• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.6 no.1 s.11
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2006

This paper is to analyse the case of citizen participation employed in the local government, Buk-gu (Northern District) in the city of Ulsan, Korea. A kind of deliberative type of citizen participation named' citizen jury' was exercised to resolve an environmental conflict between Buk-gu government and its residents. The conflict was caused by the construction of a food waste recycling facility near by some residential areas in Buk-gu. Theoretically this paper makes a typology of citizen participation methods. Two criteria are employed. First of all, lay citizens are the primary participant or not? Secondly, interactive communication is feasible or not among participants in the process of citizen participation. Four generic types of citizen participation are sorted out: technocratic, pluralist, direct/participatory, and deliberative type. Especially deliberative type of citizen participation is based on an idea of deliberative democracy. This paper argues that the case of citizen participation employed in Buk-gu belongs to deliberative type of citizen participation. The argument is based on the following reasons. Firstly, primary participants in deliberation process can be considered as lay citizens though they are selected form local NGOs and religious groups. According to a survey, most of participants said that they would participate in the process of deliberation in the capacity of lay citizens though they were selected by their own groups. Secondly, the citizen participation process was deliberately designed and implemented to facilitate competence of primary participants and fairness in the deliberation. Viewed from this analysis, this Buk-gu case can be safely considered an innovative method of citizen participation which is also very successful in resolving intractable environmental conflict in the local government.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 2015

World Wide Views on Climate and Energy held on 6 June 2015 was a structured citizens' deliberative consultation forum involving 10,000 citizens in 77 countries, and South Korea was one of the participating countries. Citizen participants, selected to reflect the demographic diversity in their countries or regions, were given information beforehand and deliberated for a full day with other citizens and voted on an identical set of questions, designed to reflect policy controversies at the UN COP negotiations to be held in Paris on December 2015. This study, firstly, analyzes the backgrounds and purposes of World Wide Views on Climate and Energy and reports the WWViews event held in Seoul, Korea before examining the theoretical implication of it. And then, this study discusses about the features and opportunities of World Wide Views on Climate and Energy as a way of forming a global deliberative governance by focusing on deliberative democracy, citizen participatory governance, and global citizenship.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.336-346
• /
• 2017

Background: Due to the asymmetry of information and knowledge and the power of bureaucrats and medical professionals, it is not easy for citizens to participate in health care policy making. This study analyzes the case of the insured organization participating in the Health Insurance Policy Committee (HIPC) and provides a basis for discussing methods and conditions for better public participation. Methods: Qualitative analysis was conducted using the in-depth interviews with the participants and document data such as materials for HIPC meetings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled six participants from organizations representing the insured in HIPC. The meanings related to the factors affecting participation were found and categorized into major categories. Results: The main factors affecting participating in the decision making process were trust and cooperation among the participants, structure and procedure of governance, representation and expertise of participants, and contents of issues. Due to limited cooperation, participants lacked influence in important decisions. There was an imbalance in power due to unreasonable procedures and criteria for governance. As the materials for meetings were provided inappropriate manner, it was difficult for participants to understand the contents and comments on the meeting. Due to weak accountability structure, opinions from external stakeholders have not been well received. The participation was made depending on the expertise of individual members. The degree of influence was different depending on the contents of the issues. Conclusion: In order to meet the values of democracy and realize the participation that the insured can demonstrate influence, it is necessary to have a fair and reasonable procedure and a sufficient learning environment. More deliberative structure which reflects citizen's public perspective is required, rather than current negotiating structure of HIPC.