Efficacy of e-Participation and Mobilization of Bias

Heungsuk, CHOI Professor, Korea University hschoi@korea.ac.kr

Kyoungsu, LEE Graduate student, Korea University keiser99@korea.ac.kr

Index

What is ‘Sangsang(imagination) Oasis’?2

Analysis3

Conclusion4

Introduction1

Ⅰ. Introduction

Backgrounds Evolution of e-Democracy

- Hi-OVIS(the Highly Interactive-Optical Visual Information System ) in Ikoma district of Nara in Japan (1978 -1986) : two-way TV, video conferencing, e-Shoping

- QUBE by Warmer-Amex in Columbus, Ohio in U.S. (1977) worries about Push-button democracy (Dutton, 2007)

- Public Electronic Network in Santa Monica, California in U.S. (1990s) : on-line conferencing by citizens (4505 of Santa Monica residents (5%): Dutton, 2007), access to local government information and services

- Web 2.0 : social networking, Mashup, citizen reporter- e-petition, Web-TV, HearFromYourMP and Citizen Calling in U.K.- Web TV, e-Voting in Gangnam district of Seoul; e-petition, e-government

information request, e-voting of the central government in Korea

Backgrounds “A Ladder of Citizen Participation"(S. Arstein, 1969)

- Manipulation > therapy (for citizen behavior) > informating > consulting (survey, hearing, conference) > placation (citizen panel) > partnership > delegated power > citizen control

Different types of citizen participation (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Nie & Kim, 1978)- voting ; partisan activity ; group activity ; citizen initiated contact

* What and how is the role of ICT in citizen participation?

Sangsang(imagination) Oasis of the Seoul Metropolitan Government launched in October of 2006 – citizen-initiated contact (through policy proposals)

Objectives To report on the Sangsang Oasis as an experimentation of e-democracy

71 policy proposals selected out of about 18,000 citizen policy proposals (2006. 10 – 2008. 11)

To analyze the behavior of government in dealing with e-participation Which proposals are selected by bureaucrats? What are some factors affecting the selection? Mobilization of bias?

Ⅱ. What is ‘Sangsang(imagination) Oasis’?

Process

Citizen pro-posals

Discussion about some proposals

Officials Meeting

Conference for Action plan

-Random evaluation by netizens : Recommendations, Opinions-Evaluation by system managers : Compliance, Feasibility

-Feasibility -Efficiency-Validity, Effectiveness

∙ Citizens∙ Citizen panel∙ Officials

∙ the Mayor∙ Directors ∙ Experts∙ Proposer∙ Citizen panel∙ Citizens

H

O

W

W

H

O

Selec-tion

Process of selecting proposals in Sangsang Oasis

Process

1. Which proposals are not initially accepted by system?- Critics for it own sake- Already in operation

- Already suggested and adopted

2. First screening -The first screening is carried out by system managers.-They remove proposals which do not comply with basic rules. -They are supposed to consider carefully citizens’ concerns represented by their suggestions.

Free bulletin board

Discussion bulletin board

Process

3. Second Screening- The second screening is carried out by bureaucrats in charge. - Through the discussion bulletin board, citizens and bureaucrats debate

on each suggestion for 2weeks.- In an internal meeting of bureaucrats, bureaucrats examine feasibility,

cost-effectiveness, and validity of suggestions.

4. Conference for Action Plan and Selection - The conference is held every two months. - Participants: Mayor, Directors of Bureaus, Experts, Proposers, Citizen panel (Sangsang Nuri panel), general citizens

- Final decisions are made about whether to adopt proposals

Discussion bulletin board

OfficialsMeeting Conference

Process

* Exceptional process- Some proposals are selected without undergoing the formal process by

bureaucrats in charge. - Some proposals still can be selected by bureaucrats for themselves,

when they consider proposals reasonable and implementable with small financial resources.

- 9 proposals was adopted through this exceptional process between Oct 2006 and Nov 2008.

- “Non-stop-flight” proposals

Discussion bulletin board Adoption

Feature1. Request for government to do something

- This participatory system does not permit the writing which does not contain the policy alternative.

2. Incentive System - Mileage : whenever citizens login this website, submit a proposal, and

write reply, they obtain some points which can be used for sending message to someone’s cellular phone or transforming into T-money.

(T-money is the cyber money used for paying bus and subway fare in Seoul)

- Prize : the Government gives a 100,000won(about 80 US dollar) gift certificate to a citizen who suggests the proposal called up the conference.

Status report

ConferenceTime

The Number of Proposals (A)

Discussion Bulletin board(B)

%(A/B) OfficialsMeeting Conference Selected

1 1029 106 10.3 16 9 82 947 148 15.6 15 8 43 1628 145 8.9 28 9 84 1408 76 5.4 23 9 95 1205 60 5.0 15 7 36 1239 74 6.0 16 7 47 1756 76 4.4 N/A 7 48 1154 74 6.4 13 7 49 1645 74 4.5 15 7 4(1)

10 1335 125 9.4 12 7 411 1272 96 7.6 13 6 7(3)12 1861 116 6.2 10 5 5(2)13 1596 221 13.6 25 6 7(3)

Total 18075 1391 7.7 N/A 94 71(9)Per month 669.4 51.5 2.63

The Number of proposals on each stage (between Oct 2006 and Nov 2008)

( ): The number of ‘Non-stop adopted suggestions

Status reportWhat do citizens want for government to do? (between Oct 2006 and Jul 2007)

Facility / Equipment Service Regulation Etcnew improving new improving new improving207

(39.3%)87

(16.5%)111

(21.1%)80

(15.2%) 5 20 17

The number of participants (between Oct 2006 and Jul 2007)

The number of proposals on free bulletin board Proposer

The number of debater about each proposal

Mean Maximum Minimum

7187 2823 4.83 31 0

- each suggestion was not concerned by many citizens though many citizens had used this website.

- It can be said that this participatory system is full of small issues demanding for government to do something

Ⅲ. Analysis

HypothesesH1: the Mayor’s priority affects the selection of citizen

proposals.

- The Mayor is a key player in deciding policies. And he tends to achieve his public pledge. And he has the right to do.- Mayor’s priority may be reflected in allocation of budget. If so, selection of proposals in need of large financial resources is especially affected by Mayor’s priority. - According to Seoul Metropolitan Government, government has promoted major 20 projects during present mayor’s term. And these major projects were based on mayor’s pledge.

HypothesesH2: Election affects the selection of citizen proposals

In representative democracy system, as politicians, representatives may be achievement-oriented for their political ambition; re-elected or elected to superior position. It is expected that they tend to achieve the project within his term of office. So, the project which takes long term to achieve may be adopted at early term of office.

H3: Technical difficulty affects the selection

Because of screening by officials, it is can be assumed that bureaucrats prefer selecting something easy for achieving to selecting something difficult.

HypothesesH4: Interests of bureaucrats affect the selection of citizen

proposals

Findings- The present mayor of Seoul, Se-hoon Oh seems to be puts stress on

strengthening urban competitiveness and boosting tourist industries.

- The Slogan of Seoul Metropolitan Government : “Clean, Attractive and Global Seoul”- With seeing the budget summary of tax expenditure classified according to function,

tax expenditure related to tourist was more than tripled in 2008 and 2009.

Vision Contents

Marketing for the city of Economy and Culture

∙Making up major tourist attraction∙Marketing for tourist∙Improving tour condition∙Festival, event, international conference

Han river Renaissance ∙Han River as a Seoul landmark

Balanced development of the City∙Regional industry belt ∙Improving education environment for reducing regional divide

Greater Happiness∙Supply of residence for low income group∙Expansion of infrastructure for the handicapped∙Infrastructure for old people’s welfare∙Supporting old people’s economic activity

Clean and Green Seoul ∙Clean Air∙Expansion of park

<table> 5 project areas of the mayor

FindingsWhat proposals are selected? (between Oct 2006 and Jul 2007)

Subject

The number of proposals called up discus-sion bulletin board The number of selected proposals

Proposals (A)

Assisting with 20 projects of the mayor

(B)B/A (%) Selected

(C)Assisting with 20

projects of the mayor(D)

D/C (%)

Public transportation 107 28 26.2 4 3 75

Tourist 92 55 59.8 9 9 100Welfare 60 22 36.7 4 1 25Cultural Affair 51 22 43.1 6 4 66.7Traffic 49 11 22.4 3 1 33.3Usual life/Participation 49 15 30.6 3 2 66.7

Environment 44 9 20.5 2 1 50Public affair 35 2 5.7 0 0 -Design 29 5 17.2 0 0 -Economy 11 3 27.3 1 0 0Total 527 172 32.6 32 21 65.6

13 proposals of 32 selected proposals were instrumental to the 20 major projects promised by the mayor

FindingsWhat proposals are selected? (between Oct 2006 and Jul 2007)

The number of proposals put on the discus-sion bulletin board & those finally selected

The number of proposals which are instru-mental to 20 projects of mayor

Proposals (A)

Selected(B) B/A (%) Proposals

(C)Selected

(D) D/C (%)

Total 527 32 6.0 172 21 12.2

5 of selected proposals are related to one of the most important and ambitious project of Mayor, ‘Han River Renaissance project.’

Proposals about general improvement of the subway were not selected although 41 proposals were put on the bulletin board. The 20 projects of mayor does not contain only air quality improvement for the subway.

FindingsThe proportion of proposals instrumental to mayoral projects

In need of small financial resources In need of large financial resources

Selected Instrumental to 20 projects of the mayor % Selected Instrumental to 20

projects of the mayor %

2006 6 4 66.7% 6 5 83.3%2007 19 12 63.2% 9 7 77.8%2008 30 18 60.0% 1 1 100%

Acceptance rate in relation to budget size & instrumentality to the mayor’s project

Instrumental to major Project of MayorNo Yes

Need of financial resource

SmallAdopt/Proposal (%)

6/248 13/1202.4% 10.8%

LargeAdopt/Proposal (%)

4/107 9/523.7% 17.3%

Total 10/355 (2.8%) 22/172 (12.2%)

FindingsPeriod needed for implementing proposals (n=71, finally selected)

Total2006 2007 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13More than 30 5 2 1 221~30 month 2 1 111~20 month 4 1 1 2~ 10 month 35 4 3 2 3 1 3 4 2 6 3 3Immediately 8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1Continual Expansion 13 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3

Not Implemented 4 1 1 1 1

Need of financial resources for implementing proposals

Total 2006 2007 20081 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Large 16 4 2 4 4 1 1Small 55 4 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 4 7 5 6

Findings Acceptance rates in relation to technical difficulty and instrumentality to

mayor’s projects (2006 Oct. – 2007 Jul.) (n=527, Bulletin B.) Instrumental to the projects of Mayor

No Yes

Technical difficulty

DifficultSelected/Proposals (%)

1/53 3/271.9% 11.1%

Not- Selected/Proposals (%)

9/302 19/1453.0% 13.1%

Examples of those selected despite technical difficulty- Advertising Seoul using ‘Google earth’ - Voice guide for foreigner in the transportation

Instrumental to the projects of MayorNo Yes

Technical difficultyDifficult 1.4% 11.3%

Not- 32.1% 54.9%

The proportion of selected proposals by technical difficulty and instrumentality (n=71, selected)

Findings

Instrumental to the projects of MayorNo Yes

Interests of Bureaus* Yes 14.1% 35.2%No 19.7% 31.0%

The proportion of selected proposals (n=71)

Interests of Bureaus do not seem to significantly affect the selection of citizen proposals

Amongst four selected but unimplemented proposals, three proposals were not on the list of bureau’s MBO objectives underground structure in front of the City HallLED theater & performance information board in the Hyewha

subway station Advertisement board like “HOLLYWOOD” in LA nearby the

Incheon Airport

* Measured through MBO objectives

Ⅳ. Conclusion Mayor’s interest matters

Election cycle matters

Mobilization of bias, especially in the implementation stage