• The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business
• /
• v.7 no.11
• /
• pp.853-866
• /
• 2020

The purposes of this research were: 1) to investigate the effect of participatory management on financial information asymmetry, 2) to investigate the effect of corporate governance on financial information asymmetry, 3) to examine the influences of benefits incentives on financial information asymmetry, and 4) to test the mediating effects of benefits incentive that influences the relationship between participatory management, corporate governance, and financial information asymmetry. The research sample consisted of 388 Thai-listed firms. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire. Descriptive analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling were used for the data analysis. The results revealed: 1) participatory management and participation in evaluation had a negative influence on financial information asymmetry. 2) Corporate governance and the rights of shareholders had a negative influence on financial information asymmetry. 3) Benefits incentive was negatively associated with financial information asymmetry. 4) The model's influences of participatory management, corporate governance on the reduction of financial information asymmetry through benefits incentive as mediator fit the empirical data (Chi-square = 104.459, df = 84, p = 0.065, GFI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.025). The variables in the model explained 78.00% and 4.70 % of the variance of benefits incentive and financial information asymmetry, respectively.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.33-79
• /
• 2012

This paper first aims to reveal that, in the current trend of 'the participatory turn' in STS, there are divergent positions subtly different from each other, and that the understanding of these divergent positions can be significant to study the differences, similarities and interfaces between the various models of scientific governance discussed in STS and those in risk governance developed by risk studies. Secondly, this paper shows that theoretical differences among STS scholars on scientific governance and public participation goes back to the 1970s and 1980s, during which they first laid down the conceptual basis of STS. All ideas and theories have their own historicity. This article is about the 'historical epistemology' of the participatory turn of STS, and is to seek 'political epistemology' that can become a shared vision of STS.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.1-39
• /
• 2013

This article explores the risk governance of nanotechnology in Korea in light of a regulatory law approach, a soft law approach, and a participatory governance approach. The risk governance of nanotechnology in Korea has three characteristics. First, there are many existing regulatory laws that can be applied to the regulation of nanotechnology. However, these laws have exemptions, the extent of which are larger than that of the Europe and the United States. Second, the soft law approach is the most prevalent risk policy in Korea at present, but is limited because it is being driven by the government without active, voluntary participation of relevant companies. Third, no case of participatory governance took place when it comes to nanotechnology technology assessment. As policy recommendations to improve Korean nanotechnology risk governance, this article suggests pre-market screening, mandatory governmental registration of nanomaterials, transition management of code of conduct, and the design of interdisciplinary research and development project for real-time technology assessment.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.225-264
• /
• 2013

The Purpose of this study is to analyze an active discussion in North America about the issue of community archives governance which mainly focused on 'participatory archives' model and from it, draws implications for the present stage of domestic community archives development. Traditionally in the United States and Canada, local community archives have been built mostly by mainstream cultural institutions such as public archives, public libraries, museums, and historical societies as a part of comprehensive documentation of the society at large. At the same time, they have been processed and managed in accordance with the institution's collection development policy. As a result, most community archives in North America are characterized as top-down community archives model (in contrast with down-up model of 'independent' community archives as a part of grass roots movement in the UK). Recently, the community archives in North America with these characteristics try to overcome their limitations, which result in 'the others' of community archives, through governance, that is, community-institution partnership. Participatory archives model which assumes active community participation in all archives processes is being suggested by archival communities as the effective alternative of governance model of top-down community archives. This discussion of community archives governance suggests progressive direction for the present stage of domestic community archives, which has been built mostly by various mainstream cultural institutions and still has been stayed in 'about the community' stage. Particularly, community outreach strategies that participatory archives model concretely suggests are useful as a conceptual framework in building community archives based on community-institution partnership in reality.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.159-191
• /
• 2016

In order to deal with uncertainty and conflicting interests in technological risk policy-making, various participatory decision-making models have been practiced. This participatory approach is an alterative to the traditional process of science and technology policy-making where scientific experts provide evidence and government officials make decisions. However, there still remain different opinions on who should play what kind of role in decision-making process. Therefore this paper examines the division of labour in the public deliberations for radioactive waste management policy carried out in the UK and Korea. It discusses the ways in which various actors are defined, and the rationales are employed for allocating actors to certain roles and participatory methods. In so doing, this paper unfolds the ways in which the participatory decision-making process for risk governance is delivered in real policy context. Similarities and differences revealed in the division of labour of two cases contribute to development of radioactive waste management policy and the policy instruments for risk governance.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.99-147
• /
• 2016

This paper critically reviews the previous discussion over public engagement with science and technology by Science and Technology Studies literatures with a focus on justification and acceptance. Recent studies pointed out that the "participatory turn" after the late 1990s was followed by confusion and disagreement over the meaning and agency of public engagement. Their discussion over the reproduction of the ever-present boundary between science and society along with so-called late modernity and post-normal science and sometimes through the very processes of public engagement draws fresh attention to the old problem: how can lay participation in decision-making be justified, even if we agree that privileging the position of experts in governance of science and technology is no longer justified? So far STS have focused on two conditions for participatory turn-1) uncertainties inherent in experts' ways of knowing and 2) practicability of lay knowledge. This paper first explicated why such discussion has not been logically sufficient nor successful in promoting a wide and well-thought-out acceptance of public engagement. Then the paper made a preliminary attempt to explain what new types of expertise can support the construction and sustainment of participatory governance in science and technology by focusing on one case of lay participation. The particular case discussed by the paper revolves around the actions of a civil organization and an activist who led legal and regulatory changes in wind power development in Jeju Special Self-governing Province. The paper analyzed the types of expertise constructed to be effective and legitimate during the constitution of participatory energy governance and the local society's support for it. The arguments of this paper can be summarized as follows. First, an appropriate basis of the normative claim that science and technology governance should make participatory turn cannot be drawn from the essential characteristics of lay publics-as little as of experts. Second, the type of 'expertise' which can justify participatory governance can only be constructed a posteriori as a result of the practices to re-construct the boundaries between factual statements and value judgment. Third, an intermediary expertise, which this paper defines as a type of expertise in forming human-nonhuman associations and their new pathways for circulations, made significant contribution in laying out the legal and regulatory foundation for revenue sharing in Jeju wind power development. Fourth, experts' conventional ways of knowing need to be supplemented, not supplanted, by lay expertise. Ultimately, the paper calls for the necessity to extend STS discussion over governance toward following the actors. What needs more thorough analysis is such actors' narratives and practices to re-construct the boundaries between the past and present, facts and values, science and society. STS needs a renewed focus on the actual sites of conflicts and decision-making in discussing participatory governance.

• Korean Journal of Organic Agriculture
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2006

Governance systems are basically an autonomous cooperation type among the government, civil society and market, also a new paradigm for efficient and democratic administration of policies. The governance mainly consists of the central operating body, institutions, operating principles and so on. The constituents are the nation(government), civil society(NGO) and market(firm). Institutional conditions are a legitimate base, financial stability and independency. And as a operating principle, governance systems have common goals and issues from a national and social point of view. This governance has been recently emerged due to financial risk of government, diffusion of new liberalism going with the globalization, localization-decentralization, and development of civil society and information-oriented society. We have to grope fur the framework of participatory agri- policy confronting globalization and localization as well as developing our agriculture and rural village. This agri-policy governance should be theoretically focused on policy network or self-organizing network or multi-lateral governance (MLG) based on NPM. Also, it is proper to have connection of nation-central type and civil society-central type. And it is necessary to have a MLG type with local governance corresponding to localization and decentralization. Governance should have the type whose participants have authority and responsibility as well. Basic directions of environmentally friendly agri-policy governance are as follows : first, its purposes are constructing the democratic and efficient framework of participatory environmentally friendly agri-policy based on consensus of all the related groups, embodying environmentally friendly agri-policy adjusted to local field, raising farmer's real interest, and improving their position. Second, its form should have a council or an agreement system, not an advisory or a consultation organ. Thus, public sector(eg. government) and voluntary sector(eg. farmers' organization) jointly execute agricultural policy and are responsible together. Environmentally friendly agri-policy governance is mainly made up of farmers' organization, cooperative and civil society(NGO). And secondary bodies are agribusinesses and academic groups. Government interacts with the main bodies on administrative execution. And environmentally friendly agri-policy governance has MLG type with a central unit, province and county units. Environmentally friendly agri-policy governance has several main functions such as agri-policy partnership, speaking for farmer's rights and interests, investigation and research on domestic and foreign agricultural streams, and etc. Especially, local unit will play roles in activation for regional agriculture, consulting on technique and management, education and training services, services entrusted by government, and so on.

• Review of Korean Society for Internet Information
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.95-100
• /
• 2013

Having taken actions for 2 years, Net Neutrality User Forum has realized Net Neutrality as a international issue of future Internet. Although the Internet design principle (layering, module, IP protocol) has enabled the end users to communicate each other without any additional permission or interference, in the reality, the end users have been tracked by both companies and governments, and the communications could be blocked, or restricted by surveillance devices, such as DPI, which could change the whole Internet design principle. Given that the Internet is a large community of the equal end-users based on end-to-end principle, it's essentially the issues of the whole Internet users, rather than of one nation, and we should focus on developing the transparent and participatory ways in Internet governance. The current Internet governance discussion have taken placed in ICANN, IGF, etc., in bottom-up processes of multistakeholderism to reflect the views of end-users. However there have been the controversial issues in Internet Governance, such as the position of government as a stakeholder, global north-south problem, transparency, so we have faced the debate on the new or evolving frame of Internet governance.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.203-220
• /
• 2008

To be a good government, it has to provide accurate information to citizens to help them understand reality well. Furthermore, the government has to provide an authority to the citizens so that they could access to the information system. The information must be shared equally between the government and the citizens. With sincere effort on the information disclosure and clarity of the administration, the government should accomplish good governance. This paper introduces the information disclosure cases to achieve good governance.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.379-409
• /
• 2007

Korea's energy sector was one of policy sectors that exhibited the classical bureaucratic governance of an administrative state. Under the regime, government monopolized the policy-making process and controled the market and the civil society. It not only provided energy goods and services directly through public enterprises but also dominated the market activities through public regulations. However, during 1993~2002, stringent reformation efforts were made to transform the governance regime from the past bureaucratic model to the market model, by way of privatization of public enterprises and deregulation. The ideology behind the reformation based on the shared recognition that the market and spontaneous order thereof is the better apparatus than the government and artificial order thereof in solving social problems mote efficiently. From the year of 2003, another round of reformation efforts have been promoted to introduce the participatory governance model, through institutionalization of channels for the wider participation of civil society into the energy policy-making process. This reformation efforts respond to; first, the increasing criticism from the civil society on the closedness of energy policy process and the higher probability of policy failures thereof, and second, the recognition that the self-organizing nature of an open policy process is the better mechanism for evolutionary problem-solving.