art exhibitions as well as citizen-organized cultural programs—also aim to bring about rational participation by citizens in policy making by fostering their cultural and intellectual development.

The SFAC conducted a Citizens’ Hall Visitors’ Satisfaction Survey for 30 days from September 20 to October 20, 2015. A total of 494 visitors (males and females above 10 years old) participated in the onsite survey through self-completion questionnaires. According to the survey (SFAC, 2015), participants’ responses regarding satisfaction with the programs provided in the Citizens’ Hall were positive: very satisfied (23%), overall satisfied (74%), somewhat unsatisfied (2%), and very unsatisfied (1%). Major reasons for their satisfaction were as follows: opportunities to enjoy various kinds of free exhibitions and programs available in the Citizens’ Hall (57%), various programs to participate in and experience (22%), various types of communication programs (12%), and various educational classes and cultural performances with affordable costs (7%; SFAC, 2015).

It was a daunting task for the SMG to operate the Citizens’ Hall, as doing so faced many challenges and obstacles. However, the city government persisted and tried continuously to solve the problems in a deliberative way insofar as possible. Prior to the opening of Citizens’ Hall, public officials opposed the creation of such an open public space in their workplace because they thought it would incubate many individual gripes and complaints while hindering their daily work. They worried that their workspace would be disrupted, reduced in size, and become more crowded and congested. In addition, members of the Seoul Metropolitan Council (the legislative body of Seoul City)⁸ were against the idea, arguing that the Hall is a populist project that would result in inefficiency, waste of time and city resources, and cause a variety of problems.

The Mayor of Seoul has tried to persuade opponents, by providing data and rationales, that policies based on communication, collaboration, and deliberation enhance policy design and legitimacy to the benefit of both citizens and government. As shown in Table 3, in February and March 2012, the SMG collected citizens’ opinions regarding establishment of a place for their deliberative activity and organized an implementation task force team of six experts from civil society. Before opening Citizens’ Hall, the SMG also made a bylaw with the Seoul Metropolitan Council for its operation. An advisory committee of 13 members (with 11 being from the general citizenry) was established to improve the operation of the Citizens’ Hall. As a means to facilitate the general public’s participation and deliberation in governance, Citizens’ Hall has contributed substantial opportunities for citizens to actively engage in municipal affairs.⁹

Table 3.

The Processes of Creating and Operating the Citizens’ Hall.

Date	Major activities
February 2012	Collecting citizens’ opinions to create a place
March 2012	Organizing a task force team of six experts from civil society
November 2012	Making a bylaw for operating the Citizens’ Hall
January 2013	Opening the Citizens’ Hall
February 2013	Establishing an advisory committee of 13 members, 11 of whom are from the general citizenry
January 2014	Celebrating the first anniversary of opening the Citizens’ Hall

Deliberative Governance by the Gwangju Citizens Agora 500 in the GMG

Agenda Setting

Since 2001, the GMG has operated a Gwangju City Public-Private Joint Workshop on Policymaking (Joint Policy Workshop).¹⁰ When the idea for the workshop was announced publically, it was well received by the Korean central government as a good example of a public–private partnership at a municipal government level. The Joint Policy Workshop was designated as a leading “Government 3.0,” a new policy initiative that has been promoted by the Ministry of Security and Public Administration since 2013.¹¹ Subsequently, the Joint Policy Workshop was upgraded and renamed as the GCA500; it adopted the principles of deliberative governance in the municipal government’s public–private partnership.

As the title of the deliberative event (GCA500) suggests, 500 Gwangju citizens were gathered in one place to deliberate, somewhat like a policy jury or other types of mini-publics, on various municipal government policy priorities. The purpose of the GCA500 was, through deliberation and deliberative polling, to reflect citizen’s opinions in establishing the GMG’s policy priorities for the following year (2015) from among numerous policy suggestions that had been collected and selected by Gwangju citizens. To identify these priorities, the GMG involved the existing Joint Policy Workshop in cooperation with 15 local civil society organizations (CSOs) including the Association of CSOs in Gwangju. This group worked for 5 months, holding 11 meetings from January to May in 2014. Following that, the GCA500 Preparation Committee identified 86 policy suggestions based on input voiced electronically from the public via the websites of the Gwangju Non-Governmental Organizations Center¹² and the GMG. Subsequently, in June 2014, for the screening process, subcommittees were organized into six policy sectors (general administration, culture and tourism, city and transportation, social welfare, women and youth, and the economy). Twelve of 31 policy suggestions were finalized during consecutive meetings in terms of their “feasibility for deliberative discussion” as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

The 12 Policy Suggestions for the Deliberative Discussion of the GCA500.

Policy areas	Policy suggestions
General administration	1. Opening and operating Citizens Platform 3.0 2. Disseminating the techniques of and promoting direct democracy
Culture and tourism	1. Establishing the control tower of cultural policy (Deputy Mayor of Culture) 2. Adopting the regional quota system for local culture and arts people
City and transportation	1. Breathing City: Planting 1,000 community groves 2. Designing intra-city bus platforms in Gwangju
Social welfare	1. Establishing a Gwangju threshold of welfare 2. Transforming the Inhwa School^a site as a center of disability rights movements
Women and youth	1. Expanding community care centers 2. Making a better city for single-women households
Economy	1. Promoting social enterprise products and services 2. Raising funds and organizing a consultative group on social economy

Note. GCA500 = Gwangju Citizens Agora 500.

The Inhwa School was a special school for handicapped children established in 1960 and closed in 2012 because of a sexual abuse scandal.

Recruiting Non-Partisan Deliberators and Facilitators

In April and May 2014, 500 Gwangju citizens as well as volunteer facilitators were recruited online on a first-come-first-served basis to participate in the GCA500. The recruitment notice was publicized on the websites of the GCA500, the GMG, and local media. At a preparatory workshop on June 10, 2014, the recruited facilitators were trained by professional facilitators from KoreaSpeaks.¹³ KoreaSpeaks, a Korean version of AmericaSpeaks, managed the whole process of the GCA500 in cooperation with the GMG. AmericaSpeaks, a U.S. non-profit organization, developed deliberative methods such as the 21st Century Town Hall Meetings, and was viewed as a useful deliberative process.¹⁴ The GMG adopted the AmericaSpeaks’ 21st Century Town Meeting format in organizing the GCA500.

The Process of Deliberation

At the July 18, 2014, GCA500 meeting, participating citizens prioritized the list of 10 new policy suggestions through deliberation and voting. The first and second rounds of electronic voting were to eliminate the two least popular policy suggestions. The first item in general administration (opening and operating a citizens’ platform 3.0) and the second item in women and youth (making a better city for single-women households) were rejected. The third voting round was to prioritize the remaining 10 policy suggestions. Table 5 shows the results of the third voting round.

Table 5.

Results of the Third Voting Round.

Ranking	Policy suggestions	Number of votes	%
1	Establishing a Gwangju threshold of welfare	81	19.4
2	Breathing City: Planting 1,000 community groves	78	18.7
3	Expanding community care centers	47	11.2
4	Disseminating the techniques of and promoting direct democracy	44	10.5
5	Transforming the Inhwa School site as a center of the disability rights movement	43	10.3
6	Establishing the control tower of cultural policy (Deputy Mayor of Culture)	34	8.1
7	Designing intra-city bus platforms in Gwangju	28	6.7
8	Promoting social enterprise products and services	25	6.0
9	Raising funds and organizing a consultative group on social economy	23	5.5
10	Adopting the regional quota system for local culture and arts people	15	3.6
		418	100

As shown in Table 6, the event itself was organized in a short period of time. Forming a table with 10 deliberators (50 tables in total), after the brief orientation by facilitators at each table, each participant first briefly stated his or her preferences and then shared ideas with other participants at his or her table. After that, additional time was given for free discussion with questions and answers.

Table 6.

The Process of Deliberation in the Case of GCA500.

	Time	Minutes	Activity
Opening ceremony	14:00-14:05	5	Declaration of openingIntroduction of guests
First session	14:05-14:15	10	Introduction of the 12 policy suggestions for the deliberative discussion of the GCA500
First session	14:15-15:10	55	Deliberation and prioritization of the policy suggestions by electronic voting
Second session	15:10-15:40	30	Discussion for “If I am the Mayor of Gwangju”Citizens’ free speech (less than 10 participants)
Second session	15:40-15:50	10	Mayor’s general review
Closing ceremony	15:50-16:00	5	Photo sessionDeclaration of closing

Note. GCA500 = Gwangju Citizens Agora 500.

Because three voting rounds should have been completed in the fixed time, arguably, participants at each table could have lacked sufficient time for deliberation, which may have significantly affected the quality of deliberation. The limited time frame was rather exceptional considering the fact that other types of mini-publics last at least 2 days and even as many as 30 days. Elstub (2014) discussed the typology and key features of mini-publics, including the “number of meetings,” which is indicated as the number of days for organizing each type of mini-publics. Based on Fournier, van der Kolk, Carty, Blais, and Rose (2011, p. 11), he explained that typical scheduling might provide 2 to 3 days for deliberative polls, 4 to 5 days for citizens’ juries, 4 to 5 days for planning cells, 7 to 8 days for consensus conferences, and 20 to 30 days for citizen assemblies (Elstub, 2014, p. 170).

Comparative Analysis of the Seoul and Gwangju Cases

Our research design enables comparative analysis of the Seoul and Gwangju cases. An advantage of comparing these two cases is that they are anchored in the same political, economic, and social systems, thereby reducing the impact of environmental contexts while providing information about “processes, practices, and behaviors” (Jreisat, 2012, pp. 101-102 and Chapter 4). The cases provide a partial picture of the current status of deliberative governance in Korean local policy making. The following points are noteworthy in this regard.

The ultimate goals of the deliberative governance models initiated by the Seoul and Gwangju governments are more or less similar and include the promotion of consensus building, citizen empowerment, and legitimation of collective decisions in the public sector. However, the design, implementation, and embeddedness of deliberative governance in their local policy making differ substantially. The SMG created a large-scale “open administrative space” that exists as a physical venue for deliberative governance. Such an open space is a kind of 21st-century “agora” for the citizens of Seoul with opened doors throughout the year.¹⁵ In the Citizens’ Hall, Seoul citizens can enjoy the freedom of expression to demand better service at all times and participate in various deliberative events organized in the venue. In the SMG, Chungchaek (literally meaning “listening to policies”) is one of the typical ways that diverse stakeholders participate in the policy-making process and it arose as a deliberative governance platform because it is designed to listen to citizen opinion to guide policies.¹⁶ The SMG’s innovations noted in Table 2 for better communication and collaboration in city administration, which include face-to-face conversations with government personnel, transparency, and active exchanges of information via social networking services, can be understood in the same context.

By contrast, GCA500 of the GMG is a mini-publics type of annual event for pursuing deliberative governance. The half-day deliberative format is composed of a series of preliminary discussions between a number of civil society activists and local government officials. Whether this enhances or detracts from the symbolic impact of deliberative governance relative to the Seoul case requires further investigation. However, the GMG intends to become an ambitious advocate of deliberative governance through continuously organizing and experimenting with different types of mini-publics events.

There are some noteworthy similarities in the professional careers of the administrative leaders of the two local governments, which were instrumental in promoting deliberative governance. The incumbent mayors of Seoul (Park Won-soon) and Gwangju (Yoon Jang-hyun) have long experience as civil activists, and their political leadership based on that activity contributes to their governments’ commitments to deliberative governance. Park is a lawyer by profession, who has a 30-year history of civil society activism dating back to his college days in the 1970s. Yoon, a physician, is also a professional and has wealth of experience working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), mostly in the areas of human rights and community development. Based on their prior experience, both have been open to suggestions for tackling social, educational, environmental, and political problems in Korea.

The cases of SMG and GMG both incorporate central characteristics of deliberative governance. The SMG pays particular attention to the inclusive participation of citizens in its municipal policy-making process as manifested in the procedures for operating the Citizens’ Hall as a deliberative setting. The top administrative leader of the city government has also tried to build consensus insofar as feasible in a deliberative way with many stakeholders who were initially opposed to the idea of creating and operating the Citizens’ Hall. Through a deliberative process, mutual understanding and mutual learning have been promoted among stakeholders and effective consensus building has been achieved.

In creating the Citizens’ Hall, the city has established an open space in which citizens can actively exchange ideas and opinions on diverse policy subjects, realizing some of the ideals of citizen-based engagement in deliberative governance. Citizens’ Hall was originally slated to be a public relations center: a place where the city could inform the public of the progress and effects of its policies. However, the plan for this one-dimensional space was scrapped in direct response to public opinions echoing one common theme: the need for a government that hears the voices of citizens and merits the public’s trust.

Notably, Seoul plans to set up similar public spaces in other city districts and continue its initiatives in promoting the value of citizen participation and deliberation in public policy making citywide. Interestingly, encouraged by Seoul City’s model, many regional and local government agencies have launched similar programs in their respective jurisdictions. Seoul’s approach could also be diffused and even replicated in other parts of the world.

It is also apparent that the case of the GCA500 is an enlightening example of promoting deliberative governance in Korean local policy making. The GCA500 deliberative governance model emphasized promoting legitimacy through collective decisional and consensus-building frameworks. As discussed earlier, the GCA500 is an upgraded version of the Joint Policy Workshop. The differences between the GCA500 and the Joint Policy Workshop are twofold. First, the criteria for participation were expanded to include ordinary citizens along with local CSOs’ professional activists. Second, citizens have the opportunity to engage in deliberative polling to identify the GMG’s policy priorities. Before the GCA500, local CSO leaders took part in most municipal policy-making processes, whereas ordinary citizens had limited opportunities for civic participation. To be more inclusive, the GCA500 brought ordinary citizens into the meetings.

Nevertheless, in contrast to the case of SMG, the GMG case reveals some possible impediments to the application of deliberative governance. It is not clear how the citizens who participated in the GCA500 decided to revise their preferences regarding the municipal government’s policy priorities. Participation in the three rounds of deliberative polling (77.4%, 82.0%, and 83.6%) suggests the possibility that over a very short period of time, deliberative polling and polling without deliberation may yield similar results (GMG, 2014). The first two rounds eliminated unpopular policy suggestions, but they did not necessarily contribute to establishing the quality and the credibility of deliberation. Squeezing deliberation into a too limited time frame is likely to detract from two major goals of deliberative governance: (a) to legitimate decisions by making them through collective deliberation and (b) to build consensus on narrowing the scope and number of policies under consideration to promote more productive deliberation in subsequent town-meeting formats. In addition, a first-come-first-served basis for participant recruitment may not be the best way to include a broad range of citizens. With a total population of approximately 1.5 million, a better random sampling or selection method, such as one that might be used for policy juries, is required to ensure representativeness and diversity in a city such as Gwangju.

Korea, along with Japan and Taiwan, has been labeled a “developmental state” by a number of scholars highlighting the phenomenon of state-led macroeconomic planning in the late 20th century (Evans, 1995; Johnson, 1982). These states were characterized by substantial political authority and control over the economy exercised through strong state intervention in economic matters and extensive regulation and planning. Therefore, as Peter Evans puts it, stereotypical visions of such states are at odds with deliberative space. In this setting, states use bureaucratic hierarchies and command and control rather than deliberation in public policy formation (Evans, 2015, p. 51).

However, much has changed over the years. The private sector and civil society are now well developed in developmental states such as Korea and most other East Asian countries (i.e., Japan, Taiwan, and Mongolia). National variations notwithstanding, the state now plays relatively a smaller role in their economies. In the past several years, the concept of governance has been widely introduced in Asia and the concept of “collaboration among multiple stakeholders” has become a common norm in politics, public administration, and public affairs. Accordingly, deliberation as implemented in Seoul and Gwangju is an increasingly appealing option in framing and implementing public policy.

The two cases examined in this research are part of this trend.¹⁷ In recent years, a growing number of Korean municipal governments and community organizations have tried using deliberative forms of governance in their local policy making and community consensus-building efforts. In addition to the SMG and the GMG, examples include the Deagu Metropolitan Government, Jeju Metropolitan Government, Changwon City Government, Suwon City Government, Paju City Government, and the Cheonan City Government.

Conclusion

In recent years, Korean society has been somewhat bipolarized on highly contested public policy issues such as development versus conservation. In this context, most Korean social scientists and civic activists have viewed deliberative governance in terms of possible conflict management or dispute resolution (e.g., I. Choi, 2014; T. Choi & Robertson, 2014; Hong & Kim, 2012; Hong & Lee, 2009; Jang, 2011; Kim & Song, 2011). Consequently, Korean public administration researchers have paid attention to the utility and applicability of deliberative governance as an alternative method to resolve wicked problems. This study takes a different approach in assuming that deliberation can be more broadly and practically embedded in Korean local government. Instead of discussing the value of deliberative governance for conflict management and dispute resolution, our research demonstrates its potential in developing deliberative governance in local government contexts.

We observe that deliberative governance approaches are burgeoning but still in an experimental stage in Korean local policy making, and that the quality of deliberation in each local government may vary widely depending on its institutional setting as well as with the design and actual operation of the deliberative mechanisms or events utilized. At a minimum, the Seoul and Gwangju cases illustrate elements of “symbolic local politics” by showing that the local governments are institutionalizing means for local residents to participate in policy deliberation, listening to their voices, and considering their demands with the intention of incorporating them into local policy making. Deliberation in these cases enabled citizens to raise various topics and social issues for public discussion. Although deliberation itself is the core of deliberative governance, less attention has been devoted to it than to the formal design and infrastructure, such as mobilization and organization of participants, format, and time allotted for group discussion. The GCA500 case particularly suggests that more attention needs to be devoted to the method and representativeness of participant selection, design for deliberation (including time frame), and consensus-building techniques.

Meanwhile, the Citizens’ Hall and GCA500 examples provide models for guiding other local governments. The good news for deliberative governance is that it has been applied in the Citizens’ Hall and GCA500 and several other Korean municipal governments. Deliberative governance in the Korean context is no longer confined to theory; it has been transformed into practice over the years, with the Citizens’ Hall and GCA500 being leading cases in point. Applications of deliberative governance can increasingly be found in national and local public affairs. Nevertheless, some weaknesses remain that need to be overcome through more communication and collaboration among government officials, citizens, and CSOs directed toward more efficient and effective deliberative governance designs and procedures. Eventually, with enough case studies, meta-analyses may identify the most effective formats for deliberative governance in a variety of contexts.

As Elstub (2014) noted, different types of mini-publics may perform different functions or serve different purposes. However, in Korea, because the practice of deliberative governance in local policy making is in an early experimental stage, the types of mini-publics are still isomorphic and lack diversity. Consequently, future research might profitably deal with such questions as follows: What are the realistic types of effective formats for deliberative governance as nations such as Korea seek to transform into more deliberative democracies? How can or should deliberative governance be institutionally sequenced with other existing or traditional institutions? And returning to Barber (1984), how can active participatory citizenship be effectively developed?

Because the concept of deliberative governance is still emerging in Korea, public officials are not accustomed to the language of public deliberation and its practice. They are more comfortable with traditional governance based on hierarchy, rules, procedures, and regulations, whereas deliberative governance permits wider windows for input from various stakeholders including citizens, CSOs, and the private sector. Thus, it is also necessary to change political and/or administrative culture, education, and practice to promote a welcoming environment for deliberative governance in the public sector.

In addition, deliberation may play out very differently in varying political systems, societies, and cultures. Deliberative governance may suffer when citizens, politicians, and administrators are deeply divided by ideology, religion, regional rivalries, ethnicity, generations, and other sociopolitical schisms, economic disparities, and identities. Beyond such potential challenges, it is necessary to bear in mind that deliberative governance is about deliberation rather than specific policy outcomes or traditional public administrative values such as efficiency. In the ideal situation, convergence, mutual influence, and mutual adjustment would eventually lead to a certain degree of consensus (Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012). To be sustainable, though, consensus, implementation, and outcomes must continue to support deliberative governance. Deliberative governance can produce stronger democracy. However, its success is likely to depend on public support for the policy outcomes and costs it generates as well as their legitimacy.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5B8925203).

Notes

Author Biographies

Tae In Park is a doctoral student of public administration in the Graduate School at Yonsei University, Wonju Campus, South Korea. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015K2A3A1000202).

Pan Suk Kim is a professor of public administration in the College of Government and Business at Yonsei University, Wonju Campus, South Korea. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5B8925203).

David H. Rosenbloom is Chinese Thousand Talents Professor in the School of Public Administration and Policy at Renmin University of China and distinguished professor of public administration in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C.

References

Adams

B. E.

(2014). Reason-giving in deliberative forums. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art6

Alarcón

Font

(2014). Where are the boundaries of deliberation and participation? A transatlantic debate. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art11

Alterman

(1998). Who speaks for America? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Barber

(1984). Strong democracy: Participation in politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Beierle

T. C.

Konisky

D. M.

(2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 515-528.

Benhabib

(Ed.). (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bessette

J. M.

(1980). Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government. In Goldwin

R. A.

Schambra

W. A.

(Eds.), How democratic is the constitution? (pp. 102-116). Washington, DC: AEI Press.

Blatner

K. A.

Carroll

M. S.

Daniels

S. D.

Walker

G. B.

(2001). Evaluating the application of collaborative learning to the Wenatchee fire recovery planning effort. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 241-270.

Bohman

(1999). Citizenship and norms of publicity. Political Theory, 27, 176-203.

10.

Brodbeck

F. C.

Kerschreiter

Mojzisch

Schulz-Hardt

(2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 459-479.

11.

Chambers

(2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.

12.

Choi

(2014). What explains the success of participatory budgeting? Evidence from Seoul autonomous districts. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss2/art9

13.

Choi

Robertson

P. J.

(2014). Deliberation and decision in collaborative governance: A simulation of approaches to mitigate power imbalance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 495-518.

14.

Coglianese

(1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46, 1255-1349.

15.

Coglianese

(2003). Is satisfaction success? Evaluating public participation in regulatory policymaking. In O’Leary

Bingham

(Eds.), The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution (pp. 69-86). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

16.

Cohen

(1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Matravers

Pike

(Eds.), Debates in contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 342-360). London, England: Routledge.

17.

Dahl

(1970). After the revolution? Authority in a good society.New Haven, CT. Yale University Press.

18.

Dahl

(1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

19.

Dryzek

(2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Elster

(Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Elstub

(2014). Mini-publics: Issues and cases. In Elstub

McLaverty

(Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases (pp. 166-188). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

22.

Elstub

McLaverty

(Eds.). (2014). Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

23.

Erman

(2013). In search of democratic agency in deliberative governance. European Journal of International Relations, 19, 849-868.

24.

Evans

(1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Evans

(2015). Bringing deliberation into the developmental state—Deliberation and development: Rethinking the role of voice and collective action in unequal societies. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

26.

Fishkin

(1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

27.

Folami

A. N.

(2013). Using the press clause to amplify civic discourse beyond mere opinion sharing. Temple Law Review, 85, 269-314.

28.

Fournier

van der Kolk

Carty

Blais

Rose

(2011). When citizens decide: Lessons from citizen assemblies on electoral reform. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

29.

Freeman

Langbein

(2000). Regulatory negotiation and the legitimacy benefit. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 9, 60-151.

30.

Gutmann

Thompson

D. F.

(2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

31.

Gwangju Metropolitan Government. (2014). The 2014 public-private joint workshop on policy making report. Gwangju, South Korea: Author.

32.

Harter

(2000). Assessing the assessors: The actual performance of negotiated rulemaking. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 9, 32-59.

33.

Heierbacher

(2014). The next generaton of our work. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(1), Article 23.

34.

Hendricks

(2009). Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society, 28, 173-184.

35.

Hong

S. M.

Kim

K.-K.

(2012). A case study on the failure of a deliberative governance. The Korean Governance Review, 19, 199-219.

36.

Hong

S. M.

Lee

J.-W.

(2009). Deliberative governance for consensus building and institutional design. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 47, 21-45.

37.

Jang

S. C.

(2011). Local government and deliberative democracy: A case study of two “twenty-first century town hall meetings.” Economy and Society, 90(2), 39-69.

38.

Johnson

(1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

39.

Jreisat

(2012). Globalism and comparative public administration. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

40.

Kim

H.-H.

Song

K.-J.

(2011). A study on the possibility and limitation town meeting of Korea. Korea Local Administration Review, 25, 269-288.

41.

Langbein

Kerwin

(2000). Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rule making: Claims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 599-632.

42.

Lukensmeyer

C. J.

(2014). Key challenges facing the field of deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art24

43.

Melo

M. A.

Baiocchi

(2006). Deliberative democracy and local governance: Towards a new agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 587-600.

44.

Metze

T. A. P.

(2011). Deliberative governance in synergy with government: A case study of credible environmental improvements in the Dairy Gateway, USA. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 31-49.

45.

Park

W.-s.

(2014). In Seoul, the citizens are the mayor. Public Administration Review, 74, 442-443.

46.

Parkinson

Mansbridge

(Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Read

(2014). The philosophical and democratic case for a citizens’ super-jury to represent and defend future people. The Oxford Philosopher: A Philosophic Periodical. Retrieved from http://theoxfordphilosopher.com/2014/10/28/citizenssuperjuryforthefuture/

48.

Roberts

N. C.

(2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658–669.

49.

Schuck

Kochevar

(2014). The career of a procedural reform. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 15, 417-446.

50.

Seoul Foundation for Arts and Culture. (2015). The citizens’ hall visitor’s satisfaction survey report 2015. Seoul, South Korea: Author.

51.

Smith

(2012). Deliberative democracy and mini-publics. In Geissel

Norton

(Eds.), Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? (pp. 90-111). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

52.

Steiner

(2014). The foundations of deliberative democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Strauss

Rakoff

Farina

Metzger

(2011). Administrative law. New York, NY: Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press.

54.

Tang

(2015). The discursive turn: Deliberative governance in China’s urbanized villages. Journal of Contemporary China, 24(91), 137-157.

55.

Warren

(2011). Administrative law in the political system. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.