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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... vii Form B... ix Chapter 1 Introduction... 1 1.1 Research Background... 1 1.2 Aims of Research... 2 1.3 Significance of Study... 3 1.4 Research Methodology... 10 1.5 Outcomes of the Study... 13 1.6 Structure of the Thesis... 15 Chapter 2 Literature Review on Democracy and on E-democracy... 19 2.1 Context of Democracy... 20 2.2 Virtue and Deficits of Contemporary Democracy... 23 2.3 Literature on E-democracy... 27 2.3.1 Overview of Technology Diffusion and Socio-political Changes... 27 2.3.2 Changes of E-democracy Meaning... 29 2.3.3 Various Ways to Define E-democracy... 32 2.3.4 E-democracy as Facilitating Political Participation... 37 2.3.5 World Practices of E-democracy as Political Participation... 41 2.4 Five Debates and Models of Political Participation in E-democracy Studies... 46 2.4.1 Mobilization versus Reinforcement... 46 2.4.2 Intermediary Group Reinforcers versus Populists... 47 2.4.3 Supplier Orientation versus Demander Orientation... 49 2.4.4 Digital Divide Convergence versus Stratification... 50 2.4.5 Social Capital: Increase or Decrease?... 52 2.5 Conceptual Framework: Social Construction of Technology... 54 2.5.1 Three Key Terms in the Social Construction of Technology... 54 2.6 Chapter Conclusion... 60 Chapter 3 Cross-country Comparison of Political Systems in Australia and in South Korea... 63 3.1 Australian Political System... 63 3.1.1 Australian Liberal Democracy... 63 xi

3.1.2 Australian Parliamentary Political System... 66 3.1.3 Australian Federalism... 71 3.1.4 Australian Civil Society... 73 3.2 South Korean Politics... 76 3.2.1 History of South Korean Authoritarian Regimes... 76 3.2.2 The Development of South Korea Democratization... 80 3.2.3 South Korean Presidential Political System... 82 3.2.4 The Development of South Korean Civil Society... 84 3.3 Comparison of Socio-Political Context between Australia and South Korea... 85 Chapter 4 Research Methodology... 89 4.1 Research Methodology... 89 4.2 Research Cases... 94 4.3 Research Methods... 96 4.3.1 Data Collection... 97 4.3.2 Data Analysis... 103 4.4 Limitations of Data Collection... 104 4.5 Chapter Summary... 105 Chapter 5 Cross-country Comparison on E-democracy Context in Australia and in South Korea... 107 5.1 The Development of E-democracy in the Australian Context... 108 5.1.1 The Development of E-government Framework and Practices in Commonwealth Government... 109 5.1.2 E-government Policy Shaping and Practices in Australian State and Local Governments 113 5.1.3 Australian E-civil Participation... 116 5.2 The Impact of ICTs in South Korea... 118 5.2.1. Development E-government Strategy and Practices in South Korea... 119 5.2.2 E-civil Participation Development in South Korea... 123 5.3 Comparative Conclusion on E-democracy Context... 127 Chapter 6 Introduction to the Research Cases... 131 6.1 Descriptions of Australian E-democracy Cases... 131 6.1.1GetInvolved... 131 6.1.2 Future Melbourne Wiki... 135 6.1.3 GetUp!... 138 6.2 Description of South Korean E-democracy Cases... 142 xii

6.2.1 Epeople... 142 6.2.2 Seoul Metropolitan Government Online... 147 6.2.3 The 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports... 153 6.3 Chapter Conclusion... 158 Chapter 7 Cross-country Comparison of State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Pratices in Australia and in South Korea... 163 7.1 The Implementation of Three Dimensions of the Social Construction of Technology in Participatory E-government Practices... 164 7.2 Analysis of GetInvolved of the Queensland Government in Australia... 165 7.3 Analysis of the Epeople Portal of the South Korean Government... 179 7.4 Cross-country Comparison of State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Practices... 193 Chapter 8 Cross-country Comparison of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices in Australia and in South Korea... 197 8.1 Future Melbourne Wiki of the Melbourne City Council... 198 8.2 SMG Online of the Seoul Metropolitan Government... 213 8. 3 Cross-country Comparison of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices... 227 Chapter 9 Cross-country Comparison of E-civil Participation Practices in Australia and in South Korea... 231 9.1 GetUp! in Australia... 232 9.2 The 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports in South Korea... 245 9.3 Cross-country Comparison of E-civil Participation Practices between Australia and South Korea... 256 Chapter 10 Conclusions and Implications... 261 10.1 Implication of the Multiple-Case Study... 261 10.2 Implication of Social Construction of Technology... 264 10.3 Comparative Discussion of E-democracy Practices in Australia and in South Korea... 266 10.3.1 Comparative Discussion of the State and National Levels of Participatory E-government Practices... 266 10.3.2 Comparative Discussion of Local Levels of Participatory E-government Practices... 268 10.3.3 Comparative Discussion of E-civil Participation Practices... 271 10.4 Generalization of Case Study Approach and Discussion... 273 10.5 Research Limitations... 275 10.6 Directions for Future Research... 275 xiii

BIBLIOGRAPHIES... 277 xiv

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... 12 TABLE 4-1. RESEARCH CASES... 95 TABLE 4-2. MULTI-METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION FOR EACH RESEARCH CASE... 103 TABLE 6-1. STATUS OF WORK HANDED BY EPEOPLE... 147 TABLE 6-2. THE POLICY MAKING STEPS IN OAIS... 152 TABLE 6-3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2008 CANDLELIGHT PROTEST AGAINST US BEEF IMPORTS... 155 TABLE 6-4. AGE DISTRIBUTION IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES THAT LED CANDLELIGHT RALLIES157 TABLE 9-1. PARTY IDENTIFICATION AMONG GETUP! MEMBERS... 239 TABLE 9-2. REASONS FOR THE PARTICIPATING IN CANDLELIGHT RALLY: TEENAGERS... 247 TABLE 9-3. REASONS FOR THE PARTICIPATING IN CANDLELIGHT RALLY: GENERAL PARTICIPANTS... 248 TABLE 9-4. STATISTICS OF LIVE BROADCASTING OF OFFLINE RALLIES IN AFREECA... 251 xv

TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1. REGIONAL AVERAGE OF E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT 2010... 6 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... 15 FIGURE 3-1. THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM... 68 FIGURE 6-1. GETINVOLVED WEBSITE... 133 FIGURE 6-2. FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI... 136 FIGURE 6-3. GETUP! WEBSITE... 139 FIGURE 6-4. EPEOPLE WEBSITE... 143 FIGURE 6-5. CORE SERVICES IN EPEOPLE... 144 FIGURE 6-6. THE OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES OF EPEOPLE FROM 2006 TO 2010... 146 FIGURE 6-7. E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT MODEL OF SEOUL METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT... 148 FIGURE 6-8. SEOUL WEB PORTAL... 148 FIGURE 6-9. CHUNMANSANGSANG OASIS WEBSITE... 149 FIGURE 7-1. AN EXAMPLE OF THE NOTICE OF GETINVOLVED ONLINE CONSULTATION END... 170 FIGURE 7-2. AN EXAMPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENT FINAL POLICY AND DOCUMENT... 170 FIGURE 7-3. THE INTEGRATION BETWEEN BUSAN ONLINE DISCUSSION AND E-FORUM IN EPEOPLE.. 181 FIGURE 7-4. THE RESULT OF ONLINE DISCUSSION AND THE FINAL DECISION... 183 FIGURE 7-5. A POST OF CITIZENS ON THE ISSUES OF THE FREE-RIDE SUBWAY SERVICE IN BUSAN... 185 FIGURE 7-6. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TOOLS IN E-FORUM... 188 FIGURE 8-1. THE AREA OF CITY OF MELBOURNE... 200 FIGURE 8-2. AN EXAMPLE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN A COUNCIL STAFF AND THE WIKI PARTICIPANT... 204 FIGURE 8-3. AN EXAMPLE OF KEEPING THE FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI DISCUSSION HEALTHY... 205 FIGURE 8-4. DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPATION IN FUTURE MELBOURNE WIKI... 209 FIGURE 8-5. SCREEN SHOT OF SANGSANGJEAN... 214 FIGURE 8-6. SCREEN SHOT OF SANGSANGTORON... 216 FIGURE 8-7. THE 14 TH SHILLHYOUN MEETING... 217 FIGURE 8-8. THE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION... 220 FIGURE 8-9. SUGGESTION OF THE ONLINE KOREAN LANGUAGE COURSE... 221 FIGURE 8-10. OASIS PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSION... 222 FIGURE 9-1. MEANS OF ACQUIRING INFORMATION ON US BEEF ISSUES AND CANDLELIGHT RALLIES xvii

... 249 FIGURE 9-2. MAIN INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION CHANNEL OF ISSUES RELATED TO MAD COW DISEASE... 254 FIGURE 9-3. AN EXAMPLE OF ONLINE CANDLELIGHT PROTEST... 255 xviii

APPENDICES Appendix 4-1 Information Form for interviewees... 306 Appendix 4-2 Informed Consent Form.... 308 Appendix 4-3 Interview Issues.... 309 Appendix 7-1 E-government Roadmap Task and Responsible Agency.... 310 xix