Basic Report

Going through a series of incidents including the MERS outbreak, the Sewol ferry disaster and the presidential impeachment, South Korea has recently faced fundamental problems that it has tried to overlook. The various problems facing the Republic of Korea today can be perceived as a completely different phenomenon, but are only a result of a diverse view of the need to reform the entire social system that is fundamentally penetrating our society. Thus, it is difficult to fundamentally solve the problem by just making a few minor adjustments to each problem situation, and it is likely that the same problem will be repeated over and over again in completely different areas. In addition, the repeated process of creating problems will intensify the distrust of the government and lead to a cumulative display of conflict, which will be far from being resolved.
   Recently, the Republic of Korea is paying attention to social reform as a way to solve the wicked problems that have not been solved for a long time. Social innovation always discusses new topics in various areas, but there is no room for argument as to that they should be democratic. Thus, this study is aiming at establishing an institutional basis for social innovation through the innovation of local government's policy decision process through democratic innovation, along with theoretical discussions on democratic innovation. In particular, the democratic reform of the local government policy-making process based on the analysis of the most recent deliberate policy-making process is sought in this study.
   Under this context, an overview of the results of this study can be summarized into four sections:
   First, democratic innovation refers to a system specifically designed to promote or enhance the participation of citizens in the political decision-making process, which is a type of social innovation and a social foundation for social innovation. Going a step further, democratic innovation aims not only to ensure citizens to participate in the policy-making process but to shift to the deliberative policy-making system. Deliberative policy-making refers to the process that citizens participate in the overall policy process and elicit opinions that conform to the public good through deliberation based on balanced information, and also combined with official government policy-making procedures in complementary methods. Thus, a deliberative policy-making system is intended to supplement representative democracy, not to replace it. In this regard, various civic engagement systems, including the current Citizen Participatory Budgeting, can be assessed as having failed to achieve the deliberation,
   Second, it is very difficult to redesign a policy through a deliberative policy decision process to resolve conflicts that arose during execution of a policy, unlike using a deliberative policy-making method from the first stage of design and planning.In particular, the establishment of consensus on the use of the policy-making process and the precise institutional design process is necessary. As there is a possibility that direct stakeholders will not accept the results of a civic engagement survey targeting the representatives of the general people or disputes over the fairness, neutrality, and reliability of the policy decision process.
   Unlike other countries, discussions on the representativeness of citizens, the fairness of selecting subcontractors, and the mechanical balance between the pros and cons speech during the process of decision-making are the typical result of the decision-making process in the domestic environment.
   Third, along with Moon Jae-in government and the launch of 7th local government elected by popular vote, an attempt to use deliberative policy decision methods and its attention on civic engagement, deliberation, and conflict management is growing rapidly. However, no system has yet been prepared to establish regulations to support this systematically, create a dedicated organization, distribute roles with existing organizations, or consult and provide financial support for a deliberative policy decision methods.
   However, no system has yet been prepared to establish regulations to support this systematically, create a dedicated organization, distribute roles with existing organizations, or consult and provide financial support for deliberative policy decision methods.
   As a result, each local government has difficulties in designing and operating the system in its own way, and it could lead to an increase in social costs due to trial and error. In particular, the use of a deliberative policy-making method that operates on a one-time event without sufficient preparation may raise questions about the effectiveness of the deliberative policy-making method itself. Therefore, it is necessary to seek proper methods to utilize deliberative policy-making method considering the size and local situation of local governments.
   Fourth, while most government employees and citizens still agree that the use of deliberative policy-making system is necessary at the theoretical and practical level, it is a different thing to internalize it culturally and cognitively. Therefore, it is necessary to create a culture that allows citizens as well as local government officials, council members and local civic groups to understand participation and deliberation and to invest time and resources for it.
   Based on the findings above, the study presents propose the following methods of innovation:
   First, it is necessary to provide the basis and criteria for the enactment of relevant regulations for each local administrative body. To do that, presenting a legal basis for the deliberative policy procedure in the Administrative Procedure Act and stipulating measures for the deliberative policy in executive orders are required.
   Second, support organizations for the deliberative policy-making process operation should be newly established. Also in local government level, improved conflict management skill and intensified role for civic engagement organization are required.
   Third, it is necessary to revise the election law for utilizing random sampling techniques and to establish a reasonable reward system for citizen participation.
   Fourth, education should be provided to promote the use of open communication with citizens, conduct citizen participatory surveys, and cultivate citizens to take a role as facilitator.
   Fifth, it is necessary to develop guidelines for the appropriate deliberative policy-making procedures based on conflict status. Developing practical guidelines for the use of deliberative policy-making method requires 1) an understanding of deliberative policy decision, 2) laws and systems, 3) preparation steps, 4) stages of implementation, 5) stages of use, and 6) annexes. At this time, it is necessary to develop a checklist for the working-level staff based on the analytical framework of this study so that they have the minimum requirements.
   Sixth, from a cognitive level, it is necessary to create a course on the usage of deliberative policy-making process for local government employees and add a subject about deliberation and participation courses to the citizen education at community center. It is also required to consider adding courses on deliberative decision-making and its practice on elementary, middle, and high schools curriculum.
   Because this study analyzed ongoing cases and there was a limitation on the time for in-depth analysis, the report only includes those that ended until the end of the study period. Especially, considering the fact that white papers with relevant study materials are usually published after six months or longer after the case, a huge effort had to be made to collect the analysis materials. In addition, there have been difficulties in securing prior research data since there have been few theoretical and practical standards established so far. In particular, it was difficult to collect analysis data on the design process or operation of a deliberative policy-making process, as these are usually conducted with a small number of related experts.
   Further research needs to be conducted to develop working guidelines, checklists, textbooks, and education programs, and in-depth research needs to be conducted through cooperation with experts on legal and institutional changes. Finally, it is necessary to present a more robust analysis based on multi-group case analysis through a comprehensive analysis of ongoing or discontinued cases and additional interviews with field participants.