A Comparative Study of E-democracy Practices in Australia and in South Korea

Transcription

1 A Comparative Study of E-democracy Practices in Australia and in South Korea Kang, Hye-Jung December 2012 This thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government at the University of Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

2 ABSTRACT It is arguable that the invention of ICTs has renovated contemporary democracy. ICTs characterized by timelessness, spacelessness, and cost effectiveness have largely changed the way of providing, storing, processing, and communicating information. ICTs have been expected to make up for the deficits of representative democracy which can be defined as: a lack of legitimacy of political institutions, a lack of political interest by the public, and a decline in public participation. The use of ICTs to improve the contemporary political system is called e-democracy. However, the way that ICTs have been applied in politics (e-democracy practice) has been affected by the socio-political contexts of their particular environment. This study explores how e-democracy practices vary in different national contexts, and how different e-democracy practices have originated. This study compares e-democracy practices in Australia and in South Korea. It is based on a multicase study of e-democracy practices including three Australian cases (GetInvolved, Future Melbourne Wiki, and GetUp!) and three South Korean cases (Epeople, Seoul Metropolitan Government Online, and the 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports). It uses multiple methods of data collection: documentation, website analysis, interviews, and participant observation, and applies a social construction of technology approach as a research framework that allows a holistic comparison of e-democracy practices between Australia and South Korea. Three dimensions of social construction of technology - interpretive flexibility, relevant social groups, and technological frame - are used to compare six e-democracy practices. E-democracy practices in the two countries are also compared on the three categories: high levels of participatory e-government practices, local levels of participatory e-government practices, and e-civil participation practices. This study identifies several similarities and differences of e-democracy practices in Australia and in South Korea; it also discusses the factors that shape different e-democracy practices in the two countries. The analysis of the two cases showed similarities in high levels of participatory e- government practices (GetInvolved and Epeople), and in the strong leadership of the relevant government (the Queensland State Government for GetInvolved, and the South Korean National Government for Epeople). However, GetInvolved was an online consultation to receive feedback from citizens on public issues, while Epeople was an e-decision making tool to enable citizens to participate in a range of decision-making processes. Also, GetInvolved online consultation aimed to improve the relationship between the Queensland State Government and Queensland citizens, while Epeople e-decision making focused on increasing a climate of constructive discussion. These iii

3 differences of e-democracy practices in the two countries were influenced by the existing political environment: the long-term practice of public consultation in Australia formulated the form of online citizen participation; while the limited citizen participation in policy-making processes in South Korea meant that ICTs were actively employed to increase the opportunity for citizens to participate online. The analysis of the two local levels of participatory e-government practices (the Future Melbourne Wiki and the Chunmansangsang OASIS of SMG Online) showed that both cases were developed by strong management (or leadership) from local governments (the Melbourne City Council, and the SMG) in response to policies of higher level governments (the Victorian State Government, and the Roh Government). However, the Future Melbourne Wiki was an online consultation, but OASIS was a collaborative e-decision making tool. Also, the Melbourne City Council was responsible for finalizing the Future Melbourne Plan, but both the SMG and Seoul citizens were responsible for making final policies or decisions on what public business to conduct. In addition, the Melbourne community was invited to participate in the online consultation, but Seoul residents were able to participate in all aspects of decision-making process including deciding issues to be discussed. These differences between the two countries in e-democracy practices at local levels were influenced by complex interactions between the pre-existing political conditions for engaging citizen participation, the existing political directions for using ICTs, demographic features in each society, and by the popularity of using ICTs in each society: the well-routinized form of public consultation in Australia, and the median age (28) in Melbourne City influenced the Melbourne City Council to build an online consultation wiki; the existing form of e-government and popular use of ICTs by Seoul residents led the SMG to use a collaborative e-decision making. The comparison of the two e-civil participation practices (GetUp!, and the 2008 candlelight protest against US beef imports) showed that both cases changed the position of citizens in the political arena, from information consumer to information finder (and information producer). Also, these cases did not reduce political activities in the election period, but expanded the political activities to everyday issues, everyday life. However, GetUp! maintained the traditional structure of political participation, including the governance structure of a civil society organization and of organizing citizen participation and conventional modes of political actions such as petitions, off-line rallies and planning advertisement in the mainstream press. By contrast, the 2008 candlelight protest against US beef imports introduced a new structure of political participation such as the swarm - a voluntary horizontal mobilization of networked individuals, and the simultaneous public action using online and offline worlds. In addition, GetUp! was seen to convert existing political participation from offline iv

4 into online, but the 2008 candlelight protest was largely enacted by groups which had previously been politically apathetic (teenagers and housewives). These differences between the two e-civil participation practices in Australia and in South Korea evolved from the existing environment of civil society, coupled with the impact of ICTs: the long-term experience of governance structure in Australian civil society and the expensive cost of access to internet led to online citizen participation based on conventional practice; the fast uptake of ICTs in South Korean civil society encouraged the introduction of new forms of citizen participation. v

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The milestones in this thesis have been achieved with intellectual contributions, kind assistance and magnificent support from a number of persons and institutions. First of all, I owe utmost gratitude to my supervisory panel, Dr Anni Dugdale for her thought-provoking comments, invaluable advice and intellectual guidance throughout the thesis years; Professor John Halligan for a range of useful advice on my research. I also wish to gratefully acknowledge Professor Yun Seong-Yi, the supervisor of my Master Thesis, for his critical assistance and the valuable time spent on reviewing my proposal and papers and providing insightful comments and guidance. I owe special acknowledgement for the assistance given by Mr Kang Myung-Gu and Ms Kim Hye- Ran in arranging meetings with key figures of South Korean e-democracy practices. I am indebted to all research participants in Australia and in South Korea, for sharing their ideas and insights. This thesis would not have been possible without their assistance and generous time commitment. I acknowledge with gratitude a scholarship provided by the University of Canberra and the support of the Research Student Centre of University of Canberra in furthering my doctoral studies. I am thankful for the assistance of staff at the Faculty of Business and Government. My most sincere thanks go to Professor Deborah Blackman for her support and assistance, and Ms Ros Byrne for assistance with professional editing of this thesis. I wish to express my sincere thanks to a number of friends both in Australia and in South Korea for their friendship and support. I thank Ms Seo Kyoung-Hwa, Dr Yun Choong-Gu, Mr Jeong Ki-Hong, Ms Kim Mi-Sun, Ms Kim In-Hye and Mr Kim Gun-Woo for their encouragement throughout the thesis milestones. I thank Ms Han Joo-Yeon for her kind assistance and continuous support to conduct research events in Melbourne. I especially thank Mr Warut Satayatheum, Dr Fiona Buick, Ms Synthia Atas Sari, and Ms Mai Thu Nguyen and her husband, Mr Quan Nguyen, for intellectual sharing and accompanying me along this learning journey. I would also like to express my utmost appreciation to Dr Wunwimon Peungpradit for her intellectual sharing, kind assistance and direct and indirect support throughout the thesis years. Finally, I owe enormous gratitude to my family and relatives. My greatest gratitude goes to my father Mr Kang Gun-Woo, my mother Ms Choi Duk-Ja, my sister Ms Kang Eun-Jung, my brother-in-law Mr Choi Han-Choon, my brother Mr Kang Tae-Wook, and my two nephews (Choi Dong-Hyuk and Choi vii

6 Dong-Ha) for their endless support and encouragement throughout the thesis milestones. I also thank my cousin, Ms Park Yeong-Eun, and her homestay host, Ms Christine Taylor, for their kind assistance in conducting interviews in Brisbane. viii

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... vii Form B... ix Chapter 1 Introduction Research Background Aims of Research Significance of Study Research Methodology Outcomes of the Study Structure of the Thesis Chapter 2 Literature Review on Democracy and on E-democracy Context of Democracy Virtue and Deficits of Contemporary Democracy Literature on E-democracy Overview of Technology Diffusion and Socio-political Changes Changes of E-democracy Meaning Various Ways to Define E-democracy E-democracy as Facilitating Political Participation World Practices of E-democracy as Political Participation Five Debates and Models of Political Participation in E-democracy Studies Mobilization versus Reinforcement Intermediary Group Reinforcers versus Populists Supplier Orientation versus Demander Orientation Digital Divide Convergence versus Stratification Social Capital: Increase or Decrease? Conceptual Framework: Social Construction of Technology Three Key Terms in the Social Construction of Technology Chapter Conclusion Chapter 3 Cross-country Comparison of Political Systems in Australia and in South Korea Australian Political System Australian Liberal Democracy xi

8 3.1.2 Australian Parliamentary Political System Australian Federalism Australian Civil Society South Korean Politics History of South Korean Authoritarian Regimes The Development of South Korea Democratization South Korean Presidential Political System The Development of South Korean Civil Society Comparison of Socio-Political Context between Australia and South Korea Chapter 4 Research Methodology Research Methodology Research Cases Research Methods Data Collection Data Analysis Limitations of Data Collection Chapter Summary Chapter 5 Cross-country Comparison on E-democracy Context in Australia and in South Korea The Development of E-democracy in the Australian Context The Development of E-government Framework and Practices in Commonwealth Government E-government Policy Shaping and Practices in Australian State and Local Governments Australian E-civil Participation The Impact of ICTs in South Korea Development E-government Strategy and Practices in South Korea E-civil Participation Development in South Korea Comparative Conclusion on E-democracy Context Chapter 6 Introduction to the Research Cases Descriptions of Australian E-democracy Cases GetInvolved Future Melbourne Wiki GetUp! Description of South Korean E-democracy Cases xii

9 6.2.1 Epeople Seoul Metropolitan Government Online The 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports Chapter Conclusion Chapter 7 Cross-country Comparison of State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Pratices in Australia and in South Korea The Implementation of Three Dimensions of the Social Construction of Technology in Participatory E-government Practices Analysis of GetInvolved of the Queensland Government in Australia Analysis of the Epeople Portal of the South Korean Government Cross-country Comparison of State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Practices Chapter 8 Cross-country Comparison of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices in Australia and in South Korea Future Melbourne Wiki of the Melbourne City Council SMG Online of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Cross-country Comparison of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices Chapter 9 Cross-country Comparison of E-civil Participation Practices in Australia and in South Korea GetUp! in Australia The 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports in South Korea Cross-country Comparison of E-civil Participation Practices between Australia and South Korea Chapter 10 Conclusions and Implications Implication of the Multiple-Case Study Implication of Social Construction of Technology Comparative Discussion of E-democracy Practices in Australia and in South Korea Comparative Discussion of the State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Practices Comparative Discussion of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices Comparative Discussion of E-civil Participation Practices Generalization of Case Study Approach and Discussion Research Limitations Directions for Future Research xiii

10 BIBLIOGRAPHIES xiv

11 TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1-1. E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT AND E-PARTICIPATION RANKING... 5 TABLE 1-2. TOP 10 E-PARTICIPATION COUNTRIES... 6 TABLE 1-3. COMPARISON OF POLITICAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA AND IN SOUTH KOREA... 9 TABLE 1-4. MULTI-METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION FOR EACH CASE TABLE 4-1. RESEARCH CASES TABLE 4-2. MULTI-METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION FOR EACH RESEARCH CASE TABLE 6-1. STATUS OF WORK HANDED BY EPEOPLE TABLE 6-2. THE POLICY MAKING STEPS IN OAIS TABLE 6-3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2008 CANDLELIGHT PROTEST AGAINST US BEEF IMPORTS TABLE 6-4. AGE DISTRIBUTION IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES THAT LED CANDLELIGHT RALLIES157 TABLE 9-1. PARTY IDENTIFICATION AMONG GETUP! MEMBERS TABLE 9-2. REASONS FOR THE PARTICIPATING IN CANDLELIGHT RALLY: TEENAGERS TABLE 9-3. REASONS FOR THE PARTICIPATING IN CANDLELIGHT RALLY: GENERAL PARTICIPANTS TABLE 9-4. STATISTICS OF LIVE BROADCASTING OF OFFLINE RALLIES IN AFREECA xv

12 TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1. REGIONAL AVERAGE OF E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 1-2. E-PARTICIPATION INDEX: TOP 35 COUNTRIES... 7 FIGURE 1-3. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE BEST PERFORMING COUNTRIES IN E-PARTICIPATION 7 FIGURE 1-4. DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIONS BETWEEN KEY CONCEPTS FROM THE SCOT FIGURE 3-1. THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM FIGURE 6-1. GETINVOLVED WEBSITE FIGURE 6-2. FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI FIGURE 6-3. GETUP! WEBSITE FIGURE 6-4. EPEOPLE WEBSITE FIGURE 6-5. CORE SERVICES IN EPEOPLE FIGURE 6-6. THE OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES OF EPEOPLE FROM 2006 TO FIGURE 6-7. E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL OF SEOUL METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT FIGURE 6-8. SEOUL WEB PORTAL FIGURE 6-9. CHUNMANSANGSANG OASIS WEBSITE FIGURE 7-1. AN EXAMPLE OF THE NOTICE OF GETINVOLVED ONLINE CONSULTATION END FIGURE 7-2. AN EXAMPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENT FINAL POLICY AND DOCUMENT FIGURE 7-3. THE INTEGRATION BETWEEN BUSAN ONLINE DISCUSSION AND E-FORUM IN EPEOPLE FIGURE 7-4. THE RESULT OF ONLINE DISCUSSION AND THE FINAL DECISION FIGURE 7-5. A POST OF CITIZENS ON THE ISSUES OF THE FREE-RIDE SUBWAY SERVICE IN BUSAN FIGURE 7-6. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TOOLS IN E-FORUM FIGURE 8-1. THE AREA OF CITY OF MELBOURNE FIGURE 8-2. AN EXAMPLE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN A COUNCIL STAFF AND THE WIKI PARTICIPANT FIGURE 8-3. AN EXAMPLE OF KEEPING THE FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI DISCUSSION HEALTHY FIGURE 8-4. DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI FIGURE 8-5. SCREEN SHOT OF SANGSANGJEAN FIGURE 8-6. SCREEN SHOT OF SANGSANGTORON FIGURE 8-7. THE 14 TH SHILLHYOUN MEETING FIGURE 8-8. THE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION FIGURE 8-9. SUGGESTION OF THE ONLINE KOREAN LANGUAGE COURSE FIGURE OASIS PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSION FIGURE 9-1. MEANS OF ACQUIRING INFORMATION ON US BEEF ISSUES AND CANDLELIGHT RALLIES xvii

13 FIGURE 9-2. MAIN INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION CHANNEL OF ISSUES RELATED TO MAD COW DISEASE FIGURE 9-3. AN EXAMPLE OF ONLINE CANDLELIGHT PROTEST xviii

14 APPENDICES Appendix 4-1 Information Form for interviewees Appendix 4-2 Informed Consent Form Appendix 4-3 Interview Issues Appendix 7-1 E-government Roadmap Task and Responsible Agency xix