University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

(USC Thesis Other)

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW DOES COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE WORK? THE EXPERIENCE OF COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY-BUILDING PRACTICES Copyright 2014 IN KOREA by Sang Min Kim A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT) December 2014 Sang Min Kim Table of Contents List ofTables ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vi Abstract ................................................................................................................................ viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 1. 2. Research questions ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Theoretical framework: collaborative community governance .................................. 6 1. 4. Research contribution ................................................................................................. 9 1.5. Organization of the dissertation ................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ..... 13 2.1. From government to governance .............................................................................. 13 2. 2. Community governance in theory and practice ........................................................ 16 The growing significance of local governance and community-based approaches ........ 16 Challenges oflocal governance: neoliberalism and hybridity ........................................ 18 The development of community/neighborhood governance debates .............................. 19 Rationales of community-based approaches ................................................................... 23 Community-building practices in the US ........................................................................ 25 Limits and possibilities .................................................................................................... 28 2.3. Collaborative governance in theory and practice ..................................................... 28 Collaborative governance defined ................................................................................... 28 Drivers of collaboration: practical, political, and ideological.. ....................................... 34 Typology and categorization of collaborative efforts ...................................................... 37 Effectiveness of collaborative governance: evaluative approach .................................. .40 2.4. A model of collaborative community governance .................................................... 42 The process and outcome of collaborative community governance: An integrated framework for evaluation ......................................................................... 44 Criteria for evaluating correlations between collaborative process and outcome ........... 59 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ...................................................... 62 3.1. Mixed method research design ................................................................................. 62 3.2. Case selection ........................................................................................................... 64 3.3. Data collection and analysis ..................................................................................... 66 Phase I: The qualitative stage .......................................................................................... 66 Phase II: The quantitative stage ...................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND: HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY-BUILDING MOVEMENT .......................................................................... 78 4.1. Developmental state by the authoritarian government (1960s - 1970s) ................... 78 4. 2. Transition to democracy (1987 - 1994) .................................................................... 83 4.3. Deepening democracy (1994 - 2002) ....................................................................... 90 4.4. Balanced development (2003 - present) ................................................................... 97 4.5. Development of 'collaborative and comprehensive' community-building practices ............................................................................................................ 102 4. 6. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 108 CHAPTER 5: THREE COMMUNITY-BUILDING CASES .............................................. 113 5.1. Case 1: Gwangju Sihwa-Munhwa Community-building ....................................... 113 Development of the Gwangju SMCB ........................................................................... 116 Features of the Gwangju SMCB ................................................................................... 121 5.2. Case 2: Samdeock Community-building Movement .............................................. 133 Development of the Samdeock CBM ............................................................................ 135 Features of the Samdeock CBM .................................................................................... 143 5.3. Case 3: Bupyeong Cultural Street Building Movement.. ....................................... 156 Development of the Bupyeong CSB ............................................................................. 158 Features of the Bupyeong CSB ..................................................................................... 168 5.4. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 178 CHAPTER 6: ASESSING THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME OF COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY-BUILDING GOVERNANCE .................................. 181 6.1. Institutional design and process factors .................................................................. 181 Institutional design ........................................................................................................ 181 Structure and quality of the collaborative process ........................................................ 185 Supportive factors: leadership and educational programs ............................................. 187 6.2. Output and outcome ................................................................................................ 194 Cultural and intellectual production of community-building practices ........................ 194 Social and relational production .................................................................................... 202 Political production ....................................................................................................... 210 Physical outcome and perceived effectiveness of collaboration ................................... 213 6.3. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 217 CHAPTER 7: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROCESS AND OUTCOME IN COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE ........................................................................... 220 7.1. Sample description ................................................................................................. 220 7.2. The result of factor analysis .................................................................................... 221 11 Validity and reliability of variables ............................................................................... 222 7.3. The results of difference among groups ................................................................. 225 7.4. The relationships among institutional setting, supportive factors, collaborative process and outcome ................................................................... 228 Indices of fit .................................................................................................................. 229 The results of path analysis ........................................................................................... 230 7. 5. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 241 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 245 8.1. Summary of the findings ........................................................................................ 245 Relative strengths and pitfalls of the three cases ........................................................... 252 8.2. Discussion and implications ................................................................................... 254 From grassroots movement to institutionalized planning practice ................................ 254 Issues of legitimacy ....................................................................................................... 257 Public space and public sphere ...................................................................................... 260 Tricky relationship with government ............................................................................ 262 The role of central government for accountable autonomy .......................................... 263 Synergy among agents, processes and contents for adaptive governance .................... 266 Suggestions for future practices .................................................................................... 268 8.3. Limitations and directions for future research ........................................................ 275 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 277 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... 299 Appendix B .......................................................................................................................... 301 Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... 307 111 List of Tables Table 2-1: Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts .................................................... 49 Table 2-2: Evaluation criteria for process and outcome ...................................... 60 Table 3-1: Summary of Data Collection and Analysis ........................................ 63 Table 3-2: Number oflnitiatives by MLTMA, 2007-2009 ................................. 65 Table 3-3: Interviewee List.. ................................................................................ 69 Table 3-4: Research Variables ............................................................................. 74 Table 4-1: Indicators of Regional Disparity (2000) ............................................ 92 Table 4-2 Number of Community-building Support Center and Community-building Ordinance ................................................................ 106 Table 4-3: Development of Community-building Movement in the Historical Transition .................................................................................. 111 Table 5-1: Development of the Gwangju SMCB .............................................. 115 Table 5-2: List of the Projects Undertaken in the Siwha-Munwha Community Since 2000 ............................................................................. 119 Table 5-3: Major Actors and Their Roles .......................................................... 123 Table 5-4: Three goals of the residents' movement of the north district.. ......... 125 Table 5-5: Number of Projects in the North District Since 2000 ...................... 126 Table 5-6: Timeline of the legislation of the Beautiful Community-building Ordinance ................................................................................................... 128 Table 5-7: Composition of the Community-building Ordinance ...................... 129 Table 5-8: Development of the Samdeock CBM .............................................. 134 Table 5-9: Details of the 2007 Samdeock Livable Community-building Project, "Along a Zigzag, Story-Filled Alley" .......................................... 143 Table 5-10: Major Actors and Their Roles ........................................................ 145 Table 5-11: Development of the Bupyeong CSB .............................................. 158 Table 5-12: Major Actors and Their Roles ........................................................ 169 Table 5-13: Comparison of the Basic Features ................................................. 179 Table 6-1: Educational Programs of the Gwangju SMCB since 2000-2009 ..... 191 Table 6-2: Evaluation of the Three Collaborative Governance Process ........... 192 Table 6-3: Evaluation of the Three Collaborative Community Governance Outcomes ................................................................................................... 215 !V Table 7-1: Demographic Characteristics ........................................................... 221 Table 7-2: Factor Loading and Reliability of Variables .................................... 224 Table 7-3: ANOV A Results of the Process and Outcome Variables ................ 226 Table 7-4: Multiple Comparisons of the Three Cases ....................................... 227 Table 7-5: Goodness-of-fit Measures ................................................................ 230 Table 7-6: Path Coefficients for Regression of Process and Outcome Variables on Physical Outcome and Governance Performance ................ 232 Table 7-7: Covariance among Process Factors .................................................. 235 Table 7-8: Total Effects of the Process Factors ................................................. 240 v List of Figures Figure 1-1: A Pathway of Collaborative Community Governance ..................... 9 Figure 2-1: Relational Continuum (Keast & Mandell, 2012) ............................ 30 Figure 2-2: Conceptual Model of Collaborative Community Governance ....... 58 Figure 3-1: Relationships among independent, intervening and dependent variables ..................................................................................................... 74 Figure 4-1: Livable City and Community Initiative by MLTMA ................... 103 Figure 4-2: The Location and Status of the Community-building Support Center (as of the end of2012) ................................................................. 105 Figure 5-1: Location of the Gwangju SMCB .................................................. 114 Figure 5-2: Attaching Poem to Individual Fences in 2002 .............................. 117 Figure 5-3: Writing Competition and the Publication of the First Poem collection ................................................................................................. 118 Figure 5-4: Self-Designed Doorplates ............................................................. 119 Figure 5-5: Diverse Community Projects ........................................................ 120 Figure 5-6: Major Actors and Interactions ...................................................... 122 Figure 5-7: The First Community Festival in 2010: Exhibition of Works of Local Artists .......................................................................................... 130 Figure 5-8: Community Festival: Community Gallery and Educational Session .................................................................................. 131 Figure 5-9: Community Festival in 2010 ........................................................ 132 Figure 5-10: Location of the Samdeock CBM ................................................ 133 Figure 5-11: Fence Removal Movement.. ....................................................... 137 Figure 5-12: The Process of the Fence Removal Movement at the Daegu City Level. ................................................................................................. 138 Figure 5-14: Recycled Bottles Cap Mural.. ..................................................... 147 Figure 5-15: Diverse Murals ............................................................................ 148 Figure 5-16: Puppet-Mime Festival, Mumury Island ..................................... 151 Figure 5-17: Mobile Children's Library, Yongyongi ....................................... 152 Figure 5-18: Magojae (left) andBitsal Museum (right) ................................ 154 Figure 5-19: Location of the Bupyeong CSB .................................................. 156 Figure 5-20: Bupyeong Traditional Market in 1980s ...................................... 159 Vl Figure 5-21: Major Actors in the Bupyeong CSB Before and After 2007 ...... 169 Figure 5-22: Children's Program, "Let's Go To The Market" ........................ 172 Figure 5-23: The Gradual Change of the Electricity Distribution Facility ...... 174 Figure 5-24: Street Foundation in 1998 (left) and 2008 (right) ....................... 174 Figure 5-25: Transformation of the Resident Organization ............................ 177 Figure 6-1: 1) Alley culture map, 2) modeling, 3) community map drawn by children, and 4) presentation of community vision ............................. 202 Figure 7-1: Proposed Theoretical Model.. ....................................................... 229 Figure 7-2: The Results of the Path Model ..................................................... 231 vn Abstract With the growing interest in local and connnunity governance, a number of empirical studies have been conducted to specifically examine the effectiveness of community governance. However, most are limited due to one-sided evaluations, focusing on topics such as the procedural aspects of community governance, organizational roles (e.g. Community Development Corporations) or socio-political outcomes (e.g. social capital, enhanced capacity and empowerment). There are very few studies that both identify the structure and functions of collaborative governance in a comprehensive manner and evaluate the whole course of community governance including both the dynamic process and social and physical outcomes. Many questions remain unanswered: How might community governance involve a wide range of stakeholders? How might stakeholders develop a shared understanding so that they can act together to address issues of common interest? In what ways might the stakeholders interact and coordinate with each other for collective goals? To what extent might such collaborative processes be affected by structural and institutional settings? What outcomes might these collective efforts produce? In order to respond to these questions, this study develops a model of collaborative community governance as an integrative evaluation framework, and comparatively assesses three collaborative community governance practices in Korea: Gwangju Siwha-Munwha Community building (Gwang;u SMCB, government-driven model), Samdeock Community-building Movement (Samdeock CBM, NGO driven model) and Bupyeong Cultural Street Building (Bupyeong CSE, residents driven model). In the applied mixed method research design, the qualitative analysis examines the structures, processes, and outcomes of the three collaborative Vlll community governances in a great detail. The quantitative analysis, mainly using path analysis, verifies multiple relationships among key factors of collaborative governance (e.g. institutional design, governance process and outcome, and evaluation on the physical outcome and governance performance) in the Korean context. The results of the qualitative analysis show that the governance processes of the three cases contributed to the building of trust and shared understanding, the facilitation of social learning among participants, and the enhancement of commitment to the process. Collaborative governance was successful in not only forming intellectual and cultural capitals, but also in building new relationships and deepening trust and solidarity. Such enhanced social capital subsequently contributed to deeper participant commitment to the community activities and further willingness to work together in the future. The path results also confirm the significantly positive relationships among factors of institutional design, supportive factors (leadership and, educational programs), and governance process and outcomes. Along with relative strengths and weaknesses, the comparative examination of the three cases in addition exposes a tricky relationship between community governance entity and local government, which significantly influenced the governance process and outcome. In conclusion, this study discusses the role of central government in realizing accountable autonomy and synergy among agents, processes and contents for adaptive governance, and suggestions for future practices are provided. !X 1.1. Background CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the post-World War II era, the Korean state, through its highly centralized and repressive government, concentrated primarily on industrialization and economic development. The major modes for economic development were conducted though large development projects such as industrial clusters, dams, power plants and highways directly driven by the authoritarian government. As a result, the belief that government projects ~ national interests ~public interests widely spread throughout the nation (Jeong, 2003). Decision-making was in the hands of the authoritarian government where a small number of top policy makers and scientific experts played a major role. In other words, the traditional planning approach by the Korean government was a typical rational comprehensive model that relied mainly on scientific knowledge and technocratic expertise as a problem solver. Along with the problem of non-participatory forms, as Kwon (1997) points out, the conventional planning system was also criticized as having a tendency to promote the interests of the haves, while ignoring the needs of the have-nots. Broad and continuously growing skepticism over the effectiveness of the blueprint-type planning model reflected the problem of the technocratic mode of planning. In addition, the asymmetric and unequal spatial development was pointed out as another critical problem triggered by centralized development strategies for rapid economic development (Hassink 1999). The industrialization policy that focused on strategic concentration of economic activities in growth poles caused not only considerable regional disparities and mono-structural localities, but also social issues such as environmental problems and income inequality between rural and urban sectors. However, the rapid growth of civil society along with the strong civic aspiration for democratization in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to unprecedented political and social transformation. Moreover, as the local autonomy system was launched in 1995, local governments were given greater authority for urban planning. Such empowered local governments and civil society addressed shifts in planning practices and innovation in institutions that ensured extended public participation. A variety of actors, including local governments, municipal assemblies, environmental groups, and civic organizations, began to try to make their voices heard in the urban planning process. In spite of the localization trend, however, the national goal of decentralization and balanced development was still pursued through the distribution of centralized economic and urban activities into potential local regions, which as a result worsened uneven urban development and spatial disparity. In terms of local and community development, in particular, the most focus was placed on economic development through building development coalitions with the private sector, which in turn formed a competitive landscape among local governments. By employing similar development strategies, so-called prototyped local cities were generated with loss of intrinsic local characteristics and identity. The social dimensions of the community, such as enhancement in the quality of life and the opportunity to participate in local affairs that would shape or reshape the way of life in locality, were not given enough attention and mostly ignored. In other words, local citizens were recognized merely as spectators, and not the major agents who have the right to have a voice for their place. In this historical context, grassroots movements for community-building emerged in the late 1990s and argued that local environment and community problems should be resolved by 2 community residents' own efforts and abilities to build a sense of community and improve their physical environment. Partly stemming from grassroots movements for anti-demolition and residential area protection in urban slums and redevelopment areas in the 1980s, these movements ranged from anti-development and natural environment conservation coalitions to the creation of community pouch parks and the tearing down of individual fences, intending to open private space to their neighborhood. These efforts attempted to influence patterns of urban change at the neighborhood scale. Along with such bottom-up practices, the socio-political circumstances - furthered democratization and a greater voice of civil society - forced the Korean government to embrace more inclusive and collaborative forms of governance. In other words, a so-called transition-from-government-to-governance had been emphasized in urban planning, especially for community-building practices. In response to such needs, the Korean government initiated the Livable City and Community-building Project in 2007. Almost one hundred communities and cities were selected and given financial support as of2010. Each project was required to form a collaborative governing entity, which was responsible for producing comprehensive vision for the community and projects outlining implementation in order to improve the community built environment and create social and educational programs. The leading agents of such entities vary. Some are mainly by grassroots groups and community leaders, while some come as an extension to existing programs by urban NGOs. Often, local governments take the lead in establishing collaboratives in order to revitalize the local economy. This new planning approach exemplifies a shift in urban planning and policy to facilitate public engagement and collaborative efforts designed to improve individual and collective capacity. What can be learned from this changing pattern of urban policy and practice? Are there 3 pertinent lenses or frameworks that can be used to understand, examine, and evaluate these new planning practices? What implications can be drawn from these practices? Simple question of "how is this collaborative governance processed, and what outcomes are expected?" is then followed by more fundamental questions, "how can a desirable community governance structure be devised, and in what ways could a governance process be constructed and reconstructed to contribute to producing better outcomes." In other words, an evaluative approach on how community governance has unfolded and how it is implemented in practice is required to provide significant evidence that helps diagnose the current status and draw implications for future policy and practice. 1.2. Research questions Accordingly, this dissertation focuses on four main questions: • How have the emerging collaborative community-building governances been undertaken, and what are the outcomes of such collaborative efforts? • How does the collaborative process affect outcome? To what extent, do procedural factors influence outcome? Which factors play significant roles, and which factors do not? • How do different forms of governance structure (e.g. government-driven and grassroots-driven) influence the process and outcome of collaborative governance? • What are the implications of these practices that reshape community development policies, or the general planning approach and system in Korea, on being more effective? 4 By examining three community-building practices - Gwang;u Siwha-Munwha Community-building (Gwang;u SMCB), Samdeock Community-building Movement Samdeock (CBM), and Bupyeong Cultural Street Building (Bupyeong CSE) - this study intends to scrutinize how collaborative governance processes enhance collaborative capacity and improve environmental conditions. Specifically, the model of collaborative community governance that is created as an inclusive framework would help to better understand and in greater detail how a wide range of stakeholders are interacting in a collective decision-making process, to what extent such collaborative processes are affected by structural and institutional settings, and what kinds of output and outcomes are expected. Another aim of the integrative evaluation is to verify the relationships among key factors of collaborative governance, answering the question: to what extent do factors like the institutional design, leadership, educational programs and governance process influence the outcomes? The relatively strong or weak influence of each factor verified in this study may detect a gap between theory and practice, or discover under-developed points in the Korean context. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to examine the relationship between process and outcomes of the three selected community-building practices. In addition, a comparative analysis of different collaborative forms (e.g. grassroots-driven and government driven community initiatives) will identify how these collaborative governances work similarly or differently, discovering relative strengths and weaknesses of each case. By doing so, more insight will be gained which will aid in making collaborative governance more effective in future practices. 5 1.3. Theoretical framework: collaborative community governance The concept of collaborative community governance as a framework of this study is developed on the basis of a synthesis or integration of discussions on local/community governance and collaborative governance from a network perspective. Taking it one step further, from the wide recognition of the shift from government to governance, discussion on community governance is developed on the notion that community is a normative construct developed as the ideal mechanism for meeting local needs (Adams and Hess 2001 ). The underlying assumptions are that "communities have a 'sense of place,' are homogeneous, can distribute benefits and burdens equitably, easily build and sustain social capital, have natural organizational forms that relate to government and market easily, are accountable, and can plan, manage, deliver and coordinate better than governments or markets"(Adams and Hess 2001, O'Toole and Burdess 2004, 434). Thus, community is understood to have inherent capacities to: 1) develop social capital and community cohesion, 2) improve service delivery by having a greater say in service planning and monitoring, 3) meet local needs by delivering their own services, and 4) address concerns about the democratic deficit through re-engaging citizens with the institutions of government (Taylor 2007). The significance of the micro, sub-local level governance over macro national or regional levels is amplified in multi-dimensional aspects including social, political and economic perspectives. In terms of the social, governance at this level, as the most appropriate space for a citizen-focused approach, may provide the best prospect for joining-up actions via an integrated approach to community issues. The community's better accessibility and the local leader's responsiveness and accountability are political merits. Local citizens are likely to recognize community issues at stake and access community governance more easily. Local leaders are 6 more likely to be responsive to citizen views and needs. The last economic aspect considers the efficiency and effectiveness of community governance in mobilizing local resources (Lowndes and Sullivan 2008). In fact, community governance with its holistic and inclusive approaches underlines the value of local level arrangements in pursuing long-term goals. Given the significance of community governance, however, detailed discussions about the actual process of collaborative governance are hard to find. How do diverse stakeholders interact and coordinate with each other in a collaborative manner? Do they interact formally, informally, or both, and does this interaction cultivate trust and reciprocity among them and develop further commitment to collaborative efforts? How do they develop a framework so that they can act together to address issues of common interests? Here, collaborative governance theory may provide a more detailed view with key features of the governance process. As can be seen from the definition of collaborative governance, that is, "a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a governance different from other similar approaches (e.g. market transactions, intergovernmental cooperation, and public-sector networks) is the collective decision-making process where the importance of joint efforts, reciprocal expectations, and voluntary participation among multiple sectors are emphasized (Tang and Mazmanian 2008). Such a collaborative process is expected to establish new relationships, trust, and mutual understanding, on which high quality agreements and collective capacity are produced. Therefore, predominant studies on partnership and collaborative governance have focused on the procedural aspect, examining and evaluating the collaborative structure that brings about successful operations across sectors (Ansell and Gash 2007, Bentrup 2001, Conley and Moote 2003, Gunton, Day, and Williams 2003, Innes and Booher 1999). 7 Given the widespread application of collaborative approaches, however, several scholars have been calling for further empirical studies that scrutinize what the actual outcomes are and to what extent collaborative practices are more effective than traditional approaches (Koontz and Thomas 2006, Mandarano 2008, Sabatier et al. 2005). In particular, unlike the field of environmental planning and management, where a number of studies have been conducted to empirically investigate the effectiveness of collaboration, few studies have been done at the community level to understand how collaborative governance actually works in practice and to gain some empirical insights about whether it could be an alternative model oflocal governance for making sustainable and livable places. Building on the above discussion on the significance of community level governance and the collaborative approach, a model of collaborative community governance is developed. By considering both process and outcome, and more importantly, their relationships, this model posits that the critical characteristics of the collaborative process produce multi-level benefits across individual and collective dimensions that strengthen community capacity and ultimately enhance livability and sustainability of the community. In other words, collaborating with a wide range of participants allows participants to share diverse and more accurate information and knowledge, and learn from others. Such collective learning not only enables people to view their community in the broader local and community contexts, and not from individual interest, but it also helps to create localized strategies that are suited to their community. Collaborative capacity enhanced through such a learning process then leads to collective action to enrich community assets and resolve local problems easily by mobilizing available diverse material and human resources. More importantly, the feedback loop of all these processes may contribute to collaborative governance's attribute of being more adaptive to changing social, economic, and 8 political circumstances, and innovative in finding better solutions for the community. Characteristics of the collaborative process Collaborative capacity as outcome Community problem solving capacity Figure 1-1: A Pathway of Collaborative Community Governance 1.4. Research contribution Livability and ----+ sustainability of community The answers to these research questions will not only contribute to the literature on community development and collaborative governance, but also provide practical implications for increased governance approaches in diverse ways to enhance urban livability. First, the findings contribute to the limited body of literature on community-building and organizing. By scrutinizing collaborative community-building practices and their effectiveness with social and material benefits, the research highlights why collaborative efforts, based on a wide range of stakeholder participation and collective community visioning, deserves further attentions and consideration in the field of community development. This means a single sector driven approach (e.g. community development corporations or philanthropic foundations) may have limitations due to limited resources and inherent dependency on larger institution and social structure, and the multi-sectoral approach that combines both central and local governments, non-government organizations (NGOs), private developers, local citizens and community organizations to induce cooperation. The potential of collaborative governance as an alternative public sphere (Habermas 1987) not only realizes the fundamental ideal of civic participation for the right to express their opinion to enhance livability, but also verifies that the wide range of participation, deliberation, and their relationships can make a difference in a more constructive 9 way. Second, this study contributes to the theory of collaborative governance and its implications for practice. By generating a comprehensive framework and a set of evaluation criteria that analyze the relationships among process and outcome of the collaboration, institutional setting, and other supportive factors, the study attempts to overcome the limitation of a one-sided evaluation, which is either process or outcome focused. Such an integrated evaluation would demonstrate the effectiveness of evaluating collaborative governance, by which drawing implications to sophisticate collaborative governance theory on the one hand, and to enhance practical feasibility on the other. Third, this study is significant in that it systematically evaluates emerging practice in Korea. There is limited evidence on whether collaborative or communicative planning theory is applicable when making collective decisions on confronted urban and regional problems in Korea. An initial exploration and examination of collaborative practices by applying an inclusive framework will diagnose the current status and progress, from which achievements and shortcomings may be identified. A thorough examination of benefits, problems, and the potential of collaborative community governance will provide significant insight to determine whether collaborative planning practices could contribute to develop an alternative model of governance in Korea and transform the planning system and culture in the long run. 1.5. Organization of the dissertation This dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter II provides the theoretical background and research framework. By reviewing related literature, the main goal of this chapter is to develop a conceptual model of collaborative community governance that identifies relationships 10 of factors that constitute collaborative governance. Those defined factors include institutional setting, supportive factors, four process factors (social learning, face-to-face dialogue, commitment to the process, and trust building), and outcomes (collaborative capacity as socio political outcome, and actual and perceived effectiveness). In addition, a thorough review of existing literature enabled the creation of integrative evaluation criteria to assess the three representative community-building initiatives both qualitatively and quantitatively. In Chapter III research design and methods are provided in depth. In focusing on the strength of mixed research methods, it explains why both qualitative and quantitative methods are applied in this study. Using the two-phase research design, this study aims to find and identify procedural and outcome factors that have been underdefined in the literature in the first qualitative approach. The three cases, Gwanju SMCB, Sarndeock CBM, and Bupyeong CSB, each representing three different governance structures that were driven by local government, NGOs, and community residents, respectively, are selected by a thorough review of existing archival resources. In addition, this chapter explains the data collection methods and main research variables. Chapter IV provides the historical trajectory of political, social, and planning systems in Korea to understand the development of the community-building movements. In particular, this chapter aims to understand the emergence of a series of developmental processes of community movements, from the early protest activism to the recent collaborative model, as an evolving response to the complicated transformation of the political and social systems and subsequent development of urban and regional policies. Chapter V provides an overview and descriptive accounts of the three cases in order to understand the historical development of each case in greater detail. It first explores the historical 11 development of each case briefly, and reviews each case in terms of major actors and network to compare governance structures. Then unique features of each case are followed. In Chapter VI, the process and outcome of three collaborative community-building practices are assessed qualitatively using the integrative evaluation criteria, which is defined in the literature review in Chapter 2. In particular, a comparative examination of the three cases provides a deeper understanding about relative strengths and weaknesses of each case, by which providing greater insight on how to shape or reshape collaborative governance for better practices. Chapter VII evaluates the multiple relationships among factors that include institutional setting, governance process, socio-political outcomes, and participant's perceived evaluation on the governance outcome quantitatively, and verifies what factors actually influence the outcomes of collaborative governance in the Korean context. The concluding chapter summarizes the research findings and provides discussion and implications. 12 CHAPTER2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 2.1. From government to governance A shift from government to governance has been well-recognized in a wide range of fields of study, confirming that conventional government system is no longer adequate to deal with complex social issues (Kooiman 2003, Stoker 1998, Swyngedouw 2005). Conventional government systems have been criticized for fragmented service delivery, role confusion between policy makers, purchasers and providers, and lack of accountability (Reddel 2004). In the field of urban planning, Sandercock (1978, 117) strongly argues that traditional technical consultative planning approaches that mostly depend on the leading role of government have inherent limits in addressing the needs of disadvantaged people, and thus should not be "a substitute for planning or for regular government." Instead, the term governance has been explosively used, and many scholars have devoted efforts to establish a definition of governance. For example, Jessop defines governance in a comparative manner with government, explaining governance as the modes and manner of governing, while defining government as the institutions and agents charged with governing. While Rhodes (1996, 652-653) explains governance as "a new process of governing" or "the new method by which society is governed" in somewhat general, abstract terms, Ostrom (1991) takes the new institutionalist perspective, understanding governance as "a dimension of jointly determined norms and rules designed to regulate individual and group behavior"(Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012, 2). Kooiman (1993, 2) understands governance as the patterns that emerge from the activities of social, political and 13 administrative actors and their purposeful efforts to guide, steer, control or manage aspects of society. Like Kooiman, O'Leary, Bingham and Gerard (2006, 7) understand governance as the "means to steer the process that influences decisions and actions within the private, public, and civic sectors." A detailed identification is provided by Stoker (1998). According to him, governance is defined by the following characteristics: 1) a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond government; 2) the building of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues; 3) the power dependence involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective action; 4) autonomous self-governing networks of actors; and 5) the capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of government to command or use its authority (Stoker 1998). In such governance processes, power is no longer recognized as social control in a fixed situation, a privilege of any particular institution (conventionally the state). Instead, it is seen as a social production, as fluidly formed or transferred through dynamic relationships among diverse participants (Taylor 2007). Therefore, governance is a "horizontally organized" set of "polycentric ensembles," where power is dispersed and widely shared in the processes of rule making, -setting and -implementation, and which is operated on the basis of networked, interactive relationships between independent and interdependent actors (Swyngedouw 2005, 1992). In fact, the governance discourse appears to commonly emphasize a new mechanism that is solidly based on horizontal, inclusive, and participatory forms of the governing process, whose legitimacy is secured by the involvement of diverse social sectors and their collective decision making in a deliberative manner. Several scholars have attempted to categorize types or modes of governance thereby expanding the debate. For example, Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) propose a three-part typology 14 of market, hierarchical and network modes of governance, while Considine (2001) provides four types of governance, including procedural, corporate, market and network. Rhodes (2000) develops the modes of governance in detail with seven points: 1) corporate governance, and 2) good governance - both emphasizing formal processes of private and public sectors for auditing, ensuring transparency, and sharing information, - 3) New Public Management that purposes to improve efficiency of governmental bureaucracy by introducing private sector management methods, 4) new political economy that acknowledges the changed relationship among government, market, and civil society, 5) international interdependence, 6) socio-cybernetic system, and 7) network which emphasizes interdependence among various sectors. Among these governance mode variants, in particular, the network governance has been given increasing attentions because, as Stoker (2000, 93) states, "governing becomes an interactive process because no single sector has the knowledge and resource capacity to tackle problems unilaterally." In a similar sense, Rhodes also promotes the network dimension of governance by pointing out the shared features of governance, including the following: reconfiguring the boundaries of the state to promote interdependence between public, private and civil sectors; ongoing interactions between governance actors based on trust, resource exchange, and negotiated processes and shared outcomes; and autonomy from, but connection to, the state reflected in the self-organizing nature of networks and the capacity of the state to steer and manage (Rhodes 1997, 53). Recently, the network mode of governance has been discussed in close relationship with collaborative governance in that both emphasize inherent interdependency among various social sectors and active interaction and deliberation in order to make collective actions (S0fensen and Torfing 2003, Booher and Innes 2002, Ansell and Gash 2007, Head 2008). This dissertation adopts the collaborative governance concept as a theoretical background and a detailed exploration is 15 provided later. Given the significance of the governance approach, meanwhile, how to create and open up new spaces for a diverse range of actors to actively participate in governing processes is raised as the most critical issue in solving so-called wicked problems. In reality, governance is mostly materialized in various urban scales, e.g. local/regional/ or international levels, in order to see whether the governance approach overcomes failures of the conventional government approach and better deals with complicated social problems. In other words, as Healey (2010, 50) states, all urban areas have some form of place-governance in order to manage and develop places through deliberative collective arrangements. Among various scales and arenas of governance, however, growing attention has been given to discourse on local governance at the local, community or sometimes neighborhood levels, focusing on its inherent effectiveness. 2.2. Community governance in theory and practice The growing significance oflocal governance and community-based approaches The significant and potential role of local governance has been emphasized by several scholars. For example, Gerry Stoker (1994) argues that effective local governance can play an essential role in solving social, economic and environmental problems. Noting the problem of complexity when social, economic and environmental problems are combined with one another, one simple solution may not be the right answer in other contexts and dimensions; he emphasizes a new strategic approach that maintains practical elasticity. Therefore, local governance as seen by Stoker is the most attractive and accessible level of governance that enables local communities and governments to devise effective local efforts and solutions. The theoretical 16 premise of his local and community governance theory is based on New Localism. According to Stoker, New Localism is characterized as "a strategy aimed at devolving power and resources away from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic structures and local consumers and communities, within an agreed framework of national minimum standards and policy priorities." This is based on three convictions about localism as: 1) a realistic response to the complexity of modern governance, 2) a more engaging form of democracy, and 3) enabler of the dimensions of trust, empathy and social capital to be fostered, which in turn encourages civil renewal (Stoker 2004, 2). He sees that complexity is an inevitable phenomenon due to the complicated activities carried out by diversified actors engaged in the governing process and the blurred boundaries between sectors oflife and different institutions. Thus, the only solution for problems from complexity is "networked community governance because it is only through such an approach that local knowledge and action can be connected to a wider network of support and learning" (Stoker 2004, 4). The goal of networked community governance does not remain as successful or unsuccessful delivery of service; rather, meeting "community needs as defined by the community within the context of the demands of a complex system of multi-level governance" becomes the aim (Stoker 2004, 21 ). Through networked community governance, according to Stoker, the ideals of democracy can be better realized through "a variety of organizations and associations so that everyday citizens have an opportunity to be involved in decisions" (Stoker 2004, 5), while increased involvement and exchanges then create and sustain social capital. In other words, the development of community governance "represents a shift from hierarchical modes of governance (preoccupied with vertical relationships and the dominance of governmental authority) via market forms (based on competition and contracts), through to network forms (built on trust and a sense of common purpose between partner agencies)" (Smith, 17 Lepine, and Taylor 2007, 8, Rhodes 1997). The potentiality of community governance is also addressed from the economic perspective. In the modern economy that increasingly focuses on qualities rather than quantities, Bowles and Gintis (2002, 20) argue that community governance has the superior capacity with "increasing reliance on the kinds of multilateral monitoring and risk sharing" within community. According to them, several aspects of community demonstrate their unique capacities as a governance structure. First, the higher probability of interaction in a community is connected with a strong incentive to act in socially beneficial ways to avoid retaliation in the future. Second, the frequent interactions within community lower costs and raise benefits by discovering other members' characteristics, recent behavior and probable future actions. The more easily acquired and widely dispersed this information is, the more incentive community members will have to act in ways that result in collectively beneficial outcomes. Third, community can better overcome free-rider problems by monitoring and employing direct punishment of anti-social actions toward other members (Bowles and Gintis 2002, 7). Challenges oflocal governance: neoliberalism and hybridity The positive view oflocal and community-based approaches is not without challenges from several perspectives. First of all, the significance of local and community-based approaches emphasized by the New Localism is criticized as being the "ideal-typical and normative prescriptions," where regimes of powerful actors still work dominantly (Brownill and Carpenter 2009, 254). Another standpoint sees the growing attention toward local, networked governance as a response to the necessity of a governance approach in a neoliberal era. Typically expressed 18 with its characteristics of minimal state regulation and the pursuit of economic effectiveness through competitiveness, the priorities for neoliberal governance are criticized as "promoting competitiveness, subordinating social to economic policy and favoring the private sector in decision-making," where networked partnerships work by implementing roles (Brownill and Carpenter 2009, 254). Rather than promoting citizen participation and local empowerment, governance under neoliberalism is seen as supporting economic restructuring of diverse spatial scales with dominating private-sector interests. According to Jessop (2000), such tendencies and contradictions by competition and conflicting priorities would lead to governance failure. Lastly, in spite of the emphasis of the horizontal, network-based governance structure, there is still a continued tendency for central government to have a vertical, hierarchical influence. Some theorists identify such a tendency as a hybrid nature of governance, or complex hybrid form of government/ governance, where both horizontal network and vertical modes co-exist (Swyngedouw 2005, Whitehead 2003). The development of community/neighborhood governance debates In the field of urban planning, discussions about local governance have tended to focus more on micro units, such as community and neighborhood. However, the meaning and boundary of community and neighborhood have been a contested issue with some vagueness. In the case of the community, an earlier definition distinguished two dimensions - territorial and relational communities (Gusfield 1975). The first, territorial or geographical, refers to small spatial units such as a community, neighborhood or town, while the relational aspect deals with the quality of human relationships regardless oflocational boundaries (such as professional, 19 spiritual etc.). However, as Gusfield (1975) argues, both are not mutually exclusive, but complementary (Gusfield 1975, McMillan and Chavis 1986). 1 Due to some vagueness in the definition of community, the term neighborhood seems to be more frequently used in the UK context. For example, distinguishing community and neighborhood as "community may not have a geographic border, but neighborhood does, even if the border is understood differently by different people," Lowndes and Sullivan (2008, 56) underline the appropriateness of the term neighborhood in the local governance discourse. Similarly, Blokland (2003, 213) states that "a neighborhood is a geographically circumscribed, built environment that people use practically and symbolically." The significance of geography is also acknowledged by Healey (1998). The neighborhood is "a key living space through which people get access to material and social resources, across which they pass to reach other opportunities and which symbolizes aspects of the identity of those living there, to themselves and to outsiders" (Healey 2008, 69). Healey understands neighborhood as an everyday life-world in which social relations are produced and reproduced. As can be seen in Healey's identification of neighborhood, a more important point in defining neighborhood may be the recognition of neighborhood as an arena of social production, in which dynamic social relationships and interactions are made within shared geographic boundaries. In a similar sense, Lowndes and Sullivan (2008) view that neighborhood governance can benefit from a number of unique characteristics of neighborhoods, in particular that neighborhoods: 1) support or shape the development of individual and collective identities, 2) facilitate connections and interactions 1 But modern society, as observed by Durheim (1964), has a stronger tendency to develop a community of interests than a community of space. With an emphasis on the importance of associational life, debates on social capital also may view the concept of community in the perspective of community of interests. 20 with others, 3) fulfill basic needs such as shopping, health care, housing and education, 4) provide sources of predictable encounters, and 5) exhibit geographic boundaries, the meaning and value of which are constructed. Brower's (1996) good neighborhood concept also considers various dimensions of a neighborhood and proposes three criteria, including physical environment (ambience, qualities of urban environments), choosiness (of lifestyles) and social interaction (engagement). These approaches are then applied to place and people based regeneration initiatives, which have led to the creation of governance structures that incorporate a diverse range of cross-sectoral stakeholders. Discussions on neighborhood theory and neighborhood governance are also found in the US context. Robert Chaskin has taken the lead in the neighborhood and, more widely, community development debates. Much like the aforementioned theorists, Chaskin promotes local level governance. Chaskin and Garg (1997, 632) also understands that the renewed interest in neighborhood approaches, ranging from service provision and coordination to housing and economic development to comprehensive development, stems from "some central assumptions about the possibilities for promoting social change, the failure of categorical approaches to problem solving, and the nature oflocal communities and their potential role in driving change". Urban neighborhoods have been seen as symbolic and effective units of identity and belongings, functional sites for the production and consumption of social goods and processes, contexts for the development and utilization of social norms, social networks and social capital, and sites of investment, disinvestment, and political contention shaped by actors in the broader political economy as well as sites of potential mobilization and political action from within (Chaskin and Joseph 2010). When attempting to distinguish definitions of community and neighborhood, however, it 21 is evident that both community and neighborhood governance debates commonly focus on the growing significance of a micro, sub-local level approach over macro national or regional levels with their inherent potentiality in multi-dimensional aspects including environmental, social, and economic perspectives. Indeed, both bodies of study focusing on community and neighborhood governance rely on the assumption that the relative proximity and increased possibility of interactions among local stakeholders including citizens, government, or non-profit and private sectors possible at the community and neighborhood levels would lead to active participation, greater responsiveness, and enhanced democracy (Pill 2007). Thus, these local neighborhood and community governance approaches see that isolated approaches by either grassroots or government and private sector systems cannot enhance the social, economic, and physical development of communities. Further attempts are required to link top-down and bottom-up efforts in order to strengthen local capacity and facilitate citizen participation in planning and policy making, as well as to make government more responsive to local needs (Chaskin and Garg 1997). Therefore, rather than debating about definitions of neighborhood and community, as Durose and Lowndes (2010) note, it is more useful and productive to consider what advantages might be effectively used by downscaling from macro, national or regional, and city government levels to the sub-local arena. This study uses the term community governance in an inclusive manner to refer to the downscaled governance at the sub-local level thereby bringing attention to the devolution of centralized powers and the creation of partnership among all public and private sectors including local residents in order to better provide services, fulfill local needs, and build comprehensive visions through a collective, deliberate decision-making process. 22 Rationales of community-based approaches The rationales for promoting social change through local governance can be understood in two convictions (Chaskin and Garg 1997). The first concerns the value of democratic process, thus stressing the need for the devolution of authority to the local level and the important role of citizens in an inclusive and active democratic process. This is ethical, in that enhancing public engagement in planning and policymaking values the rights and responsibilities of citizens to have some control over policies that will affect their lives (Barber, 1984). In terms of participatory community governance, the increase of the breadth and depth of involvement is at the core. Breadth refers to increasing the number of people who actually get involved in the decision-making process, and depth means increasing the extent to which local participants can affect the final outcome and implementation of collective decisions (Berry, Portney, and Thomson 1993). It is at the same time practical, because such an approach can be very effective at the local level due to the immediacy and accessibility of the local community in their lives. The second rationale accounts for pragmatic reasoning. Since centralized and categorical approaches have revealed their limitations in dealing with complicated social problems, strategic coordination and connections - such as a comprehensive approach that includes issues of housing, education, training, economic development, and social service delivery - are required. A more detailed set of rationales for local governance is provided by Lowndes and Sullivan (2008). They identify four distinct, yet interlocking, rationales in terms of civic, social, political, and economic aspects. Similar to the democratic conviction in Chaskin's argument, the first civic rationale accounts for the increased opportunity for citizens to directly participate in the decision-making process. According to Lowndes and Sullivan, such a small spatial unit is more likely to have homogenous characteristics by sharing values, beliefs and goals, allowing it 23 to address collective action problems effectively. The common identities easily formed through sharing of values and norms then foster commitment to local action for citizens by investing civic relationships in a more impersonal or emotionally neutral manner. The social rationale stems from two propositions: 1) such a small local unit is the most appropriate space for a citizen-focused approach, and 2) governance at this level provides the best prospect for joining up actions via an integrated approach to community issues. The social aspect underlines the value oflocal level arrangements in pursuing long-term goals, which could benefit from holistic and inclusive approaches by community governance. The third, political rationale is related to communities' better accessibility, local leaders' responsiveness and accountability. Local citizens are likely to recognize community issues at stake and access community governance more easily. Local leaders are more likely to be responsive to citizen views and needs. Local citizens can hold leaders accountable since leaders' intention for deliberation and collaborative actions are more visible to local people. The last economic aspect considers the efficiency and effectiveness of community governance in mobilizing local resources. Building on the rationales oflocal governance and a community based approach, a number of studies have been conducted to explore how initiatives function and to what extent local governance is effective or limited in solving multi-dimensional problems, which will be explored more in the next section (Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004, Goodlad, Burton, and Croft 2005, Lowndes and Sullivan 2008, Pill and Building 2007, Smith, Lepine, and Taylor 2007). 24 Community-building practices in the US Community-building was developed as a useful strategy to reduce urban poverty during the 1900s (Fraser and Kick 2005). According to a comprehensive and historical review by Fraser and Kick (2005), community-building efforts had developed three primary forms of organizing neighborhood community - by social work, neighborhood maintenance, and political activist approaches. The social work approach was dominant during the period of industrial capitalist expansion and mass immigration, focusing on service delivery through neighborhood-based organizations. Localized efforts such as the settlement house movement purposed to provide neighborhood level social services to solve problems, in particular poverty. The second neighborhood maintenance approach has been used as a primary approach since the emerging white and upper middle-class suburbs that developed from the late nineteenth century, intending to protect neighborhoods from perceived and actual threats. Efforts to organize community to protect neighborhood space have been developed in a close relationship with land-use decision making and policy. For example, the increased number of people in neighborhoods with private community associations since 1970 as well as the growth of community-based organizations for lower-income neighborhoods are typical, which have occurred as a response to external threats, for instance, environmental hazards, unwanted development, and lack of city services. The political activist approach ascended in the 1960s and the early 1970, pursuing to change "the institutional structures that are viewed as causing poverty and the declining conditions of neighborhoods" (Fraser and Kick 2005, 26). Saul Alinsky was the most representative activist who argued looking outside the neighborhood in order to challenge the existing power structure and form the basis for change. The political activist approach argues that organizing community is the most important response to address the place-based issues such as social injustice and 25 racial minorities. Ultimately, supporters of Saul Alinsky see that transformation of these place based efforts into broad scale politics is necessary to solve the structural problem that creates distressed neighborhoods and poverty. However, Fraser and Kick find that the current initiatives have been developed in a somewhat different political, economic and cultural context, where neoliberalization is considered to be the underlying factor in the recent rise of the community-building approach. Under the process of neoliberalization, cities are under pressure to compete with other cities in order to enact capital investment for development as well as to attract populations necessary for growth in the service sector and city management. The market based view in addition sees input by local people as necessary in order to promote neighborhood change, thus emphasizing the active role oflocal people in urban revitalization processes. Thus, community-based initiatives undertaken since the late 1980s have been embraced by federal, philanthropic, and other nonprofit organizations, in many cases jointly forming public-private partnerships and emphasizing the active involvement of local people and community-based organizations. The main goals are to reshape the attributes of communities through the increase in material investment thereby enhancing physical environment, mobilizing community-level actions and strengthening community capacities for social change. For example, comprehensive community initiatives (CC Is) have been widely launched in order to revitalize neighborhoods with a comprehensive focus on multi-dimensional community needs and circumstances. In many cases, such CC Is have been sponsored and performed by private and nonprofit organizations and agencies, forming community governance by pulling together diverse participants at the local level and organizing a formal governing entity (Briggs 1998, Kingsley, McNeely, and Gibson 1997, Kubisch et al. 1997, Chaskin and Joseph 2010). CCis have developed various 26 combinations of diverse strategies, including leadership and human capital development, organizational development and capacity building, community organizing, mobilization, advocacy, and inter-organizational collaboration and support. The primary goal of these approaches is to build community capacity and develop human and social capital. Widening political opportunity to connect them to higher socio-political structures is another goal in order to transform entrenched social structures that have neglected or generated disadvantaged communities. Other programs such as the federal Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community programs and the HOPE VI Urban Demonstration Program initiated by the public-sector share the social and environmental community development pursuits (Naparstek, Dooley, and Smith 1997, Oakley and TSAO 2006, Gittell and Schehl 1998, Schmoke, Cisneros, and Engdahl 2010, Chaskin and Joseph 2010). In particular, these programs have adopted New Urbanist design assumptions in which major elements of urban built environments (e.g. land use plan, accessibility to community public space, walkability, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development, and sense of community) can contribute to the enhancement and promotion of social interaction, diverse neighborhoods networks, and community cohesion (Talen 2002, Bohl 2000, Talen 1999). The formation of governance structure in community-building efforts, in other words, can be seen as a renewed effort to "promote and facilitate citizen participation in planning and decision-making, to connect such planning to the systems and institutions that develop policy and provide services, and to bring to bear the various categorical funding schemes necessary to fund social programs and development activities in a more cohesive way" (Chaskin and Garg 1997, 637-638). 27 Limits and possibilities Until now, this chapter explored the debates over community governance, including background, underlying assumptions and rationales, the historical unfolding of community development practice and the emergence of the community governance approach. Overall the increase of the community governance approach can be seen as a response to changing social (e.g. bottom-up calls for democratic, inclusive, and deliberative policy making processes and citizen participation), economic (e.g. neoliberalism that instigates competitive local environments), and political circumstances (e.g. new-localism that promotes decentralization and devolution of power to the local level) in both domestic and global contexts. The failure of the conventional government approach and the issue of the wicked problem in the current era of uncertainty are other contributing factors that promote the creation of cooperative, collaborative, or partnership efforts among a wide range of public and private sectors. Given the significance of the community governance approach, however, discussions about emerging questions, such as how to examine such governing process in detail are hard to see. Here, collaborative governance theory may provide a more detailed view with key features of collective efforts. 2.3. Collaborative governance in theory and practice Collaborative governance defined Earlier in this chapter, the concept of governance was identified as a new mechanism based on horizontal, inclusive, and participatory forms of a governing process by a wide range of public and private sectors. Such network-based understanding of governance is further developed and sophisticated as collaborative governance. Although it is true that collaborative governance 28 has become a dominant approach in many public policy areas, the collaborative approach is not a new, recently arisen one. There have been various similar terms and concepts used to refer to such collective efforts in a broad field. For example, public-private partnership is one of the most widely used terms to represent a new approach different from the conventional hierarchical government system. The following terms in public management literature are also used: collaborative public management (O'Leary, Gerard, and Bingham 2006), public-sector networks (Frederickson 1999), policy-network and intergovernmental cooperation (Agranoff and McGuire 2003). Collective efforts are also found in other sociological and economic theory such as Bentley's (1995) group theory, Olsen's (1971) Logic of Collective Action, the prisoner :S dilemma and game theory (Axelrod and Hamilton 1981, Dawes 1973), and common-pool resource theory (Ostrom 1991). Intergovernmental relations and network theory are seen to have helped the rise of horizontal network management. Game theory also has directed attention to interest-based negotiation and mutual gains bargaining (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). In addition to a networked arrangement, the emphasis on public involvement and inclusive and joint decision making processes is also viewed to be closely associated with the general democratic theory of deliberative democracy (Fung and Wright 2003, Sirianni 2009), in that one of the major goals of deliberative democracy is to transform governance systems and institutions in a way that ensures greater levels of transparency, accountability and legitimacy (Henton et al. 2005). In the field of urban planning and policy, the theory of urban coalition and network governance can also be included in collective efforts in that the former refers to the alliances of public and private sectors in order to boost local economic growth, and the latter indicates a partnership approach in terms oflocal urban institutional settings and political cultures (Stewart 2005). The term collaboration is often used interchangeably with cooperation and coordination, 29 as generally meaning working together. However, as distinguished in the relational continuum (Figure 2-1) collaboration is the most stable and long-term relationship - based on high levels of interdependency and denser relationships - for achieving the strategic synergies between participants and finding innovative solutions (Keast and Mandell 2012). Cooperation - Low trust - unstable relations Infrequent communication flows Known information sharing Adjusting actions Independent/ autonomous goals Power remains with organization Resources-remain own Commitment and accountability to own agency Relational time frame requirement - short term Coordination Medium trust - based on prior relations Structured communication flows 'project' related and directed information sharing Joint projects, joint funding, joint policy Semi-independent goals Power remains with organizations Shared resources around project Commitment and accountability to own agency and project Relational time frame - medium term, often based Collaboration High trust - stable relations Thick communication flows Tacit information sharing Systems change Dense interdependent relations and goals Shared power Pooled, collective resources Commitment and accountability to the network first Relational time frame requirement - long term, 3-5 on prior projects years Figure 2-1: Relational Continuum (Keast & Mandell, 2012) Then, what does collaborative governance mean, and to what extent is this different from other similar concepts and approaches? Similar to the definition of general governance, several scholars have proposed their own specific definitions of collaborative governance, each with different focus and scope. For example, Tang and Mazmanian (2008, 5) define it as "a concept that describes the process of establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross- sectoral organizational arrangement to address public policy problems. These arrangements are 30 characterized by joint efforts, reciprocal expectations, and voluntary participation among formally autonomous entities, from two or more sectors - public, for profit, and nonprofits - in order to leverage (build on) the unique attributes and resources of each." What is notable in this definition is their special emphasis on the reciprocal relationships among participants as the key factor of collaborative governance. They argue that characteristics of joint efforts, reciprocal expectations, and voluntary participation among multiple sectors make collaborative governance different from other similar approaches, e.g. market transactions where decisions and behaviors fundamentally depend on economic exchanges and competitive forces, intergovernmental cooperation that represents joint efforts only within the public sector (among federal, state, and local governmental agencies), public-sector networks that do not give special attention to reciprocal relationships between public sectors or among multiple-sectors. Whereas collaborative public management focuses narrowly on "the process of facilitating and operating in multi organizational arrangements" (O'Leary, Gerard, and Bingham 2006, 7), collaborative governance has broader arms, focusing on "the range of processes for establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sectoral organizational arrangements" (Tang and Mazmanian 2008, 4). While Tang and Mazmanian's definition underlines organizational arrangement and their reciprocal relationships specifically, Ansell and Gash (2007) focus more on procedural aspects of collaborative efforts in the collective decision-making process. They define collaborative governance as "a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets" (Ansell and Gash 2007, 2). Their focus on the decision-making process led them to 31 devise six critical factors - public agencies or institutions' initiation, non-state actors' participation, stakeholders' direct (not merely consultative) participation, formality of governance entity, consensus-oriented decision-making, and the focus on public policy or public management - which are necessary elements in making the collaborative process deliberative and consensus-oriented. In particular, it is interesting that Ansell and Gash place special emphasis on the role of public agencies (e.g. bureaucracies, courts, legislature, and other governmental bodies at the local, state, or federal level) in initiating a collaborative governance approach and forming a formal collaborative governance entity. Such formality in structuring the governance body and the involvement of strategies makes collaborative governance differ from other similar concepts of policy-networks, in that they may be undertaken in implicit and informal ways (e.g. unacknowledged, unstated, non-designed) through informal process (Ansell and Gash 2007). In the field of planning, the procedural aspects of collaborative efforts, in particular how to facilitate communication among diverse stakeholders in order to build a consensus-oriented decision-making process, have been long lasting issues. Upon growing criticism of modernist thinking and technocratic planning, which was based on instrumental rationality, collaborative (or communicative) planning theorists have proposed communication with stakeholders and interest groups as the most essential element of planning practices. Advocates argued that the basic planning process should be based on active interaction, sharing information, communicating ideas, forming arguments, finding differences in understandings, debating their differences, and ultimately reaching consensus (Innes 1995, Forester 1982, Healey 1993, 1997). This idea is further sophisticated by Healey (1997, 2003) as collaborative planning. Under the basic perception of planning as an interactive process, Healey understands planning as a governance activity occurring in complex and dynamic institutional environments, shaped by 32 wider economic, social and environmental forces within the structure. From the perspective of social constructivism, fundamentally affected by Giddens (1986)' theory of structuration, which conceptualizes continual interaction between, and mutual constitution of, 'structure and agency,' active works of participants are seen as playing a key role in the situated specificity. Throughout interactions and relationships between structure and agency, social meanings are constructed through discourse and language, shaping planning practices and giving legitimacy. In the plan making process, arenas of communication can act as learning environments where stakeholders can learn new ways of relating to each other. Therefore, the collaborative planning model focuses explicitly on the task of building links across disparate networks. The belief that processes have process outcomes indicates the potential of unexpected process-based outcomes through broad stakeholder participations and the quality of interaction. In fact, collaborative planning as an inclusive dialogic approach can be seen as: (I) the postmodernist perspective for increasing complexity and, accordingly, its uncertainty, (2) the realization of a transition from government to governance that involves multiple stakeholders, (3) the cross-fertilization among these stakeholders, supporting an innovative milieu for the changing socio-economic circumstances, and ( 4) a response to the increasing hegemony of neoliberalism not to de-regulate and privatize the public realm, but to dismantles old divisions between state and market to accommodate new synergistic partnerships (Brand and Gaffikin 2007). Critics have also exposed weaknesses and challenges (Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones 2002, Huxley and Yiftachel 2000, Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger 1998, Flyvbjerg 1998, Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004, Gunton and Day 2003). First, the power imbalance among stakeholders is a key issue. More powerful stakeholders might undermine collaborative planning by using 33 alternative means to achieve their goals. Asymmetrical distribution of negotiating skills and resources can result in inequitable outcomes. Second, stakeholder groups may represent a narrow spectrum of special interests that exclude broader public interests that are not represented by participating groups. Third, consensus rules may encourage stakeholders to seek second-best solutions, or the lowest common denominator, in order to achieve consensus. Fourth, collaborative planning may not be appropriate in many environmental planning situations that involve fundamental value differences. Finally, the fundamental weakness of the collaborative approach is that it is based on time and resource intensive processes. Drivers of collaboration: practical, political, and ideological What drives the emergence and wide distribution of collaborative governance? There may be three dimensions to identify factors that promote and stimulate the collaborative approach, including practical, political and ideological. First, several studies have addressed practical efficacy or the inevitable adoption of the collaborative approach in order to effectively address confronted problems. For example, some current issues such as infrastructure construction and maintenance inherently require inter-governmental collaboration because such activities are undertaken beyond existing governmental and jurisdictional boundaries, so necessitating a larger regional or national consideration (Giuliano 2004). Natural resource management, such as watershed, habitat loss, marine resource, biodiversity preservation, and even pollution control, is the most representative example revealing the necessity of collaborations among different sectors (public, private, and non-profit) or cross-boundary actors (Bidwell and Ryan 2006, Koontz and Thomas 2006, Thomas 2003). In public management, the 34 nature of interdependencies in service delivery has also promoted the inter-organizational governance arrangement (Graddy 2008). These studies commonly address taking the collaborative governance approach is inevitable in that many current social and public problems are inherently interconnected and therefore cannot be solved by any particular sector or within any physical boundary. Of course this practical reason is also a response to the pessimism in the ability of government and its agency experts to solve many confronted social problems. Second, some ideological changes stemming from changing social conditions have also contributed to the rise of collaborative governance. One is an ideological shift from an emphasis on competition to an emphasis on collaboration, as many organizations from multiple sectors recognize that collaboration is a better solution to solve public problems and provide quality service delivery. Tang and Mazmanian (2008) understand that such a shift has created a new cultural expectation, which involves a notion that unless forming any collaborative consortium among cross-sectoral organizations, it is hard to secure any substantial funding from governments or philanthropic foundations. As a prominent phenomenon in the current urban setting - not only in the US but also in Korea - mandates for cross-sectoral collaboration as a condition for funding is explained by Tang and Mazmanian as a result of this cultural expectation. Another reason may be an ideological concern to search for a more democratic way of policy making and implementation. Along with the increased call for a participatory and democratic mode of democracy, concerns about how to make collective decisions more inclusive for all actors who will be affected by the decision have led to the involvement of all stakeholders with a respect for their rights. This is observed in many natural resource management studies and community development literature in which special effort is given to address conventionally underrepresented and disadvantaged groups' interests. Chaskin's ethical rationale of community 35 governance introduced above, that is to enhance public engagement in planning and policy making as a way to value the rights and responsibilities of citizens so that they have some control over policies, can be understood in a similar context. Here, collaborative governance is used as another alternative to widen civic engagement. Along with these practical and ideological dimensions, collaborative governance is expected to be useful for some political purposes. One that has been noted in many studies is the potential of collaborative governance in managing conflict ahead, thus reducing time, resource, and money. Similarly, the involvement of wide stakeholders in a local collaborative entity would decrease the possibility ofresistance in created decisions and formulated local policies, so leading to easier policy implementation. In practice, these practical, ideological, and political drivers are important because they would affect the structure, processes, design, and outcomes of collaborative governance. For example, the relative emphasis on ideological aspects such as public engagement in collaborative governance will direct special consideration to the process of collaborative process, such as who will be involved through what process. The political purpose for conflict resolution or easier policy implementation may, as argued by some critics of collaborative planning, lead to taking second-best solutions, or the lowest common denominator, placing less consideration on the quality of decisions. Or, when forming collaborative governance by mandates or to fulfill conditions for funding, one potential pitfall is that once the external motivation disappears, the collaborative governance structure and its sustainability may also be severely challenged. In other words, the long-term efficacy and viability of collaborative governance depends a great deal on these practical, ideological, and political drivers (Tang and Mazmanian, 2008). 36 Typology and categorization of collaborative efforts So far, this chapter has considered the emergence and development of collaborative governance as a response created in changing sociopolitical circumstances in order to effectively and collectively deal with increased uncertainty and many wicked public problems. Such collaborative efforts have been undertaken by various forms of group compositions in a wide range of fields for diverse social and political issues. In other words, the wide application of collaborative efforts may be classified and categorized by several dimensions. The first is the policy domain, classifying in which areas collaborative approach has been applied. As can be assumed by its many variant words introduced above, public management is the leading area that has developed wide theoretical debates and practical examination of collaborative governance. It has been used by economic policy (Agranoff and McGuire 1998), public health (Alexander, Comfort, and Weiner 1998, Jones and Barry 2011, Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001 ), public service delivery (Graddy 2008), community education (Tett, Crowther, and O'Hara 2003), and homeland security and crisis management (Taylor 2006, Farazmand 2007). In the area of the natural resource management (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Conley and Moote 2003, Gray 1989), extensive studies have been undertaken from general management to specific watershed and water policy (Leach and Sabatier 2005, Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009, Imperial and Hennessey 2000, Imperial 2005, Sabatier et al. 2005, Ansell 2003, Bentrup 2001) to forest management (Buck, Wollenberg, and Edmunds 2001, Carr, Selin, and Schuett 1998). In the urban planning domain, collaborative efforts have been developed with a relative focus on the decision-making process and consensus building (Innes and Booher 2003a, Connick 1996, Fisher and Ury 1981, Beierle 2002, Healey 1993, Hutchinson and Loukaitou Sideris 2001, Innes et al. 1994) and environmental planning (Brody 2003, Day 2003, Edwards 37 2006, Egri 1999, Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004, Gunton and Day 2003, Mandarano 2008, Finney and Rishbeth 2006, Singleton 2002). Other urban issues are community (including neighborhood) planning and development (Brownill and Carpenter 2009, Ghose 2005, Mandell 2001, Sirianni 2007), urban redevelopment (Maginn 2007, Mason 2007), growth management (Margerum 2002b, Innes et al. 1994), and land use (Van Driesche and Lane 2002, Koontz 2005, Simeonova and van der Valk 2009). The second dimension concerns different policy processes from design and implementation to management, monitoring and assessment. As Tang and Mazmanian (2008) exemplify, in multiple stages in the process of land conservation, or similar natural resource governance situations, various types of collaborations may develop. The planning stage may involve a wide range of stakeholders, especially community residents and minority groups, in order to define goals and priorities, while a relatively small number of stakeholders (e.g. land trusts, foundations, government agencies) may be necessary for the next land purchase stage. After the purchase, only a single organization may take the lead in the rest of the process. Another similar typology has been proposed by Margerum (2008) and hnperial (2005), both inspired by Ostrom's (2005) institutional theory and analysis. For the examination of six collaborative governances for watershed management, hnperial develops the levels of collaborative action framework in which three levels of collaborative governance are distinguished - operational, policy-making, and institutional levels. The operational level refers to the organization's action "within the structure of rules created within the worlds of constitutional and collective action," while the policy-making level means a higher collective choice level that "determine[s], enforce[ s], continue[s], promote[s], enhance[s], constrain[s], or later act[s] at the operational level" (hnperial 2005, 293). The institutional level indicates the 38 highest constitutional level, which "influence[s], constrain[s], enhance[s], or promote[ s] actions at the operational and policy-making levels" (Imperial 2005, 298). Similarly, Margerum (2008) develops three different institutional levels as operational (or action, indicating direct activities such as monitoring, education and restoration), organizational (referring to higher organizational activities), and policy (focusing on government policies that affect lower organizational and action levels). The fourth categorization is classifying collaborative efforts by participant composition. Bidwell and Ryan (2006) classify watershed partnerships according to organizational participation, and find that organizational affiliations strongly affect their outcomes, since differences in partnership characteristics prioritize different activities and strategies. Moore and Koontz (2003) distinguish collaborative partnerships by attributes of their membership - citizen based, agency-based and mixed partnerships. They found that there are several systematic differences in accomplishments since different types of groups exert influence in different ways. For example, while citizen-based groups mostly "rely on traditional, adversarial means such as lobbying and petitioning, the impact of the mixed and agency-based groups is more subtle and less visible, through technical advice and changes in an individual's decision-making"(Moore and Koontz 2003, 45). Along with the different composition of membership, the source of leadership - or which sector takes the lead in the collaborative governance - may be another factor that also affects the operation of governance, resulting in different accomplishments. For example, by a study of two different ecosystem management efforts, one agency-driven and one community- driven, Steelman and Carmin (2002, 28) argue that different types of partnerships should be used in different contexts. According to them, agency-driven efforts are most appropriate when the issue 39 is complex and there is a "thinness of the community around the issues at hand." Conversely, community-driven efforts are most appropriate when the issues are broader in scope and when there is a need for wide community support. The typologies of the collaborative approach may provide important building blocks in understanding dynamic developments of collective efforts, especially how various approaches function similarly or differently, to what extent their accomplishments are similar or different, and what types of approaches are relevant in what circumstances. A better understanding of these dynamics may be helpful to inform the current practice of collaborative governance across a wide variety of circumstances and social and political contexts. Effectiveness of collaborative governance: evaluative approach Consider the following questions: is collaborative governance more effective? To what extent does this approach produce better outcomes? What are the significant positives of it? As collaborative planning gains prominence, a number of scholars have called for an evaluation of collaborative practices to examine whether such efforts in practice actually produce more effective outcomes than other conventional planning approaches. Interest in such evaluations varies. For participants, evaluation of their efforts can provide some reflective points to retrace their progress and correct any drawbacks. Funding parties need to determine whether to continually support collaborative initiatives, while policy makers need to determine whether an alternative policy is needed based upon the evaluation. For academics, questions on whether collaborative planning theory is widely applicable and on how collaborative planning practices would affect and transform an existing planning system and culture have led to a growing 40 number ofresearch approaches that aim to evaluate current situations and diagnose problems in practice. In other words, evaluative approaches can help to determine whether theoretical insights are justified through actual practice, to define strengths and weaknesses, and/or to find what other factors play a significant role in a real situation. The evaluative approach to collaborative governance is suggested in two forms. The first concerns the relative efficacy of collaborative governance from the comparative institutional perspectives, thus questioning "how collaborative arrangements compare with alternative modes of problem solving in terms of efficiency, accountability, sustainability, public acceptability, and overall efficacy" (Tang and Mazmanian 2008, 6). This comparative institutional approach calls for further studies that examine whether there is empirical evidence supporting the relative strengths of collaborative governance over other conventional hierarchical or market systems in order to determine the overall performance of collaborative governance in solving public problems. Another stream stems from criticism of the predominant studies on collaboration, which have mostly focused on the procedural aspects of collaborative governance and factors that contribute to the successful operation of collaboration. So far, a lot of studies have tended to examine variables that play significant roles in the collaborative process and then develop them into sets of criteria. Those variables include prior history of conflict or cooperation, the incentives for stakeholders to participate, power and resources imbalances, leadership, and institutional design. Also the crucial procedural factors are face-to-face dialogue, trust building, commitment to the process and social learning. Although several studies have attempted to examine the outcome of the collaborative approach, however, it is criticized as being limited to social and process aspects such as increased trust and social capital (Leach and Sabatier 200 5, 41 Lubell and Leach 2005). Criticizing such process-sided evaluations, Koontz and Thomas (2006) strongly address the need to examine the actual outcome of collaborative governance. In particular, they distinguish output and outcome; output is distinguished by the plans, projects or other tangible items produced directly by the collaborative efforts, and outcomes are defined as the effects of the collaborative process and its outputs on changing social and environmental conditions (Mandarano 2008). In environmental planning, for example, the outcomes include completed restoration projects, land protection from development, changes in environmental parameters, and perceptions of improved environmental quality. These discussions, as a result, expose the necessity of a more comprehensive, integrative framework to evaluate both process and outcome of collaborative efforts in practice. Therefore, this work develops an integrative community governance framework in order to examine collaborative community-building practice in Korea. 2.4. A model of collaborative community governance The model of collaborative community governance is a conceptual framework that lays out the pathways by which participatory planning processes lead to the enhancement of community capacity to solve community problems more effectively and realize a livable and sustainable community (Figure 2-2). This model hypothesizes that the critical characteristics of the collaborative process produce multi-level benefits across individual and collective dimensions that strengthen community capacity and ultimately enhance livability and sustainability of the community. The outcome of the collaborative process is increased collaborative capacity as the product of a collective process in a group. The concept of 42 collaborative capacity is similar to the idea of collaborative synergy by Lasker, Weiss and Miller (2001, 188), in its abilities to: think about its work in creative, holistic, practical ways develop realistic goals that are widely understood and supported plan and carry out comprehensive interventions that connect multiple programs, services, and sectors understand and document the impact of its actions incorporate the perspectives and priorities of community stakeholders communicate how its action will address community problems obtain community support In other words, when working together more diverse and accurate information can be shared with other participants, enabling them to draw a big picture in the broader community context. This also becomes a process of understanding the local context, by which the identification of strategies that are most likely to work in their environment is enabled. In addition to information sharing and contextual strategies, such collaborative capacity leads to collaborative actions that combine single individual, organizational, and sectoral capacities. Collaborative capacity enhanced in this way can contribute to the growth of community assets and the resolution of local problems by connecting multiple services, programs, policies and sectors especially in a locally tailored manner. More importantly, all these processes provide feedback to the previous stages so that the collaborative governance may become adaptive to changing social, economic, and political circumstances. 43 The process and outcome of collaborative community governance: An integrated framework for evaluation Building on the existing literature, this study develops an integrative framework to evaluate both process and outcome of collaborative governance. In particular, the collaborative community governance model developed in this study is influenced by Ansell and Gash's (2007) model; their model shows the dynamic of collaborative process and institutional design factors in detail, thus deepening the level of understandability. The collaborative community governance framework of this study is composed of four components - the cyclical process of collaboration, institutional design that affects the collaborative process, institutional capacity as sociopolitical outcome and perceived effectiveness of collaboration. The cyclical process of collaboration Process models of collaborative approaches are defined with developmental stages. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 95) describe the consensus building process from a prenegotiation phase, a negotiation phase, and an implementation phase. Gray (1989) also explains three steps of collaboration - problem setting, direction setting and implementation - and Edelenbos's model (2005, 118) also considers a three-step approach - preparation, policy development, and decision-making. It is noteworthy that such collaboration is the process to achieve a virtual cycle between communication, trust, commitment, understanding and learning (Huxham 2003, Imperial 2005), and that it is a cyclical or iterative process, on the basis of a nonlinear characteristic of interaction (Ansell and Gash 2007). 44 • Face-to-face dialogue: Face-to-face dialogue between stakeholders is fundamental. All participants listen and are heard equally and respectfully, and problems and ideas are fully shared with each other through ongoing dialogue. Therefore face-to-face dialogue is the necessary condition for collaborative planning. • Social learning: The basic assumption of social learning is the recognition that "knowledge developed in group work is not 'out there' waiting to be discovered, but is actively being produced through social interaction and social learning" (Healey 2006, 256). The core propositions of social learning are: (1) people learn through doing; (2) learning occurs in two dimensions, single-loop and double-loop learning; (3) learning takes place through face-to-face relations and group dialogue; ( 4) problems and objectives, facts and values emerge through such group processes; and (5) double-loop learning reached by group dialogue can re-frame subsequent action, that is, deliberative strategy-making (Argyris 1993, Healey 1997, 257-258, Friedmann 1987, Schon 1983). • Trust building: The literature strongly suggests that collaborative processes can be seen as the process of building trust, based upon reiterative interaction and reciprocity among stakeholders (Ansell and Gash 2007). Trust building is not an independent process, but a procedural output generated through face-to-face dialogue and social learning. The increase of social capital is understood as being generated by trust building processes. • Commitment to the process: An initial motivation to participate in collaborative planning is highly related to commitment to the process. Thus, member commitment is a crucial 45 factor in facilitating collaboration (Margerum 2002a). Sometimes, initial motivation comes from an awareness of a shared problem and interdependence. In solving complex social problems, cooperation among stakeholders is sometimes required even with competing views when stakeholders are aware that they cannot meet their interests working alone (Thomson, Perry, and Miller 2008). The perception that all stakeholders are co-producers of collective decisions may enhance shared responsibility for the process. Institutional design for process legitimacy Institutional design refers to "the basic protocols and ground rules for collaboration, which are critical for the procedural legitimacy of the collaborative process" (Ansell and Gash 2007, 13). The existing literature has identified several elements that contribute to making the collaborative process more legitimate, including broad inclusiveness, equal opportunity and resources, process transparency, and clear ground rules. First of all, broad inclusiveness lies at the core of the institutional design since "the first condition of successful collaboration is that it must be broadly inclusive of all stakeholders who are affected by or care about the issue" (Chrislip and Larson 1994, Ansell and Gash 2007, 14). In particular, the literature underlines that broad participation should be actively sought by proactive strategies in order to mobilize under-represented groups, and give voice to the voiceless (Sarkissian 2005, Reilly 2001). Along with inclusiveness, clear ground rules are important to enable equal opportunity and resource sharing among participants, by which contributions to the collaborative process can be managed in fair and equitable ways. Similarly, process transparency 46 means that "stakeholders can feel confident that the public negotiation is "real" and that the collaborative process is not a cover for backroom private deals" (Ansell and Gash 2008, 15); this is a key factor to ensure process legitimacy, consequently leading to stronger participant commitment to the collaborative process. Supportive factor Along with factors of institutional design, leadership is also considered to be another significant factor that influences the collaborative process. (Ansell and Gash 2007, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987, Huxham and Vangen 2000, Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001). Although negotiations without leaders can happen, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) strongly argue that interventionist mediation techniques are required to assist stakeholders who are unable to sustain direct collaboration on their own. As the least intrusive form of assisted negotiation, facilitation is therefore important to ensure the integrity of the consensus-building process itself. Vangen and Huxham (2003) also maintain the importance ofleadership in empowering, involving, and mobilizing stakeholders to engage in better collaboration. Scholars have further stated that collaborative governance requires a specific type of leadership. Chrislip and Larson (1994, 125) define the collaborative leader as one whose leadership is "characterized by its focus on promoting and safeguarding the process (rather than on individual leaders taking decisive action)." Ryan (2001) emphasizes that effective, collaborative leadership involves three elements: adequate management of the collaborative process, maintaining technical credibility, and making credible and convincing decisions that are acceptable to all. Similarly, Lasker and Weiss (2003) point out key skills collaborative leaders should have, including the ability to promote broad and 47 active participation, to ensure broad-based influence and control, to facilitate productive group dynamics, and to extend the scope of the process. The hierarchical taxonomy ofYukl, Gordon and Taber (2002) categorizes leader behavior according to its primary objective: task behavior, relationship behavior, and change behavior. Task behavior focuses on the highly efficient use of resources and personnel, and the high reliability of operations, products, and services. Relations behavior emphasizes strong commitment to the unit and a high level of mutual trust and cooperation among members. Finally, change behavior seeks innovative improvements in processes, products or services, and adaptation to external changes. Collaborative capacity as socio-political outcome The social political outcome of collaborative governance has been expressed in the literature as trust, social capital, bridging social ties, individual empowerment, or collaborative synergy (Leach and Sabatier 2005, Lasker and Weiss 2003). Among them, the concept of capacity may encompass multiple dimensions of individual and collective levels. In the community development literature, community capacity is hypothesized as an ultimate outcome fostered through a reiterative process of collaborations. Community capacity is represented by a set of core characteristics, including (1) a sense of community, (2) a level of commitment of community members, (3) ability to solve problems, and ( 4) access to resources. Sense of community is understood as "recognition of mutuality of circumstance" (Kitsuse 2010, 22) and commitment refers to the extent to which members of the community are willing to take action to improve the community. The ability to solve problems means a wide variety of formal 48 and informal means of problem solving enacted through community members (individual or organizational levels), and access to resources refers to the community's ability to not only draw upon its internal resources but also to "bridge" various forms of capital outside of the community (Chaskin 2001, 296). In other words, individual empowerment, social ties, and collaborative capacity as a synergistic advantage of collaborative process become fundamental elements of community capacity, which collectively contribute to problem solving ability as well as to the potential to realize a livable and sustainable community. In understanding the concept of capacity as an ability that enables self-organization and co-working "through networked, shared, and distributed intelligence" (Innes and Booher 2003b, 7), Innes and Booher (2008) address that fundamental to capacity building is learning by individuals, organizations, and the larger social and political systems. To facilitate such learning at multiple levels, collaborative planning and governance structure should be created more and used to transform the conventional top-down, hierarchical system into a self-organizing and inclusive model. Such capacity can be built at four levels - between members at the individual level, in their relationships at the relational level, within their organizational structure at the organizational level, and in the programs they sponsor at the governance level. Table 2-1: Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts Chaskin (2001) Innes and Booher Healey (1998) Lasker and Weiss (2003) (2003) Sense of community Individual capacity Intellectual capital Individual capacity Level of commitment Organizational Social capital Bridging social ties of community capacity members Ability to solve Relational capacity Political capital Collaborative synergy problems Access to resources Governance capacity 49 For Healey (1998), capacity means the ability of locals and their power to make a difference to the qualities of their place. According to Healey the process of collaborative planning is the process in which institutional capacity building transforms a social system, where institutional capacity is composed of three dimensions (knowledge resources, relational resources, and capacity for mobilization). The institutional capacity emphasizes "encouraging ways of thinking and ways of acting which generate an enduring capacity to discuss the qualities of places and to address the evident reality of conflicts of interest in noncombative ways" (Healey 1998, 1543). Although, at first glance, all of these discussions and conceptualizations of capacity as the outcome of collaborative efforts for community-building or other urban issues seem to differ, they commonly touch upon core concepts such as the enhancement of skills, knowledge, and innovative potentials, social ties and cohesiveness by building active relationships, and the ability to get things done together for shared goals - not from the individual interests - but from the collective perspective. In particular, these core concepts include not only the individual level, but also the organizational, or lager community levels. Building on the literature, thus, this study operationalizes the concept of collaborative capacity as being composed of three capitals: intellectual, social and political capitals. • Intellectual capital Discussions on the intellectual capital as being one dimension of the capacity building develop at least three premises: (I) a growing awareness of the roles of local and experiential knowledge and their potential significance in solving local problems; (2) social learning among diverse stakeholders that is facilitated through the collaborative planning process; and (3) the 50 possibility of innovative ideas and solutions created through the process of social learning in collaborative governance. In this context, the co-production model (Corburn 2003, 2005) and the knowledge-as participation discourse (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004) provide evidence for the possibility and significance of intellectual capacity building. According to Corburn (2003), the public, in the conventional complementary model of public participation, has the opportunities to present their views, values, and insights, but scientific experts maintain autonomy over technical issues and play a decisive role. In the co-production model, however, "all publics are understood as potential contributors to all aspects of environmental planning decisions because hard distinctions between expert and lay, scientific and political order, and fact and values are rejected"(Corburn 2003, 423). Meanwhile, contrary to the knowledge-as-substance metaphor that considers knowledge as some substance or content that is transferable from one to another, the knowledge-as participation metaphor conceives of knowledge being created and shaped in the communication process between different actors. Thus, rather than focusing on how knowledge is transferred from professionals and experts to the lay public, knowledge-as-participation has drawn special attention to how knowledge is shared and developed in terms ofrelational processes and how innovative ideas are created for complicated problem solving (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004). In other words, facilitation of knowledge co-production and co-management may results in the overall enhancement of intellectual capacity. The following step will be to determine how specific local and contextual knowledge is used and shared in what local governance structure and whether multiple sources of knowledge can produce new, innovative ideas and solutions for a community. 51 • Social capital Briefly identified as the relationships between people that lead to the increase in trust, social norm and networks, discussions on social capital have been explosively expanded to a variety of research areas. Social capital is often explained as being composed of bonding capital and bridging capital (Putnam 1995). Bonding social capital refers to the strong relationships within a community or organizations, while bridging social capital is linkages between people in different communities, groups of actors, or organizations. Thus, bonding capital means solidarity and reciprocity promoted within a community or group, whereas bridging capital concerns greater access to resources and information beyond the community and group. Similarly, these concepts of solidarity and networks within as well as beyond community are explained by Woolcock (1998) as embedded relations (integration) and autonomous relations (linkage) at the micro and macro levels. According to him, "embeddedness at the micro level refers to intra community ties, whereas at the macro level it refers to state-society relations; autonomy at the micro level refers to extra-community networks, while at the macro level it refers to institutional capacity and credibility"(Woolcock 1998, 164). These discussions on social capital in fact underline the importance of getting connected with others at the individual and community levels, by which community cohesion is promoted and network powers are improved. Until present, bonding capital seems to be dominantly focused in local-level studies, since "repeated and regularized interactions that are bounded" in community may contribute largely in enhancing trust and norms of reciprocity as typical features of bonding capital (Bridger and Alter 2006, 5). As Forrest and Kearns (2001, 2125) argue, social identity and cohesion that can be reshaped within neighborhood and community may provide an alternative possibility for 52 contemporary societies that increasingly "face a new crisis of social cohesion." However, such emphasis on bonding capital may have pitfalls - the dark side of social capital - such as social exclusiveness and a lack of networks and coalitions with other sectors in a society (Rydin and Holman 2004). The "the fragmentation, polarization, and the self-interested enclaves" (Banerjee 2007, 122) as negative externality of social capital resulted from exclusive associational membership may "deconstruct the very essence of civil society and social capital" (Banerjee 2007, 122). In this context, bridging social capital, especially from a network perspective, opens up another chance to focus on the growing local-level collaborations and partnerships for community development as a governance structure. For example, Musso et al.(2006) examine the neighborhood council in terms of the dense and diverse networks, arguing that the development of bridging social capital could overcome elite-dominated governance and broaden horizontal as well as vertical ties that encompass previously peripheral groups for political mobilizations. Lowndes and Wilson (1999) address the situation saying that relationships with the voluntary sectors, opportunities for public participation and arrangements for democratic leadership are critical institutional settings for the formation of social capital. In a similar sense, the role of a community leader is also emphasized as a contributor to the development of social capital by combining entrepreneurial skills and interacting with community members (Lowndes and Sullivan 2008). All these studies emphasize individual and inter-sectoral relations and networks as a basis for social capital. In collaborative community governance, neighborhood level committees and several neighborhood leaders can play significant roles in terms of connecting and creating network ties that would eventually increase overall social capital. Bridging social capital can be divided into 53 two levels: (1) building links between the disinvested conununity and the mainstream, city level institutions or other entities with money and political influences; (2) bridging within a community among people with diverse interests and points of view (Kim 2006). • Political capital In the collaborative planning literature, political capital refers to commitment and willingness to work together for shaping a common agenda and set of goals as well as to taking action (Innes and Booher 1999). By experiencing working together, stakeholders in collaborative governance could realize that systematically coordinated efforts for common goals and actions would bring better outcomes that otherwise might be hard to produce, and in turn could increase commitment and willingness to collaborate in future activities. Therefore, the formation of political capital is affected by the mobilization structure (the selection of issues to mobilize around, the extent of collective identification with issue agenda, stakeholders' access to and approaches for collective activities), mobilization methods (adaptation of current and new techniques, consensus-building and partnership-creating practices, and organizing focus groups), and the characteristics of agents (key persons in mobilization efforts, agents for maintaining networks and linking networks, and competitive or supportive character of agents) (Khakee 2002). S0fensen and Torfing (2003) define political capital as the individual capacity to make political actions that is increased through participation and interactions with civil society. Therefore, political capital is composed of three factors: "the level of access that they have to decision-making processes (endowment); their capacity to make a difference in these processes (empowerment); and their perception of themselves as political actors (political 54 identity)"(S0fensen and Torfing 2003, 610). Physical and perceived effectiveness as an actual outcome The outcomes of collaboration can be divided into two dimensions, actual effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. • Physical effectiveness Actual effectiveness encompasses the extent to which collaborative approaches produce tangible outputs. In the existing collaborative planning literature, the output of collaboration usually indicates agreements or consensus reached that eventually resolved social conflicts (Innes and Booher 1999, Margerum 2002a). In environmental planning, such tangible outputs can be measured in restoration projects completed, land protected from development, or changes in environmental parameters (Koontz and Thomas 2006, Mandarano 2008). In initiatives, the most significant outputs will be achievements of project goals such as (1) formulated plans and projects through the collective decision-making process, (2) improved environmental conditions (e.g. enhanced physical condition of neighborhood housing, community infrastructure or community recreation facilities), and (3) institutions changed or newly innovated through experiencing the whole process of collaboration. • Perceived effectiveness Since the collaborative process involves a wide range of stakeholders making coordinated efforts together, deciding whether such collaboration has been successful or whether it has effectively produced outcomes depends on the participants' perception. Therefore, several 55 studies have evaluated participants' perceptions to indirectly measure collaborations' successes and effectiveness in improving environmental parameters (e.g. water quality) (Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009, Leach, Pelkey, and Sabatier 2002, Mandarano 2008). In this study initiative will be examined and measured by: (1) perceived effectiveness in the achievement of the goals, (2) perceived effectiveness on community environmental conditions, and; (3) the long-term effects on the transformation of the planning culture in Korea. Second and third order effects and adaptive governance The first order outcomes (e.g. intellectual, social, and political capitals and physical improvement or formulated plans and policies) generated through the collaborative process may bring about the second (e.g. new partnerships, coordination and joint action, joint learning extension into the community, implementation of agreements, and changes in practices and perceptions) and third order effects (e.g. new collaborations, more coevolution, new institutions, new norms and heuristics, and new discourse) (Innes and Booher 1999). In other words, the experience of being involved in some collaborative efforts allows for participants to have positive or negative evaluations and perceptions on collaboration, which then lead to stronger support of, or in contrary, criticism and pessimism of, future collective action. However when participants realize that it is inevitable to have collaborative efforts among diverse social actors to solve the current problems due to their complex and interdependent nature, a negative evaluation may also act as a trial and error experience and provide lessons for future adjustments. In this way, the collaborative governance system may have continual and incremental adjustments, through which being adaptive to changing sociopolitical circumstances. 56 Such understanding of adaptiveness originally emerged from the complexity theory that views complex social system as organisms or a living system that adapts and changes in response to information it gathers from its environment (Capra 1996). By a continual learning process, a system as a whole could develop intelligence, the ability to adapt and the capacity to generate innovative ideas and solutions. The term emergence is the core of such a complex adaptive system, recognizing that simple elements adapted through continuous interaction and feedback can produce persistent and systematic patterns (Holland 2000, Innes and Booher 1999). This theoretical discussion has made it possible to develop the concept of adaptive governance as an evolutionary, self-organizing system. Thus, Scholz and Stifle! (2005, 5) argue that the "adaptive governance involves the evolution of new governance institutions capable of generating long term, sustainable policy solutions to wicked problems through coordinated efforts involving previously independent systems of users, knowledge, authorities, and organized interests." Adaptive governance is expected to produce a better solution by yielding agreements that are viewed as fairer by all the stakeholders. It is expected to be more efficient in the pursuit of meeting the interests of all participants. It is expected to be the most stable by promoting long term participant commitment, thus being less affected by any changes in political circumstances (e.g. presidential leadership). Finally adaptive governance is expected to be wiser by sharing all relevant knowledge including both scientific and experienced knowledge (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). To make collaborative governance more adaptive the following are seen as essential: effective and legitimate representation of all affected groups, deliberative process design, scientific learning by incorporating diverse scientific viewpoints, transformation of beliefs and preferences by public learning, and problem responsiveness that involves efficient, equitable, and sustainable solutions (Scholz and Stifle! 2005). All of these elements are 57 synonymous with factors of the collaborative community governance framework (Figure 2-2) created in this study. ~······························· Contextual Factors Feedback , .................. ~ Structure and Quality of the Collaborative Process Face-to-face _.,,,/ dialogue .___ Social learning Trust building Commitment to the process I ~ Governance Adaptation Institutional Design • Broad inclusiveness • Equal opportunity and resources • Process transparency • Clear ground rules Supportive Factors • Leadership • Educational programs Collaborative capacity Actual and perceived effectiveness • Intellectual capital: co production of contextual knowledge and innovative solutions • Social capital: bonding and bridging capital • Political capital: mobilization structure and methods • Physical effectiveness: successful goal achievement of the project and improved environmental conditions •Perceived effectiveness: perceived effectiveness of collaborative governance for the goals • New partnerships Second Order Outcomes ........... ••••••• .......... ....... ......... • Changes in practice • Changes in perceptions • Coevolution •New norms and heuristics • New institutions Third Order Outcomes Figure 2-2: Conceptual Model of Collaborative Community Governance 58 First Order Outcomes Criteria for evaluating correlations between collaborative process and outcome Generally, an evaluative approach can help to define strengths and weaknesses, to determine whether theoretical insights are justified through actual experiments, or to find what other factors are at play in a real-world situation. Accordingly a number of studies have developed criteria for evaluating processes and outcomes of collaborative efforts (Julian 1994, Duffy, Roseland, and Gunton 1996, Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004, Gray 1989, Innes and Booher 1999, Margerum 2002b, Selin and Chevez 1995, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987, Williams, Day, and Gunton 1998). Meanwhile, Koontz & Thomas (2006) distinguish between collaborative outputs and outcomes. Outputs are tangible items such as plans or projects, while outcomes are the effects of collaborative processes on environmental and social conditions. Adopting such differences between output and outcome, relatively recent studies try to evaluate the collaborative process with output and outcomes as well as the correlations among them (Lubell and Leach 2005, Leach and Sabatier 2005, Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009, Mandarano 2008). Thus, an integrated evaluation encompassing both collaborative processes and its outcomes would fill existing research gaps and fulfill what several scholars have recommended for future research approaches. This study develops a set of evaluation criteria building on the literature. 59 T bl 2 2 E al t" "t . i a e - : v ua ion en ena or process an d t ou come Criteria Elements Sources Institutional Democratic and open style of · Broad inclusiveness of related (Moote, McClaran, and Chickering 1997, design for management stakeholders Gray 1989, Yang 2011, Susskind and process · Process transparency Cruikshank 1987, Margerum 2002b, Frame, legitimacy · Equal opportunity and resources among Gunton, and Day 2004, Conley and Moote members 2003, Innes and Booher 1999, Ansell and · Clear ground rules Gash 2007, Reillv 2001) Structure Shared understanding, social · Shared vision and clear purpose (Gray 1989, Innes et al. 1994, Susskind and and quality learning · Agreement on a definition of the problem Cruikshank 1987, Yang 2011, Frame, of · Collaborative learning Gunton, and Day 2004, Conley and Moote collaborative 2003, Innes and Booher 1999, Ansell and process Gash 2007, Daniels and Walker 1996) Face-to-face dialogue · Thick communication allowed by direct (Bentrup 2001, Innes and Booher 2003a, dialogue Ansell and Gash 2007) · Principled negotiation and respect Commitment to the process · Ownership of the process (Ansell and Gash 2007, Frame, Gunton, and · Shared responsibility for the process Day 2004) · Commitment to implementation and monitoring Trust-building · Building trust among stakeholders (Ansell and Gash 2007, Konisky and Beierle 2001, Imperial 2005, Alexander, Comfort, and Weiner 1998) Supportive Leadership · Leader behavior: task behavior, (Ansell and Gash 2007, Susskind and factors relationship behavior, and change Cruikshank 1987, Huxham and Vangen behavior 2000, Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001) Educational programs First order Collaborative Intellectual · Innovation and creativity (Healey 1998, Khakee 2002, Innes and outcomes capacity capital · Knowledge, understanding and skills Booher 1999, Conley and Moote 2003, · Information Connick and Innes 2003, Mandarano 2008) Social capital · Bonding capital (Khakee 2002, Healey 1998, Innes and · Bridging capital Booher 1999, Conley and Moote 2003, Connick and Innes 2003, Mandarano 2008) 60 (Continued) First order Collaborative Political capital · Structure of mobilization Connick & Innes, 2003; Healey, 1998; outcomes capacity · Methods for collective efforts Innes & Booher, 1999; Innes, et al., 1994; (mobilization methods) Khakee, 2002; Mandarano, 2008) Actual and Successful goal · Plan formulations through agreements and (Innes and Booher 1999, Margerum 2002a) perceived achievement consensus effectiveness · Collaborative plan implementations Improved · Perceived effects to the quality of (Mandarano 2008, Conley and Moote 2003, environmental community environment Koontz and Thomas 2006) (material) conditions Perceived · Perceived as successful (Koontz and Thomas 2006, Leach, Pelkey, effectiveness of · Perceived effectiveness of collaboration and Sabatier 2002, Sabatier et al. 2005, collaborative superior to other methods Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009) governance for · Understanding and support for the goals collaborative governance approaches Second order · New partnerships (Innes and Booher 1999, Cooper 2008) outcomes · Changes in practices · Changes in perceptions Third order · Coevolution (Innes and Booher 1999, Cooper 2008) outcomes · New norms and heuristics · New institutions 61 CHAPTER3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS 3.1. Mixed method research design A dominant research approach on collaborative planning has been to utilize in-depth case studies to understand and analyze the nature of process that lead to successful outcomes. Also, since the degree of agreement or consensus as a typical outcome is generally determined by the perceptions of participants, most studies have widely used research methods such as interviews, participatory observations, and review and content analysis ofrelated documents to interpret diverse perspectives of key stakeholders. In other words, qualitative methods have been popular because they allow researchers to explore and profile the structure, relations, attitudes and dynamics within a collaborative entity and to grasp a detailed picture of their meaning and significance (Maginn 2007). Instead of focusing on individual case studies, a growing body of scholars emphasizes the use of larger-sample-sizes, e.g. comparative studies of multiple collaborative efforts. The purpose of this approach is to uncover a set of effective factors in successful collaborations and to provide practical guidance to others in their beginning stages, thus minimizing potential difficulties and problems beforehand. Several studies adopting this approach try to detect how process elements are related to particular outcomes and to derive implications for future studies (Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009, Leach and Sabatier 2005, Sabatier et al. 2005). In other words, the quantitative approach enables researchers to test correlations between processes and outcomes and to aggregate findings, yielding better hypotheses and models of collaboration that 62 are widely generalizable and applicable (Mandarano 2008). Considering the benefits of both methods, this research intends to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods through a mixed method design based on a sequential exploratory strategy. The study is conducted in two phases for data collection and analysis (see Table 3-1). The purpose of this design is to use the results of the first qualitative method to develop and/or inform the second quantitative method. This approach is pertinent when a researcher needs to develop and test an instrument by identifying important variables to study quantitatively when the variables are unknown (Creswell and Clark 2007). T bl 3 1 S a e - : ummarvo f D t C 11 ct' aa o e 1onan dA 1 . na1ys1s Phase Data collection and Analysis Objectives Phase I: • Semi-structured interview (36 • To understand the Qualitative participants including residents, NGOs, development of public officials, and experts) collaborative governance • Sampling: a panel of expert and snowball • To find any contextual • Interview protocol: Appendix A factors that have been • Open-coding strategy: transcripts, notes, under studied in the texts from audiotaped data literature • Related documents review (notes, • To examine how three manuscript, articles, etc.) representative initiatives • Comparative in-depth examination of are similar or different three initiatives Phase II: • Survey • To apply and test a Quantitative - Total 123 questionnaires collected theoretically and and 108 used for the analysis empirically defined - Survey protocol: Appendix B evaluation framework • Data analysis • To find effective factors - Factor Analysis that facilitate or hinder - ANOVA collaborative governance - Path Analysis Using a two-phase research design, in the first qualitative approach this study aims to find and identify procedural and outcome factors that have been under-defined in the literature. 63 In addition, since a comparative examination is a useful methodology to obtain answers to how and why questions (Yin 2003), this study adopts the comparative evaluation approach to understand the process of collaborative governance. The comparative analysis provides a better understanding of the local diversity of collaborative initiatives, how they are similar or different, and why collaboration may or may not work in the context of Korea. In addition, by examining participants' self-evaluation on governance process and outcome quantitatively, this study aims to verify relationships between process and outcome, and contribute to a deeper understanding and better explanation of the mechanism of collaborative community-building governance. By combining quantitative and qualitative data gathering and analyses, in sum, this study can draw a more complete picture, noting trends and generalizations as well as gleaning a greater understanding and knowledge of the ongoing collaborative practices and participants' perspectives. 3.2. Case selection As will be introduced in detail in the background section (Chapter 4), from 2007 to 2009, the Korean central government, especially the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs, sponsored the nationwide Livable City and Community Initiative and provided financial support. To be supported, each city/community had to apply and satisfy qualification requirements. The most critical requirement was the existence of a collaborative governance structure and a formal Community-building Committee, involving key stakeholders such as residents, community organizations, NGO groups, local government, developers and experts. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation (KLHC) acts as the government agent and manages all the processes 64 including the application, review, assessment, and selection of cases. The case assessment and selection were made by The National Livable Community-building Assessment Committee, composed of 36 urban experts including university scholars, researchers, public officials and NGOs. In this period, a total of 94 cities and communities had been selected and received financial support, which totaled approximately 14 billion won(~ 15.4 million USD); among them, there were 61 community level initiatives (see Table 3-2, and Appendix C for a detailed list). Table 3-2: N b Uill er o fl T t" b MLTMA 2007 2009 n1ia1ves 1y ' - Year Number of selected initiatives 2007 25 1-2 hundred million 2008 20 dollars each 2009 16 Total 61 Although many other community-building movements may exist at the local level, this study focuses on those that were supported by MLTMA because it means that the chosen community-building movements formally established a local governance structure for facilitating collaborative city/community development. This requirement is the foundation of the purpose of this study that aims to examine how collaborative governance functions, what procedural factors are significant and what the outcomes of collaborative effort are. Initially all community-building projects supported from MLTMA from 2007 to 2009 were collected and listed 2 . In order to explore how the process of community-building governance works and what outcomes are produced, however, it may be relevant to select cases 2 For a full list of initiatives selected and supported by MLTMA, see Appendix C. Chapter 4 also explores the development of collaborative forms of community building movement, which provides some detailed explanation about the current status of collaborative community building movement. 65 that have a relatively long experience and are currently in process. Therefore the cases were screened in terms of 'ongoingness,' from which 30 communities became eligible. Another standard to categorize these initiatives and find representative cases is governance structure, depending on the leading agents (government driven, residents driven, and NGO or experts driven models). As stated earlier, the initiation of community-building efforts varies. Sometimes national or local government uses community-building projects as a kind of local economy revitalization strategy, while grassroots level efforts such as NGO groups and local residents, or sometimes a combination of the two, begin to make a collective effort to improve their living space and make it more livable. This study investigates if these initiatives work similarly and if the difference in the governance structure would lead to somewhat different outcomes. The basic premise of the categorization used in this study is that different governance structure might affect the process and the outcome accordingly. In order to select typical cases that each represent the three types of governance structure, a list of published research papers and reports from research institutions that introduced and examined successful initiatives was compiled and the frequency of each case was counted. In this way, three representative cases were selected. The detailed description of the three initiatives will be provided in the following chapter 5. 3.3. Data collection and analysis Phase I: The qualitative stage The qualitative stage uses key participant interviews, observation and a related document review in order to understand how each governance process progressed and what kinds of outcomes the governance process produced. Since most studies on collaborative planning have 66 been focused on consensus building or conflict resolution with regard to environmental planning and management, little is known about these factors, especially regarding the outcome or accomplishments of the collaborative efforts in community-building practices. Another goal of the qualitative stage is to find any contextual factors that have been underdefined in the literature. Therefore, the qualitative stage intends to identify specific factors associated with community building as well as any contextual elements that affect processes, which are currently seldom noted in the literature. The findings are expected to be a valuable source and to contribute to the modification and development of existing models of collaborative governance in community building. This integrative framework is used in the following quantitative analysis to examine the relationships between process and outcome and effectiveness of collaborative governance. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) define, an interview is a "conversation with a purpose." The special strength of an interview is to find out facts that researchers cannot find by direct observation. It also improves understanding by having alternative explanations of any particular findings. The sampling strategy this study adopts is purposive sampling, in particular, a mixture of snowball sampling and expert sampling. According to Harrison (2002), there are five non probability sampling methods: 1) quota sampling, 2) convenience sampling, 3) volunteer sampling, 4) snowball sampling, and 5) purposive sampling. In addition, Kuzel (1992) exemplifies 7 purposive sampling techniques: 1) maximum variation sampling, 2) homogeneous sampling, 3) typical case sampling, 4) extreme case sampling, 5) critical case sampling, 6) total population sampling, and 7) expert sampling. The snowball technique means that randomly selected individuals are asked to identify other related persons, while the panel of experts method enables researchers to elicit expert knowledge and have key informants deeply associated with the cases. In order to select interviewees, a group of experts who had studied community- 67 building practices from both theoretical and empirical perspectives was initially identified. This provided a contact-point or local expert, who had familiarity with the three cases. Six experts were met and interestingly, the majority of the key informants they provided were the same people. The informants, initiative leaders and local organization staff who had worked for a long time for their community-building practices, were interviewed. Other interviewees were selected by the snowball sampling strategy, in which additional names were obtained of people who were expected to have relevant information. In this way, a total of 36 interviews were conducted over one year, from March 2011 to March 2012, including residents, representatives of community organizations, public officials, and local experts (usually university scholars or researchers in a local research institute). The duration of each interview ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 hours. With interviewees' consent, interviews were audiotaped. A systematically designed interview protocol was used in which the questions were listed and space for answers and essential data related to the time, day, and place of the interview was given. An open-coding strategy was implemented involving close and repeated readings of the transcripts, notes, or texts transferred from audio taped data "in search of 'meaning units' that [were] descriptively labeled so that they [could] serve as building blocks for broader conceptualization" (Padgett, 2008: 152). Along with the semi-structured interviews, observation was also conducted by directly participating in several committee meetings. A comparative case analysis is followed to examine how the three collaborative community governances worked similarly or differently, and whether or not some differences existed in their processes and accomplishments. The examination of participants' evaluations of the governance process and outcome was another point of interest in this study. 68 Table 3-3: Interviewee List Date Occupation Hours Initiatives 1 031 031 2011 Gove~ent agen~ staff (The Korea Land and 1. 5 General ~-----1--~~~-~~-~g_g9_g?_?_~-~!~~~2_ _______________________________________________ ------ ------------------------------------ 2 031 031 2011 Gove~ent agen~ staff (The Korea Land and 2 _ 5 General ·---------->--·---- --~~~-~~-~g_g9_g?_?_~-~!~~~2_ _______________________________________________ ------ -----------------------------------· 3 04/07/2011 Expert/Researcher 2 General ·----------!---·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------· 4 04/07/2011 Expert, NGO (Urban Action Network) 2 General --- ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- 5 05/23/2011 Researcher 2 General -+-------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------· 6 05/23/2011 Researcher 2 General -+-------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------· _ 7 05/28/2011 --~~~-~~~!------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. 5 Gwan~~-~~_g~---- 8 05/28/2011 Resident 2.5 Gwangju SMCB ----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- 9 06/09/2011 Resident, Leader 2 Bupyeong CSB ----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- 10 06/10/2011 Resident 0.5 Bupyeong CSB ----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------· 11 06/10/2011 Resident 1 Bupyeong CSB ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------· 12 06/10/2011 Resident 1 Bupyeong CSB ~-----·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------· 13 06/11/2011 Expert, Professor 2 Gwangju SMCB ~-----·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------· 14 06/ 11/2011 --~~~-~~~!------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 _G":_angju -~~~---- 15 06/ 11/2011 --~_?.!~5 .. ?.~5~-~-~-------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 5 _G":_angju -~~~---- 16 06/ 11/2011 --~~~-~~~! _____________________________________________________________________________ !._ _Q~~E..~~-~~_g~----- 1 7 06/28/2011 .. S::?.~-~~E..~!>-'-~~_1:1:~~~-~~--?-~-~!~£-~-~~~~~~! ________________ -----~ _Q~~E..~.1:1:-~~_g~-----· 18 06/28/2011 Local organization's member 1 Gwangju SMCB -----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 19 06/28/2011 Local organization's member 1 Gwangju SMCB ------!--·----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------· 20 06/28/2011 Resident, local organization's member 1 Gwangju SMCB ------!--·----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- 21 06/20/2011 NGO staff /Researcher 2.5 General ------!--·----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- 22 06/23/2011 Resident 1 Samdeock CBM ------·- ------ ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------- 23 06/23/2011 Resident 1 Samdeock CBM -+-------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------· 24 06/23/2011 -+-------•--~~~-~~~!c.!::~~~~£ ____________________________________________________________ __?_:_~ --~~-~~-~~-?._~-~~~----- ------- 25 07/01/2011 ------•--~Q.Q ___________________________________________________________________________________ !._ -~~PX~~~-~-~~~------ 26 07/01/2011 +-------•--~~~-~~~! _____________________________________________________________________________ !._ -~~p_y~~~-~-S::~~--------· 27 07/01/2011 +-------·--~~~-~~~! _____________________________________________________________________________ !._ -~~p_y~~~-~-S::~~--------· 28 07/02/2011 +-------•--~~~-~~~!c.!::~~~~--~~-g:~~~~!~~!!-:~-~~~~-~----------------- _____ !._ -~~p_y~~~-~-S:':~~-------- 29 07/02/2011 Resident, Local organization's member 1 Bupyeong CSB ------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------------------- 30 07/02/2011 Resident, Local organization's member 1 Bupyeong CSB ·----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------· 31 03/26/2012 Social Enterprise (YMCA)/Resident 1.5 Samdeock CBM ·----------t--·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ 32 03/26/2012 Social Enterprise (YMCA)/Resident 1.5 Samdeock CBM ~-----·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- 33 03/26/2012 Social Enterprise (YMCA)/Resident 1 Samdeock CBM ~-----·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- 34 03/27/2012 Resident 1 Samdeock CBM -+-------·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------· 3 5 03/27/2012 36 03/27/2012 Resident Resident 1 Samdeock CBM 1 Samdeock CBM Note. The term general in the initiative column indicates experts and practitioners who have participated in multiple community-building practices. 69 Phase II: The quantitative stage The quantitative stage consists of surveys to examine the correlation between collaborative processes and outcomes. A total of 123 questionnaires were collected in three cases (Gwangju SMCB: 43, Samdeock CBM: 37, and Bupyeong CSB: 43). Instead of the two- dimensional option of a "Yes" or "No" response, the survey instrument took a 7-point-Likert- scale format from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to ask how much the respondent agreed or disagreed. According to Vogt (2007, 88), the Likert-scale provides a "set of choices ranging from strongly agree through neutral to strongly disagree." For collecting survey data, three leaders were asked to introduce committee members who could meet individually and take part in semi-structured interviews and surveys. When scheduling difficulty did not allow for direct meetings with me, several key actors distributed and collected questionnaires and met participants on my behalf. The purpose of the second quantitative stage is to apply and test a theoretically and empirically defined evaluation framework and to find effective factors that facilitate or hinder collective efforts. The correlation between processes and outcomes is quantitatively measured by a set of evaluation criteria, as seen in Table 2-3, which is systematically generated as laid out in the literature review (Innes and Booher 1999, Lubell and Leach 2005, Leach and Sabatier 2005, Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009, Mandarano 2008, Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004, Koontz and Thomas 2006). 70 Research hypothesis The quantitative analysis aims to test the validity of the following hypotheses regarding the relationship between institutional design, the collaborative governance process, outcomes, and the evaluation of governance effectiveness. H 1 Institutional design aspects such as broad inclusiveness, equal opportunity and resource sharing, process transparency, and clear ground rules affect the collaborative process positively. H2 The existence of a leader has positive impacts on the collaborative process and outcomes. As will be discussed in detail in the analysis section, Chapter 6, one notable factor found in the Korean context is the active use of educational programs. The following hypothesis can be drawn: H3 Educational programs have positive impacts on the collaborative process and outcomes. H4 The outcome of collaborative governance is determined by the collaborative processes. Thus, process factors including face-to-face dialogue, trust building, commitment to the process, and social learning have positive impacts on the enhancement of social, intellectual and/or political capitals. HS Three socio-political outcomes (intellectual, social, and political capitals) have positive impacts on the evaluation of collaborative governance. A study by Leach et al (2002) found that the age of a partnership is highly associated with perceptive effectiveness. Thus, the following hypothesis can be drawn: H6 The length of experience with collaborative governance affects the participants' evaluation on the effectiveness of collaborative governance. The longer the length of experience, the higher the level of positive evaluation on collaborative governance. Several studies argue that differences in structure and resources influence the types of 71 outcomes. By comparing different types of partnerships, one agency-driven and one community- driven, Steelman and Carmin (2002) found that differences in structure and resources influenced the types of outcome. For example, while the community driven, bottom-up initiative was human resource based and had an open network enabling both bonding and bridging networks, the agency-driven, top-down initiative focused on relationships between networks for task completion. The latter emphasized only the bonding network due to the closed nature of the network. These studies suggest that different types of collaborative forms function differently and produce different outcomes. Leighninger (2008) investigated several neighborhood governances and found that projects initiated by the government often get off the ground sooner, and they are often able to construct a better network with a broad range of supporting organizations, at least at first. However, these projects can be polarizing in that public officials with a strong role in government tend to advance a "city hall agenda," rather than respecting local voices and different perspectives. Similarly, Glaser, Yeager, and Parker (2006) compared two models for citizen engagement, one with government-based organization and another with neighborhood-based organization to examine communicative effectiveness. They observed that the two-way information flow between the government and its citizens is more facilitated in a neighborhood-based model than in a government-based one which is more concerned with expeditious decision-making processes. The government-based model, then, tended to force citizens to be passive in the planning process. Therefore, the following hypothesis is made: H7 Different forms of governance focus on different procedural factors and, thus, produce different outcomes (e.g. different levels of intellectual, social, and political capitals as well as physical accomplishments). 72 Research variables: independent, intervening, dependent, and control variables For the theoretical model, independent variables are proposed as procedural factors, institutional design factors and supportive factors. The procedural factors include four factors of face-to-face dialogue, social learning, trust building and process commitment. The four process factors are measured with one to three items. The institutional design factors include broad inclusiveness, process transparency, equal opportunity and resource among members, and clear ground rules. Supportive variables such as leadership and educational programs are also included in the independent variables. The variables in this study are proposed to have multiple relationships in a structured, two-stage regression model. In the first regression stage, dependent variables include three governance outcomes: intellectual, social, and political capitals. Operationally, these variables are expressed as intervening variables. In theory, the intervening variable refers to a hypothetical internal variable that is used to determine causal relationships between independent and dependent variables (MacKinnon et al. 2002). Like independent variables, each intervening variable is measured with three items and final values (factor loadings) are statistically calculated by Principle Component Analysis (PCA). Then, the second stage proposes that three intervening variables become additional independent variables. In the second stage, dependent variables are perceived evaluation about physical effectiveness (e.g. improved built environment, formulated plans) and governance effectiveness. These two dependent variables are also measured with two items each, employing PCA as well. Control variables in this study include demographic attributes such as gender and age. In addition, since this study examines whether differences exist among three cases, case is also included in the control variables. The considered research variables are summarized in Table 3-4. 73 A conceptual diagram of the relationships among variables is drawn and depicted in Figure 3-1. Table 3-4: Research Variables Variables Factors Description Independent Procedural factors Face-to face dialogue, social learning, variables trust building, and process commitment Institutional setting Participatory inclusiveness, clear factors ground rules, process transparency Supportive factors Leader, educational programs Intervening Outcome factors Intellectual, social and political capitals variables Dependent Perceived effectiveness Actual effectiveness (successful goal variables achievement with formulated plans or plan implementations, improved environmental conditions) Perceived effectiveness of collaborative governance for the goals Control Demographic attributes Gender, age variables Length of participation The length of participation in governance Group Government, NGO, and residents driven cases Dependent f------ Perceived Effectiveness (Physical and / Variables Governance Effectiveness) ' Ii\ Intervening ~ Governance Outcomes (lntellectual, I/ Variables Social, and Political Capitals) I' 11\ Independent Governance Procedural Factors, Demographic Attributes, Control ~ Institutional Design, Leader, Length of Participation, ~ Variables Variables Educational Programs Group Figure 3-1: Relationships among independent, intervening and dependent variables 74 Data Analysis Three types of quantitative data analysis are conducted as part of this study: ANOVA, factor analysis and path analysis. Factor analysis mainly using principle component analysis is initially done to reduce the number of variables and produce a single factor that is statistically verified as representative values. Then those values are used in the regression analysis using path analysis to examine relationships among variables. For these investigations the statistical programs SPSS 20 and Amos 20 are used. Principle Component Analysis for data reduction Theoretically, factor analysis refers to a series of approaches that are used to conceptualize groups or a cluster of variables in order to determine which variables belong to which groups (Nunnally, 1978). A researcher hypothesizes factors that are supposed to be related to each variable, and factor analysis performs the mathematical procedure to prove those hypotheses. Statistically, factor analysis "takes the variance defined by the inter-correlation among a set of measures and attempts to allocate it in terms of a few underlying hypothetical variables" (Williams and Monge 2001, 165). These variables are then identified as factors. Among a group of approaches in factor analysis, here PCA is performed. Usually PCA is adopted for the following purposes: to reduce the number of outcome variables to a smaller set of statistically uncorrelated variables or components, to reveal patterns of relationships among variables, and to detect clusters of variables, each of which contains variables that are strongly inter-correlated and therefore somewhat redundant (Agresti, 1999; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996; Mayere, 2007). Thus, this study performs PCA to determine whether several items in each variable should be combined into a single factor. 75 ANOVA The responses from the three groups are then examined for differences. This study uses mean difference methods employing ANO VA to check whether or not any differences exist. ANO VA is a statistical procedure that determines ifthere are significant differences between two or more sample groups. Then, Tukey's post hoc procedure is used to conduct a multiple comparison of the three cases and examine ifthere are significant differences. Path analysis Factors identified by factor analysis are then used in path analysis to "test theories of causal relationships among a set of variables" (Agresti and Agresti 1999, 624). Path analysis is based on a set of structural equation models (SEM). SEM, as a hybrid of factor analysis and path analysis, attempts to explain the relationships among a set of observed variables. This approach assumes that unobserved variables are generating the pattern or structure among the observed variables. The primary advantage of SEM over ordinary least squares and the multivariate regression model is that it allows researchers to test a factor structure, adjust for measurement error, examine relationships among variables, and simultaneously estimate all parameters in the model (Johnson and Greening 1999). An SEM approach has been recognized as a more flexible and realistic modeling over regression in that (1) it allows for a non-recursive path, (2) it doesn't assume the variables are measured without error, and (3) it doesn't assume that the residuals between the variables or between their indicators are zero (Kline and Klammer 2001 ). Moreover, the most important benefit of the SEM approach is that it can test an entire set of variables at the same time. Thus, an SEM approach is "the only analysis that allows for complete and 76 simultaneous tests of all the relationships" (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996, 712). Path analysis enables one to explore how the variables are related and to develop an explanation of causal relationships by testing the proposed structural model. Since this study focuses on the relationship between the collaborative process and outcomes using a set of theoretically driven criteria (variables) and because each variable may have complicated correlations with others, the application of path analysis is chosen, making it possible to examine all of the relationships among variables in a structured model. 77 CHAPTER4 BACKGROUND: HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY-BUILDING MOVEMENT Before analyzing three community-building practices, a brief introduction to the historical trajectory of political, social, and planning systems in Korea may help to better understand the background of the community-building movement. In particular, this chapter aims to understand the emergence of a series of developmental processes of community movement, from the early protest activism to the recent collaborative model, as an evolving response to the complicated transformation of the political and social systems and subsequent development of urban and regional policies. 4.1. Developmental state by the authoritarian government (1960s - 1970s) In the post-Korean War era, Korean society suffered from absolute poverty, and the national top priority was to recover from the aftermath of the war and develop social and economic conditions. Under these circumstances, the Chung-hee Park govermnent, inaugurated in 1963, tried to legitimize the 1961 military coup under the cover of eliminating extreme poverty. His military regime put forward economic growth and industrialization as the national slogan, and strongly implemented national policies from the beginning. The concept of a "developmental state 3 " has been widely used to refer to such active intervention of a strong 3 The developmental state is "a state that plays a strategic role in economic development, with a bureaucracy that is given sufficient scope to take initiatives and operate effectively (Johnson, 1999)." Along with Korea, several East Asian countries including Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and 78 national government for rapid and successful economic development (Woo-Cumings 1999). According to several scholars (Amsden 1989, Cherry 2005, Evans 1995, Johnson 1999, Woo- Cumings 1999), the characteristics ofa developmental state are summarized with five factors: 1) economic development as the national goal and strategic intervention of the strong state; 2) the state's competent bureaucracies and their capacity to devise and implement various industrial policies; 3) a high degree of autonomy of the state in the developmental partnership with the private sector (big businesses), 4) the state's regulation of business by the principle of reciprocity, connecting subsidies and performances, and 5) strategic constraints and mobilization of the financial sector to support strategic industries. In this era Korea exhibited the typical form of a developmental state in which the authoritarian government enjoyed strong autonomy, and implemented most social, political, and economic policies in an oppressive manner. Decision- making was in the hands of the authoritarian government where a small number of elite policy makers and scientific experts played a major role. The Park government believed that achieving rapid economic development and securing the wealth of the nation was the best ways to secure political legitimacy and stability (Kim 2008b). Thus, the idea of the "growth first, then distribution" was emphasized in order to support the centralized strategy for economic development, where the "trickle-down effect" was expected to play a resolving role for other social and distributional issues. The national goal for economic development and industrialization was typically embodied in export-led policy. The rationale of the export-led strategy has been summarized with three factors: 1) the growth of manufacturers could be much more effective to aggregate economic growth than the development of other industries such as agriculture, 2) foreign financial resources were Hong Kong are recognized as the typical developmental states, referring to their unprecedented economic development (Woo-Cumings, 1999). 79 necessary for industrialization which could be possible only by export oriented policy, and 3) the narrow domestic market could not support such economic growth (Kim 1998). In order to support such goals, Park's government initiated the Five-year Economic Development Plan in 1962, which was continuously developed in five-year span until 1981. The purpose of the first economic development plan was to promote basic industries and energy sources (e.g. electricity and coal), and develop Social Overhead Capital (SOC) to make a basic foundation for economic development. Then, the government accelerated the industrialization process by changing the developmental target for growth from light industry to heavy-chemical industry (HCI), and selected six industries (iron, nonferrous metals, shipbuilding, mechanics, electronics, and chemicals) for special consideration. Another feature of the Korean developmental state was a vertical developmental coalition between the state and big businesses, which has been labeled as "the guided capitalism" (Cho 2004) or "Korea Inc." (Lee and Han 2006). The government gave privileges to big businesses, which led to the formation of chaebols (business conglomerates). In response, chaebols provided enormous financial sources for the political leadership (Lee and Han 2006). Based on a hierarchical, top-down management style and a high degree of central control, chaebols are seen as playing a catalytic role in the rapid economic development (Hassink 1999, Lee and Yoo 1987). However, the big business driven economic development model also brought about the issue of injustice and improper capital accumulation in the hands of a small number of big businesses. Later, chaebols exercised leverage of economic power to influence industrial policy, taxation, media coverage and even court decisions (Ju 2008). Meanwhile, in order to accelerate the progress of economic development and industrialization, the government began to set and reform the urban planning system. One 80 representative example is the National Comprehensive Land Development Plan, a 10-year program of infrastructure development and regional investment that later formed the regional development pattern (Hong, 1997). In particular, the "growth pole" strategy was applied to the First National Comprehensive Land Development Plan (1972 - 1981). The basic purpose of it was the efficient use and management of national lands, the development of natural resources, and an increase in SOC to enhance the progress of industrialization. The government's efforts for infrastructure investment, such as industrial complexes, transportation and communication systems, and the construction of large dams, were concentrated on a few strategic areas (the "growth poles") which were thought to be relatively well-endowed, established environments that were expected to produce higher productivity. The growth pole strategy then led to the development of infrastructures (e.g. large industrial complexes, transportation systems, and multipurpose dams) and the concentration of economic activities and rapid population growth in core areas such as the Capital City of Seoul and the southeast coastal areas (Kim, Hong, and Ha 2003). As a result, the national spatial structure was asymmetrically developed, leading to regional disparity between the core areas and others. The progress of industrialization promoted the urbanization process as well. For example, whereas one-third of the total population lived in urban areas in the early 1960s, this figure went up to two-thirds of the population in the early 1980s (Lim 2000). The centralized industrial activities and population in the core areas then brought about other social issues such as the rapid increase ofland price and speculative investment in real estates. In this early stage of modernization, the environment was recognized as having natural resources that should be exploited for economic development. Although air pollution issues and associated local protests arose in the growth pole areas, the environmental pollution was understood as a "necessary evil," 81 and the demonstrations were perceived as a threat to economic development and challenges to the authoritarian regime (Kang 2005, Ku 1996). Under this mood, social policy to consider inequality and distribution of wealth was largely neglected or, at best, used as an instrument of economic policy (Holliday 2005). Civil society was suppressed by the coercive government and universities and churches were the only social spaces in which protests against the authoritarian regime were carried out passively. Civil society movement in this period was characterized as a secret underground movement with occasional explosion of direct actions (Lim 2000). The rapid population concentration in the capital city of Seoul, meanwhile, caused the formation of Daldongne 4 (meaning Moon-neighborhoods), slum areas where the urban poor, who had difficulty in affording the higher rent in the city center, began to collectively dwell in hilly sections of the periphery areas. Most of them were not well educated, had no specialized skills, and worked as casual workers in informal sectors. In sharing a kind of collective loneliness and experiencing difficulties in a new environment, they began to develop an informal network to meet daily requirements and formed a sense of kinship (Ha 1998). According to Ha (1998), these slum areas differ from those in western countries. Generally the gentrification processes of urban centers that become squalor create urban slums in western countries. However, the Daldongne were generated by the rapid increase of urban population and lack of urban infrastructure. Even under such environmentally poor conditions, residents of the Daldongne tried their best not to pass down poverty to their children; they had ambition that sometime soon they would move up to a better position environmentally and socially (Jeong 4 There are several views on the origin of the term Daldongne: 1) those areas were mostly located in upland close to the moon, 2) people in those areas only used moon light at night because they didn't have any electric facilities, 3) people in those areas left early in the morning to their work place and then returned back late night observing moon, or 4) a foreign reporter introduced Wolgokdong, one of those areas, as 'Moon Valley' (Jeong, 2012). 82 2012). In an effort to help and support the urban poor, a grassroots movement organized by social activists, religious groups and artists began to emerge. Along with undertaking cultural and educational activities, the grassroots movement groups tried to organize residents to initiate the urban poor movement. Jeong (2012) identifies the grassroots community movement as adaptive in that its purpose was to help the social and economic poor be more adapted and adjusted in new urban environments. In the 1960s-1970s, overall the economic development and the efficiency-oriented ideology was a socially shared value by not only politicians and bureaucrats but also the public (Kim 2008b ). The industrialization policy focused on strategic concentration of economic activities in growth poles caused not only considerable regional disparities and mono-structural localities dominated by large enterprises (Hassink 1999), but also social issues such as environmental problems and income inequality between rural and urban sectors. Under this social and political atmosphere, social policy was neglected and the activity of civil society was very weak. The rapid urbanization and population concentration in Seoul led to the formation of urban poor areas where the early community movement at the grassroots level began to emerge. 4.2. Transition to democracy (1987 - 1994) After the assassination of President Park in 1979, the Korean society seemed to have a chance to transform the authoritarian government to a democratic system with the interim government (until May 1980) of President Kyu-hah Choi. The term "Spring of Seoul" represents a relief from the authoritarian and oppressive regime and a keen hope for a new democratic society (Lim 2000). However such hope was lost again when the military took political power again and another authoritarian regime led by Doo-hwan Chun emerged. The Chun regime 83 survived the previous authoritarian system of Park, and restricted political activities. Not only the democratization movement of city society, but also even the fundamental political rights of the citizenry, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press, were constrained by the strong government. The governmental focus on economic growth shifted from industrial policy in the 1960- 1970s to technology policy. R&D activities and high-tech employment were concentrated in big businesses again. The growth-pole strategy was continuously adopted, which continued the formation of industrial districts and further intensified the spatial concentration of economic activities in the central and southeastern part of the country. For instance, about 96 % of all head offices oflarge firms were concentrated in Seoul, and a large number of high-tech companies was located in Kyonggido, the surrounding area of Seoul (Hassink 1999). Anti-government protest arose repeatedly, and the suppressed civic groups, such as college students, labor organizations, and lower-and middle class citizens, began to make coalitions in order to pressure the authoritarian regime and open up the political system. Such anti-government protest exploded in 1987, marking the most important political upheaval called the "Great Struggle for Democratization" or "June Uprising of 1987." The purpose of such huge protest was 1) to remove the authoritarian elements that had been lingering for several decades in politics, economy, civil society, and culture, 2) to call for policy changes to solve social problems that had been caused by the rapid industrialization and urbanization, and 3) to pressure the government to reform the political system to secure larger opportunity for public participation such as public discourse in decision-making in major policy processes (Lim 2000). Their efforts succeeded in bringing the direct-presidential-election system back, marking a watershed for the democratic transition (Lim and Tang 2002). However, the election of Tae-woo Rho, who was one 84 of the core members of the ruling bloc in the previous military regime, left another limitation. As one of the core members of the ruling bloc, he preserved the old policy-making style by filling his cabinet with political elites who played a major role in the previous authoritarian government system. The urban and regional development policy was then used in this era as a population and industry decentralization strategy in order to reduce regional disparity. The Second National Comprehensive Land Development Plans (1982-1991) adopted the metropolitan area development policy, which mixed the growth pole strategy with balanced regional development. The government tried to decentralize population of the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) to other regions by continuously developing regional growth poles centered on major local cities with the expectation oflarger growth potentials. They also created small and medium industrial complexes and distributed industrial facilities in those areas. Exemptions from corporate taxes and the provision of matching funds were offered to large corporations and their affiliated plants in return for relocating from the SMA to the rest of the nation. The major goals of the government were changed from development of economic infrastructure to greater investments in the social infrastructure, especially for the provision of more housing and utilities to improve quality of life (Kim, Hong, and Ha 2003). The Five-year Economic Development Plan, undertook as a major means for economic growth and industrialization since 1962, was discontinued with the introduction of the Five-year New Economy Plan (1993-1997) by the Young-sam Kim government, which considered social issues to be more important thus including social policies such as creation of social security and welfare system, and expansion of housing supply. In spite of employing decentralization policies, both the centralization of population and 85 economic activity and income disparity deepened. The population growth in the SMA increased explosively and, by 1990, the SMA captured 42.9 % of the nation's population and 46.2 % of national income (Kim 2008b ). Urban and regional development policy was again applied to control the centralization of population, industry and other major activities. The government enacted the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan Act in 1984, and undertook the new town development project as bed towns near Seoul. The SMA was classified into three zones with varying degrees of restrictions on land use to control population density. The government limited the introduction of additional industrial facilities in the SMA that could lead to population increase, and tried to create polycentric spatial structure by effectively allocating roles between cities in the metropolitan area. The Two Million Housing Construction Plan in 1988 was another policy created to fulfill the increased housing needs due to the population centralization (KRIHS 2013a). Meanwhile, the introduction of public participation in the planning process was another significant progress in this period. The first channel for public participation was created in the legislation process of the Urban Planning Act in 1981 in which public displays, opinion provision, and public hearings were institutionalized. The Urban Planning Standing Committee was another system that was created to have consultation from experts, by which the conventional black box decision-making process in the elite bureaucracy was opened. Although the official legislation of public participation was a huge, unprecedented step towards democracy of the planning system, under the centralized tendency of urban planning and policy making in this period, those channels for participation remained as a perfunctory process for administrative fulfillment. Public citizens were also criticized to be mostly uninterested in urban policy and the associated administrative process due to lack of knowledge. Thus, this is hard to see as genuine 86 public participation, and in reality, local residents were excluded from local planning and the policy making process (KRIHS 2006, 43). In terms of the social dimension, as introduced previously, the most critical juncture made through the June Uprising 1987 led to the growth of civil society. In particular, both of the civilian governments ofYoung-sam Kim and Dae-jung Kim provided favorable conditions for civil society and citizens' movement groups by providing financial support and involving them in the decision-making process. Scholars have identified the characteristics of Korean civil society and movement as "comprehensive," in that the civil society had developed two streams of civil movement: the first political movement in a strong continuity with the past democratization movement at the macro level, and another new type of social movement focused more on the micro level, the so-called New Social Movement (NSM) (Cho 1999, Kim 2012, Lim 2000). Given the conditional advantages, civil society movement groups set their goals as removing the authoritarian elements in all of the social, political and cultural facets, and implementing various reforms for the consolidation of democracy. They believed that the most urgent task of social reform could be achieved through reforming the political system. By criticizing the problems of current party politics as corrupt and incompetent, these civil movement groups tried to play a role of representative bodies. A typical organization was the Citizen's Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ), which originally interested in issues of economic justice and inequality, expanded their focus to broad-ranged political and social policy issues, aiming to play a key role as a major stakeholder for policy-making. In this sense, H. Y. Cho argues that whereas the dominant political issue until 1987 was a conflict between the authoritarian regime and pro-democracy forces, thus forming the active "progressive" grass-roots movement, the democratic transition after 1987 led to the rise of a "conservative" civil social 87 movement, shifting their goals from system-abolition to system-reformation, through modified strategies from non-institutional to institutional (Cho 1999). Another obvious feature observed in this period was the emergence of the Korean variant of the NSM that appeared in Europe and the United States in the mid 1960s, as a response to the inadequacies of classical Marxism for analyzing collective action. Rather than focusing on material and political aspects, this new wave of social movement paid greater attention to social and cultural aspects from postmaterialist value, such as individual autonomy, identity, and human rights. Feminism, ecology, and other minority movements are typical examples (Buechler 1995). Contrary to the old paradigm that focused on issues such as economic growth, national wealth distribution, and national security, the Korean NSM was also directed towards individual freedom and identity, focusing on issues such as peace, environment, and human rights. The top priority of this NSM was the "penetration of democracy into everyday life," and the voluntary participation of citizens was emphasized (Kim 2012). Along with grassroots movement and fundamentalist community movement, diverse issues that were closely related with 'life world,' such as the environment, feminism, urban life and education, began to gain attention. According to Si-jae Lee (1992), the concept of "living" existed in all social movement in the 1990s, becoming a kind of framework through which we recognize the world. Therefore, making a harmonious balance between economic development and environmental protection was emphasized. Under this political and social transition, specifically with the formation of a participatory environment in the political system and the rise of civil society, a great number of community movements began to emerge. Differing from the previous community movement that had the adaptive characteristic under the strong authoritarian government, the community 88 movement in this period was defensive as well as participatory. It was defensive in that people tried to defend their community from large development and redevelopment plans, criticizing unequal distribution of developmental profit, inappropriate level of compensation and more importantly the harmful effects from development projects. For example, the Anti-garbage Incinerator Construction Movement in Gunpo (1993) and Sangyedong in Seoul (1993) and the Anti-tobacco Vending Machine Installation Movement in Bucheon (1992) were typical defensive movements to keep their living spaces safe against governments' policies and decisions (Jeong 2012). At the same time, it was participatory in that local residents voluntarily participated in several movements in order to keep their community and living environment. Since the 1990s, some terms frequently used in local movement were 'participation and autonomy' and 'community.' The main purpose of these movements was to enhance the quality oflife through building local community, especially by the leading role of local residents, as a realization of politics in everyday life. They understood the concept of community as a group of local people who built a common identity on a shared physical space. Such understanding also represented a shared will to form social atmosphere that valued mutual aide and cooperation regardless of income level and social class. In other words, the concept of community became the dominant goal of grass-roots civil society movement groups, and such community movement was realized in urban areas as community-building movement (Shin 2000). The increased focus on community movement then occurred in very close relationship with environmental movement at local spaces. The environmental problems that were caused by the economic development ideology in the previous developmental state era and increased awareness on the importance of environment motivated local residents to make direct and voluntary action to make their community and living environment more livable. For example, the 89 Apartment Community Movement in the early 1990s aimed for building a better living environment by restoring good neighborliness, improving the built environment and protecting residents' rights. The Gwacheon Green Store Movement, begun in 1993, was a well-known case that incorporated the community movement with environmental and ecological value. By campaigning recycling and holding local thrift markets, it intended to realize a movement deeply embedded in daily life and to share ecological value in the local space (Choi and Lee 1999). To summarize, in this period from 1987 to 1994, the most important social and political transformation was made through the June Uprising 1987. The governmental focus on economic development shifted to technology policy, and R&D activities and high-tech employment were concentrated again in big businesses. As the concentration of economic activity and population in the Seoul Metropolitan Area intensified, and the gap between the central and other areas deepened, urban and regional development policy was used again as a major decentralization strategy, creating several plans and laws. The growth of civil society led to comprehensive social movement through the formation oflarge civil activist groups and coalition with existing civil movement groups. In addition to the comprehensive and conservative change of civil movement, another stream of New Social Movement emerged, addressing politics of everyday life. Given these social and political transitions, community movement showed both defensive and participatory characteristics, taking direct, voluntary action in order to keep their community and local environment safe. 4.3. Deepening democracy (1994 - 2002) Based on democratic transition, substantial progress began to be made in from 1994 to 2002. Founded by the direct election system, the Young-sam Kim government (1993-1998), 90 which represented itself as Mun-Min Jeongbu (meaning civilian government), and the next Dae jung Kim (1998-2003) government, a former central figure during the long-lasted struggle for democracy, played significant roles in consolidating democracy. The major achievement made during the Young-sam Kim administration was the dismantling of the authoritarian ruling bloc by investigating the illegal and corrupt practices of political elites. In addition, the launch of the local autonomy system and the revision of the Local Autonomy Act in 1994 provided a legal foundation to elect local governors, legislators, and majors by direct popular vote. The local governments then had motivation to make the local government system more responsible for public needs. The two aforementioned governments also reformed several laws in order to remove regulations on civic associations, by which social groups and mass media were granted more freedom to organize political activities and criticize government policies, respectively. Although the Kim Young-Sam government played a critical role in transforming the old authoritarian government into more democratic system, it was limited in reforming the economic system. The domination of chaebols continued on the basis of jungkyuong yuchack (the close government-business relationship). However, due to the dismantling of economic structure under big business, major reformation of economic and political systems was triggered by the foreign exchange crisis in 1997 Under the globalizing economy, the imposition of the International Monetary Fund pushed the Dae-jung Kim government to restructure the economic system in order to enhance national competitiveness. In response, the Kim government launched "the second nation-building campaign" and undertook reform processes such as the reorganization of the financial system and restructuring of chaebol. In spite of the strong leadership and reformation policies, however, the government-initiated economic recovery resulted in much more concentration of economic resources and political authorities due to the emphasis on 91 efficient and fast rediscovery of the national economy and centralized organizations (Bae 2007). Table 4-1: Indicators ofRe!!ional Disuaritv (2000) Indicators National SMA(o/o) Population l 99,800 11,754 (11.8) Area(km) And Population (unit: thousand) 48,289 22,525 ( 46.6) Housing 2 484 1,971 Population Density (people/km ) 96.2 86.1 Housing Rates (%) Regional Gross Regional Product (billion won) 465,183 223,081 ( 48.0) Economy Number of Manufactures 98,110 55,874 (57.0) Number of Service Industries 794,095 360,102 (45.3) Savings Deposit (billion won) 404,661 275,394 (68.1) Amount of Loans (billion won) 310,804 202, 797 (65.2) Others Number of Universities 162 66(40.7) Public Agencies 276 234 (84.8) Medical Facilities 42,082 19,471 ( 46.3) Number of Automobiles 12,914 5,983 ( 46.3) Source: Y Bae (2007, 56) Under the changing circumstances such as established economic growth, and the global trends of globalization and localization, the national level economic development plans that had been continued for last 30 years had finally lost their momentum. The Third National Comprehensive Land Development Plan (1992 - 2001) concentrated more on building decentralized spatial structure, mainly through a polycentric development strategy and the creation of regional economic areas. The government tried rezoning industrial land use and relocating major industries and government functions to other regions that were relatively underdeveloped. In addition, by developing regional areas to take advantage of local characteristics they aimed to vitalize local and regional economy and induce voluntary resettlement of population and industrial activities. New industrial clusters were also created in the mid-west and southwest areas in order to accommodate high-tech and R&D industries, and a 92 nationwide traffic system was developed to support resource distribution (KRIHS 2013a). Along with the launch of the local autonomy system in 1995 local governments were given greater authority for urban planning via inspection of an urban planning draft. In the revised Urban Planning Act in 2000, channels for residents' participation were widened with the introduction of the Residents Proposal System, which allowed residents to make proposals on planning issues such as installation, maintenance, and improvement of urban planning facilities, and the designation, change, and establishment of the District Units Plan. When establishing urban development plans such as the Comprehensive National Land Plan, the Comprehensive Provincial Plan, the Metropolitan Area Plan, the City General Plan, and the City Management Plan, public hearings were mandated in order to have opinions from residents as well as related experts (Lee 2007). As a result local governments gradually enhanced their empowerment in local planning and policy-making. In terms of social dimension, by establishing large civil society organizations such as the Korean Federation of Environmental Movement (KFEM) and the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) the comprehensive civil society movement was continuously expanded. Under represented public in the previous strong government, who had deep mistrust in politicians and the political system, also supported political watchdog activities by several civil society organizations. In a sense, the 1997 foreign currency crisis may be seen as a booster of such public support. After the foreign currency crisis, while a great number of ordinary citizens suffered from serious economic difficulties due to high interest rates, some privileged people including high-ranking public officials and politicians exploited the high interest rates and accumulated more wealth, causing severe public outrage. The comprehensive trait of these civil society organizations was viewed as a result of the fact that "those organizations work[ ed] for the 93 general interest of the unspecified majority in dealing with social issues ... , including economic justice, environment, corruption, and community interests" (Lim 2000, 20-21). Also such comprehensive interest allowed them to build networks and coalitions relatively easily when a common issue arose. A well-known example of a civil organizations' collective movement was the Citizen's Alliance for the 2000 General Elections (CAGE), a campaign where almost all civil social movement groups actively participated under the leadership of the PSPD. A blacklist of parliamentary candidates who had been implicated in corruption or violation of the election law or had an anti-reformist attitude was produced and released in order to defeat those on the blacklist in the election. Although there was a controversy over human rights violations, the CAGE campaign was viewed successful in getting great support and encouragement from the public (Lim 2000). In addition to the comprehensive tendency, another stream of the NSM that began to emerge in the previous period, brought much more prominence. Typically, women's and environmental movement groups were very active, creating new discursive spaces and opening new horizons for democratization and social development (Kim 2012). In the case of the environmental movement, the changing internal and external circumstances, such as increased public awareness about environmental problems and global recognition of environmental crisis confirmed from the Rio Environmental Conference in 1992, directed the movement groups to widen their focus from an anti-pollution movement for direct victims to a more precautionary environmental movement for potential, normal citizens. Thus, issues such as general welfare, the consideration of future generations, space, and survival of the natural and human ecosystem had arisen as focal points (Ku 1996). Meanwhile, the Residents Movement founded to retain community and local spaces 94 further developed in this period into the most notable body of social movement, the Residents' Environmental Movement (REM) (Choi and Lee 1999). Clearly, this is another variant of the NSM, focusing on individuals' rights and the quality of daily life as the western model ofNSM did. However, it is also a result of changed social and political environments in Korea. Along with the launch of the local autonomy system, the national decentralization policy stimulated competitive local development, especially through the development of local spaces. In many cases, such local development tended to depend on the private market and ignored potential environmental effects those development projects brought about. In addition, the growth of the social middle-class and their increased awareness on local environmental issues and alternative values led them to have a higher willingness to do something for their space. In other words, the nationwide emergence of the REM was an incorporated result between the increased value of direct participation in the process of democratization and the realization of environmental crisis caused through the rapid industrialization and urbanization processes. Anti-movements against large golf courses, nuclear power plants, and nuclear waste disposal facilities, and pro environmental movements such as contaminated water stream restoration and food waste recycling in larger apartment complexes were typical examples that helped to designate the REM as a notable model oflocal and community movement (Choi and Lee 1999). As the REM was widely proliferated, community movement in this period began to show a more creative characteristic. This creative tendency stemmed in a large part from two factors. The first one was public disapproval that resulted from governmental development policies and side effects of the liberal market system, thus culminating in a search for an alternative community model. The Life Co-operative Movement, the Local Currency Movement, and the Self-Supporting Community Movement were well-known examples that tried to realize 95 different values such as ecology, local autonomy, or an alternative economic system. Another factor was local effort to transform individual life in the communal way. Since late 1990s, diverse community movement such as community library building, environment-friendly parking space construction, or individual fence removal movements began to occur and expand widely, advocating the concept of locality, community or neighborhood. This shows that micro units such as community and neighborhood, instead of macro national or regional areas, are focused as an alternative space for practice (Jeong 2012). The three cases this study selected, which will be explored in detail in the following chapter, were also initiated in this period. Here, as several NGOs began to participate in the community-building movement, typically Urban Action Network, alternative projects and ideas were generated, diversifying the scope and theme of community movement. To summarize, the most obvious transformation in the period from 1995 to 2002 was the rapid growth of civil society and its active role in social and political systems. The civilian governments provided favorable environments for civil society by reforming several laws and providing financial support. The comprehensive characteristic of civil society organizations led to wide and diverse movements in both individual and collective ways. Through the decentralization policy and the launch of a local autonomy system significant powers were delegated to local governments, enabling them to exert larger authority for local planning and policy. However, competitive local development in the globalization trend caused serious environmental problems in local spaces, which then led to the wide occurrence of environmental movements. In other words, the greater willingness for direct participation and increased environmental awareness led to the formation of the REM. In this changing social atmosphere, community movement became creative, generating alternative ideas and discourse, and trying to 96 change individualized and privatized life into a communal style. 4.4. Balanced development (2003 - present) As Moo-hyun Roh, a former human rights lawyer, was elected as the sixteenth president of Korea in December 2002, the democratization process was further accelerated under his strong leadership. Pointing out the illness of Korean politics and economy as a result of the uneven distribution of resources between the center and periphery, Roh's administration carried out unprecedented decentralization policies. The decentralization roadmap was the major project providing five guidelines to re-set the central and local relationships. His decentralization roadmap included: 1) the functional redistribution between central and local governments, 2) comprehensive delegation of financial and taxation authorities, 3) strengthening local administrative capacity, 4) activating local legislative bodies and reforming local election systems, 5) building up local responsive governments, 6) activating civil society, and 7) making cooperative intergovernmental relations. In advocating participatory government, he opened the old closed decision-making process to diverse stakeholders including scholarly groups, several local government associations, civic movement groups, and central bureaucrats, by which important national decisions could be made through political deliberation among them (Bae 2007). During the two democratic governments of Dae-joong Kim and Moo-hyun Roh, civil society enjoyed far more support from the government, by which civil society grew as an important negotiating partner for the reform process. In particular, the emergence of a local based civic organization, the Civic Movement for Decentralization (CMD) was a notable example that represented the growth oflocal civil society. As the most active civic alliance 97 organized by purely local activists, the CMD exclusively focused on the issue of decentralization by collecting decentralization-minded local intellectuals to deeply engage in the decentralization movement, or by directly participating in politics in order to put pressure on politicians and central bureaucrats (Bae and Kim 2013). Their professional knowledge and alternative discourse based on well-constructed networks and interactions were critical in providing policy alternatives. By acting as a major stakeholder in the policy making process, in fact, civil society played a crucial role in promoting democratization as well as decentralization throughout the 2000s. However, by undertaking neoliberal economic reforms, the Roh's democratic government is criticized as the 'government that went to the right side while turning on the left signal. ' 5 His government failed to provide stability for the poor, the workers and the peasants, resulting in an increased number of precarious workers, weakened job security and economic uncertainty even for the urban middle class. Housing prices skyrocketed (up to double) which made it far more difficult for the urban poor population to own their own homes. As a result the poor economic performances in his government failed to meet the high expectations of the public, thus loosing political support. As K.-Y Shin (2012) argues, this may be the main reason the public switched their support from the democratic party to the conservative side, resulting in the election of Myeong-bak Lee in 2008, who set himself as the 'Economy President.' President Myeong-bak Lee, former CEO of Hyundai Construction and Mayor of Seoul, took the road against the legacy of the two democratic governments. He strongly criticized the Sunshine policy 6 that had been advocated by Kim and Roh to build an amicable relationship 5 http:!/news.donga.com/3/all/20060704/8325468/ and http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/385500.html 6 "The sunshine policy can be seen as a proactive policy to induce incremental and voluntary changes in North Korea for peace, opening, and reform through the patient pursuit of reconciliation, exchanges, and cooperation" (Moon, 2000) 98 with North Korea, and took a hardline policy towards North Korea. With his rigid policy, the relationship between South and North Koreas returned back to a status similar to the Cold War. In addition, in proposing the neoliberalism and globalization slogans, Lee's government adopted business-friendly economic policies with tax cuts and deregulation of the economy and a strong pro-American foreign policy (Shin 2012). However, unlike the early expectation of the public that the election of the deeply economic growth-minded president would bring economic activation, more job opportunities and better quality of life, the economic condition of the public was not improved much. The inflation rate increased, and the Engel's coefficient 7 in September 2010 reached the highest record over 9 years 8 , which provided a bitter blow to the low income, working class. In Lee's presidential period, the government and civil society experienced several conflicts and developed an antagonistic relationship. One typical example was the 'Candlelight Demonstration' in 2008, which was caused by the issue of American beef import and possible 'mad cow' disease. In 2003, American beef did not pass Korea's National Quarantine Inspection, and imports had been paused until appropriate safety standards could be met. On a visit to the USA, however, president Lee signed an agreement permitting the import of American beef without deliberation process with public and civil society, which in tum led to the largest public protest since the 1987 June Uprising. Concerns about potential harmfulness as well as 7 Engel's Law or Engel's Curve is an economic theory, discovered in 1857 by German statistician, Ernest Engel, indicates, ''the lower a family's income, the greater is the proportion of it spent on food. " In other words, it means that lower income households spend a greater proportion of their income on food than other middle- or higher-income households. For the definition of the Engel's Curve, see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187455/Engel-curve. 8 http://www.etoday.co.kr/news/section/newsview.php?TM =news&SM =0399&idxno=3 55783 99 disappointment and anger in the authoritarian governmental decision extended the protest for about 100 days, involving more than one million participants throughout the entire nation with candles in their hands. Defining this protest as a leftist attempt to destabilize the government, Lee's government strongly suppressed the demonstration with old authoritarian methods such as iron pipes, container barriers, or by arresting demonstration participants. To criticize his anti democratic policy, a renowned scholar Nak-Chung Paik evaluates that the progress in democracy since 1987 was interrupted or reversed in Lee's administration (Paik 2013). Another scholar also argues that "the rise of illiberal democracy became a political fact after 25 years of democratic transition in South Korea" (Shin 2012, 305). Under such a political environment, civil society cannot help but be constrained in their activity, thus holding back the growth of civil society. In order to respond to changing internal and external needs and conditions, the urban and regional development policy turned its goal from growth-oriented to balanced development, placing more consideration on issues of protection of national lands and environmental sustainability. Therefore, the Fourth National Comprehensive Land Development Plan (2000 - 2020) set its goal as the 'realization of21 st century integrative national land' with four sub-goals: balanced, green, opened, and united national lands. In particular, Roh's government established the Forth National Comprehensive Land Development Revision Plan (2006 - 2020) to reflect his new paradigm. As he advocated decentralization and balanced development as the national top priority, regional development policy also focused on the construction of the polycentric, distributed national spatial structure, and balanced development by regional collaboration. One of the major projects undertaken under this goal was the construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City (MAC), named 'Happy City,' in order to distribute administrative and other functions centralized in the SMA into other local regions. Along with the MAC, private 100 companies also planned the Innovative City and Company City for the relocation of public institutions and local economy revitalization, respectively. In September 2012, the central administrative agencies began to move to Sejong City, which was renamed from Happy City by a public contest, and by 2014, 36 major governmental agencies including the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Ministry of Land, Transport, Maritime Affairs, Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will be relocated to Sejong City (KRIHS 2013a). Although it is still controversial as to whether or not these decentralization policies will be effective in distributing centralized economic and administrative activities and reducing regional disparities, this is obviously the most active and straightforward approach ever made thus far in order to respond to the long-standing criticism on uneven development and inequality since 1970s. In short, the political system and civil society since the 2000s has experienced complex and dynamic unfolding, largely depending on the presidential leadership. Although there has been some criticism on the issue of interrupted democracy, it has been widely agreed that the role of civil society has been critical in furthering the democratization process in Korea. In terms of urban and regional development policy, unlike the political and social environments, the goal of decentralization and balanced development through distributing centralized economic and urban activities into potential local regions has been continuously pursued. In a sense, however, the national efforts for regional and local development are viewed to bring about a competitive landscape among local governments. By employing similar development strategies, so-called monolithic local cities were generated with loss of intrinsic local characteristics. Given this criticism, the national government began to search for another strategy that would contribute to bringing diversity oflocal development and enhancing quality of life, and turned their attention IOI to the local and community levels. 4.5. Development of 'collaborative and comprehensive' community-building practices In response to president Roh's strong will for balanced development, the Ministry of Land, Transport, Maritime Affairs (MLTMA) introduced the Livable City Building Initiative (LCBI) in 2005. The purpose of this initiative was to lead specialized local development by discovering and developing the unique characteristics of local cities, and to build balanced development by local residents' voluntary participation and efforts (Transfort 2008). By defining approaches of developing local space in three aspects, a living space for healthy life along with good neighbors, a playful space that enjoys local culture and a beautiful environment, and a working space with vitality, this initiative emphasized a balanced development among these three environmental, economic, and social factors. Due to different scopes and characteristics between the city and community levels, the LCBI was comprised of two levels of demonstration projects: (1) 'community demonstration project' at the neighborhood or community level for expanding community-building practices, and (2) 'city demonstration project' at the city level for specialized city development. By 2009, a total of 94 cities and communities (36, 32, and 26, each year) had been selected through open contest (see Figure 4-1), and about 14 billion won (about 15.4 million dollars) had been distributed to those localities. With the launch of Lee's administration and subsequent policy changes, the LCBI was incorporated under the 'Urban Vitality Enhancement Project (UVEP)' since 2010. This is an expanded and reorganized local development policy by integrating scattered, albeit with similar purposes, regional and local development strategies. While the LCBI provided financial support directly to selected initiatives, the UVEP adopted the 'comprehensive subsidiary' method by which detailed planning and policy 102 implementation for the local area would be decided at the lo cal government's discre1i on. In short, the LCB I and the UVEP provided an important starting point in bringing nationwide attention to the local and community levels and facilitating the institutionalization of community-building efforts for the first time. JeonjJ Oty • •• • • 2007 .i. 2008 2009 Figure 4-1: Livable City and Conunwtity Initiative by MLTMA (2007-2009) Source (KRIHS 2013b, 26) O'Wing to the national interest in the CBM and financial and institutional support, the community movement had a great turning point in the mid-2000s. Whereas the earlier community movements were carried out as a social movement by a small number of people at 103 the private level, since 2005 it expanded as an official, institutionalized approach, and widened its scope with diversified ideas. In part, the growth oflocal-based civil organization in this period contributed to the expansion of the CBM by politicizing local issues and actively participating in the CBM. With increased interest across private and public sectors, the community-building movement presented a collaborative tendency, forming partnership and cooperative efforts among diverse stakeholders. Inherently, community-building practices solely carried by a single sector, such as only residents or govermnent, cannot exist without limitation, because planning practice in itself would have wide reaching effects over diverse actors and activities in a given space. This may be why the urban poor movement as the earlier version of community movement had difficulty in overcoming the criticism of a radical social movement against govermnent. Or, on the contrary, it could explain why urban redevelopment projects driven by govermnent in the late 1980s were confronted with severe resident opposition, causing community deconstruction. In particular, as the MLTMA set the formation of an official governance entity involving a wide range of stakeholders as the most important requirement, collaborative governance for community-building has become the dominant approach. The explosive expansion of community-building practices throughout the whole country encouraged more solid and stable institutionalization, for example, through establishing the Community-building Support Center (CBSC) and the legislation of Community-building Ordinances (CBO). Initially, the CBSC was supposed to provide a bridging role between different stakeholders such as local govermnents, NGOs, and residents. So far the CBSC has played diverse roles including management of the public contest process as a proxy agent, consultation, education, provision of a wide range of information regarding the whole process of community-building, facilitation of networking and interaction with external experts and other 104 communities, as well as cooperation with government. As of the end of 2012, a total of 18 CBSCs over 17 local governments have been established or are planned (see Figure 4-2). In many cases, the CBSC was established and operated by collaboration among diverse sectors (Lee 2013). In addition to the CBSC, the establishment of the CBO has been regarded as another critical factor for the institutionalization of CBM in that it provides a legal basis to sustain community-building activities. So far, a total of 28 local governments enacted CB Os (see Table 4-2). Ultimately the purpose of the CBSC and CBO is to provide systematic supports, especially for the realization of self-supporting community-building practices. 0 CBSC estabished CD 03S establishement i.rder discussion Gwangju Bukgu @) Gwangju Buk-gu (i) M.nvA1a-dong ________.. GwangjuNamgu ~ St.nc:heon Oty----- ~ ~ ~ Metroooitan 'Busan Sanbokdoro Figure 4-2: The Location and Status of the Community-building Support Center (as of the end of 2012) Source: (KRIHS 2013c, xvii) 105 Table 4-2 Number of Community-building Support Center and Community-building Ordinance 9 Year Number of Community- Year Number of Community- building Support Center building Ordinance 2006 1 2003 1 2008 2 2004 1 2009 1 2005 1 2010 1 2006 1 2011 3 2007 2 2012 4 2008 5 Planning 5 2009 6 2010 5 2011 1 2012 5 Total 17 Total 28 Other small and large efforts have also emerged in local environments. The most notable evidence is the creation of the National Community-building Network (NCBN), a group of grass-roots level organizations from the whole country. The creation of this network goes back to 2001 when the National Workshop of Community-building was held and the necessity of building networks for scattered local groups was first discussed. They reached an agreement that networking and interaction among diverse groups would be crucial to share experience and knowledge and to make collective action. After the official establishment of the NCBN in 2005, regular meetings such as monthly gatherings and annual nationwide Community-building National Competitions have been held, aiming to widen the opportunity for mutual learning and interaction, and to create a sentiment in favor of grassroots community-building (KRIHS 2013c). In their inception, however, they seemed to hold a somewhat radical perspective, following the community and urban poor movement in the 1970-1980s. The operation director stated, 9 In the case of the CBO, the drastic decrease in 2011 may represent the changing circumstances due to the local election and subsequent policy change. This also demonstrates the importance of policy continuity. 106 "Grassroots community-building movement so far is in a crisis to be under the existing power and market. With a clear aim to build communal globalization against market globalization, we propose to open a new vision for alternative society." 10 As the NCBN developed, however, they also underlined the necessity of a collaborative approach between private and public sectors with an expectation that both sectors could play a complementing role for the other. In order to theorize and generalize such diverse approaches, several scholars have tried to categorize them by various dimensions such as leading agents and the main goal (Jeon, Kim, and Hwang 2008, Lee 2005). In terms ofleading agents, diverse actors such as residents, NGOs, local governments, and experts may initiate the CBM independently or jointly, then forming collaborative governance systems with the involvement of other sectors. The main theme may be divided into three-fold focus. The first has a material perspective, focusing on the enhancement of the built-environment by improving unsafe and deteriorated space as well as creating public spaces. In this built-environment focus, in particular, the increased awareness of environment and ecological value is incorporated, leading to a flow of so-called environmentally friendly living environment building. For example, the waste reducing and recycling campaign has been widely applied in order to keep the community clean as well as to realize ecological value. Another focus stems from a more cultural perspective, mostly aiming to increase the sense of community. This approach concentrates more on building residents' organizations and small groups of people in order to induce residents' participation, and creating diverse community programs, educational sessions and cultural events in order to increase community 'social' activities. The last theme has an economic perspective with special attention given to the revitalization oflocal economy by stimulating economic activities. However, this theoretical 10 Hankyoreh Newspaper (April 4th, 2005) 107 categorization loses its explanatory power in many cases in that lots of community-building efforts have presented multiple purposes, sharing different perspectives and strategies. As a result, the collaborative form of community movement began to have a comprehensive characteristic, considering diverse aspects of community. 4.6. Discussions This chapter briefly overviewed the historical trajectory of political, social, and economic policies since the 1970s (see Table 4-3). The urban and regional policy has been used as the most effective means to meet changing goals, significantly contributing to rapid economic growth, industrialization, and urbanization. However it has also produced some side effects of growth ideology, such as centralization of economic activities and population, deepened regional disparity, the issue of the urban poor, monolithic spatial structure and land use, destruction of environment, degradation ofliving environment, and so on. In such a transformation of social and political systems, community movement also transformed as responding to confronted social issues and changing demands. As explained above, the grassroots urban poor movement that occurred in the 1970s, the earliest model of Korean community movement, showed adaptive and protest characteristics under the strong authoritarian government. While they protested several redevelopment projects due to community deconstruction concerns, the primary goal was to help the poor in Daldongne better adjust in the new environment. In the period of unprecedented transition to democracy from the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the participatory mood in the political system and the growth of civil social movement led the defensive and participatory community movement, trying to keep the living environment safe from any harmful effects such as garbage, noise, and 108 environmental pollutions. As local residents began to take direct action in order to solve community problems, this type of movement came to be known as the Residents Environment Movement, acknowledging their voluntary participation and leading role. Forming a much more favorable environment for civil society, the following period from 1994 to 2002 then generated the creative community movement as local movement groups created innovative ideas and social discourse about alternative values such as ecology, local autonomy, or alternative economic systems. In particular, the REM rose as the dominant local community movement with the intention to realize diverse alternative values at the community level, and ultimately, to revive communality. Finally, the recent collaborative approach that emerged in 2005 has tried to take it one step further by overcoming the limits of the REM. While the REM remained within a given spatial environment focusing on the realization of its goals at the micro level, the collaborative model takes a more active approach by trying to build cross-sectoral networks, thus effectively mobilizing human and material resources within as well as beyond the physical space, and by placing greater efforts towards the institutionalization of community movement for further expansion and sustainability. In the historical perspective, the current collaborative community-building approach presents some noteworthy characteristics. First, the collaborative form of community-building efforts has a comprehensive characteristic, dealing with a wide range of community issues from an inclusive perspective. If the community movement in the early period of 1970-1980s approached from a material perspective, so focusing exclusively on protecting physical environment, at this time however, they began to understand community as an overarching concept including not only physical, but also social, economic and cultural aspects. To enhance the quality of life within the community, the creation of diverse community programs and 109 cultural events has been recognized as a more significant factor than tangible productions (e.g. just beautifying physical environment) in deciding the success and failure of community building practices. Efforts to obtain a balance between old and young generations and resolve conflicts among different groups of people through increasing chances to communicate and interact in various social programs are good examples. The active application of environmental and ecological value in the visioning of the community is also noteworthy. Second, as Park argues (2007), collaborative community-building has a strong belief that local development has to be approached in diverse ways. By recognizing that the most serious problem of local cities is the monolithic application of development strategy regardless of local context, it pursues the enhancement oflocal competitiveness by discovering and specializing unique characteristics of each locality. Third, although the paradigm shift from government to governance has been widely evidenced in Korea, the current governance approach has also exposed the issue of limited opportunity for ordinary citizens. Clearly, the involvement of diverse stakeholders in decision-making is the major progress. Because its focus mainly on the engagement of government, expert, and civil society organizations, however, it has been criticized for being limited in bringing public citizens to the table. On the contrary, the collaborative community building movement focuses on direct participation and the leading role of local residents in planning and implementation of community projects by creating diverse channels. In fact, this shows that the collaborative approach began to rise as a new planning paradigm, shifting from a top-town to a bottom-up orientation. 110 T bl 4 3 D I t re a e - : eve opmen o "t b ild" M ommumrv- u ill!! t. th H" t . IT ovemen m e is onca rans1 ion Periods Dark age Transition to democracy Deeping democracy Balanced development ( 1960s - 1987) ( 1987 - 1994) (1994 - 2002) (2003-) Political - "Developmental State" - Enforcement of full-fledged - Civilian government by - Participatory government by - Iron Triangle, Jeong-hee democracy as the core Young-sarn Kirn (1993 - Mu-hyun Roh (2003 - 2008) Park's authoritarian campaign pledges by Tae- 1998), Dae-jung Kirn ( 1998 - Unprecedented government (1972 - 1979) woo Roh (1987 - 1993), but - 2002) decentralization policy - Centralized power by still centralism prevailed in - The launch of the local - Decentralization Roadrnaps national government the political system autonomy system in 1994 (2003) delegated powers to local governments Economic - Rapid economic - Continued domination of - Economic crisis: Foreign - Sustainable and equitable development by export- chaebols based on Currency crisis in 1997 development under Roh's oriented policy and jungkyung yuchack - Economic recovery government industrialization, - The rise of high-tech programs - New liberalism economic - chaebols (business industry policy and rninirnalized conglomerate), jungkyung intervention in Lee's yuchack (close government- government business relationship) Urban and - Top-down, bureaucracy - The Second National - The Third National - The Fourth National regional centered Comprehensive Land Comprehensive Land Comprehensive Land development - 5 year economic Development Plan ( 1982 - Development Plan (1992 - Development Plan (2000 - development plan ( 1962 - 1991): the metropolitan area 2001): polycentric spatial 2020): decentralization and 1981) development policy (mix of development, creation of balanced development: e.g. - The National growth pole and balanced regional economic areas Multifunctional Comprehensive Land regional development) - Gradual enhancement of Administrative City Development Plan ( 1972 - - Seoul Metropolitan Region local authority in local - Institutionalization and 1981): "growth pole" Plan (1984) and Two Million planning stabilization of citizen strategy Housing Construction Plan - Expansion of citizen participation in planning - Establishment of the Urban (1988) as decentralization participation in urban process Planning Act (1963) strategies planning process: Residents - Introduction of citizen Proposal System (2000) participation in Urban Planning Act ( 1981) 111 (Continued) Social (and - Rapid urbanization - "June Democracy - Reinforcement and - Growth oflocal civil society civil society) - Neglected social system Movement" in 1987 deepening of democracy by under Roh's government - Suppressed civil society - Rapid growth of civil civil society movement - Depressed civil society - Protest movement, society: formation of large - Expansion of daily life under Lee's suppressive underground based in civil society movement movement (community, government universities and churches groups environmental movement) Community - Adaptive & Protest - Defensive & Participatory - Creative - Collaborative & (building) - Urban poor movement, - Efforts to keep their - 'Building 00 community' Comprehensive movement Daldongne community safe from any - Growth of Residents' - Institutionalization of - Protest movement against harmful effects Environmental Movement community-building poor housing demolition - Anti-movement on - Alternative ideas by NGOs - Collaboration of diverse - community issues, e.g. - The expansion of stakeholders, especially for garbage, noise, education, Community-building genuine residents and environment Movement (CBM) participation - Residents movement - Comprehensive approach through active participation - Diversified local ofresidents (e.g. Apartment development by specializing community movement) unique characteristics 112 CHAPTERS THREE COMMUNITY-BUILDING CASES 5.1. Case 1: Gwangju Sihwa-Munhwa Connnunity-building As one of the residential areas in the north district of the city of Gwangju, 11 the community-building movement in Munhwadong was initiated through the local policy of the north district of Kwangju. As the local autonomy system was launched in 1994, and the system of the local Community Autonomy Center introduced nation-wide in 1999, the north district officially initiated a community-building movement. Among the twenty-six administrative dongs in the north district, Munhwadong has been recognized for the successful development of its Community-building Movement (CBM). The CBM began with the creation of modest Ssamji (meaning "small pocket park") and the installation of works of art (e.g., local artists' sculptures) in public parks. In 2001, the Residents' Autonomy Committee (RAC) ofMunhwadong named their CMB "Community with Sihwa" (meaning "community with poetry and painting"), attracting residents' participation through the creation of drawing boards of poems and other writings, attached to fences. 11 The city of Gwangju, located in the southwest, is the sixth largest Korean city with a population of 1,468,000 in an area of 501.19 km 2 . The north district is located in the northeast area of Gwangju with a population of 459,000 in 120.39 km 2 , about 25 % of Gwangju city as of December, 2011. 113 Figure 5-1: Location of the Gwangju SMCB The development of the Gwangju Sihwa-Munhwa Community-building (SMCB) took place in tlrree stages. The first stage-from 2000 to 2003-focused on building the rational, institutional, and demonstrative foundations of a long term plan by promoting the theoretical basis of the concept of community-building. In this period, the Community-building Study Group was created to develop innovative programs as well as to learn from other domestic and foreign programs of a similar nature. The north district government created a community- building task force to provide administrative support, including resident educational sessions. 114 The second stage-from 2004 to 2006-concentrated on establishing the CBM and institutionalizing it. In particular, great efforts were made to establish the first community- building ordinances and the CBM enforcement regulations necessary to allow the north district to emerge as a kind of civic movement. The community-building support center was set up to provide continual and systematic aid, including special sessions and educational programs aimed at providing life-long education for residents. A preliminary study was undertaken to inspect a wide range of community assets such as community culture and historical resources, to publish the Community Statistics, and to utilize them in the CBM as a specialized model of community- building. The final stage-from 2007 to the present-can be seen as a period of stability and the diffusion ofCBMs. As the SMCB became recognized as a best practice for livable CBMs nation- wide, the north district government has tried to establish networks with other CBMs and connect with their experience, knowhow, and information in order to foster a sustainable civic movement. T bl 5 1 D I t fth G . SMCB a e - : eve oumen 0 e wanP1u Stage Period Details Beginning 2000-2003 - Community-building long-term plan construction - Community-building task force team - Academic pro<>rams and institutional svstem set up Settlement and 2004-2006 - Community-building ordinances and rules institutionalization - Community-building support center - Community asset inspection Stability and 2007-20ll - Selected as the best practice of community-building diffusion and became recognized nation-wide - Specialized community rebuilding movement - Balanced development for dwelling, playing and working space - Diffusion to civil movement 115 Development of the Gwangju SMCB In 2000, members of the Munhwadong Resident Autonomy Committee (MRAC) shared the need for some community projects in order to strengthen solidarity and to enhance the sense of community. They first planned a small community project that transformed an abandoned area nearthe 5.18 Cemetery Park into a small pocket park. They also installed a sculpture, the "Harmony of the Community," aiming to symbolize the harmony of the community who had made a collective effort to overcome their difficulties. Many ideas had been proposed, and the idea of "the community with poetry and painting" drew much attention due to its uniqueness and creativity. In order to verify the suitability and validity of the idea, they took over twenty field trips and heard from residents and experts. Finally, in 2002, "Community with Poetry and Painting" (CPP) was officially selected as the major community project. As a first step for the CPP project, from February to April of 2002, the MRAC attempted to gain a general agreement and to reach consensus among its diverse residents. In order to induce resident support, members of the MRAC met with individual households directly, holding several information and discussion sessions. In addition, they also thought the involvement of local artists and public institutions would be very helpful in invigorating the project. In the end, 33 households (of the total 36) agreed to participate in the project, even at their own personal expense of $50, for a total ofWl,600,000 (South Korean Won; about $1,700). For four months from March to June, each household directly selected poem, and attached them to their fence. In addition, a community festival was held to celebrate the successful completion of the project. 116 Figure 5-2: Attaching Poem to Individual Fences in 2002 (left: before, right: after) As this first project was recognized as successful in terms of improving environmental conditions and garnering emotional support from ordinary residents, a follow-up project was planned again in 2004, one even larger in scope. The space for attaching the writing board, formally hung on the individual fences, was expanded onto those of near apartments and the elementary school, each named as "our community living together," "dreaming of the peaceful and warm-hearted world," and "a way to school while dreaming." For the first time, they formed a committee, which was composed of nineteen members: nine individuals from the MRAC, three heads of local organizations, three from educational institutions, one from academia, and one leader from apartment autonomy group, one representative from the apartment management office, and one from the public welfare office. The committee was formed in order to proceed with the CPP in a more systematic way. In November 2004, the combination of a community-building movement and the arts led to several spin-off programs such as the first writing competition for elementary and middle school students, in which over 200 hundred students participated. The MRAC was also able to expand partnership with local art associations, relying on their consulting roles. A collection of writings was published in November 2004, and a commemorative stone was installed in the park. Several CPP programs were continued until 2006 with increased participation from a wider circle 117 ofresidents, students, children, and local aitists. For students and children, it was a fun and memorable experience, and their works were hung on the fence along the way to the school. Figure 5-3: Writing Competition (left) and the Publication of the First Poem collection (right) I wanted for children to feel seij-estee m cmd pride. Residents ... welcomed filling up the fence with children s paintings. Needless to sqy, parents liked it very much (Hyeongwon Choi, Director of the Munhwa Dqycare Center/ 2 Along with attaching poems and paintings on the fence, the idea of self-designed individual doorplates was proposed. Sixty-three households participated in the doorplate design project, which was undertaken in partnership among the residents, local government, and university students who majored in fine rut and voluntarily shaI·ed their skill. A second Shihwa writing competition was also successfully held, among students from across Gwangju city, including eighteen elementaiy and middle schools. Another project was unde1taken to transform an abandoned area filled with garbage into a small pocket pa!k Several local aitists donated their work for installation in this pocket park, which became another community space for residents and visitors to refresh themselves and relax. 12 Source: http://blog.daum.net/soo4388/7774 77 4 118 Figure 5-4: Self-Designed Doorplates These diverse efforts to make a better community won awards seven times from both local and national governments.As a lot of news media (over 500 local and central-Korean outlets) focused on the CPP efforts, reporting on its significance, the case began to enjoy widespread attention. Many from other areas, including local activists, local government officials, NGO representatives, and even ordinary residents, visited Munhwadong to see and hear about their successful story. Table 5-2: List of the Projects Undertaken in the Siwha-Munwha Community Since 2000 Year Projects Types 2000 Creation of small parks Living environment improvement 2001 Installation of sculptures Living environment improvement 2002 Building cultural community with poetry and painting I Culture and art 2003 Creation of the Deulsaniae walking road Convenience facility 2004 Building cultural community with poetry and painting II Culture and art 2005 Building cultural community with poetry and painting III Culture and art Hanging the amiable door plates 2006 The second writing competition Culture and art Building cultural community with poetry and painting IV 2007 Building cultural community with poetry and painting V Culture and art 2008 Building cultural community with poetry and painting VI Culture and art Hanging of amiable door plates 2009 Remodeling of community roads at the Daeju apartment Living environment Supplementary works of the cultural community with improvement poetry and painting 2010 The first community art festival: Dreaming of a forest in Culture and art the city 2011 The second community art festival Culture and art Sihwa kitchen gardening Living environment improvement 119 As the central government began to pay attention to the significance of local community-building movements in 2007, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine Affairs (MLTM) initiated the "Livable City and Community-building Project." The project gave awards for the best community-building practices, and the Sihwa-Munhwa Community-building Movement, which arose from the CPP, took first prize. As a result, they received W200,000,000 won (or, around $220,000), which went to funding community projects such as the production of writing boards and the continued painting offence decorations. Additional projects were also undertaken as a result of the rewards. The Shihwa Gallery was constructed, in order to exhibit competition-winning works and children's paintings from local daycares. Sculptures were installed, in addition to the a-eation of community gardens and places of relaxation. Figure 5-5: Diver se Community Projects Note: From the top left in clockwise order, commemorative stone, Siwha gallery with paiticipation of children, installation rut in a public park, and the consensus building process 120 In order to increase participation in community activities for ordinary residents, individual gardening was financially subsidized, hoping to encourage the beautification of the whole community with various flowers and vegetables. Creating an online website and publishing community videos and booklets were strategies that were aimed at sharing experience widely. Until 2011, the SMCB continued in diverse ways, including the successful holding of annual festivals and community events. The Cultural Community with Poetry and Painting" is a project that gave attention to the fences of individual houses that had played a role as a kind of mental barrier, contributing to a sense of alienation. By attaching poems and mosaic paintings, they hoped to melt away ... closed minds and to interconnect neighbors. Each resident was supposed to decide the contents of the poem and painting. The writing competition was another method undertaken to widen the participants of the project into the elementary and middle school students. In other words, it is a good strategy for residents to get involved in the community. In some sense, it is a limitation of art that ordinary people might find it hard to access art easily unless they purposefully seek it out. By providing residents the chance to experience art in daily life, however, it overcame such limitation ... By this project, it eventually would be able to improve the quality of life and to foster ownership and sense of community. 13 Features of the Gwangju SMCB Actor and network interactions As seen in the previous overview, the initiation of the SMCB cannot be understood apart from the active engagement of the local government, who hoped to realize residents' autonomy from the early stages of the 1995 nationwide administrative reform. As the most active actor, the local government reformed their administrative system to facilitate community-building practices; it set up an exclusive unit to deal with local community-building practices, and created a community-building support center to provide related information. Another main agent in the early stages was the "Resident Autonomy Committee" (RAC) that formally represented the 13 Cited from: The North District of Gwangju (2010, 94). 121 voices of ordinary residents, playing a connecting role to the local government. They took the lead in generally managing diverse programs, taking the responsibility to encourage wider resident participation. In addition to these direct participants, experts including academicians, local artists, and the community-building study group can be seen as indirect participants who irregularly provided their knowledge and skills. Ordinary residents . . ···<-·· .. . ·· : ·· .. . ·· : · .. . . . ... ~ ·. : Residents Autonomy \ ! Committee ~ Experts ! (RAC) : -Community- : : building study • } : •• group ! ....... •········: -Academia ~ : -Local artists . . . . . . . . •. Local Gvmt : ·. .· ·.. ..·· ··.. ..· ······· Figure 5-6: Major Actors and Interactions Ordinary residents -Academia MLTMA: National Gvmt After being selected as the best community-building practice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine Affairs (MLTMA) in 2007, the range of participants of the SMCB was widened. The Community-building Committee (CBC) was established as a governance entity in order to systematically operate the community-building movement. In taking over the leading role, the CBC became a kind of public sphere where diverse stakeholders could become interconnected and have consensus-building discussions. Lobbying for financial support to central and local governments was also another major task, as the matter of continuation or discontinuation largely depended on the securing of money sources. 122 Table 5-3: Major Actors and Their Roles Actors Roles Before 2007 After 2007 Gover Central: · No specific action · Institutional and financial nment MLTMA support: provision of $200,000 in 2007 Local: · Institutional support: establislunent · Continuously strong supporter of Gwangju of the first community-building the SMCB, encouraging other Buk-gu ordinance (2004 ), areas to conduct the community- (north · Administrative support: reformation building movement district) of local administrative system, · Expanded operation of the community-building support center community-building support · Financial support center · Continued financial sunnort Reside Resident · Leading role of the initial · Continuously active role nts Autonomy community projects: general · Connecting role between Committee management of community-building administration and local resident: project listening to and collecting local · Encouragement of wider residents' voices participation · Encouragement of wider · Attracting diverse groups' interests residents' participation including local voluntary associations, and leading to discussions and consensus among them Ordinary · Direct participation in proper stages · Widened participation of ordinary residents of community-building process residents · Emotional suooort · Emotional suooort SMCB committee ·NIA · Overall management of diverse sub-programs, · networking with major actors · Lobby for financial support from central and local governments Local organization · Passive involvement: Individual · Active participation as a major of art and culture participation of several artists actor in the committee · Management of art and culture programs, education for residents · Interactive area for artists from diverse field Expert: Community- · Project examination · Provision of consultation and building study · Arrangement of over 120 meetings advises group, academia to find a proper model of · Formation of partnership for community-building educational program · Provision of consultant and information on setting community .. v1s1on 123 The core actors in this committee were divided into three groups: the RAC, the local art association, and the local government. As a connector between ordinary residents and the local administration, the RAC listened to and collected local voices to be heard in the visioning of their community. Encouraging wider residents to participate in community-building practices was another task of the RAC. The local art associations, who had previously remained passive participants, now deepened their level of engagement from providing skills and consulting to the direct management of several programs. Thus, the association became actively involved at the organizational level, while acting as an interactive space for artists from diverse areas. Last, the local government was the strongest advocate. In order to realize their goal of promoting the SMCB as an exemplary case in Korea, the local government expanded the scope and role of the community-building support center, and encouraged other areas to join in the community- building movement. It also set money aside to undertake diverse community-building activities. As indirect actors, the MLTMA offered financial and institutional support, while academic experts provided consulting. Realization of residents' autonomy: the strong will of the head of the north district and active supports at the local government level As the nationwide local autonomy system was launched in 1995, the election of the head oflocal government was changed to popular vote. 14 The first head of the north district elected by popular vote, Tae-Hong Kim, was formerly a journalist during the period of democratization of the 1980s. While protesting the dictatorship of Park Chung-Hee (1972-79), he was deeply 14 Before 1995, the chief executive of the local government was appointed by the central government. Mayors, governors, and councilors are currently chosen via non-partisan elections for 4 year-terms. 124 concerned about the problem of the authoritarian government. After being elected head of the north district, he set the main goal of his administration as being "open administration with residents' participation," and made great efforts to overcome the monolithic, top-down approach of the previous local government. Four years later, Jae-Kyun Kim was elected the next head of the north district. He had been a councilor under the first administration of Tae-Hong Kim, and had encountered the community-building practices of Japan though communication with local NGOs. He was very interested in the issue ofresidents' autonomy and placed great emphasis on community-building projects at the local government level. Such attention led the local administration to take active steps to facilitate the nascent community-building movement, and to set three goals: improving living environments, developing human resources by fostering skilled people and community leaders, and building local community. Table 5-4: Three 2oals of the residents' movement of the north district Community-building Enhancement of living environment Creation of human resources - Creation ofresidents' organizations - Establishment of communication patterns and enforcement re =lati ons - Enhancement of alleys - Enhancement of blocks - Building new houses - Enhancement of resident consciousness - Promotion of democratic citizenship Since 2000, about 250 projects have been undertaken, absorbing almost 90% of the total budget, including pocket parks, gardening of alleys, theme parks, the installation of sports facilities in public parks, and resident rest areas. Each project was undertaken through a series of processes. First, the local government holds an information session to provide general information about the project, such as an outline of the subsidy expenditure. After notices are posted on bulletin-boards, newspapers, and the online homepage, and civic opinions are 125 collected for a set period, applicants then submit application documents, including project plans and an outline of the budget. Then, the judging committee undertakes paper and field examinations. Finally, selected communities hold public hearings and discussion sessions in order to announce the project and to have residents ' input. The mentoring of experts is also recommended to improve the feasibility of the plan. Table 5-5 N b : Uill er o f P . t . th N rth D" t . t s· roJec s m e 0 IS nc Ince 2000 15 Year # of Living Culture Health Convenience projects environment and art facility facility improvement 2000 24 17 3 1 3 2001 28 9 4 4 11 2002 27 4 5 5 13 2003 26 4 7 2 13 2004 26 11 7 - 8 2005 29 12 9 - 8 2006 9 2 2 - 5 2007 12 5 6 - 1 2008 14 5 7 - 2 2009 22 12 4 - 6 2010 15 9 1 - 5 2011 18 13 5 - - Total 250 103 60 12 75 Finally, the local community-building focused on more social aspects, such as increasing participation, involving diverse local organizations, and creating social programs. Diverse actors included individual volunteers, local associations such as women's societies, senior citizen's associations, apartment autonomy associations, public officials, and NGOs. Several local organizations provided community outreach for low-income minorities or seniors through the remodeling oflow-income housing, the publication of the community autonomy newspapers, and developing community guarding activities. Along with setting three goals, the administrative system was reformed several times to 15 Source: http://www.bukgu.gwangju.kr/contents.jsp ?S=S01&M=040605120000 126 adapt to changing needs and circumstances. As a first step, the local government set up an organizational unit titled the "Resident Autonomy Team" under the general affairs section. Containing three teams, this unit was expanded into an administrative section in August 2000, and was placed in charge of the operation of the Resident Autonomy Center 16 at the level of Dong. A task force team that dealt exclusively with the community-building was then established in 2003, aiming to systemize procedures of diverse projects and to provide administrative and financial support. In order to support the CBM itself, a community-building support center was set up in June 2005. The role of the community-building support center was to conduct diverse activities, including the creation of community-building programs, to collect and provide related resources and information about intra- and international cases, to identify and develop each community's unique characteristics, to run programs and market them, and to create networks with other organizations. Legislation of the first Community-building Ordinance One of the most significant features of the SMCB is the official legislation of community-building ordinances in Korea. The necessity of the formal legal system was made clear through a couple of forums and symposia in February 2001. In particular, a symposium called "Strategies for vitalizing the beautiful community" was the first to foreground the issue of community ordinances. The Gwangju YMCA also hosted a forum on the creation of the 16 The Resident Autonomy Center was newly formed under the Community Center in 1999 as the national government reformed the local administrative system. The Community Center, reformed from the Office of Dong (administrative unit at the community level), directs administrative affairs and oversees civil services like petitions, welfare, culture, and sports for all, while the Resident Autonomy Center aims to provide convenience facilities and welfare programs using Community Center facilities. As of January 2011, the number of the Resident Autonomy Centers established is 1,970, out of the 2,061 Dongs nationwide. 127 community-building ordinances, where agreement among participants was reached, resulting in a call for an urgent action. Thus, a sort of social consensus on the necessity of ordinances was formed. After undertaking several examinations on their validity, the local government decided to indeed establish official community-building ordinances. As a first step, the "Ordinance Legislation Committee" was formed, which was composed of seven members: two academics, one civic organization representative, and four public officials. A draft generated by the committee then underwent review by the North District Council, which undertook a process of deliberation and voting. Finally, the official community-building ordinance was declared, and was followed by enforcement regulations including the establishment of the community-building center and detailed operational guidelines. T bl 5 6 T" r f h 1 . 1 . f h B a e - : nne me o t e e!'is ation o t e 'ful c eauti OllllllUlllty-b ild' 0 d' u Ill!! r mance Details Date Decision to legislate the Beautiful Communitv-building rdinance 11.18.2008 Committee composition for the Beautiful Community-building rdinance 11.19.2003 legislation Workshop of the Beautiful Community-building Study Group 11.28-29.2003 (2 davs) Proposal of the Beautiful Communitv-building ordinance 12.04.2003 Deliberation at the meeting of the head of the residents autonomy 12.11.2003 committees The first revision of the proposal at the ordinance legislation committee 12.12.2003 Finalization of the draft of the Beautiful Communitv-building ordinance 12.15.2003 Canvassing opinions 12.18.2003 Review of the draft 12.22.2003-01.06.2004 (16 davs) Pre-announcement of legislation 01.08-01.31.2004 (The bulletin board of the north district office, those of every Dong's (23 days) office, and the online homepage, etc.) Public hearing 01.28.2004 Finalization of the ordinance 02.23.2004 Proposal of the ordinance to the North District Council 03.11.2004 Declaration of the ordinance 03.25.2004 Declaration of the enforcement regulations 11.25.2004 Source: (M.-K. Lee, 2008) 128 The "Beautiful Community" building ordinance divided into three chapters: general rules, details of the community-building process, and the composition of the "Beautiful Community" committee. The first chapter described the purpose and definition of community- building, and the responsibilities of each agent. For example it defined "Beautiful Community" as being one that balanced the environment, human needs, and culture, and defined community- building as including all activities for creating the community that connected residents. This definition again emphasized the importance ofresidents' participation, self-help, and having greater autonomy. The second chapter detailed the general and district plans. In order to realize the fundamental ideology of the community-building, the head of the north district was authorized to form a master plan and provide a detailed district plan to embody it. A support plan was also deemed necessary to provide financial and administrative assistance to resident-driven projects, making resident input compulsory. The final chapter described the Beautiful Community-building Committee, including its role, composition, and meeting rules. T bl 5 7 C a e - : OIDDOSI lOll 0 fth c e 't b ild' 0 d' ommumrv- u llli r mance Ordinance Enforcement regulations Composition Three chapters, thirty articles, rider Three chapters, fifteen articles, rider Details Ch. I General rule Ch. I General rule - Purpose, definition, and ideology - Purpose, plan making - Responsibility of residents and - Project application, review and the head of the district decision Ch.2 Beautiful Community-building Ch.2 Community-building Support - Master plan, district plan Center - Supporting plan, project - Installation of the center implementation - The role of the center Ch.3 Beautiful Community-building Ch.3 Committee and Study group committee - Member appointment, regular - Establishment, role, and meeting composition - Composition of the study group and - Detailed rule of the meeting its operation (Source: Jeong, 2010) 129 Such legislation of the local ordinance is particularly significant in that it officially builds a legal foundation on which community-building activities are continuously undertaken, thus securing the stability of the movement. Also, by establishing a formal administrative manual and management process, they aspired to have "unity" in the process of diverse activities (Park, Chun, and Jeon 2009). Harmonious combination of public art with community-building Another significant point of the SMCB is their effort to corn bine public art in their community-building practice. Along with the installation of artworks in several places, the SMCB also aimed to deeply involve public art in community festivals, so that residents could enjoy community events and experience public art at the same time. The value of environment (ecology) as the main theme of the festival was emphasized through three special programs: the Shihwa art festival, the Shihwa educational festival, and the Shihwa performance festival. For example, the first art festival, entitled "Forest," exhibited several local artists' work around the community, and embodied the subject of the forest in diverse ways. ~ ~ Busan by Swarm of bees (Cho on Yang, Seongnam by Suwon by Deocksang Ko Jonghyeock Park, Yohwan Kirn) Seongwoong Lee Figure 5-7: The First Community Festival in 2010: Exhibition of Works of Local Artists 130 As they successfully completed their first art festival, organizers began to settle on the program becoming an annual community event, with the main theme being balance between environment, city, and culture. The second community art festival was held in October 2011, for one month. Along with programs such as writing and painting competitions, alley galleries, Sihwa Jumack (traditional inns), and flea markets, new ideas that focused on the environment also yielded diverse programs such as "Green Bicycle" (campaign for bicycle riding) greening by vegetable gardening, and Environment Camps that aimed to educate children about the importance of environment, family, and culture. Community Gallery Educational session with children Figure 5-8: Community Festival: Community Gallery and Educational Session The active involvement oflocal artists was successful in enriching the form and contents of community-building, garnering the greater attention and interest of ordinary residents. One program, the "Let's look around the community gallery,'' for example, was undertaken by a group of public artists composed of about twenty university students who were fine arts majors. These artists voluntarily formed a community service group and contributed to transforming the 131 community built environment by infusing it with cultural elements. The local artists didn't only provide artistic works: their knowledge and skills were invaluable in running educational sessions, especially for children. Artists who participated in the art festival held a drawing session, called "Star,'' that gave children a chance to experience working with artists. The "Dream,'' performance festival aimed to celebrate the fact that their community-building movement has been successfully continued through the active participation of residents and local artists, and their mutual partnership. Supportive events like the flea market, Shihwa Jumack, and "Art Market, Danawa" that ran through the whole community festival were made possible by the voluntary participation of residents and local artists. These events were also a good source of profits that could be spent for the community later. Performance Festival, "Dream" ArtMarket Flea Market Figure 5-9: Community Festival in 2010 132 5.2. Case 2: Samdeock Community-building Movement Samdeockdong is a residential area in the city of Daegu. 17 As a typical old section in Daegu, the population of 5,800 resides in a space of 0.67km 2 . Historically, Samdeockdong functioned as one of major residential areas, accommodating several schools and administrative institutions, which might play a blocking role against the inflow of commercial facilities. ' I. ( Figure 5-10: Location of the Samdeock CBM The development of the Samdeockdong CBM can be divided into four stages (see Table 17 The Daegu Metropolitan City, located in southeastern Korea, is the third largest city with a population of about 2,500,000 in an area of 884 km 2 . 133 5-8). The first step was the fence removal movement (FRM), initiated by a local activist in 1998. The FRM rapidly expanded across the whole of Daegu city, with the strong support of the public-private partnership, the Daegu Sarang Undong Citizen Committee (DSUCC). A larger level community-building movement also began to be developed through the collaboration of the YMCA and diverse community physical and social activities. However, the Samdeockdong suffered from the effects of a redevelopment plan from 2006 to late 2007. The local government announced that Samdeockdong had been selected as a redevelopment zone, which resulted in the fierce conflict between the pro- and anti- redevelopment groups. The severe conflict decreased residents' interest in the Samdeockdong community-building movement. After the official abandonment of the redevelopment plan in late 2007, the Samdeock community began to call for alternative ways to revitalize their community- building movement. The national government's initiative, "Livable city and community-building project," provided another point for the Samdeockdong to marshal resident interest in the community-building movement. They are still making efforts to heal the emotional scars caused by the redevelopment conflict, while waiting for an opportunity to rise again through the undertaking of key projects (e.g., community festivals) with the YMCA. T bl 5 8 D 1 f h S d kCBM a e - : eve opment o t e am eoc Stage Periods Details Beginning 1998 The fence removal movement (FRM) initiated by a local activist, Kyeongmin Kim, who tried to realize "Small YMCA movement" in Daegu Rapid expansion 1999-2005 Establishment of public-private partnership, DSUCC, for the city-wide expansion of the FRM Development from the FRM to community-building movement with the collaboration of the YMCA Depression and 2006-2007 Redevelopment plan of Samdeockdong and severe conflicts conflicts between pros and cons Slow progress for 2008-2011 New project, "Along a zigzag, story-filled alley," revitalization of supported by MLTMA, to revitalize the CBM the CBM Several key projects by YMCA to maintain the CBM 134 Development of the Samdeock CBM The Fence Removal Movement: From one activist to the whole city The Samdeockdong's community-building movement was initiated by Kyeongmin Kim, a civil activist working at the YMCA. At that time, a major issue among civil movement groups was "criticism on civil movement without citizens," and he had been interested in the small YMCA movement as well as residents' participation in the community-building movement. In 1996, he moved to Samdeockdong, expecting that he could initiate community-building movement at an individual level. As a first step in November 1998, he removed the fence surrounding his house, in order to share his front yard with neighbors. I thought that ifl removed my fence, I could have more space with more sunlight. Since I spend most of time outside my house, it was too bad that only my wife and I enjoyed this space (Kyeongmin Kim). His action was welcomed by his neighbors, and stimulated other neighborhood movements, such as transforming neighborhood alleys to small parks (called "alley-parks"), holding environment-friendly painting competitions for children, and encouraging neighborhood wall painting with recycled bottle caps. Increasing interest in alley-parks was further expanded into other areas throughout Daegu city. Until 2000, the fence removal movement (FRM) was expanded into the fence removal of major administrative and private institutions. In May 1995, the city of Daegu selected a fence removal movement to be the major project of the Daegu Sarang Undong Citizen Committee (DSUCC) 18 , the first partnership oflocal government and civil organizations. Both the "FRM practical committee," which was composed 18 'Daegu Sarang Undong' means a movement for loving Daegu city in Korean. 135 oflocal officials and secretary-generals of several civil movement organizations, and the "FRM consultation committee" were placed under the DSUCC in order to provide wide range of consulting for institutions and voluntary citizens. The local government recommended that administrative institutions participate in this movement by removing fences of already existing institutions as well as mandating that newly constructing buildings be fence-free. In addition to sending official letters to other civil organizations in order to attract their active participation, the DSUCC also tried to induce voluntary participation from public institutions such as schools, clinics and hospitals, and religious groups. The landscaping industry also took part in this FRM by providing free landscaping consulting and planning. For individual households, however, fences have traditionally acted as a boundary of individual property, while maintaining privacy and safety. For this reason, the local government provided a subsidy for individuals who participated in the FRM of3,000,000 won 19 (about $3,300) along with other benefits such as free waste disposal, free landscape planning and consulting, and the provision of plants and materials. Meanwhile, the local government conducted a competition, the "FRM Grand Prize," hoping to increase voluntary citizen participation by selecting excellent cases and rewarding their activities. The expansion of the FRM was made in three stages: 1) the formation of neighborhood community spaces based on the opening of individual spaces; 2) the formation of small neighborhood parks by removing fences from educational institutions such as elementary and middle schools, and 3) the formation of green spaces and green ways by transforming the abandoned spaces of several public institutions into large parks. 19 This amount was based on the cost that Kyeongmin Kim spent for the removal of his fence. 136 Fence removal of a public institution Figure 5-11: Fence Removal Movement 20 Up until 2011, the total number of participants (663) included administrative and public institutions, individual households, and self-employed people. The removed fences totaled about 26.6km, which contributed to creating small and large parks and green spaces over 350.294m 2 . This represents the meaningful transformation of private and exclusive spaces into public and open ones which citizens and neighborhoods can enjoy together. 20 Source: http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS Web/view/at pg.aspx?cntn cd=A0000343256, http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS Web/view/at pg.aspx?CNTN CD=A0000343910 137 Fence removal activity initiated by a civil activist .. Establishment of DSUCC Local government (Partnership b etween local gvmt and ~ ~ civil organizations) I ~ ... ., Fence removal and no fence Provision of subsidy I movement by Consultative administrative and public committee for the institutions I I FRM Material supports - - ~ ~ FRM practical Induced participation of Selection of excellent cornrni ttee individual households and cases and buildings commendations f Voluntary service from landscape industry Figure 5-12: The Process of the Fence Removal Movement at the Daegu City Level 21 The achievements of the FRM can be summarized in three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social effects. The economic value of this achievement is expected to be about 130,000,000 won (approx. $14.3 million) per year. 22 Green spaces such as small and large parks created by the FRM have the positive effect of decreasing summer temperatures by preventing formation of heat-islands in the central areas of the city. Such green spaces also absorb C0 2 and expel 0 2 . The spaces thus promote environmentally-friendly values among citizens, values which are considered to be the major factor in adopting the Low Carbon Green Growth policy. Last, the opening of private spaces into public spaces for communicating with 21 Inspired by the Sohn and Lee's model (Son and Lee 2001, 17) and developed further by the author 22 Newspaper article (Need a new name of the FRM, Maeil News, 02/01/2012) 138 neighbors has contributed to the elevation of social values and led to the revitalization of the city. Depression and conflict: The wave of redevelopment Due to the flow of redevelopment, Samdeockdong suffered from a decline of the FRM as well as the CBM. In 2006, the local government announced that Samdeockdong was selected as a redevelopment zone. The redevelopment issue in Korea has brought about a sharp social debate due to its origin and approach. Historically, the redevelopment project was devised in the early 1960s as a squatter settlement, taking an approach that cleared up all housing entirely using bulldozers and policemen. The government exerted extremely strong force in the process of redevelopment, which resulted in sharp oppositions, due to its ineffective and unjust process (Ha 2001 ). In particular, such an approach has been criticized for focusing on the physical environment of housing and quantitative provisions, all while social and cultural values such as an historically cumulated sense of community and uniqueness of place have eroded. 23 As this plan of redevelopment was undertaken, residents opposed the plan, such as architects, seniors, and community leaders, held an official meeting to discuss the issue. They agreed that the redevelopment project had two problems: first, the amount of housing in Daegu city already exceeded demand. Thus, ifthe newly constructed housing was not sold, the residents' association would be shouldered with the burden. Second, the process of contracting with 23 Later, a new style ofredevelopment project, the so-called 'joint project," was introduced. This was supposed to take on a spirit of homeowners-construction company partnership, based on the voluntary agreements between homeowners and a construction company, to build high rise flats and share profits. In order to start redevelopment, a redevelopment association was created to work on behalf of homeowners, and votes of a two-thirds majority were required for approval of decisions. The Joint Redevelopment Project is now the most common and prevalent method of improving substandard housing areas (Ha 2001 ). 139 construction or maintenance companies was unclear, and non-transparent. Then, the "Residents' Association Worried about Validity and Transparency of the Samdeockdong Redevelopment Project" was established, and held an information session at the M agojae (community theater), to which over 100 residents attended. At this session, several issues were discussed, including: 1) the low rate of economic return of the redevelopment project; 2) the concern of having to carry a high burden due to housing oversupply; 3) the contracting process with construction and maintenance companies should be clear and open; and 4) the general meeting that dealt with major issues such as selecting a construction company should be held after a careful and thorough examination. At this meeting, an official letter detailing these issues was written and sent to the redevelopment association. The conflict between the pro-redevelopment group and the anti-redevelopment group was fierce. Most residents who agreed on the redevelopment were landowners expected to see gains from redevelopment. Some residents expected that such a redevelopment project would lead to them have new housing instead of their old one. From the historical experience of Korea 24 , some seniors just trusted that redevelopment represented pots of money. Others expected such a redevelopment project to improve their living environment. Residents who stood on the other side also had their reasons. Some seniors who had lived at the Samdeockdong over three generations wanted to keep community culture for their children. For self-employed residents, who owned small buildings, ran small stores at the first floor, leased the second floor and lived on the third floor, the redevelopment might not guarantee their jobs, stable profit from leasing, and living place. Although some landowners who owned 24 In Korea, there is a myth of "invincibility of real property." Historically, the rapid growth of Korea was based on large development projects, as explained in the previous chapter, which provided a large amount of development profit to landowners. This notion persists to this day. 140 small parcels ofland would get the right to residency, the additional money required to pay for a new housing represented a heavy burden. While the debate raged, a general meeting of the redevelopment association was held in July, 2006, where a residents vote was taken. The results showed that most residents in attendance voted against the major issues, including the selection of the construction company. Many residents who agreed with the project earlier changed their mind after being informed about several problems regarding the redevelopment project and possible risks. Spurred on by this result, the group opposing the redevelopment took strong and formal actions against the redevelopment plan. The anti-redevelopment movement had two major demands: 1) the withdrawal of the existing consent on the establishment of the redevelopment association as well as the redevelopment promotion committee (RPC), and the cancellation of the redevelopment zone; and, 2) the disbanding of the RPC. Monthly information sessions were held and leaflets were distributed once per month at the M agojae or the community-building center. Some architects who lived in Samdeockdong made information leaflets and female residents helped to distribute the leaflets door to door. The staff of the Daegu YMCA undertook the administrative tasks. Overtime, the "Residents' Association Worried about Validity and Transparency of the Samdeockdong Redevelopment Project" was able to develop their skills and competence by equipping themselves with expertise, organizing ability, and knowledge about how the system worked. In December, 2006, the "People's Association of who Love Samdeockdong (PALS)" was established by active, voluntary residents. As the anti-redevelopment movement began to be active and systemized and calls for the withdrawal of the consent on the RPC increased, the conflict escalated between PALS and the RPC. The RPC criticized Kyeongmin Kim as being a selfish and deceptive liar who only sought 141 his own interests and those of the YMCA. Some residents who agreed with the RPC protested in front of the Daegu YMCA, slandering Kyeongmin Kim as well as children in the Swimteo (literally meaning a relaxing place and a shelter for children). Many flyers were distributed on both sides, with more residents changing their minds and beginning to side with those opposing the redevelopment. As unsold new housing increased in Daegu city, construction companies withdrew from redevelopment projects, and the issue of redevelopment began to lose momentum not only in Samdeockdong but also in Daegu city as a whole. In late 2007, the redevelopment plan of the Samdeockdong was finally abandoned. Slow progress for the revitalization of the community-building movement The severe conflict that resulted from the redevelopment plan decreased residents' interest in the Samdeockdong community-building movement, and even driving some to leave the community. In such an atmosphere, citizens began to call for alternative ways of community building. Some cultural projects such as the sharing of Kimchi in the winter season, the provision of housing remodeling services, and the Puppet-Mime Festival were maintained in order to keep interest in the community-building movement. In 2007, just in time, the MLTMA initiated the sustainable community-building pilot project to support excellent initiatives. The Samdeockdong CBM was selected with the title, "Along a zigzag, story-filled alley," and given financial support of about 200,000,000 won (about $220,000). The major tasks of this project included the remodeling of old housing, designing community open spaces and social programs for community-building. Even today the Samdeockdong is making an effort to heal the emotional scars caused by the redevelopment conflict while it watches for an opportunity to rise again through the undertaking of key projects (e.g., community festivals) with the YMCA. 142 Table 5-9: Details of the 2007 Samdeock Livable Community-building Project, "Along a z· St Fill d All " 12za2, orv- e e" Repairing murals and - Maintenance of 17 existing murals installation - Installation of artistic bicycle depository - Construction ofrecycled installation, "Even though hate, once again" Creation of Baccob - Designing of the alley of the residents autonomy center: Madang (playground) installation oflarge benches in the Jeongjamok-shelter, making murals - Construction of the M agojae (community theater) - Creation oftheMagojae ecological wetland - Setting parking space of Y ongyongi (community mobile library in a remodeled bus) in the backyard of the Bitsal Museum Designing of alley - Supplementation of the fence removal of the Samdeock elementary school - Expansion of the mural pond and creation ofbiotope Community space - -Improvement of Bits al Museum: flooring, maintenance of remodeling wallpaper, roof, and room with a tatami floor (Japanese style floor) - Maintenance of Magojae and community-building center Housing remodeling - Low income seniors' housing maintenance: wallpaper, bathroom, replacement of heating system and flooring - Financial support about 500,000 won per household; total of 60 households Designing my own - Making doorplates, designing door on my own front door Residents - Building a livable community: exploration of Samdeockdong, parti ci pa ti on and visioning future images - Social programs: adult group for reading children's story, the class of Pungmul band (Korean folk band) for children, Samdeockdong boys' football club, Shin-river ecology exploration group, community senior school, etc. Source: Kim and Kim (2010, 120) Features of the Samdeock CBM Actors and network (interactions) Since the initiation of the pilot project of the MLTMA in 2007 can be seen as a promoter of formally establishing a governance entity. All three cases-Samdeock, Gwangju, and Bupyeong-can be examined by two periods: before 2007 and after 2007. 143 In the early stages of the Samdeockdong CBM, the actors could be divided into four groups. Active residents and activists in YMCA were two major groups (in the dotted circle below, Figure 5-13) who were deeply interested and involved in the FRM. By keenly communicating with each other, they took the lead in setting goals and strategies, and designing and operating several activities. Their interaction seemed to be informal and irregular, communicating in daily life or when they had issues to discuss. Also the DSUCC was another actor to provide financial support and free consulting. Two other groups-ordinary residents and the DSUCC-were weak supporters. Although the resources from the DSUCC were helpful in proceeding with diverse programs in the Samdeockdong, the goal and approaches of the DSUCC targeted the entire Daegu city, and it is hard to see that the DSUCC directly participated in the Samdeockdong CBM as an active stakeholder. The local government also remained an inactive supporter, only with some financial subsidies. Ordinary residents ~·························· ... .. . .. .·· : .. ~ . ~ : . . . . Active 1111 llJlo : • residents #i YMCA • . •.· . : ~ ~ \ / ·.. .•·· ··. .· ... ..· ·.. . .. ···:;~·.. ··. . ..... . .. ······· ........ : Local Gvmt DSUCC Ordinary residents DSUCC . ·.. ············..... ...... .. ,..• Active ~ ••• .. . .• .. •• •• • residents •• •• • ••• . . . . ·· .. ·· · .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ : . . ·.. .· ... ..· ...... · ··. ······ .· ........ .c ........... :-.: .. . . . . . Local Gvrnt MLTh1A: . . . . Experts -Academia -Local experts National Gvrnt Figure 5-13: Major actors in the Samdeock CBM before and after 2007 Since 2007, the actors of the Samdeockdong CBM began to be diversified. One of the 144 requirements of the MLTMA's initiative, "Livable city and community-building project," was establishing a formal governance entity encompassing several sectors such as citizen, local government, NGO, and local experts who provided comments and consulting. As a result, the Samdeockdong CBM also created a community-building committee in order to systemically operate and manage their movement. In this committee, active participants were also members who deeply took part in from the earlier period, such as a number of active residents and activists of the YMCA. The financial support from MLTMA allowed for the Samdeockdong to create diverse projects for both built environment and social programs, which attracted other residents who had not been interested in the CBM. Urban experts from academia played a consulting role, providing information and skills for the CBM. Table 5-10: Major Actors and Their Roles Actors Roles Before 2007 Since 2007 Govemm Central: - No specific action · Financial and institutional en ts MLTMA sunnorts Local · Financial support · Financial and physical supports: government subsidy, materials, place for events and meetings, etc. · Participation into the planning process and community events Local Active · Finding community problems · Continued participation residents residents and provision of opinions Ordinary · Indirect participation · Widened participation of residents · Emotional support ordinary residents into community events · Increased interest and emotional suooort Community-building NIA · Leading role of the CBM Committee · Setting directions of the CBM Organiz NGO: YMCA, · Full supports: joint operation of · Continued support and active ations community projects and participation programs, provision of project operation knowhow with skilled people DSUCC · Encouraging participation of · Encouraging participation of public institutions public institutions Experts Academia, · Provision of consultation · Examination of community local experts assets and consultation 145 Making community asset and culture for the sense of community The main features of the Samdeockdong can be characterized as seeking to create community assets and to foster community culture. As the Samdeockdong is an old residential district, many residents have lived there for their lifetime, and thus they are deeply concerned with the decrease of the sense of community and desire to keep the memories from their childhood. Kyeongmin Kim has stated that he was really fascinated with the long history of the Samdeockdong as well as place attachment residents of the Samdeockdong had, which in turn motivated him to move into the Samdeockdong and start the FRM. In order to infuse a sense of community, diverse strategies were applied; for instance, the enhancement of the built environment through designing of alleys and creating community public spaces, and the cultivation of community culture and diverse social programs including children-friendly events. Designing of alleys: diverse ways of drawing murals As the FRM expanded, many residents began to be interested in the community, which dovetailed nicely with concerns on how to develop a small, successful movement into a more widened CBM. Since the FRM focused on the negative role offences as a kind of barrier in communicating with neighbors, such concerns were easily connected to efforts to transform the desolate environment into a more pleasant and neighborhood friendly one. The idea of the drawing murals was generated by a local artist, Jeong-Hee Kim, who moved into the Samdeockdong at that time. She came up with the idea of redesigning of the Green Store, which was located next to the house of the first-fence-removal, in order to improve the image of the Green Store. In other words, she hoped to develop it into a more beloved community space by allowing vigorous communications with nearby residents. This small idea actually sprang into an 146 action as a bottle cap art wall. The bottle cap was a successful project in that it addressed the importance of recycling and represented the Green Store as a meaningful social good. In order to get neighborhood children involved, she offered small rewards to children for bottle caps, like two bottle caps for 10 won (about nine cents). This was very popular among community children, and in just 3 months, a total of about 8000 bottle caps were collected in all. The transformation of a colorless wall into a meaningful work of art was not the only benefit; by actually taking part in the process, participants were able to find emotional satisfaction as a contributor to the community. At first, the fence just looked empty and I thought some kind of artistic work might be needed. We didn't have enough money, so there was no choice but to find alternative materials through recycling. After all, that was a process of finding the most efficient way in the Samdeockdong. As we all worked ... together, we gained self-confidence, realizing that low cost wouldn't be a problem in making a good community mural. Individually, I also knew that I had symbiotic relationship with residents and kept continuous communication, not as an expert but as a resident just having experience and expertise. (Jeonghee Kim) Figure 5-14: Recycled Bottles Cap Mural 2 Following this example, then, diverse approaches to beautify fences and alleys were created. Since the Swimteo and Samdeock Elementary schools set the boundary of the Samdeockdong, colorful tiles and pieces of alcohol bottles were used in order to catch the eyes 25 Source from http ://blog.daum.net/ksmam7174/18286599 147 of pedestrians. The Community Map Mural was created by children, representing home, hangouts, and friend's homes, among other things. Through this process, they realized how well children know and recognize their own community. Historical Mongolia rock murals and coin murals were other products to follow. Figure 5-15: Diverse Murals 26 Kim and Kim (2010, 65-68) point out seven rules in the process of designing diverse murals: 1) the use of diverse materials such as recycled bottle caps, abandoned bowls, broken mirrors, eggshells or leftover roofing tile; 2) a well-balanced design that can become a part of the environment and daily life; 3) a collective design made through collaboration with residents; 4) a 26 Sources: http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS Web/view/at pg.aspx?CNTN CD=A0000343910 http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogid=sinyang79&logNo=130065367953 148 low budget, never exceeding 500,000 won (about $490); 5) the majority of materials being durable and representing the four seasons; 6) co-operation of local artists and volunteers, and; 7) a long-life span. In particular, the whole process of designing and drawing murals was determined collectively through a lot of discussions among individuals who owned fences, their neighbors, and local artists who worked on those projects. Usually, six to seven artists participated in each project, while community children and volunteers from the YMCA also contributed their efforts. Since most of the projects were undertaken with a very small budget, which was usually supported by the DSUCC or the local government, the slow process was natural, and the use ofrecycled materials represented the best choice. Cultivating community culture Concerns about how to gather residents together and to help them cultivate their own culture have resulted in the creation of several social programs. Among them, holding a community festival was an efficient way to help ordinary residents learn and understand about what was happening in the community. Additionally, it was a good chance to invite inactive residents and to include them more closely. The beginning of the community festival traces back to a puppet play on December 23, 1998, which was undertaken by a voluntary performance of a college student group. This small puppet play was warmly welcomed by community children, and was followed by the foundation of a puppet performance group, "Green Star Children." This group was composed of community children and run under the guidance of a professional puppet troupe. Since 2002, the community has held festivals twice a year, where old and young generations get along together, sharing food and having fun. They have also generated several successive programs such as Green Community Concert, Environmental Performance, Earth Day 149 Events, Valley dance festival, and Fashion Shows. This small step towards cultivating community culture was an important event that represented the whole of Samdeockdong. As described in the previous section, the community experienced strife in 2006 due to a severe conflict over the issue ofredevelopment. There was collective concern that ten years of experience and memories of the community might disappear as a result of redevelopment. As an alternative to keep the memory alive, some local artists suggested developing their puppet plays by involving professional performance artists such as mime and juggling. As a result, the Puppet-Mime Festival was created and named "Mumuri island," meaning a place that remains stable in the midst of a great flow. A committee of 20 residents was formed to organize the festival, and important decisions were made in the committee. During the festival periods, community public places such as the Bits al Museum and the M agojae were transformed from ordinary places to the site of very special performances, and have become cultural symbols of Samdeockdong. After the redevelopment conflict in 2007, the festivals were used to melt the tensions and to resume the community-building efforts. It has provided significant opportunities for the residents to reflect on and to articulate the meaning of the community, and to convey these meanings through actual events and direct participation. The festival itself became another social space that invited more and more residents at the individual level, as well as mobilizing diverse local organizations. New networks among residents or between residents and local organizations were created and relationships were strengthened through the continual communications for the festival. The festival, Mumury Island, attracts lots of professional peiformance groups, including over 20 puppet troupes every year. Visitors include almost 5000 people. However, this festival is not concerned with the number of visitors, because it should be understood in the context of the restoration of the traditional community festival (not an 150 ordinary festival that purposes to make the best profit). Basically, the Samdeockdong Puppet-Mime Festival is for the community residents .... The purpose of this festival is to restore contemporary community festival by a medium of art. Fundamentally it seeks to make residents deeply care for and love the community. (Sungjin Cho, president of the Korea Mime Association/ 7 Figure 5-16: Puppet-Mime Festival, Mumury Island 28 In order to encompass the young generation, they also have created several children- friendly programs. Thanks to the contribution from a local bus company, a mobile children's library was made in order to provide easy and convenient access to diverse books. The Kureogi Eco Drawing Competition that has also been contested since 1998 is another effort to help children think about environmental issues. 27 Source: J.-H. Kim (2008) 28 Source: http://thewisdom.tistory.com/26 151 Figure 5-17: Mobile Children's Library, Yongyongi Self-help, internally focused community-building One of important lesson from the Samdeockdong case is that the strategies they took were strongly based on self-help, and were internally focused. As Kretzmann and McKnight (1996) emphasize, there are two paths for community development: need-based vs. asset-based. While the need-based approach focuses on a community's needs, deficiencies and problems, the asset-based approach emphasizes discovering and mobilizing a community's capacities and assets such as skills, land, civic relationships, small businesses, and using local institutions to solve the local problems, instead looking for outside intervention. Actors of the Samdeockdong were diverse, depending on their skill or ability. For example, individuals contributed to the CBM by participating in designing doorplates as well as painting murals on their fences, while public institutions such as the Samdeock Elementary School and the Kyeongbuk University Hospital transformed their private spaces into open, sharable spaces by removing fences. One resident and college of fine arts graduate, Jeonghee Kim, contributed her skill and capacity to those who needed consulting and advice in the process of designing their doorplates, murals or community center. A local bus company, Daemyeong Transportation, donated an old bus, which became the Yongyongi Mobile Library; the "library bus" became very popular among children. 152 All these commitments were made on the basis of informal relationships of daily life among residents, which also became the process of building informal networks by introducing and bringing skilled people in the right time and place. These practices support the statements that "significant community development takes place only when local community people are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort ... (and this is) why communities are never built from the top down, or from the outside in" (Kretzmann and McKnight 1996, 25). Creating community public space A variety of community activities might not have been started without community spaces where residents can get together to have discussions, run social programs, or just have fun in their daily lives. From the opening of private front yards to the creation of community open spaces for communication, as seen in the previous section, the FRM itself has been a process of making community shared spaces, or, "public space." The creation of community public space began with the transformation of old, traditional housing in the community. One typical space was the M agojae, or community theater, which represented an old traditional housing built in 1948. After hearing a rumor that this housing would be sold to a private developer at an auction in 2001, Kyeongmin Kim bought it at his own expense. He then opened it to neighbors, hoping that it would be used as a public community space. At first his hope seemed to fail. Children scribbled graffiti on the walls, and traditional papered windows were torn off. As time went by, however, this housing began to be voluntarily managed by residents themselves. Some used it as a gathering place at night to have dinner with neighbors, while children used it as a playground in the daytime. Although it might have looked 153 poor or left unprotected, for about five years the space was run by the invisible rule that allowed for diverse users to peacefully share the space (Eunhee Kim, 2006). As the community held the first Puppet-Mime Festival in 2006, this became another community theater for performances. Flexible thinking about community space is needed where ordinary places and festival locations coexist. Shared community space does not divide ordinariness and non ordinariness. The Magojae shows what spatial flexibility is (Kim and Kim 2010, 87) The Bitsal Museum is another community space that was transformed from an old schoolhouse built in 1930s. After getting consent from the Samdeock elementary school, it was reborn as a community museum in 2000. The resulting space was named after a kind of traditional earthenware, which was used as a household item, even while being recognized as a piece of artwork. This reflects the idea that culture and art should meet in actual daily life and space (Kim & Kim, 2010). Since 2000, this museum has been a place for exhibition, children painting competition, and the Puppet-Mime festival. 29 http://www.yeongnam.com/mnews/newsview.do ?mode=news View&newskey=20080505.01006 071438000 1 154 Advocacy by a community activist and collaboration with the YMCA The Samdeock CBM might not have happened without a passionate local activist who early on wanted to realize a small YMCA movement. As described above, fence removal was an easy yet symbolic strategy that could be seen as a first step to initiate a community-building movement at the individual level. In addition, his affiliation with the YMCA, having been promoted to the position of secretary general, led to greater interest and support at the organizational level. As a result, many community activities and programs have been undertaken through collaboration with the YMCA. For example, YMCA activists who had many experiences with project operation shared their knowledge of diverse community programs. Their knowledge and skill was also helpful in preparing project proposals for governmental funding. Many active participants in the community-building movement were those who were connected with the YMCA, either as salaried workers or volunteers. In addition to sharing human resources, financial and material supports were also critical to sustain the movement. Through the financial support of the YMCA, the first fence-removed house was transformed into a community common space that allowed for the "Baby Village" (free daycare program), a local job support center, or a shelter for runway teenagers. Although most activities were discontinued after the redevelopment conflict, several key projects survived by the partial or whole support of the YMCA, such as the "Green Store" (a recycling center), the "Hope Bicycle Factory" (a job creation project, jointly supported by the YMCA and the local government), and "Peace-Trade" (a social enterprise, including the selling of fair trade coffee by matriarchs). Along with the continuation of the community festival, the survival of such community programs is meaningful in that they leave a possibility for the revitalization of community-building movement. 155 5.3. Case 3: Bupyeong Cultural Street Building Movement The construction of the Bupyeong Cultural Street Building (hereafter, "Bupyeong CSB") was undertaken in mid 1990, surrounding the Bupyeong Traditional Market, located in the Bupyeong-dong in the city oflncheon. 30 Historically, the Bupyeong Traditional Market played the role of the major local market in Bupyeong area, having visitors from nearby cities such as Ganghwa and Kim po. ~ - (lncheon , , Figure 5-19: Location of the Bupyeong CSB 30 Incheon Metropolitan City, located in the west side of Seoul, is the third largest city and home to 2.76 million people in an area of 1,029.43 km 2 . 156 In the 60s, the Bupyeong Market was very famous as Itaewon 31 oflncheon, in that it distributed lots of necessities, particularly Mijae (meaning goods made in the US) from a "Camp Market," which was belonged to an American Army Unit in Bupyeong. However, the Bupyeong Traditional Market began to lose its vitality in the late 1990s due to changing social and economic circumstances, which resulted in the creation of the Bupyeong Cultural Street Building Movement as a revitalization strategy. The development of the Bupyeong CSB can be examined in terms of three stages: beginning, slow development, and evolution to the large community-building movement. From 1995 to 1998, early concerns on the decline of the Bupyeong Traditional Market began to be shared among community people. Several retailers formed the Bupyeong Market Retailer's Association, and generated an idea of building the "Cultural Street." By freeing the physical environment from vehicle traffic, they expected to prevent the decline of the traditional market and their sales income. However, the presence of illegal street vendors was identified as a critical problem in the process of building the cultural street, which resulted in severe conflicts between retailers and street vendors. Although the Bupyeong CSB was completed in 1998, the conflict remained around the issue of how to manage the street. The subsequent period from 1999 to 2007 represented a stage of slow progress, making various efforts to revitalize the market street as well as resolve conflict. Among several efforts, the formation of the Cultural Street Development Committee became a significant turning point, by which agreements on street management issues were generated. Several community events were also created, contributing to 31 Itaewon is a business district ofYongsan-gu in Seoul, specifically known as area where American soldiers have stayed after the Korean War in 1950. Since international commercial goods have been distributed in this area, the name Itaewon typically is used to refer to a well known shopping district full of exotic stores, restaurants, and stalls. It has become very popular among Koreans who are looking for foreign delicacies as well as foreigners who need necessities from other countries. 157 the change of interactions and communications among related stakeholders. In the last stage, from 2008 to 2011, they finally resolved their conflict and successfully established the most inclusive form of local organization. The conflict resolution accelerated the community-building movement in diverse ways, which was later connected larger civil movements, such as Bicycle City. In pursuit of building an 'Ecological City' where human beings and natural environment coexist, the Bicycle City Movement has been continued since 2007 at the larger Bupyeong City level. Table 5-11: Development of the Bupyeong CSB Stage Periods Details Beginning 1995-1998 - Concerns on decline of traditional market - Foundation of the Bupyeong Market retailers' association for business street management and revitalization of the street - Generation of conflict between retailers and street vendors - Completion of the BCS in 1998 Slow progress 1999-2007 - Slow development of the Bupyeong CSB - Continued conflict Evolution to the 2008-2011 - Revitalization and expansion of the Bupyeong CSB large - Conflict resolution: integrated local organization with community- street vendors building - Spin-off programs and new movement movement Development of the Bupyeong CSB Making the Bupyeong Cultural Street: increasing conflict between retailers and street vendnrs The decline of the Bupyeong Market began with the introduction of several large franchised-retail stores in 1996. Whereas previously customers had to walk around a great deal to purchase different products in traditional markets, large franchise stores attracted customers by providing a more comfortable shopping environment by offering a variety of goods and amenities in one place, enabling so-called "one-stop shopping." After suffering from the IMF 158 financial crisis in 1997, moreover, people changed their shopping patterns in consideration of economic competitiveness and reasonable price more importantly. The system of the traditional rnatket had a difficult time meeting the changing requests of customers and, consequently, deteriorated rapidly. Althoug, the ~yeong Market hos about 400retail shops and 1, 000 street vendors, the recent economic downturn made it di!Jicultfor retailers to even pay the re>t. The market is almost dead Om reason if the decrease of visitors is fila' buildings and shops are dirty and deteriora'ed Even.fire lanes were occupied o/ street vendors. (Newspaper article, Kye"'1fjn Dbo, Mqv 29, 1977) .... Figure 5-20: BupyeongTraditional Market in 1980s In this circumstance, the existence of the street vendors wasp ointed out as one of the most significant problems, causing conflicts between retailers and street vendors. The streets of the rnatket were crowded by street stalls, which made it difficult for pedestrians to pass through the streets. In addition, most street vendors sold products similar to those sold by retailers such as clothes, food, and agricultural and marine products, and retailers felt that their right to live and do business was serious! y threatened by illegal street vendors. Meanwhile, the B upyeong Market had already began to lose customers, which led 159 people in the market expect to a crisis, due to the changing shopping pattern. Sharing similar concerns, a group of about forty retailers formed the Bupyeong Market Retailors' Association (BMRA), hoping to revitalize the street. They thought that unless they changed the shopping environment for potential customers, the whole market would rapidly decline. One idea that grew out of the association was to make the "Cultural street" more customer-friendly by prohibiting vehicle traffic, and providing enough space for pedestrians to walk around and enjoy the shopping. This idea was further developed by members of the BMRA. In order to have wide support from retailers and other residents, the BMRA began to politicize major community issues in order to generate consent and agreement. The major issues they addressed were the revitalization of the declining traditional market, the establishment of street order by eliminating illegal street vendors, the creation of comfortable, relaxing spaces, the enhancement of physical environment by repaving streets and removing telephone poles to underground, and building the idea of a "Cultural street" by holding various events. After successfully getting 156 retailers' signatures in July 1996, the BMRAsubmitted a petition to the local government, asking for a designation of the cultural street. Since the presence of street stalls was pointed out as one of the major causes of the decline of the market, priority was given to the cleanup of the street stalls. However, they were confronted with severe oppositions from not only street vendors but also other retailers nearby as well as local government. Even residents who used cars for shopping opposed this petition, expecting that it would cause them inconvenience. While the BMRA made various efforts-from submitting a number of petitions to meeting local politicians to have political support-the conflict between retailers and street vendors intensified. 160 At first, we expected that if we made efforts to make a plan for the revitalization of the market, the local government would show very positive responses. At that time, the head of the district was the one first elected by popular vote. So we thought that the district head would listen to voices from residents actively and then make efforts to reflect it to the actual practices. Contrary to our expectation, however, he showed a somewhat negative response to the designation of the cultural street, especially due to the sensitive issue of the street vendors. Although he admitted the idea of the cultural street might be good, he still argued that "the market would be better when it was well-mixed with street stalls." (Taeyeon In) As the increasing conflict delayed the process of the Bupyeong CSB, the BMRA took a more systematic approach, including the submission of several petitions and direct meetings with the head of the Bupyeong district. Several local media outlets focused on this issue as well, drawing wider public attention. Such increased social attention acted as a pressure to the local government, which in a response formed a Cultural Street Development Committee (CSDC) in 1996 as an effort to reach consensus between street vendors and retailers. The core issue discussed in the committee was how to manage street stalls after the completion of the Bupyeong Cultural Street. The main point of issue was how many stalls should re-enter it, allowing to what standards. As the primary criteria, the BMRA proposed three standards: the size of property, direct running of stalls (not resale of rent for the spot), and fulfillment of agreed-upon consensus. A total examination was then undertaken in order to check the actual economic status of street venders. Property taxes were used as a standard to make a decision. The result was surprising. Among a total of 108 street venders, 59 formed 60% of the total number paying under $55, whereas 18 vendors were paying over $110 a year. Seven paid for over $220 yearly. The local government finally decided on a property tax of $220 as a cutoff line in determining re- entry to the street. Another standard applied was whether they actually live in Bupyeong-gu or not, since it was difficult to get accurate information on property taxes from people from other districts. At least three years of experience in running street stalls was the third criteria. Finally, 161 48 street vendors among 108 had the right to re-enter the Bupyeong CS. Street vendors who were rejected for re-entry didn't accept the three criteria the local government applied, and joined the opposing National Street Vendors Association. If they applied only the property tax, then the problem wouldn't become so big like this. Other criterion such as residence in Bypyong-gu and more than three years of business experience were hard to accept. Since street vendors asked for their rights to live, applying only the property tax rule would be reasonable. (Giyong Yang, Street vendor and the secretary-general of the PCBCSD) As the opposition against the local government became severe, the BMRA partly agreed on some street vendor's requests to re-enter the Bupyeong CS. Although the local government didn't accept their claim, the two groups reached a consensus that two more street vendors got the right to re-enter. On May 20th 1997, the local government established a basic plan for the BCS that included the car-free policy and partial withdrawal of street stalls in order to enhance shopping. They also formed a implementation committee, the Cultural Street Development Committee (CSDC), composed of public officials, representatives from related public institutions, local politicians, and local experts. Major details of the BCS were reviewed and discussed through this committee. Other issues arose in the process of designing street stalls, including the size and form of the stall, permitted items, and management of the contract. Each stakeholder maintained different interests, further complicating the committee process. After holding many meetings to discuss these issues, consensus was eventually reached on the management of the street stalls, especially on making contracts with street vendors. The details included standards in selecting permitted items, making stalls portable so that they could be moved out at night, the division of small districts especially for foods to maintain street cleanliness, and setting periods of occupation and 162 use fees. Any changes from the initial report would lead to the cancellation of the contract. For the members of the BMRA, it was suggested that they be active as the main agent to voluntarily manage the street well. The consensus they generated is remarkable in that it brought the issue of illegal street stalls to the foreground and managed it. By making contracts with street vendors, any private trade of stalls was strongly prohibited. Given this consensus, the first step for the BCS was actually undertaken in October 1st, 1997, and finally completed on February 1998, with about 61 million dollars of construction expenses. The BMRA took a leading role in mobilizing local residents as well as organizations in order to get issues resolved, such as traffic control, street cleaning and holding several events, by which the street began to have vitality. After the Bupyeong CSB: Continued conflict and the issue of how to manage the street After the establishment of the BCS, it seemed to recover vitality and peace for a while. However, the issue of how to manage the maintenance of the street and to keep order presented a challenge. The physical environment began to deteriorate as a result of cracked sidewalks and strewn garbage, and vendors' stalls began to creep into the designated pedestrian area. Other agreements were broken as well. The portable stalls weren't removed from the street at night, destroying the street view. Unpermitted items were sold, and the division of small districts set up to keep the street clean collapsed. In order to address these issues to the local government, the BMRA reformed their organization by renaming it the Promotional Committee for Bupyeong Cultural Street Development (PCBCSD), and undertook various efforts. Nonetheless, the response from the government was negative. They were told that because the Bupyeong CSB project was officially finalized, issues after that should be dealt with by retailers and street 163 vendors on their own. As a result, the relationships between the two groups worsened without finding any point of agreement. Retailers criticized the street vendors for not obeying the agreement, and even created continuous problems such as illegal occupation and uncontrolled garbage. On the contrary, some street vendors contended that even though retailers also had generated problems, they only blamed street venders. At first, we were very upset since retailers only criticized us as being dirty and disordered. However I thought they (retailers) also had problems, which made the street disordered as well. (Street vendor) Several months ago, I observed lots of boxes and packages left from retail shops, but no one pointed them out. I heard that street stalls had created the issues. Then, I think that retailers also shouldn t leave their products on the street. (Namsoo Park, former district representative) Then the issue of how to manage the BCS brought the PCBCSD and Street Vendors Association (SBA) to the table in order to find solutions. At the organizational level, the PCBCSD and SBA continually made announcements for their members to follow consensus and control activities such as illegal product loading on the street and parking. Two groups wished to lead to a kind of behavior change of local people free from self-centered interests. However, several issues agreed upon earlier were not followed well, such as permitted items and space, and the removal of the stalls at night. As the hard time continued, both groups asked the local govermnent to provide a mediating role to solve the problem. However the issue of street stalls was a sensitive one for the local govermnent, resulting in conflicting relationships with both groups. In other words, the issue became a stalemate, and the street seemed to return back to the previous disorder and decline. Serving as head of the Construction Management Division for about 1 year and 9 months, I just felt like throwing the Bupyeong CSE into the Pacific Ocean. It was really hard (to mediate) ... I think that members of the local organizations had different view and needs. For example, some argued that it would be better to put street stalls together 164 at night, while others contended that they shouldn't. I thought main actors of each group should meet together to discuss and find a way forward, and then place efforts together. (lnsooJeon, the head of the Construction Management Division at the Bupyeong-gu office/ 2 Seed of resolving conflict In this circumstance, the intervention of an NGO, "Urban Action Network," which has played an active role with urban issues nationwide, led to a turning point. After reviewing the unfolding of the Bupyeong CSB, they suggested building a local committee in order to make a public and wide deliberation. The formal governance system was supposed to include all related stakeholders and lead to a consensus building process to produce win-win solutions for all. Given this purpose, a workshop was held on October 7th, 2000 as a public space to have discussions in-depth, where retailers, street vendors, local government, local politicians, representatives, and local NGOs participated. I didn't expect that today a lot of people would participate and state that we need to understand the current issue to solve it in a new way. Actually, since two years ago, we have had several meetings with retailers to discuss the issue in detail, but due to bad blood, we weren't able to develo~just remaining at the same. Actually I was worried about this workshop too. I was thinking not to attend this meeting because if we accuse each other again, that would remain just as negative arguments. From a wider perspective, several issues might not be solved today. As a first step today, however, if all stakeholders, public officials, retailers and street vendors, seek to come together and have ten or twenty meetings, or even until we would leave here after wrapping up our business, I would make time and cooperate. I think this is the best way and the maximum cooperation we could do. (Hyeonmi Shin, manager of the SBA/ 3 Lots of people have been interested in the Bupyeong CSE and tried to do something. But all gave up, because they cannot avoid having arguments with retailers and street vendors. In fact, even a willingness to do something disappeared. What's the problem with street vendors? Street stalls also have lots of fun things. lfwe 32 Quoted from S. Lee (1999, 100) 33 Quoted from S. Lee (1999, 98) 165 visit other cultural streets abroad, we can see a variety of street stalls, lots of people who peiform activities like mime, or even someone who just stands on alone in an odd position. That's the cultural street having a variety of contents. But it doesn't have any condition and contents for that. (Sangdon Cho, the secretary general of the Bupyeong Cultural lnstitute/ 4 In this workshop, each stakeholder got to see the issue from the other's perspective and shared their interest, beginning to understand the other's position more. Another product from the workshop was an agreement on holding community festivals to enhance solidarity as well as to give others a chance to know more about the Bupyeong CSB. The first community festival, "Let's play at the Bupyeong Cultural Street," was held on June, 2002. The main concept of the festival was to make the festival a medium by which to interconnect retailers, street vendors, customers and neighbors. Although the general idea of the community festival was proposed by Urban Action Network, the detailed plans and programs were created through a series of discussions of key stakeholders in the street. Even in the middle of continued conflicts, the planning of the festival provided a chance for both groups of street vendors and retailers to come to the table and communicate about the community festival. It seemed possible in part that the revitalization issue was significant for both street vendors and retailers in order to increase their income, and the community festival was understood as an alternative to invite new customers. The preparations for the festival began in August 2000, via twice-monthly discussions for about two years. After the community festival, several spin-off projects were also created, such as establishment of free outdoor film screenings for customers and the formation of amateur performance groups to provide free performances every weekend. An electronic display board that advertises the Bupyeong CS also was created in 2006. All expenses were covered by retailer's fund. 34 Quoted from S. Lee (1999, 98) 166 Through several projects and events over eight years, both sides began to identify a seed of resolving conflict. The key issue that caused conflict, the removal of street stalls at night, came to the forefront again, bringing both sides to the discussion table in order to find solutions. After acknowledging the difficulty of street vendors in removing their stalls, the PCBCSD took the lead in obtaining financial support from building owners, and generated the idea of arranging golf carts to use when removing street stalls at night. They also arranged a parking space for the stalls, and street vendors agreed to make monthly payment of about $66~ 77. They also formed teams to take part in moving the stalls. And such a direct experience allowed retailers to better understand difficulties that street venders had. Retailers formed teams to help street vendors move the stalls. I jw;t felt so sorry (after helping them), becaw;e it was actually too tough. Even for a team of two retailers and one street vendor, it was not easy work. I thought that we wouldn't find a solution, if we didn't open our minds. As we opened our minds, we then understood the other :S difficulty, by which we were able to find alternatives. I think that the fact that we formed teams as a solution reflects the capacity of this community. (Taeyeon In) In August of 2007, an important milestone was reached. The PCBCSD passed an agreement officially recognizing street vendors as formal members. Street vendors also began to take an active role for the street. They voluntarily collected money and installed sanitary facilities to keep the street clean, even bearing some burden in the construction period. This is the only case to date that has acknowledged the active role of street vendors. Such transformation of relationships as a result led to a birth of the most inclusive local residents' organization. 167 Features of the Bupyeong CSB Actors and network (interactions) Major actors and their interactions in the BCS can be examined from 2007, when the street vendors were first accepted in the PCBSD as formal members. Being selected as one of the pilot projects of the MLTMA in 2008 was another starting point, from which the Bupyeong CSB was able to focus on the community-building exclusively. The main actors in the early BCS can be divided into three groups: retailers, street vendors and the local government (in the dotted circle, Figure 3-22). Retailers and street vendors were the groups who directly confronted each other, while the local government had some administrative responsibility to keep the street managed. Both street vendors and retailers expected the local government to play a decisive role to keep the street ordered, but instead it remained a mediator that listened to each actor. In an effort to find a solution, the three parties established a semi-governance entity, named the Promotional Committee for Cultural Street Development (PCCSD), which wasn't particularly successful. The two direct parties still had limitations in their communication, and the local government also remained as a kind of bystander, just expecting for the two groups to generate alternatives. Later, Urban Action Network joined in the committee, as an exogenous actor. After undertaking a wide range of surveys to examine the current condition of the street, Urban Action Network proposed the idea of holding a community festival. The idea aimed to work as a vehicle to combine peoples in the Bupyeong CSB as well as visitors who might become future customers of the traditional market. 168 ······· . . . . . . .. . : -Retailers \ . . . . . . . . . •·····••·•···•· •• •• ••• -NGOs • • -Retailers • • :" -Street benders • •• -Local organizations . . . . . . • ....... , •• ~····· Local Gvrnt . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . .. . .. . . .. .., ~ -Street : • ••• • vendors : •• •• ·• . .. •.. .. . .·· ·· ...... · NGO -Urban Acti on Network . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . 00 • MLTMA: "• •••• .; • • ••••• National Gvmt Local Gvmt Figure 5-21: Major Actors in the Bupyeong CSB Before and After 2007 T bl 5 12 M . A t a e - : a.1or c ors an d Th. R l eir o es Actors Roles Before 2007 After 2007 Governm Central : · No specific action · Institutional support ent MLTMA · Financial support: provision of 200 thousand dollars in 2007 Local: · Designation and supports for the · Supports for the sustainable Bupyong- establishment of the BCS community-building gu · Supposed to manage the street ordered · Mediating role between retailers and street vendors Residents Retailers · Leading role in finding solutions · As the most active participants of for economic revitalization as the PCBCSD, leading role to make well as for issues regarding street a variety of efforts for building vendors sustainable community Street · Participation in the committee to · Undertake widened roles as an vendors find solutions, but remained active agent in community-building providing passive roles activities BCSB Committee · NIA · Leading role of the CBM · Setting directions of the CBM NGO Urban · Mediation of the conflict · Financial support by the "One Action · Suggestion of ideas to solve Pyeong Park 35 " Network conflict issues and market revitalization as well Local organizations · No coalition existed · Formation of coalition for local issues 35 The "Pyeong" is a traditional land unit in Korea. One Pyeong accounts for about 3.3 m 2 . 169 Since 2007, the Bupyeong CSB has formed a formal governance entity involving active residents (both retailers and street vendors), the local government, MLTMA, and other local organizations. Like two other cases, the formation of the formal governance body was also a requirement to be selected as one of the pilot projects of the MLTMA and receive financial support. If the key issue before 2007 was how to resolve conflict and manage the street, the issue post 2007 became how to build a sustainable community. The leading actor was the PCBCSD, as an inclusive resident organization, while the local and central governments provided institutional and financial supports as indirect actors. As the PC BC SD broadened its capacity, they began to make coalitions with other local organizations on local issues. As a result, other local organizations who have interactions with PCBCSD also began to take part in the committee as indirect participants. Building the Bupyeong Cultural Street as revitalization strategy In general, taking a cultural oriented approach is said to be one of the most widely applied strategies in urban regeneration since the 1990s, including the introduction of hallmark cultural events and infrastructures in order to invite investments (Bianchini and Parkinson 1993, Garcia 2004). Such a cultural approach was also integral to urban policy in Korea. According to Lee (2009), the utilization of cultural policy was a trend under the introduction of both globalization and localization since the 1990s. As the traditional market began to decline due to the changing circumstances in Korea, meanwhile, how to prevent shrinking of the traditional market became the most critical issue not only for peoples in the market but also for activists or experts who were concerned with urban issues. The Bupyeong traditional market was also one of them, and many struggled to find ways to revitalize it. Given this circumstance, they got to know that other cities designated a so-called 170 "cultural street" in order to maintain vitality and invite visitors as a revitalization strategy. For people in the Bupyeong traditional market, the designation of a car-free cultural street seemed a good alternative. However, such popular establishments of cultural streets were criticized in that they were conducted without clear concepts, remaining satisfied with the installation of symbolic sculptures, the holding of one-shot events, or simple improvements of the built environment. After the completion of the BCS, a similar criticism was also leveled at the Bupyeong CSB. Where is culture in the cultural street: cultivating the Traditional Market Culture Criticism on "where is culture in the cultural street?" came from both inside and outside the community. Like other cities and communities that had a similar concern about identifying the unique culture in their city or community, the BCS also began to seriously take it into account. Although they thought that holding of community festival or irregular events might be used as a kind of cultural approach to foster their own local culture, it wasn't enough to satisfy those who felt something was missing in their cultural street. In the middle of struggling to find and develop their own culture, the support from the MLTMA became an important point that allowed them to turn their perspective from the physical environment to the social and cultural aspects, and to focus on finding their own contents for the cultural street. One idea was focusing on the very basic of the place, the traditional market, where goods and services had been traded in a very historical way, such as bargaining. The program "Let's go to the market" embodied the idea that the traditional market meets the next generation as a future customer. By introducing a variety of activities of the traditional market and letting children experience them, they thought the unique values of the 171 traditional market would be passed down to the next generation. In addition, it would become a representative community culture if such values were secured and further cultivated In other words, they tried to reinterpret the value of the traditional market and its long history and cultivated it as their unique community culture. Figure 5-22: Childl'en's Program, "Let's Go To The MMket" Who is the main agent? Fostering ownership and responsibilitv Interesting! y, the initial concern on the physical management of the street was connected to a very fundamental meaning of the street: "the street for whom?" A realization followed that the street should be recovered as a public space that is open for all residents. In other words, the critical key in managing the street was not just how to make the street fancy and beautiful, but how to foster a sense of ownership and responsibility in voluntarily managing the street. The official recognition of street vendors as a formal member of the resident organization was a good method to implant ownership as a main agent, ensuring spontaneity and participation. From a short statement from the leader, their concerns and views gradually developed from mere economic value (increase of income through revitalization of the market) to socio-cultural value (market as a human centered social space), and final! y to political value (realization of residents' 172 autonomy). First, it was associated with finding a new way for retailers to maintain their income. We thought that in order to prevent the decline of the traditional market, the physical environment should be improved. Jn other words, providing enough spaces for customers, namely, human centered shopping space, would enable customers to have more attachment to the street. Second, the street itself should be regenerated as a space for residents. It was addressed that the street was not for retailors and street vendors who ran their shops as well as not for a particular class who had administrative power for the street management. It was the living space for residents. Thirdly, the issue was about the retailers awareness and attitude as the active agent in the era of local autonomy. Getting out from a mind that just focused on our living, we thought we needed to have a new mind set and attitude to make the best effort (for the street and others) .... Jn other words, retailers as local residents should provide their best to make developmental change for the street. 36 Community-building as evolving process A long history of community-building in the Bupyeong has resulted in the understanding of their community-building efforts as an evolving process that gradually improves and transforms the community. The transformation of a power distribution facility is one obvious piece of evidence. At one time, many in the Bupyeong thought that the physical environment needed to be improved to induce potential customers. One of the urgent projects was transforming the power distribution facility that was considered the most "ugly object" on the street. The power distribution facility had undergone three changes so far. For the third one, in particular, the involvement of a local artist contributed to transforming the facility in much more artistic way by inventing an idea of exhibiting caricatures and poets in a colored cube. Now the former ugly object changed into an artistic work that visitors want to take pictures with it. They (experts) say that facilities can be re-made if it doesn't match well with other environment. It may be possible to fix. Surely it will take more money. However, residents cannot but having more attachment for facilities that were made by residents themselves. Having attachment means taking good care of it voluntarily. (Taeyeon In) 36 Source from Taeyeon In (1999). 173 F!fure 5-23: The Gradual Change of the Electricity Distribution Facility (The 1st, 2na, and 3 gmerations) Contrary to several sculptures installed by the local government and then left unmaintained, the street fountain installed by residents themselves represents another example of gradual transformation that meets the changing needs of the community. From a wider perspective, the change of issues from revitalization of the traditional market to the community- building movement demonstrates how the target of residents' collective efforts gradually changed, followed now by another local movement for the creation of a bicycle friendly city. Figure 5-24: Street Foundation in 1998 (left) and 2008 (right) From conflict to symhiosis: transfon11ation of neside11t 's organiwtion Even after the completion of the CS, the conflict continued, resulting again in a deteriorated street. Losing street vitality meant a possibility of the decrease of customers. Because the decrease of customers would directly affect both retailers and street vendors, finding 174 alternatives for street management became an urgent issue. Accordingly, some members of the BMRA, especially youth who were actively involved in the BCS project, tried to find solutions by transforming the organization. If the BMRA was established for the purpose of the revitalization of the traditional market, the new organization, named the "Promotion Committee for Bypyeong Cultural Street Development," aimed to have discussions about community issues such as how to manage the BCS and how to deal with street stalls after the designation of the BCS. In addition, the new PCBCSD included retailers who were not owners, but renters, which gave an opportunity for renters to be organized and to let their voices be heard. In 2007, the PCBCSD rendered an epoch-making decision to include street vendors as formal members, developing the organization as a comprehensive entity that included all people. This was the first organization nationwide to formally set up the internal management rule for the street vendors and even included them in the resident organization at the horizontal level. This decision also became a point at which street vendors felt themselves to be active subjects of the street, and not just objects. In other words, acknowledgement as another agent of the street transformed people's behavior, which in turn fostered the ownership of their space and capacity, resulting in the better management of the street. In the BCS, street vendors were not the subjects. They remained objects that received help from and made compromises on requests from the PCBCSD, or move. However, now we feel that we are also the active subject of the street and feel some kind of responsibility that we have to make an effort for the street (Yonggi Yang, General secretary of the PCBCSD currently). We fought a lot with retailers. But now we are better getting along. So many fights ... honestly. (H. Street vendors) In 2008, the PC BC SD officially restructured the organization by renaming themselves the "Bupyeong Cultural Street Merchant Association" (BCSMA). They hold regular meetings for 175 the whole members once a quarter, while the executive board (12 members) meets at least once a week. Among the total 110 people in the Bupyeong Market, the registered members of the BCSMA include 80 retailers and 22 street vendors, or about 93% of the total numbers. The decision-making process is solidly based on the majority rule. Every member has the same right to provide any idea, and opinion and agendas are decided by the agreement of all members. If there is an agenda that every member does not agree on, endless debates follow until the majority agrees. The democratic process of consensus building may be the product of a series of processes (that we have had). (We) had to persuade each other endlessly. Because we cannot give up, we need contents and passion to persuade others. (We had to) persuade the local government, street vendors, and even inside members of the BMRA. Efforts to persuade other stakeholders, and attitudes that agreed on others' opinion if it is reasonable ... maybe these efforts are the vehicle that has formed the democratic consensus building process and discussion culture. Another one is that members (of the organization) are various. The organization should be open if these diverse people, such as retailers as owner, retailers as renter, and street vendors, tries to lead to one organization. (Taeyeon In) In other words, as Figure 5-26 illustrates, the resident organization has been developing in an inclusive and democratic way. The earlier version focused on the building owner's interest to prevent the shrinking of the market and maintain the market vitality. However the second form of the organization dealt with issues from the community perspective. They pursued a more comprehensive viewpoint, considering both retailers and street vendors. The latest version of the organization is far more democratic in that they include all stakeholders of the street and try to maintain their organization open and deliberative in every decision-making process. The organization is not exclusive, but always open to other community members. Such openness not only led to the active participation, but also drove them to have ownership. Earlier the organization was centered on the community, but now it has expanded its scope through networking with outside organizations, public officials, and experts. The resident organization is a kind of vehicle through which local residents create 176 community visions and make participation for it (Newspaper reporter interview 37 ) . The Street Vendors Association (SBA) Conflict Cooperation The Bupyeong Market Retailer's Association (BMRA) The Promotion Committee for the Bupyeong Cultural Street Development (PCBCSD) The Bupyeong Cultural Street Merchant's Association (BCSMA) ....................................................... , ~ . . •Year: 1995 •Member: building owners (about 40) • Purpose: revitalization of the traditional market •Feature: exclusive owners group \ I •························································ ························································• ~ ~ : . •Year: 1997 • Member: building owners + Renters • Purpose: stimulation of discussions for the BCS and better management • Feature: begin to have flexibility for an inclusive resident organization ' , .......................................................... ..................................................... .. .. . ' / \ •Year: 2008 •Member: building owners+ Renters + Street Vendors • Purpose: building a sustainable community •Feature: set up as an inclusive resident organization, leading role for the sustainable community building movement . . . . .. ··.•. . ... ..................................................... Figure 5-25: Transformation of the Resident Organization Such a transformation of the resident organization was particularly built on the transformation ofrelationships. For about 15 years, they had to confront each other on lots of community issues, sometimes in conflicting positions, and sometimes on the same side. The long period of coexistence involving a number of communications resulted in a gradual increase in trust and cohesion, seeking peaceful symbiosis. 37 Cited from J.-H. Jeong (2010a). 177 5.4. Discussions The description provided so far illustrates how the three cases have unfolded and what features they have developed through the process of their respective community-building movements. Since they each represent different models of governance initiation, government driven, joint efforts between NGO and residents, and residents-driven, the scope and means of their governance systems vary. For example, whereas the case of Gwangju SMCB has more focused on making the governance system more formal and institutionalized through the strong support of the local government, the Samdeock and Bupyeong cases have been more interested in building cohesiveness and sense of community via informal, loosely networked interactions. However, they also share some commonalities. They all have over 10 years' experience in forming the first generation of community-building movements, and were widely respected as the most representative cases in Korea. Since 2007, they have officially formed the community building governance system in order to get stakeholders involved and to seek continued efforts for community-building movement. They similarly realized that finding community identity and cultivating community culture was very important to maintain their movement, which led to the creation of diverse community programs, events, and festivals. In the process of undertaking such activities, in addition, they were also able to build an important foundation with network of actors and resources to allow for social reform at the larger regional level. A thorough evaluation on how each governance has processed and what outcomes have been produced may provide an important chance that diagnoses the current community-building practices. Since each has both strength and weakness, in addition, a close look at in the comparative manner may provide significant insights about how to fill lack of each model and what strategies may be needed to make future community-building practices more effective. 178 T bl 5 13 C a e - : ompansono fth B . F t e as1c ea ures Gwangju SMCB SamduckCBM Bupyeong CSB Location and zoning Residential district Residential district Business district Initiator Local government Residents + NGO Residents Cause and beginning Strong will of the head of Gwangju Concerns about societal problems - Decline of traditional Bukgu (north district) in 1998 such as runaway teenagers and the markets due to expansion of lack of social inclusion by franchise stores -7 efforts to Kyeongmin Kim, local NGO revitalize the traditional activist in 1998 market - Conflict between retailers and street vendors Development - 2000-2003: beginning - 1998-2005: beginning and slow - 1995-1998: designation of - 2004-2006: establishment and development the Bupyeong Cultural institutionalization - 2006-2007: decline due to severe Street, severe conflicts - 2007-2012: stability and diffusion conflict over redevelopment issue among retailers, street - 2008-2012: slow progress for vendors and local revitalization of community- government building movement - 1999-2007: continuation of conflict, introduction of community-building efforts to resolve conflict - 2008-2012: conflict resolution and expansion of community-building movement Actors Direct, - Residents' autonomy committee - Active residents - Active residents: retailers, active - Local government - NGO: YMCA street vendors participati - Experts: local art associations on (solid line) 179 (Continued) Actors Indirect, weak participati on (dotted line) Network development (before and after formation of official community-building governance in 2007) ----~ Active interaction Inactive interaction - Ordinary residents - Academia Ordinary residents . . .···· "': ······ . ·· ~ · .. . . . ... ~ · .. : Residents ... : Autonomy ~ : Comm it.tee : . . : . \ t·· .. ·······r . . • Local Gvmt • ·.. . ... ·.. .. .......... · Experts -Community building study group -Academia -Local artists Ordinary residents -Academia ML1MA: National Gvmt - Ordinary residents - Local government NGO: Urban Action Network - Academia Ordinary residents . ·•·••···••·•· . .a-.... . ····· . . . .... . ·· : ·· .. ~ . . : A~w ~ : residents Alll -. ~ YMCA : . . ..... ~ . ·.. ..•• ·•.. ..·· ··. ..· .. . .. ... .. ·•. .. ·•·· .. ·: ........... :t.:·· .. . .. · .. .. · • .. Local Gvmt DSUCC Ordinary residents DSUCC MLTMA: National Gvmt 180 - Local government - NGO: Urban Action Network .···. ··· . .· ·. . . :• -Retailers • •• . . . . . . . ~. : } ...... ~~······ Local Gvmt .. . . •.. . ~ ··i. . : ·· ... • • •. NGO • Str t • •• \ - ee : • -Urban Action • •• vendors ••• Network · ....... · .. ········ .. .. ·· ·· .. . . •• -Retailers '• . . : -Street venders •. . . -NGOs -Local organizations . . . . . . National Gvmt CHAPTER6 ASESSING THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME OF COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY-BUILDING GOVERNANCE The purpose of this dissertation is to examine three representative community- building practices in Korea in order to understand how collaborative processes have unfolded, and what outcomes have produced. Based on the case descriptions provided in the previous chapter, this chapter begins by examining the processes and outcomes of the three initiatives through the factors that are defined in the theoretical framework section. It turns then to the relationships between the process and outcome in the following Chapter 7. 6.1. Institutional design and process factors Institutional design Institutional design entails the "basic protocols and ground rules for collaboration." These are important in securing the procedural legitimacy of the collaborative community- building process (Ansell and Gash 2007, 13). Instinctively, the first rule that comes to mind for anyone who is affected by or concerned with the issues is openness and accessibility to the process of collaboration. Given the various elements that a number of scholars have addressed, this study focuses on the following factors: broad inclusiveness, clear ground rules, and process transparency. At their inception, the three cases witnessed very limited participation. This seems perhaps natural in that each case was initiated by single sector with small numbers of 181 interested people. Over about ten years of experience, however, all three cases have widened participation to diverse stakeholders, meeting the criteria of broad inclusiveness. In particular, the primary requirement for governmental support in 2007 was the formation of an official governance entity. This may become a strong stimulus for community-building movement groups to formalize their governance structure. The three cases did establish a collaborative governance entity, and actively consulted with diverse stakeholders including ordinary residents, public officials, local organizations, NGOs and local experts. As described in Figure 3-6, the actors of the Gwangju SMCB became diversified with the participation of several local organizations. Differing from their earlier role of only providing advice when needed, the local organizations began to play a larger role as formal actors of the community-building committee. However, the participation of ordinary residents seems to remain limited in that public inputs have mostly been made by members of the Residents Autonomy Committee (RAC). The role of the RAC was to represent diverse voices of ordinary residents who may have had difficulty in taking part directly in community activities. However, this resident organization has been criticized for merely fulfilling the formal requirements of the law. The community-building committee regarded the direct participation of ordinary residents to be difficult, so the RAC was substituted for the input of ordinary residents. One of interviewers, who has been an active member of the community- building committee, stated that It is fundamentally hard and impossible to have direct participation of ordinary residents due to some reasons such as cost and time limits. I think that just doing their best in their daily life is also a kind of participation. By the active role of the Resident Autonomy Committee, instead, ordinary residents would finally know and realize that our community has changed a lot, not by the direction of the local government, but by the efforts of the members of the Resident Autonomy Committee. In fact, it is one of ideal forms of indirect participation, which could be made in a real city. (Member of the CBC) 182 In terms of other institutional design factors, however, the formation of the Community-building Ordinance and Enforcement Regulation at the local level represents a remarkable production-one which became a sound process rule for procedural legitimacy. By aiming to specify the general rule about the whole process of community-building, this ordinance covered a wide range of issues. These included the general purpose and definition of the community-building, to the responsibility of each stakeholder, to details on master and district plans, and even the implementation process. In addition, it also included specific rules regarding the community-building committee, from its role and composition to detailed meetings rules. Since diverse activities have been undertaken on the basis of such institutional rules, it was important for participants of the committee to evaluate their process as being transparent with a sense of fairness to all participants. The actors in the community-building committee of the Samdeock CBM have also been increased. The earlier process was mainly undertaken by a combined effort between several active residents and activists working in the local YMCA. After 2007, the community building committee was established in order to formally meet the national government requirement. Several experts (academics and local, experienced experts), local and national governments, and the DSUCC (public-private partnership in a larger Daegu City level) have become involved in the CBC and provided both formal and informal support. Local and national governments provided subsidies and other material assistance, in addition to the commendation of excellent cases not only to boost their activities but also to encourage other communities. Other informal efforts included recommending fence removal to public institutions, utilizing media to publicize and advocate it, aiming to gain emotional supports from a wider spectrum of people. However, it is difficult to argue that the CBC was operated 183 according to sound ground rules. Communication was made on an irregular basis and depended on casual interactions. Such informal communication in the absence of solid procedural rules make it difficult to secure equality in terms of opportunity and resources, since frequent interactions were often made between close members or active participants. Some criticism from ordinary residents emphasizes this exclusivity. As with the other two cases, the Bupyeong CSB also formed a governance entity in 2007, widening the scope of participation by involving national and local governments, NGOs, and local organizations. One of its notable features is the critical role of the local resident organization. As they continued their community-building practices, this group transformed several times in ways that became more open and accessible to anyone regardless of social and economic status. Such openness can contribute to bringing under-represented voices to the forefront. However, they were not able to build procedural rules to ensure that the collaborative process would be transparent and legitimate. By involving diverse sectors in their community-building committee, all three cases can be seen as satisfying the conditions for broad inclusiveness. However, a detailed observation finds some differences in forms and levels of participation. In case of the Gwangju SMCB, the governance process tried to secure public input by the representation of the Resident Autonomy Committee, pursuing the indirect participation of local residents. The Sarndeock CBM seemed to strongly depend on the active role of several residents and activists in YMCA, while being limited in bringing ordinary residents to the table. Major decisions have been made via informal communication among key actors, which might represent a barrier for others. In the case of the Bupyeong CSB, however, primary effort has been given to include diverse residents in order to have as many as voices heard as possible. 184 In fact, these differences bring up the issue of direct versus indirect participation, including the question of how deep the participation of ordinary residents can go. Although these three cases have been recognized as successful community-building practices, this evaluation exposes a lack of the pertinent institutional setting systematically developed to make the collaborative governance process more democratic. Structure and quality of the collaborative process As a number of studies have observed, collaborative governance highly depends on the cyclical process of various stages: communication, trust, commitment, understanding, and outcomes (Huxham 2003, Ansell and Gash 2007). It is difficult to say which is the starting point and where is the end. Although this study operationalizes the collaborative, iterative process of four elements, some of them-such as trust building, shared understanding, and social learning-can be seen as both process and outcome. For example, trust building does not have any pre-defined process; rather, it is developed through a lengthy collaborative process of careful consideration and sustained effort. At the same time, the sound building of mutual trust can enable other procedural elements. Therefore, trust building and social learning are explored in this process evaluation, and further examined in the collaborative outcome section below. First, as Ansell and Gash (2007) emphasize, communication based on face-to-face dialogue is crucial to any collaborative process. The three cases show that their collaborative community-building efforts were strongly based on face-to-face dialogue and direct interaction. However, the modes of communication each case took were slightly different. While the Gwangju SMCB primarily relied on formal, regular committee meetings, the 185 Samdecok and Bupyeong cases relied heavily on informal dialogue on daily basis. As a result, the Samdeock and Bupyeong cases represented close relationships and included two-way feedback with ordinary local residents, while the SMCB case revealed a gap between direct participants of the committee and other lay people. This exposes the limited role of the RAC in bringing local voices to the decision-making process, while pursuing indirect resident participation. Shared understanding and social learning is another key ingredient to collaboration. By taking part in the governance process, participants in all three cases were able to enjoy a shared understanding of community issues and build consensus on a definition of the problem. The process of struggling through a severe conflict and making strenuous efforts to find solution, in case of the Bupyeong, helped collaborators to precisely define the core issues and to find points of agreement. Also it provided the valuable opportunity for opponents to confront others directly and to finally understand different interests and views from a wider perspective. For the Gwangju SMCB, a community vision was clearly set by the committee, which then guided small projects and events. Participants were able to benefit from collective learning about community-building as a small gain, and experienced behavior and attitude transformation as a large gain. Throughout, commitment to the process is important to extend collaboration. As the Bupyeong case shows, commitment develops when participants recognize their interdependence. In other words, a willingness to commit to the negotiation process springs from the recognition that the revitalization of the Bupyeong traditional market is not a problem of any one party, but a "common destiny." Therefore, participants couldn't help but develop a sense of strong ownership and responsibility through the collaborative process. This 186 active participation, combined with self-monitoring, enabled the continual development and adaptation necessary to meet changing needs and circumstances. In the case of the Gwangju SMCB, the strategic involvement ofrelated people and organizations through the active intervention of the local government led to appropriate role allocation. For example, local artists contributed their works and consultation, while members of the RAC made efforts to engage ordinary residents in community projects. The local government provided financial and institutional support by establishing community ordinances and an administrative task force, while expert groups provided relevant information and consultation in setting a community vision. Finally, trust building is the most fundamental factor throughout the process of collaboration. Obviously, trust building is a time-consuming process, and one developed by a long-term commitment. For the most part, the three cases represented here have been able to develop their community-building practices on the basis of mutual trust. Several interviewees stated that by communicating actively and working together, they were able to understand others more and build trust. However, the Samdeock CBM also shows how easily trust can be broken. The nine years of community-building and the trust built through it were severely and rapidly eroded due to a redevelopment conflict. Nonetheless, they sought to recover trust among residents and resume community-building practices, but it appears that recovering trust already broken is far more difficult than building that initial trust. Supportive factors: leadership and educational programs Along with the issues of institutional design for procedural legitimacy, this study examines another factor important for collaborative community-building efforts: the role of leader and educational programs. The role of facilitated leader has gained the attention of 187 scholars who study collaborative governance, as demonstrated by the organizational behavior literature. In the three community-building practices of this study, the existence of a leader seems to have meaningful influence in several ways, including maintaining community building practices, ensuring that the collaborative process works properly, generating new ideas and programs, and mobilizing diverse resources for the development of their practices. Leadership is widely acknowledged as helping to bring diverse parties to the table and getting them to engage in collaborative efforts (Ansell and Gash 2007, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987, Huxham and Vangen 2000, Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001). Although negotiations without leaders can happen, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) strongly argue that interventionist mediation techniques are required to assist stakeholders who are unable to sustain direct collaboration on their own. As the least intrusive form of "assisted negotiation," facilitation is therefore important to ensure the integrity of the consensus-building process itself. Vangen and Huxham (2003) also maintain the importance ofleadership in empowering, involving, and mobilizing stakeholders to engage in better collaboration. Scholars have further stated that collaborative governance requires a specific type of leadership. Chrislip and Larson (1994, 125) define the collaborative leader as one whose leadership is "characterized by its focus on promoting and safeguarding the process (rather than on individual leaders taking decisive action)." Ryan (2001) emphasizes that effective, collaborative leadership involves three elements: adequate management of the collaborative process, maintaining technical credibility, and making credible and convincing decisions that are acceptable to all. Similarly, Lasker and Weiss (2003, 31) identify key skills collaborative leaders should have, including promoting broad and active participation, ensuring broad-based influence and control, facilitating productive group dynamics, and extending the scope of the process. 188 The hierarchical taxonomy ofYukl, Gordon and Taber (2002) categorizes leader behavior according to its primary objective: task behavior, relationship behavior, and change behavior. Task behavior focuses on the high efficiency use of resources and personnel, and the high reliability of operations, products, and services. Relations behavior emphasizes strong commitment to the unit, and a high level of mutual trust and cooperation among members. Finally, change behavior seeks innovative improvements in processes, products or services, and adaptation to external changes. In case of the Gwangju SMCB, the leader can be seen exhibiting task behavior, in that he continuously focused on the successful completion of small and large projects within the community-building movement. He stressed how practices had traditionally operated, paying particular attention to the successful improvement of the physical environment. At the same time, he displayed some aspects of change behavior in that he showed aspirations for innovative thinking, such as how to generate and develop new ideas, and how to apply those ideas to actual planning. Another innovative strategy that he intended to apply included developing a wider network with local artists, experts, and administration. The leader of the Samdeock CBM appears to exhibit features of strong relations behavior. As an actual resident as well as activist in the YMCA, he tried to provide support and encouragement to neighbors, recognizing for achievement and contributions. He considered the long history of the Samdoeck community and neighbors' solidarity to be very important, which seemed to explain how he could endure vehement personal attacks when experiencing redevelopment conflict. Maintaining good relationship and trust between neighbors was very important value to him. Meanwhile, the leader of the Bupyeong CSB displayed a mix ofrelations and change 189 behaviors. During his interview, he often used terms such as mutual trust and respect, openness and creativity, and voluntary participation and social norms, representing his aspiration for horizontal relations among participants. He emphasized that solidarity and spontaneity of participants were the most essential factors for their community-building movement. Among the three leaders, he had the strongest ambitions and held the most progressive orientation, describing himself as a kind of revolutionary. He was very active in building networks with outside organizations and consulting groups. However, in terms of collaborative partnerships, the leadership of these three cases remains limited. According to Lasker and Weiss (2003), the leadership and management required for effective collaborative partnership is very different from the traditional-style leaders, who tend to control their own vision and work with others as subordinates rather than as peers. The successful leadership of collaborative partnerships involves several people, rather than one person, working collaboratively to solve community issues. These different perspectives are important to understanding issues from various view points, and contributing to find solutions by sharing ideas, resources, and power. Although both the Bupyong CSB and the Samdeock CBM have quite strong leadership in terms of their capacity to create visions and mobilize resources, it is difficult to say that power is equally shared among several leaders. Although the existence of strong leaders has been effective in sustaining and advancing community-building practices, their drive to develop a purpose and vision without the sharing of power may invite antagonism. This can be found from the result of surveys that some of the participants gave very low points to the question, questioning the necessity ofleaders in their practice. In Korea, educational programs and training opportunity for one who is interested in 190 community-building movement and, more broadly, local action can be seen as another significant factor that have contributed to collaborative governance working well. Among three cases, the Gwangju SMCB was most active in strategically using educational programs, and this proactive tendency for educational programs was actually encouraged by the local government at the larger district level. The Gwangju Bukgu (north district) government aimed to develop community leaders and local experts by providing educational sessions, targeting members of the Residents Autonomy Committee, members oflocal organizations, ordinary residents, and public officials. Through a partnership with the community-building committee, the Gwangju YMCA, and the Jeonnam University Law Research Institute, the local government provided 96 special autonomy sessions, 38 nine resident autonomy schools, four lifelong education festivals, about twenty seminars, workshops, and discussions, and ten field trips to other exemplary practices. Throughout, they expected to foster the development of local experts equipped with skill and competency; experts willing to widely promote the CBM. Such education and learning programs have become the basis for creating innovative ideas and activities, and increasing interest from diverse sectors . T bl 6 1 Ed a e - : t" uca 10na IP roerams o fth G . SMCB e Wall!!IU smce 2000 2009 - Number of programs Number of participants Community Autonomy Session 6 in each dong 12,653 Resident Autonomy School 9 3,535 Community-building Workshop 6 473 Field Trip (both domestic and foreign) 7 (domestic), 232 3 (foreign) Symposium, seminar, discussion, 22 5,394 public hearing, etc. 38 For example, total 12, 653 people have participated in this autonomy session for about 6 years, from 2003 to 2009 (The north district beautiful community-building general plan, 2010, p.33). 191 Table 6-2: Evaluation of the Three Collaborative Governance Process Process factors Gwan<>iu SMCB SamduckCBM Bupveon!! CSB Contextual Institutional and financial - Supports from "Livable City - Supports from "Livable City - Supports from "Livable City factors supports and Community-building and Community-building and Community-building Project" by MLTMAin 2007 Project" by MLTMA in 2007 Project" by MLTMA in 2007 - Financial supports from - Strong supports from - Financial supports from central, local and municipal DSCUU with resource central governments governments .. prov1s1on - Financial supports from central and local govermnents Institutional Democratic and open - Formally included wide - Widened participation of - Formally included wide design for style of management stakeholders, but limited diverse stakeholders stakeholders, but more process - Broad inclusiveness participation of ordinary - No ground rules residents oriented legitimacy - Clear ground rules residents - No ground rules - Process transparency - Clear ground rules: ''community-building ordinance" - Process transparency through rule-based process operation Structure and Shared understanding and - Shared vision and clear - Broad learning on - Agreement on a definition of quality of the social learning purpose by setting the community-building the problem collaborative community vision - Generation of solutions by process - Broad learning on community- mutual understanding and building learning - Behavior change by social learning Face-to-face dialogue - Formal: regular committee - Formal: rare formal meeting - Formal: workshop meetings, public hearings and - Informal: active informal - Informal: informal discussion sessions interactions on a daily basis interaction on a daily basis 192 (Continued) Structure and Commitment to the - Ownership of the process and - Ownership of the process - Mutual recognition of quality of the process responsibility - Commitment to interdependence, 'common collaborative - Mutual recognition of - Effective role allocation to implementation and destiny' process (cont.) interdependence different sectors by facilitating monitoring - Strong ownership and - Ownership and shared role of the local government, responsibility for the process responsibility of the sharing responsibility for the - Strong commitment to process process implementation - Commitment to - Continual development and implementation and adaptation by self-monitoring monitoring Trust building - High -Low - High - Trust building among wide - Trust building though the - Increasing trust among not participants FRM until 2006 only residents and local - Drastic trust encroachment organizations, but also public due to redevelopment officials and experts conflict Supportive Leader - Task behavior - Relations behavior - Relations behavior + change factor - Low level of power-sharing - Low level of power-sharing behavior - Low level of power-sharing Educational programs - Variety of training and educational programs at the larger district level 193 6.2. Output and outcome Cultural and intellectual production of community-building practices The three cases above illustrate the development of knowledge, understanding, and skills, and, on the basis of this collective learning and growth, how innovative ideas and solutions can be generated. Continued efforts to find and develop the participants' own culture and identity also can be seen as another cultural and intellectual product, which has in turn brought about transformational change in their daily life. As several participants of the three cases mentioned, the cultivation of educated, skilled people may become a key motivator in maintaining and further developing community-building practices. From instrumental learning to transformational change One significant benefit cited by participants from all three initiatives was their own better understanding of so-called academic and theoretical knowledge. Earlier I had never imagined I could do something to build community. I thought that urban planning was simply government work. And community was too. When I first heard about community-building, I didn't know the exact meaning of it.... But now I feel that I know a little bit about what community-building is. I understand it as an effort to change my community with my hands and through my participation. (Participant in the Gwangfu SMCB) Even children in this community know what community-building is. They wouldn t know what it is before doing this. Even by small or poor-looking paintings, I think, they got to realize that they could participate directly in the process of the SMCB. (Participant in the Gwangfu SMCB) As we endlessly try to make new ideas, any way [we can}, we get solutions. (Resident in the Samdeock CBM) The provision of educational sessions and practical programs may be the most obvious and direct approach for such learning, as the Gwangju SMCB aimed at sharing 194 exemplary practices in community-building and promoting residents' participation and the CBM more widely by creating various learning opportunities. In addition to learning from direct education, participation also led to changes in views and attitudes. Instead of being mere observers, many saw themselves as "active seekers" in search of solutions to community problems. For example, when confronted with a redevelopment plan, many in the Samdeock CBM began to rethink the very nature of urban redevelopment and critically evaluate the validity of the plan. Although residents were divided and conflicts sometimes got violent, the confrontation of the redevelopment issue provided them with a chance to reexamine the current condition and status of their community against the backdrop of history. The process of going through social conflict, political disagreement, and making diverse efforts to find alternative solutions became the process of collective growth both intellectually and socially. People in other communities or cities probably think that redevelopment is just a good thing, expecting more economic profit. But people in our community didn't accept that redevelopment was just a good thing. We continuously discussed about the necessity of redevelopment. Do our community really need redevelopment? Would it really bring us large profit without any negatives?. ... So we studied a lot about the redevelopment issue. I dig up every online page to get any idea or way to solve the problem. If the current style of redevelopment has problems, are there any other alternatives?. .. And then I finally realized that redevelopment is not just a good thing. Because of it, our community might be completely destroyed. This should not occur in our community. (Kyeongmin Kim, leader of the Samdeock CBM) For the Bupyeong CSB, a threat from the large franchise market and the changing economic situation forced them to re-discover the unique value of the traditional market. What is culture in the traditional market? When talking about the revitalization of traditional market, many just think about improvement of physical condition or old facility. Of course it is important. The large franchise stores can easily go ahead with their powerful marketing strategy ... like targeted efforts by the big capital. Instead, I think that these traditional markets should compete using a different style of culture or frame.. Eventually, I thought, market culture was the most fundamental form of culture that could be discovered in the market. And retailers and street vendors in the market should recognize this as an asset, and create some kind of practical projects that could exhibit it. The very first step was "exploring the market" with children. (Taeyeonln) 195 This discovery led actors to look for new ways to promote the value of the traditional market as a shared public space, one in which not only goods and services are exchanged, but where dynamic social relationships can be developed. One notable example was the development of exploratory community tours for children called "Let's go to the market." These tours aimed at getting young citizens excited about the market and their role as future customers by giving them the opportunity to bring their own goods to sell and to experience the culture of the market first-hand. The tours and subsequent dialogues have enabled them to make new discoveries and develop an understanding about their environment and culture. Through activities and efforts like these, an understanding of the meaning of the traditional market, local spaces, and a sense of history were integrated into a new environmental and cultural consciousness. In particular, a novel realization that the urban space should be human centered led to ideas like the "Sustainable Bicycle City." This example illustrates how collective learning and reflection on history and culture can move beyond instrumental knowledge as a tool to improve a community. Such a transformation suggests possibilities for long-term efforts to improve the community's environmental and social well-being. The community-building movement at the Bupyeong Cultural Street was a beautiful historical process of learning the importance of our "community" It was a learning experience. [It] awakened the community, by which I am awakened. (Participant in the Bupyeong CSE) Finding community identity and cultivating community culture One of the most significant outcomes of community-building practices has been the identification and development of community culture. For example, concerns about how to gather residents together and to cultivate their own culture in the Samdeock-dong resulted in the creation of several social programs, including a community festival. The beginnings of the 196 community festival can be traced back to a puppet play, put on by local college students on December 23, 1998, which in turn resulted in the foundation of a puppet performance group, "Green Star Children." The group was composed of community children under the guidance of a professional puppet troupe. Since 2002, the community has held such festivals twice a year, which young and old enjoy together. Other programs that grew out of these efforts include the Green Community Concert, environmental performances, Earth Day events, a valley dance festival, and fashion shows. This small step toward cultivating community culture was then developed as an important event that represented the whole Samdeockdong. As described in the previous section, the community experienced strife in 2006 due to a severe conflict over the issue of redevelopment. There was a collective concern that the previous decade's worth of experience and memories might disappear as a result of redevelopment. As an alternative to help keep the memories alive, local artists proposed further developing their puppet plays by involving professional performance artists including mime and juggling. As a result, the Puppet-Mime Festival was created and given the name "Mumuri island," meaning a place that remains stable in the midst of a great flow. A committee of twenty residents was formed to organize the festival, and important decisions were made in the committee. During the festival periods, public places such as Bits al Museum and M agojae were transformed into the sites of very special performances. After all, it has been developed as a cultural symbol of the Samdeockdong. As we cherish old pictures with family, visit parents' grave, and keep the memory of past, we treasure individual and family :S history. But we don't do community :S history. They seem never mind if the community would be at stake due to redevelopment. If they do not cherish the history of their community, no more hope. We (residents of the BCS) cannot throw away even a piece of broken brick, because it is also our history ... .If doing branding or image-making of the Samdeock-dong, 197 the theme of puppet would arise. I think we have succeeded in making our community branded with puppet. Already (We have had) 12 puppet festivals so far. In particular, we were invited and participated with our symbol of puppet in the World Championship inAthletics 39 , which was held in the Daegu city level (Kyeongmin Kim). For the Bupyeong CSB, as mentioned above, threats to their economic status and efforts to solve conflict between retailers and street vendors proved influential in changing their view. Escaping from a negative or despairing view, this new perspective to find the uniqueness of their environment resulted in development of the positives of the traditional market. They began to recognize it as the revivable community culture. This new finding of community culture accelerated residents to manage common space voluntarily. One unique aspect of the Gwangju SMCB was the active involvement oflocal artists and the use of public art as a way of improving community public space. Works by local artists revitalized abandoned spaces, and were successful in attracting wide interests from both within and outside the community. In addition, their knowledge and skills enabled them to run the community educational sessions for residents, particularly for children. As the community festivals have continued for several years, the main themes have become more comprehensive, combining environmental (ecological) value, community culture, and urban space and planning. With a focus on continuous learning, those involved in the organization of the festival have gained additional skill in the design and implementation of the programs. In fact, a long history of community-building through the creation of artistic endeavors and the active involvement ofresidents has become another process of discovering their own community culture and of solidifying it as well. 39 IAAF World Championships, Daegu 2011. 198 Fostering community experts In some senses, the process of collaborative community-building became another process of building a base of skilled local people with experienced knowledge. Several people interviewed mentioned that one of obvious products was being able to observe local persons who, through participating several community-building projects, became community experts equipped with practical knowledge. More importantly, those who grew up in a particular community have greater, sometimes intuitive, insights that outside experts may not have. One interviewee pointed out the increased interest and changed attitude of community children, who participated in the early community-building activities. As they remembered good memories of the community in their childhood, some of the young generation later returned, making various efforts to build a better community. The young generation, who were young when we began the community-building movement, has grown up now as college students and [have come} back to the Samdeock-dong, searching for some roles they could take for the community. I think this is a new evolution. These guys don't need any explanation. Since they just grew up observing the whole processes, they know what it is and how it works, without any more explanation ... [they have} memories like something [they were} very proud of, and something was very unique, attracting many interests of cohorts from other communities. If.. the 2nd generation would come and gather to make efforts, that would be the most significant contributor in sustaining the community-building movement. (Kyeongmin Kim) In case of the Bupyeong CSB, the leader does not hesitate in pointing out Giyong Yang, the vice president of the resident organization, as the most evident human resource development. I think he (the vice president) is the most obvious evidence (of human resource development). Even under the very skeptical view from others, he has kept trying to communicate with us (retailers) and placed enormous efforts to find solution. For over ten years, we have experienced lots of community issues together, both bad and good, and he [has} now become a kind of community activist, seeking ways to build better community. (Taeyeon In) 199 In a sense, if we recognize that the output has been the product of concerned people's efforts, the development of human resources, equipped with a new consciousness about the value of community and community-building, might be the most important, yet long-term project for the evolution of community-building movement. Professional VS local knowledge: co-construction of 'community knowledge' In academic circles, the distinction between expert and lay, scientific and experiential, formal and informal, and professional and local knowledge have long been subjects of discussion. In his seminal book, Local Knowledge, Clifford Geertz (1983) defines local knowledge as "practical, collective and strongly rooted in a particular place ... and [an] organized body of thought based on immediacy of experience." If the traditional model of planning and policy-making largely depended on experts and scientific knowledge and evidence, an increasing number of scholars have turned their attention to the important role of local knowledge. In practice, however, the significance of local knowledge has rarely been recognized, especially in the highly hierarchical planning culture of Korea. In reality, it is true that some experts have acted not as a helper or adviser providing relevant knowledge and information in a specific context, but rather as a power holder who only relies on his or her scientific knowledge and ignores lay people. The leader of the Bupyeong CSB's statement reveals this well: I don't trw;t experts becaw;e I have seen a lot [of] people who are called ... "expert" jw;t display knowledge they acquired earlier than others. About ten years ago, most of [the} experts who visited our community were very arrogant. One of them just pushed us to take a street lighting strategy that was taken [from} Las Vegas ... regardless of the local context. Or they jw;t delivered some contents of famous books as if it was their own saying. They were sarcastic and sneered at local residents, saying that they (local residents) were low-leveled, so couldn t understand their advices. (Taeyeon In) 200 However, several community-building practices, including these three cases, have shown some evidences of change. For building community vision, for example, local knowledge has come to be recognized as relevant and to be used in combination with the knowledge and skill of professionals in order to produce community plans that better reflect the local context. Then, in what ways can local knowledge be discovered and collected? Broad-based community surveys were often used to examine environmental and cultural issues, needs, constraints, and preferred directions. Directly asking residents, rather than professionals, about issues and ideas to improve their community is one of the most straightforward ways of collecting experienced knowledge. Resident community tours also provide a chance for local people to evaluate the current conditions and assets of the community from their own perspective. In many cases, these direct tours and examinations were effective in identifying missing points and in generating new ideas. Ideas produced in this way were collected, shared, and prioritized as part of the community agenda. The issue of public safety, for example, was raised by one community member, who pointed out that some dark and secluded spots were very harmful, especially for children and youth. This led to a discussion about the expansion of neighborhood patrols and to the installation of security cameras. The community map (Figure 6-1 ), drawn by community children, represents how kids perceive their environment, and revealed the places that needed further safety improvements. As Innes and Booher argue, such information reflects "local settings as well as knowledge of specific characteristics, circumstances, events, and relationships" (Innes and Booher 2008). The holistic understanding of community elements in daily situations forms practical 201 knowledge that may not be found from any theoretical and professional perspectives. What Geertz (1983, 167) expresses simply as ''to-know-a-city-is-to-know-its-streets," (167) in fact, suggests that the experienced knowledge oflocal residents can enhanced validity of the community vision. More importantly, when local knowledge discovered is combined with professional knowledge, community knowledge can be co-constructed, which may play the most crucial role to create the best community-tailored vision. Figure 6-1: 1) Alley culture map, 2) modeling, 3) community map drawn by children, and 4) presentation of community vision 40 Social and relational production One of the important social productions of the collaborative community-building process is the increase of its capacity to develop social capital on the basis of new and improved relationships, social norms, and trust. In particular, the three cases provide obvious 40 Source: http://www.samdukdong.net/. 202 evidence of the enhancement of both elements of social capital: bonding and bridging. Here, bonding social capital represents the social ties among stakeholders with like-minded interests, while bridging suggests the boundary spanning relationships that link stakeholders with diverse or competing interests (Briggs 2004 ). Deepening trust and cohesiveness In case of the Bupyeong CSB, the resolution of severe conflict between retailers and street benders has been recognized as one of the most prominent products. As the two conflicting bodies began to confront each other, the extremely severe arguments and sometimes physical actions, such as shoe-throwing, made them despair of finding solutions. However, one interviewee's statement illustrates how they were able to overcome the conflict and build trust At first, I was very upset by them because they just seemed to have only one purpose of eliminating our street vendors. So we had lots of fights. Later, as we began to meet and discuss on the issue, I kind of began to understand what they said. I was also worried about decreasing customers and income. In a sense, the legalization of street vendors seemed reasonable. Any way ... we had lots of meetings, discussions, even arguments. And as they showed some efforts to understand our difficulties and help us, I began to trust a bit at least on the street issue. And finally we (street vendors) were accepted as formal members of the residents' organization, by which we began to build much stronger trust. Nowadays, other people on nearby streets envy us because our street is well managed voluntarily, and widely recognized as a good shopping space. For us, the increase of customers is the best thing, actually (a street vendor, the Bupyeong CSE). Through the continuous meetings, discussions, and even arguments on the street management issues, the relationships between retailers and street vendors have been transformed from an antagonistic into a symbiotic one. This would be impossible without the formation of strong cohesion and bonding. 203 Simply, the enemy became brothers. When we fought each other, they (street venders) threw shoes and rushed into me, saying "we will kill you. "But now ... we are no more enemies. Even I call them, Nuna. It became a sibling-like relationship. (Taeyeon In) I think chances to ... participate ... have increased. In terms of communication, I see some improvement. (Participant in the Samdeock) Participation in diverse community activities provides increased opportunities for interaction between community members, leading to the formation of trust and the sharing of norms. The Bupyeong case shows that the formation of an official common body was a good strategy to accelerate community cohesiveness and reciprocity. Such an enhanced awareness of community has also helped develop a sense of ownership of the street, which has resulted in increased voluntary participation in making collective efforts to better manage their street. For the people of the Bupyeong Cultural Street, the catch phrase "managing the street by my own hands" has become popular among residents. It seems that through experiencing all the process together, the awareness of community has been made. Public officials have ... matured, and young retailers have placed diverse efforts (for the community). We have observed cases such as installing public facilities by collecting money and cleaning the street voluntarily. Through a series of processes, internal organizational capacity has been enhanced. The relationship with civic organizations also has been getting better. When snowing, people usually clear away the snow just in front of their house. However, people in our community are thinking differently, and are concerned with how to solve problems caused by snow from the community perspective. I think that the awareness of the residents has been incredibly enhanced .... It may seem like nothing to experts. Design (of the community street) is not fancy. How ever, the important thing is that I drew paintings, I walked around to collect money, residents gladly made donations for the community. That's why the fund is precious (to us). I twas designed only for our commun~7 and it has been very popular (for residents as well as visitors). (Taeyeon In) 41 Cited from: Urban Action Network. 2002. The Bupyeong Cultural Street Building Project. Manuscript prepared for the 'National community-building workshop.' 204 In case of the Samdeock CBS, a long history of community-building activities has led to the increased emotional support of ordinary residents, resulting in a collective awareness about community-building. As one interviewee stated, the increased interest in the FRM from other communities and cities nationwide encouraged residents to change their views and attitudes toward the movement. In addition, the strong financial and material support of the DSUCC and the local government helped to expand and connect the FRM to the larger community-building movement. Formal endorsement also seems critical in enhancing public awareness about the significance of the community-building movement. The fence removal movement began here, and then undertook community-building movement .... if there were no change of awareness, then residents wouldn't understand the importance of the movement and participate in it. But (it was possible because) they felt the necessity of it and supported it (Participant). The increased sense of community is illustrated through the story of an inconvenience that occurred due to community activities, and that led to group sacrifices for the goals of the community. Actually, there may be some illegal activities during community festivals such as occupying public roads ... so if someone reports it twice, then we have to stop the festival completely. One thing that other visitors who first came to the community ... were surprised with is that when we hold our festival, we use the whole community space ... including peiformances in the middle of a road and the free use of facilities ... Others wonder how this is possible in the current urban space. But this is based on mutual understanding. For the four days of festival, ordinary residents just understand and endure some inconvenience. One of [the] issues we realized after the first community festival was need for public restrooms for visitors. So since the 2nd festival, four stores in our community have ... opened their restrooms [to the} public. We provided only twenty dollars of reward. Actually, twenty dollars are not a big money. What we are giving and receiving here, I think, is not the money, but the understanding. They wouldn't mind if we don't provide any rewards. We just do that as a small expression of appreciation. (Participant in the Samdeock CBM) For example, if somebody plays music loudly and dances in an apartment, then ... lots of complaining would arise. But in this community, if we play music, have a performance, share food, and have chats, no one complains. 205 Earlier (before the CBM), it wasn t (this way). But if their family members such as children and seniors come and participate, [and are] having fun, who would complain about it? That was the most basic of community-building in our community. For active interaction with other residents, just come together and share foods ... (Heeyeol Shim, resident in the Samdeock-dong) Another method used to develop cohesion is development of diverse multi-level community programs such as food sharing, kids care, and life-long education sessions. This could be seen as a response to outside criticism and internal reflections on the fact that the community-building practices have largely focused on physical issues. In some sense, the focus on built environment is understandable in that it may be an effective strategy to attract other ordinary people by producing visible accomplishments. The creation and design of social programs, however, have created more chances for residents to meet and interact with others, developing positive relationships and trust. As several interviewees point out, by operating community programs, they were able to enhance self-confidence, a capacity to solve community problems, increase public awareness, and develop norms. Diverse networking within I beyond community One significant characteristic shared by the three cases is the diverse networking that has arisen throughout the course of the movement. In theory, the broadening of links and networks as a form of social capital can be divided into two dimensions: ( 1) links between the community and the mainstream city-level institutions or other entities with money and political influence, and (2) bridging within a community between people with diverse interests and points of view (Putnam et al. 2004). As examined in the previous case description section (see Table 3-14), the scope of participants was widened with the involvement of ordinary residents, experts, NGOs, and local organizations, all developing formal and informal 206 relationships and networks. Such networking allows for the flow of formal and informal knowledge, and also increases emotional and physical support within the community. On a wider level, for these communities, mobilizing and networking with NGOs, with diverse local and regional organizations, with academic and local experts, and with local and national governments has helped them to build valuable human and material resources. Formal strategic networks VS loosely intermingled informal networks Although the networks have increased in the three cases, each illustrate somewhat different aspects of network development. Owing to the active participation of the local government, the Gwangju SMCB has been able to construct the most diverse networks. The community-building committee of the SMCB appeared to be the most inclusive and well structured, including the formal involvement of diverse stakeholders. As the major driver, the local government provided institutional and financial support in diverse ways. For example, they reformed the administrative system to set up an exclusive unit to provide full administrative resources, and established the community-building support center to guide related activities and to provide relevant information and resources. Full support from the government enabled them to link up with other official local organizations, such as women's societies, youth associations, and the Rotary Club. Since the first community-building ordinance endorses the strategic involvement of professionals, the formal networks among professionals provided helpful guidance. The effective use of public art and formal interaction with local artists allowed for the further creation of networks through the community-building movement. The members of the Residents Autonomy Committee took a bridging role between the community-building committee and ordinary residents. Such wide involvement of diverse 207 stakeholders and the inclusive formation of the community-building committee allowed for increased efficiency in the mobilization of actors with different views. In other words, the Gwangju SMCB was successful in building links between the community, the larger city level institutions, and other entities with money and political influence. In cases of the Samdeock CBM and Bupyeong CSB, initially, networking was limited to community core members. Since the two cases were initiated by a few community residents, it seems natural that they would have very limited sources of information and support. Although they received financial and material support from local and central governments, beyond that their involvement was limited. However, as they developed their practices in various ways, the Bupyeong CSB began to expand their networks to other local and regional organizations. The national-level NGO group, Urban Action Network, was a helpful partner for both Samdeock and Bupyeong, providing consulting and support in terms of framing present issues and finding alternative ways to solve problems. If the Bupyeong CSB was very effective in forming bonding capital by developing an inclusive residents' organization, the Sarndeock CBS was driven, in constrat, by loosely networked individuals through informal yet animated interactions. For the Bupyeong CSB, the scope of the network was widened beyond the community. With the expansion of the community-building movement into the larger Bicycle City movement, those linkages to other civil organizations (e.g., national and local organizations such as People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Citizen's Coalition for Economic Justice, Incheon Solidarity, and Incheon Solidarity for Welfare and Health) became very effective channels for sharing goals and enhancing publicity on the issue. As I have suffered from the war against large franchise stores, I have thought about how important it is to communicate with civil society. The current merchant's 208 movement (for revitalization of the traditional market) would be difficult if it were limited only to merchants. But I have developed relationships with civil activists and civil organizations that I have met through the Bupyeong CSE or current Bicycle City, and those interactions are very helpful in maintaining the movement ... All these processes wouldn't be possible without a cooperative framework within civil society. (Participant in the Bupyeong CSE) In contrast, the Samdeock CBM depended increasingly on the role of the local YMCA, and was unsuccessful in building wide linkages with other civil organizations. However, by their own admission, the most significant factor in sustaining their activities over 10 years was a mindset of "no hurry." Rather than rushing to complete of a project, they have approached even small projects with a long-time span of over four to five years. As such, they don't consider some competitive values such as speedy progress and visible outcomes to be important. Such a view values slow progress by loosely networked people and their informal relationships and communications, and considers process to be more important than visible results. One thing we differ from other cases is that we are not busy. As a leading group of community-building (who began community-building movement in 1990s), we've never placed all efforts for a single project. We just do [it} little by little. Relationships within a community are complex. [There are} tangled relationships with relatives and competing interests ... But [if} just five people share a common purpose and will, then efforts could be expanded widely very easily. [If we} bring together several people who really understand and like the idea, then they will in turn bring in neighbors continuing the cycle .. The organization committee of the Samdeock Community Puppet Festival was established in this way. If there are small numbers of residents who sympathize with any particular issue, then they can sway public opinion. Because it [all] depends on how the core group is, and how their relationships and the level of trust are. We consider ourselves comrades who have fought in the battlefield together. (Kyeongmin Kim) Often other people asked me if we had any residents' organization for community building movement. I said "no." Even though we had no formal group that represented us, our community-building movement was possible since this community had a long history with residents who resided for a long time in the Samdeockdong. They are deeply embedded in the community and know very well about our neighbors. When we met neighbors around, we talked to each other about 209 emerging issues or even small ideas for the community, and then shared those issues with others in daily life. That was the beginning of every project in the Samdeockdong. (Kyeongmin Kim) Obviously, the Bupyeong and Samdeock CBM reveal the potential of informal processes. Instead of relying on formal protocols such as regular meetings and public hearings, informal activities have allowed individuals to interact in more familiar ways, which in turn resulted in the effective mobilization of pertinent human and material resources. The informal interaction also served to increase the understanding of other perspectives in a more comfortable environment and to solve conflicts. The spontaneous ideas and creative dialogue frees the community from obligation to rules or a certain agenda, leading to a kind of responsiveness and adaptability, which as a result allowed them to meet changing needs and circumstances. As can be seen in their creative designing of community programs, this flexibility and openness created new opportunities and possibilities. Political production By taking part in the community-building processes and having the opportunity to collaborate with others, participants of the three cases also deepened their commitment to the current activities as well as their willingness to work together in future activities, forming political capital. The enhanced commitment and willingness to cooperate not only with politicians and government officials but also with ordinary citizens would greatly facilitate coordinated efforts to shape a common agenda and take collective action. The process of face- to-face communication and deliberation in informal and formal networks increased group solidarity and helped to construct a collective identity. Several interviewees stated that an important lesson from their strategic alliances with political actors, local administrations, and 210 expert groups was that "collaboration eventually worked." In particular, as they began to form a collaborative governance entity having expanded the scope of participation and diversified actors with different perspectives, their capacity to mobilize human and material resources increased exponentially. They realized that together they could accomplish community goals even beyond their own expectations as a synergistic effect. Public officials and residents are one family. If we trust each other, we can write a new history ... By being equipped with expertise, good organizations and experts tend to rather learn at the sites. I say that please cooperate with and use of good civil organizations and experts ... I believe that if we communicate well, public administration, social organizations, and the third sector would communicate well, [and] an unimaginable synergy effect would [result]. (Taeyeon In) As demonstrated in other studies (Connick and Innes 2003, Mandarano 2008), the formation of political capital is amplified when conflicting groups end a stalemate and cooperate to establish common goals and strategies. The transformation of the relationship from antagonistic to cooperative in the Bupyeong CSB exhibits the foremost example of forming political capital. The workshop involving all stakeholders including retailers, street vendors, local governments, local politicians, representatives, and local NGOs became a kind of public sphere in which to have in-depth discussions and to solve conflict, proving to be a significant turning point. Each stakeholder was allowed the opportunity to see the issue from the other's perspective, which fostered mutual understanding. All parties agreed that a new approach was needed to overcome the difficulties confronting the traditional market, which became a new starting point to cooperate for mutual goals. By working together, they have been able to produce alternative solutions, such as creating community festivals to enhance solidarity and integrating organizations to set and pursue a shared vision. While the Bupyeong case shows how they successfully overcame conflict through 211 transforming relationships, the Samdeock CBM illustrates a quite different outcome. While the fence removal movement and the community-building movement were successful at first, the issue ofredevelopment presented a serious challenge. Fierce conflict on the issue of community redevelopment threatened to stop most activities for community-building, without finding an appropriate point of reaching consensus and agreement. Instead of overcoming difficulties by consensus or through their own efforts, changed circumstances-such as the declining trend of redevelopment at the whole Daegu city level-finally resolved the severe fight. The experience in a situation of social and collective trouble left huge emotional scars on community residents, and made them resistant to finding ways to resume the movement. In fact, it showed a drastic decline of political capital, resulting from the failure of conflict management. Additionally, as Sorensen and Torfing (2003) emphasize in their case study of network governance, participation in collaborative efforts with diverse stakeholders provides actors with significant knowledge about community activities. This includes how to design an event and run it, who to contact for necessary resources, what processes to go through for a permit, what activities are allowed by laws and regulations, and how to prepare and submit an application. What the three cases show is that through maintaining their community-building efforts over 10 years, they have not only achieved a sense of accomplishment and pleasure from the successful completion of small projects, but have also been confronted with many difficulties and frustrations. For them, the process of searching for solutions was also a process of accumulating experiential knowledge. By gaining lots of "know-how" and actually experiencing community activities from inception to implementation, participants increased 212 their self-confidence and faith in finding alternatives to get things done. In addition, they have been able to create new meaning in the community, strengthen their own identity, and to imagine new visions for the prosperity of the community. In other words, creating new meaning, securing coherence, and then setting a new direction for the community are other political competencies increased by collaboration. Physical outcome and perceived effectiveness of collaboration The actual outcomes of collaborative community-building can be examined in terms of physical outcomes and perceived governance effectiveness. As for the physical outcomes, the improved environmental conditions are typical. The creation of drawings, paintings and murals is the most common approach in Korea to improve community environment, and this approach was also taken by the Gwangju SMCB and the Samdeock CBM. For the Gwangju SMCB, the installation of poems and paintings on individual fences represented the very beginning of their community-building movement, leading to enormous interest and field trips from other communities to observe their success story. The creation of small and large community parks in combination with public art appeared to be an effective strategy. In case of the Samdeock CBM, the fence removal movement marked the origin of their community building movement, leading to the formation of the notion of "open community." Also, the creation of community public space such as the Bitsal Museum, Baccob M adang (playground), Yongyongi mobile library and M agojae was a notable physical outcome that contributed to enhancing relationships by providing a communal space, and increasing chances to meet. As can be seen from the title, the Bupyeong CSB also began with the aim of improving the environment. Community pond and sculptures, the transformation of the ugly electricity 213 distribution facility into an artistic board that exhibits poems and drawings, and one-pyeong park are good examples that contributed to make a more pleasant built environment. In terms of the perceived governance effectiveness, most of interviewees pointed out that they were mostly successful in achieving their goals. It was emphasized that collaboration with others actually brought better outcomes, which in turn increased willingness to support collaboration in future efforts. However, some interviewees from the Samedock CBM expressed that although collaboration was ultimately effective, future collaborative efforts may take more time, due to the recent painful experiences of the redevelopment conflict. 214 Table 6-3: Evaluation of the Three Collaborative Connnunity Governance Outcomes Outcomes Gwangju SMCB Sarnduck CBM Bupyeong CSB Collabora Cultural and ·Understanding of the general idea · Better understanding about local · Getting to see community issues tive intellectual of community-building history and culture from a wider perspective and capacity production · Formation of study groups to ·Development of the "Puppet- better understanding of other explore alternative community Mime Festival" as a community perspectives models symbol ·Critical reassessment of the local "Poem and Picture, ·Critical evaluation on the issue of economic development policy Envirornnental Art Festival" urban redevelopment and its · A new spatial understanding ·The image of "cultural validity about the concept of the market: community" by incorporating ·Co-production of community a shared, public space, public art knowledge: community mapping, developing social relationships · Change in views and attitudes: workshops for community vision · Annual community festival and participants transformed as an · Change in views and attitudes: cultural events "active seeker" participants transformed as an ·Participants grown as community "active seeker" experts Social ·Formal strategic network ·Informal networks on a daily · Informal networks on daily basis production building-7extensive development basis · Strong bonding capital among of bridging capital beyond · Strong bonding capital among participants community active participants, but emotional ·Network development with other · Effective mobilization of barrier to others civil organizations in progress professionals, scholars, and local ·Greater dependency on the role artists, community organizations ofYMCA-7limited formation of by the active organization of the network with other civil local government organizations Political · Enhancement of commitment and ·Drastic decline of political capital · Agreement and consensus on capital willingness to work together due to the redevelopment conflict street management issues ·Conflict resolution and transformation of relationships-7 political competence and empowerment 215 (Continued) Actual Physical ·Establishment of community- ·Beautified alley and public space: ·Establishment of cultural street: and outcomes building general plan public and private fences removal car-free policy, improvement of perceived · Improved environmental and diverse murals community facilities (installation effectiven condition: creation of small and · Creation of community public of community pond and ess large parks, beautification of space: Bitsal museum, Magojae, sculptures, evolutionary change individual fences, remodeling playground, mobile library, of electricity distribution facility, community infrastructure pocket parks one-pyeong park) ·Housing remodeling for low . . mcome semors Perceived ·Perceived goal achievement ·Perceived goal achievement ·Perceived goal achievement effectiveness · Increased awareness of ·Awareness of collaborative · Increased awareness of of advantages from collaboration benefit, but some hesitancy and advantages from collaboration governance and support of it for future inactiveness for collaboration and support of it for future performance activities after redevelopment conflict activities 216 6.3. Discussions In this chapter, the three cases have been evaluated in terms of institutional design, supportive factors, collaborative governance process and outcome. Contrary to the limited participation in their inception, the three cases have successfully increased the level of participation by involving a wide range of stakeholders including local government, NGOs, experts, residents and local and community organizations. Certainly, the broad inclusiveness is the most important elements to make collaborative governance process more democratic and legitimate. However, it is hard to say that they made specific effort for institutional setting, e.g. ground rules to make governance process reasonable and legitimate. As several scholars have argued, clear ground rules that ensure equal opportunity and resource sharing among participants and the formalization of two-way communication mode are critical, because deliberation based on equality among participants and genuine dialogue becomes the most significant foundation to lead to mutual understanding of the local problems. This finding suggests that further efforts are required to make special consideration on institutional design, by which collaborative community governance would perform as an alternative democratic space at the local level. Despite the lack of pertinent institutional design, however, it is notable that governance processes of the three cases have contributed to build trust and shared understanding, facilitate social learning among participants, and enhance commitment to the process. Both formal and informal communication enabled them to understand other perspective better and simultaneously learn from others, by which reaching agreement and consensus on community issues. Such interactions and collective problem solving efforts became another source of forming and enhancing mutual trust. This suggests that if 217 governance institution is more sophisticatedly designed, the iterative relationships among factors of governance process and their positive potentials would be further increased. In terms of collaborative capacity, which has been defined in the research framework (Chapter 2) as the synthesis of intellectual, social, and political capitals, these three cases share some similar features with respect to the development of intellectual and cultural capital. Participants' perspectives and attitudes were changed through the experience oflearning about the concept of community-building and the acquisition of specific skills, which can be utilized to solve other community problems that may arise. In particular, the experience of community-building led participants to realize the necessity of cultivating community culture. In case of the Gwangju SMCB, the success of the community festival resulted in a widening of the scope of participants from the community to the larger district level. The local government's strong support in terms of both material and financial resources was one of the key factors in this expansion. For the Samdeock CBM, a small trial for community children was eventually developed into a kind of the community symbol, widely recognized community festival. As for the Bupyeong CSB, the continual evolution from conflict to collaborative community-building was made possible by that they rediscovered the value of the traditional market to the community culture and made collective efforts to cultivate the market culture through holding various events and festivals. In theory, cultural strategy has been argued to be a useful source for urban regeneration. For example, Matarasso (2007) argues that cultural actions have potential to bring people together and to build a foundation for the continuation of community development. The three cases also support the effectiveness of cultural strategy in at least in four ways: 1) it shifts the focus from environmental improvement to social program 218 development, addressing the criticism that the efforts are exclusively focused on tangible results; 2) it expands the scope of participation to previously inactive residents as well as attracting outside visitors; 3) it creates a public venue to meet and interact with others, deepening the network and cohesion of community members, including local artists and public officials, leading to the creation of new local organization that might take a leading role in future community projects; and 4) by creating innovative ideas, it provides an opportunity to promote innovation in joint efforts between ordinary residents and experts (e.g. local artists). Through their collective efforts for community-building, in addition, the three cases show that they could develop new relationships within and beyond community and form social norms and trust as well. Such enhanced social capital then contributed to deepen participant's commitment to the community activities and further willingness to work together in the future. Then, how did the participants of the three collaborative community governances perceive or evaluate the process and outcome? The following chapter intends to examine participant's evaluation on their governance, and verify whether significant relationships existed among institutional design, supportive factors, and process and outcome of collaborative governance. 219 CHAPTER 7 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROCESS AND OUTCOME IN COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE In previous chapters 5 and 6, this study explores how three collaborative initiatives have been developed. It evaluates their processes and outcomes qualitatively in terms of evaluation criteria driven by the related literature review. To what extent did factors like the institutional setting, leadership, educational programs, and the governance process influence the outcomes? Did these factors also affect participants' evaluations of goal achievement and collaborative governance? If yes, were there any key factors more influential towards outcomes than any other factors? In order to obtain answers to these questions, this chapter conducts a quantitative analysis of participants' self-evaluation on their governance process and outcome. Initially, this work employed factor analysis to reduce the large number of observed variables to a small number of constructs. Then, ANO VA was applied to examine whether differences exist in the process and outcome among three cases. Finally, path analysis is employed to investigate multiple relationships between process and outcome of collaborative community governance in the Korean context. 7.1. Sample description The major participants in the survey (see Appendix B) are the members of three community-building committees and participants of community-building practices in various ways such as volunteers and staff. The characteristics of participants can be categorized as residents, public officials, experts, NGOs, and community organization members. The largest 220 group is residents (39.8 %), followed by community organization members (30.6 %). The total sample is composed of 45.4 % male and 54.6 % female participants. Respondents ages range from 20 to over 60 years with 33.3 % of the total sample between the ages of 30 and 39 years, and 28.7 % of the sample being 50 to 59 years old. A detailed summary of the demographic characteristics is provided in Table 7-1. Table 7-1: Demographic Characteristics Gender Case 1 (N: 38) Case 2 (N: 33) Case3 (N: 37) Total (N: 108) Male 23 (60.5) 18 (54.5) 8 (21.6) 49 (45.4) ·----------~-~~~l~ _________________________________ !.?J~2:.?l ____ !?_{~~?l _______ ~2.__Q~_:~2 _ _ _ ___ _5_92~jl_ Age 20-29 3 (7.9) 3 (9.1) 5 (13.5) 6 (5.6) 30-39 3 (7.9) 11 (33.3) 14 (37.8) 19 (17.6) 40-49 7 (18.4) 15 ( 45.5) 14 (37.8) 36 (33.3) 50 -59 14 (36.8) 3 (9.1) 3 (8.1) 31 (28.7) ·----------~_Q_:!!_~~~-----------------------------!1--~~2l ____ !_ QJ ___ ____ _____ _! _ _ (~:7-l _ ____ ____ !§_Q~:B_ Characteristics Residents Public officials Experts NGOs Community organization member Etc. 20 (52.6) 4 (10.5) 2 (5.3) 2 (5.3) 10 (26.3) Note: Percent values are in parentheses. 7 .2. The result of factor analysis 10 (30.3) 5 (15.2) 6 (18.2) 8 (24.2) 1 (3.0) 3 (9.1) 13 (35.1) 1 (2. 7) 22 (59.5) 1 (2. 7) 43 (39.8) 10 (9.3) 8 (7.4) 10 (9.3) 33 (30.6) 4 (3.7) Based on the relevant literature review (Chapter 2), a number of survey questions were created for research variables (constructs); these were theoretically driven and contextually found. Each construct was proposed on the basis of thorough review of existing literature and previous studies. In order to examine the internal structure of all constructs, 221 explanatory factor analysis is used among observed variables and potential constructs. As stated briefly in the research design and method section (Chapter 3), exploratory factor analysis using principle component analysis is a useful method that allows one to discover latent constructs that explain the common variance associated with each variable. By employing principle component analysis that verifies the covariance among the variables, this study is able to summarize a large number of observed variables with a small number of constructs (Long 1983 ). For example, the construct of institutional design is composed of six observed variables including broad inclusiveness, process transparency, equal opportunity and resources among members, formalization of collaborative governance, clear ground rules, and time limits. The indicators of institutional design ranged from 0. 707 to 0.874. Likewise, each construct of social learning, deliberation, commitment, intellectual capital, social capital, political capital, and perceived physical and governance effectiveness is composed of two or three observed variables. The factor analysis was conducted in each component separately because it is important to establish the validity of each construct. Table 7-2 shows the structure of each construct and the factor-loading values calculated by principle component analysis. The indicators of these factors ranged from 0. 707 to 0.944. Validity and reliability of variables Reliability and validity are considered in the assessment of the quality of measures. Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure, which means the measure produces the same result when conducted again and again. Cronbach's alpha is checked in order to determine validity and reliability of each variable and to assess the degree to which the items 222 used in the measure are internally consistent. The normally accepted range for Cronbach's alpha is 0 to 1.00. The higher the values of Cronbach's alpha are, the greater the degree of internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient exceeding 0. 70 is considered to be reliable (Nunnally 1978). The values ofCronbach's Alpha for variables in this study range from 0.810 to 0.912, confirming the validity of all variables (see Table 7-2). 223 Table 7-2: Factor Loading and Reliability of Variables Latent Variables Physical Outcome Evaluation Governance Performance Intellectual Capital Collaborative Social Outcomes Capital Political Capital Dern ocratic Institutional and Open Design Management of Process Social Leaming Collaborative Deliberation Process Comm itrn ent Observed Variables Mean SD Factor loadin Suc;c<0ssfulg()alcic}iie."<0!11e11t _ 5}7()'1_ 12()'1_ ()912 Improved environmental conditions 5.5185 1.279 0.917 Perceived effectiveness of collaborative g()~ell1'11lcefort}ieg()al:; _ ~5'.228_ l'.l()'I_ ()94'1 Understanding and support of collaborative approaches 5.5648 1.389 0.944 IJTI1()Vati()11a11~c;reati~ity _ ~5S)'.26_ l'.2'16_ ()92'.l l1ig}iqlJfllityi11foi111'1tion _ ~32,33_ 12,33_ ()91S) The importance of experienced knowledge 5.6296 1.316 0.907 1J()ndiJlg _ ~71),37_ l'.25)9_ ()87'1 ]'Jet\V()r)cing\Vitl1iJ1C()!11111ll1lity _ 5'1()3_ l'.25)3_ ()922 Networking beyond community 5.4074 1.231 0.873 V,TilliJlg11e:;sto\V()r)(toget!oer _ ~41)2'1_ 1221_ ()92) Mobilization method 5.3611 1.286 0.921 Broad inclusiveness 5.1667 1.384 0.707 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ _Pio_ce_ss_trcins2_ar(OJ1C)'_ __________________________________________ ~,42~2 __________ L'.227 ____________ (),8_4(i __ Equal opportunity and resources among members 5.1296 1.169 0.854 Fo1111cilizcitiOJ1()fC()lla\i()r'1tiv(Ogo~e111ci11ce _ ~1()()7 _ 12~0 _ ()85S) ~leargroUJ1~fL!les _ ~2728_ 1'1()0_ ()87'1 Time limits 5.2222 1.462 0.870 Shfired~isi()J1a11dc;lecirgoals _ 5'.227_ 122'1_ ()91)8 j\gree111e11toncid<:fiJlitio11()fthepio\il<0111 _ ~3829_ l'.25)6_ ()942 Collaborative learning 5.1852 1.262 0.846 Face:t():fac(O~ial()gu(O _ ~18~2_ l'l'.28_ ()94'1 Principled negotiation and respect 5.3241 1.406 0.944 Shfiredr(OSJ'()ll.'>ibilityf()r\hepiocess _ ~5)25_ l'.l()'I_ ()91'.l All stakeholders are co-producers of collective decisions 5.5278 1.343 0.904 Commitment to implementation and Eigenvalue 1.682 1.781 2.516 2.376 1.695 4.202 2.43 1.784 monitoring 5.3333 1.434 0.933 2.521 Extraction Method: Principle Component Analysis (N~ 108) Factors of trust building, leadership, and educational programs were asked by 1 question, and the response values were directly used. 224 Explained Variance 84.0% 89.1% 83.9% 79.2% 84.8% 700% 81.0% 89.2% 840% Cronbach Al ha 0.810 0.875 0.903 0.868 0.819 0.912 0.882 0.879 0.904 7.3. The results of difference among groups H7 Different forms of governance focus on different procedural factors and, thus, produce different outcomes (e.g. different levels of intellectual, social, and political capitals as well as physical accomplishments). One of the first goals of the study is to determine whether respondents from the three cases evaluated the governance process and outcome similarly or differently, which relates to research hypothesis 7 (H7). In order to investigate this, the ANOVA test is applied (see Table 7- 3). The ANOVA test hypothesizes that there is no significant difference among the groups. The ANOVAresults are composed of two components, variation between groups and within groups. Variation between groups represents the variation of the group means around the overall mean, while variation within groups represents variation of the individual scores around their respective group means. As shown in Table 7-3, the significance of the F-value for every independent and dependent variable is 0, rejecting the hypothesis. In other words, this result indicates that significant group differences exist. However, this result does not indicate how the three cases differ from each other. The Tukey HSD post-hoc test is applied for pair-wise comparisons, the results of which are displayed in Table 7-4. The Tukey post-hoc test shows that only case 2 differs from case 1 and case 3, and verifies that case 1 and case 3 can be grouped together with no statistically significant difference in most variables. Only one variable, leadership, showed that the three cases were significantly different from each other, thus forming three subgroups. 225 Table 7-3: ANOVA Results of the Process and Outcome Variables Variables Evaluation on physical outcome Sum of Squares df Between Groups 42.991 2 Within Groups 64.009 105 Total 107 107 Mean Square 21.496 0.61 F-value 35.262 Sig. 0.000 ------------------------------------------------------ ---------·----------------------------------------------··---------------------------- Evaluation on Between Groups 48.053 2 24.026 42. 797 0.000 Governance Within Groups 58.947 105 0.561 _.E~tf~f!!.l~!!_c_I:: ________ . _ _!£_~!____________ 107 .......... }9.?. .. _________ ,, ___________ _ Between Groups 37.805 2 18.902 35.751 0.000 Intellectual Capital Within Groups 55.515 105 0.529 Tu~ ~.32 lITT ---------------------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------··--------------, ·--------------- Between Groups 44.858 2 22.429 50.369 0.000 Social Capital Within Groups 46.755 105 0.445 Total 91.613 107 · ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··---------------· ---------------- Between Groups 35.539 2 17.769 30.305 0.000 Political Capital Within Groups 61.567 105 0.586 Total 97.106 107 Between Groups 45.556 2 38.924 0.000 Institutional Design Within Groups 61.444 105 22.778 0.585 Total 107 107 · ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··------------------·-------------- Social Leaming Deliberation Commitment Trust Building Between Groups 37.677 2 18.838 37.183 0.000 Within Groups 53.196 105 0.507 Total 90.873 107 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 26.158 67.673 93.831 52.057 48.928 100.985 88.468 127.782 216.25 2 105 107 2 105 107 2 105 107 13.079 20.293 0.000 0.645 26.029 55.858 0.000 0.466 44.234 36.348 0.000 1.217 -------------------------------------·-----·····················-------.. ----------·------· Between Groups 35.549 2 Leader Within Groups 86.775 105 Total 122.324 107 17.775 0.826 21.508 0.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··----------------------------------- Between Groups 44.478 2 22.239 10.73 0.000 Within Groups 217.624 105 2.073 Total 262.102 107 Educational Programs Mean difference is significant at 5%. 226 Table 7-4: Multiple Comparisons of the Three Cases Variables Evaluation on Physical Outcome Evaluation on Governance Performance Intellectual Capital Social Capital Political Capital Institutional Design Social Leaming Deliberation Commitment Trust Building Leadership Educational Programs Case Case Mean diff. (I) (J) (I-J) 1 2 1.40 1 3 0.06 2 3 -1.34 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1.38 -0.12 -1.51 1.25 -0.07 -1.32 1.39 -0.02 -1.41 1.12 -0.23 -1.34 1.40 -0.02 -1.42 1.31 0.06 -1.25 1.02 -0.09 -1.11 1.37 -0.24 -1.61 1.83 -0.24 -2.07 0.87 -0.55 -1.42 1.25 -0.26 -1.50 a. The result of the Tukey HSD post-hoc test b. N~l08. S.E Sig. 0.19 0.00 * 0.18 0.95 0.19 0.00 * 0.18 0.00 * 0.17 0.76 0.18 0.00 * 0.17 0.00 * 0.17 0.91 0.17 0.00 * 0.16 0.00 * 0.15 0.99 0.16 0.00 * 0.18 0.00 * 0.18 0.41 0.18 0.00 * 0.18 0.00 * 0.18 0.99 0.18 0.00 * 0.17 0.00 * 0.16 0.92 0.17 0.00 * 0.19 0.00 * 0.19 0.88 0.19 0.00 * 0.16 0.00 * 0.16 0.27 0.16 0.00 * 0.26 0.00 * 0.25 0.61 0.26 0.00 * 0.22 0.00 * 0.21 0.03 * 0.22 0.00 * 0.34 0.00 * 0.33 0.72 0.34 0.00 * c. Case 1: Gwangju SMCB, case 2: Samdeock CBM, and case 3: Bupyeong CSB. d. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 227 95% Confidence interval Lower Upper 0.96 1.84 -0.37 0.49 -1. 78 -0.90 0.96 -0.53 -1.93 0.84 -0.47 -1.73 1.01 -0.39 -1.79 0.68 -0.65 -1.78 0.97 -0.44 -1.85 0.91 -0.33 -1.65 0.57 -0.53 -1.57 0.98 -0.62 -2.00 1.21 -0.85 -2.70 0.36 -1.05 -1.94 0.43 -1.05 -2.32 1.81 0.29 -1.08 1.66 0.33 -0.90 1.77 0.35 -1.03 1.55 0.19 -0.91 1.83 0.40 -0.98 1.72 0.45 -0.84 1.48 0.35 -0.65 1.76 0.13 -1.23 2.46 0.37 -1.45 1.39 -0.05 -0.90 2.06 0.53 -0.69 The results of the ANO VA and Tukey post-hoc tests verify that participant evaluation in case 1 (Gwangju SMCB) and case 3 (Bupyeong CSB) did not differ, thus indicating that regardless of different governance structure by leading agents (government for the Gwangju SMCB and residents for the Bupyeong CSB), collaborative community governance is processed similarly and the production of three capitals (intellectual, social, and political) is also similar. However, participant evaluation in the Samdeock CBM case is significantly different from the other two cases with relatively low points in most variables. This may be explained, at least in part, by the severe conflicts Samdeock CBM's suffered from in the middle of community-building efforts, the result of which was a negative impact on the continuation of their community-building practice. From this somewhat mixed result, it is hard to say that a significant difference between the governance process and outcome by different governance structures exists, at least in the Korean context. This issue may require additional study. In order to conduct path analysis and determine the relationships among institutional setting, supportive factors, collaborative process and outcome, this study set this sub-group factor (a group of the Gwangju SMCB and Bupyeong CSB, and another group of the Samdeock CBM) as a control variable. This means that the proposed model for this study (Figure 7-1) considered difference between two groups. 7.4. The relationships among institutional setting, supportive factors, collaborative process and outcome Based on the literature review, a model of collaborative community governance is created in Chapter 2. The model is composed of several variables including institutional setting and supportive factors, collaborative process and outcome, and relationships among 228 institutional design, collaborative process and outcome, and perceived effectiveness of collaborative governance can be diagramed as Figure 7-1. Governance SOCIO•politfcal rou·1come··------------ ! I k:-----~ Institutional Design Demographic l Factors ! J Groups (cases) I L _________________________ J ! l. 5 0 °", 0 1 3 10 1 g 4-(--->> Deliberation <--+ Trust ~(----+) Commitment : ~~~ ' ' '---------------------------------------------------------------------------_J Figure 7-1: Proposed Theoretical Model Indices of fit Leader Educational Programs There are several methods that evaluate fit of a structural equation model. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the fit indices may be divided into two categories - absolute fit indices and incremental fit indices. The absolute fit indices assess how well a priori model reproduces the sample data, which includes the chi-square <i), root mean square en·or of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR.), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGF1). The second incremental fit indices assess proportionate improvement in fit by comparing a target model with a more restricted, nested base-line model, which includes comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and non-normed fit index (NNFI). The general criteria widely accepted are indicated in Table 7-5. 229 Table 7-5: Goodness-of-fit Measures GFI (Goodness of Fit) CFI (Comparative Fit Index) RM SEA (Root Mean Square error of approximation) The results of path analysis General criteria Model Higher than 0.90 0.955 Higher than 0.90 0.995 Lower than 0.06 0.046 A complete visual representation of the results of the path analysis for the hypothesized relationships among independent, intervening, and dependent variables is presented in Figure 7-2, enabling the multiple relationships to be easily understood. In Table 7-6 detailed values are presented. 230 Institutional Design Socio·pofilical --------------------------,------------ Outcome ' ' ' , , / .213" .430""" Intellectual Capital .023 , , ' ' , ' , .126" .369··· .063 .087 ' ' ' .100 .084 .44Q··· -----------------------------· I -.052 -- --- -- .069"" .242••• ...... .31s···· ------ ------- _____ -::~--::----- ------- .214••• .073 Leader --- r·---~,;~'~?, __ • . 215 .. Trust ~---;,., Deliberation Commitment -------------] *--~ ls~~~:::~!_~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~ B- u i- ld - 1- ng~~~~~~~~~~--' Process Figure 7-2: The Results of the Path Model 231 .013 Educational programs .027 • ' I I I ' ' I I I ' ' I I I ' .044 ' ' l~ Table 7-6: Path Coefficients for Regression of Process and Outcome Variables on Physical Outcome and Governance Performance Evaluation on physical Evaluation on governance Intellectual Capital Social Capital Political Capital outcome erformance Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Intellectual Capital 0.213 0.051 * 0.430 0.000 *** Social Capital 0.100 0.456 0.084 0.000 Political Capital 0.440 0.000 *** 0.294 0.002 *** Institutional Design 0.023 0.739 0.118 0.086 * 0.126 0.085 * Social Leaming 0.369 0.000 *** 0.063 0.489 -0.215 0.027 ** Deliberation 0.087 0.330 0.163 0.066 * 0.382 0.000 *** Trust Building 0.214 0.000 *** 0.165 0.003 *** 0.175 0.003 *** Commitment 0.073 0.397 0.242 0.005 *** 0.318 0.000 *** Leadership -0.052 0.408 0.013 0.811 0.060 0.204 -0.021 0.659 -0.059 0.245 Educational Programs 0.027 0.527 0.044 0.230 0.069 0.034 ** 0.019 0.564 0.091 0.009 *** Group 0.444 0.011 ** 0.371 0.012** -0.031 0.825 0.274 0.054 * 0.009 0.953 Length of Participation 0.030 0.070 * 0.018 0.196 0.006 0.649 0.010 0.419 -0.015 0.245 Gender -0.138 0.197 -0.131 0.147 0.096 0.240 0.029 0.725 -0.062 0.478 Age -0.014 0.771 -0.030 0.467 0.012 0.741 0.008 0.823 0.060 0.130 R' 0.678 0.776 0.805 0.795 0.779 *Significant at 10 %. **Significant at 5 %. ***Significant at 1 %. 232 H 1 Institutional design aspects such as broad inclusiveness, equal opportunity and resource sharing, process transparency, and clear ground rules affects collaborative process positively. Path analysis verifies that the institutional setting positively affects the collaborative process. The production of social capital and political capital is positively influenced by the institutional settings and is statistically significant at 1 %. In the case of intellectual capital, the coefficient value is positive, but not statistically significant. This result supports hypothesis 1 (Hl) in that the formation or increase of social and political capitals is affected by institutional factors such as broad inclusiveness, equal opportunity, resource sharing, process transparency, and clear ground rules. H2: The existence of a leader has positive impacts on the collaborative outcome. In the case of the influence of the leader on the governance process and outcome, the regression result shows that the leader does not significantly influence the production of collaborative governance outcome, rejecting hypothesis 2 (H2). This is, in a sense, natural in that the existence of a leader alone makes it difficult to determine influence on the production of governance outcomes. However, as the covariance values and P-value show in Table 7-7, a leader and factors in a collaborative governance process are all significantly correlated with each other, indicating that institutional design and the process of collaborative governance has close relationships with the existence of a leader. This may indicate that the existence of a leader affects the collaborative process work well, making indirect influence on the increase of intellectual, social, and political capitals. H3 Educational programs have positive impacts on the collaborative process and outcome. 233 In the case of the educational program factor, the path coefficient indicates that the educational program factor positively and directly affects the formation of intellectual capital and political capital, supporting hypothesis 3 (H3). To illustrate this, a one-unit change in the standard deviation of education program would produce 0.069 and 0.091 changes in the intellectual and political capitals, respectively. In direct application, participants who were involved in educational programs were more likely to have gained innovative and alternative ideas along with a better understanding about community facts. This is reasonable in that through taking several educational programs, participants can learn about general ideas of community-building, for example, what is community-building, and what are major issues. This learning opportunity may be helpful for participants to facilitate the so-called 'joint fact finding' process. In addition, by taking a closer look at how community-building practices have been undertaken in other cities and communities, participants could also gain greater insight into how things actually get done through administrative or political processes. A better understanding about the whole process would eventually increase willingness to take collective action. H4 The outcome of collaborative governance is determined by the collaborative processes. Thus, process factors including face-to-face dialogue, trust building, commitment to the process, and social learning have positive impacts on the enhancement of social, intellectual and/or political capitals. From the theoretical review in Chapter 2, the collaborative governance process was operationally identified to be composed of 4 major factors - social learning, deliberation, trust building, and commitment - and their cyclical and reiterative relationships. 234 The cyclical relationships among four process factors were verified from their covariance values. As can be seen in Table 7-7 the estimates range from 0.669 to l. ll l, and all are statistically significant. Table 7-7: Covariance among Process Factors Estimate p Social Learning <--> Deliberation 0.693 *** Social Learning <--> Commitment 0.723 *** Social Learning <--> Trust Building 1.013 *** Deliberation <--> Commitment 0.669 *** Deliberation <--> Trust Building 1.02 *** Commitment <--> Trust Building 1.1 ll *** Social Learning <--> Institutional Design 0.693 *** Deliberation <--> Institutional Design 0.667 *** Commitment <--> Institutional Design 0.69 *** Trust Building <--> Institutional Design 0.971 *** Institutional Design <--> Leader 0.546 *** Social Learning <--> Leader 0.459 *** Deliberation <--> Leader 0.464 *** Commitment <--> Leader 0.463 *** Trust Building <--> Leader 0.657 *** Institutional <--> Educational Programs 0.645 *** Design Social Learning <--> Educational Programs 0.608 *** Deliberation <--> Educational Programs 0.775 *** Commitment <--> Educational Programs 0.632 *** Leader <--> Educational Programs 0.788 *** Trust <--> Educational Programs 0.834 *** ***Significant at 1 %. From the path coefficient (see Table 7-6) a positive relationship for each process factor and the first outcome, intellectual capital, is verified. Statistically speaking, a one-unit change in the standard deviation of social learning and trust building would produce 0.369 and 0.214 changes in the intellectual capital, respectively. In other words, social learning has the largest effect on the intellectual capital, followed by deliberation. It is also found that 235 deliberation, trust building, and commitment have significant influence on the formation or increase of social capital at 10 %, 1 %, 1 %, respectively. The commitment has the largest effect on social capital (coefficient: 0.242), followed by trust building (coefficient: 0.165). Similarly, factors of deliberation, trust building, and commitment positively affected the formation or increase of political capital, and all were statistically significant at 1 %. Among them, deliberation was deemed to have the largest effect on political capital with a path coefficient value of0.382, followed by commitment (coefficient: 0.318) and trust building (coefficient: 0 .17 5). The independent variables including institutional setting and procedural factors in this model account for about 78-80 % of the variations in intellectual capital (R 2 : 0.805), social capital (R 2 : 0.795), and political capital (R 2 : 0.779). One finding that rejects the hypothesis is the negative relationship between social learning and political capital. Since the survey questions with regard to social learning included questions asking 'to what degree do you agree with the notion that collaborative governance made shared vision and consensus on community issues,' and 'to what degree did you learn about related knowledge, understand different perspectives better, and gain related skills,' this negative relationship between social learning and political capital (willingness to work together) may represent the existence of mixed evaluations on the shared vision and consensus on community issues and collaborative learning. When reviewing survey responses in detail, I found that the evaluation of collaborative learning is relatively low (see mean value of each item in Table 7-2). This may stem from the difficulty in fully understanding different views and perspectives, as indicated in one of the interviewee's statements: "although we have tried to work with a wide range of participants, each one has a different view point with different interests, so it was really difficult to create a single voice and make a decision that 236 represents our community" (K yeongmin Kim). In increasing intellectual capital, social learning is the most critical factor. While commitment to the process is the key for social capital, deliberation is the most contributing factor for the formation or increase of political capital. However, this is not to say that only these single factors are effective in three types of capitals. Besides the statistical significances in most relationships between process and outcome factors, the high covariance values among four process factors may verify that each process factor makes small and large affects both directly and indirectly in the production of outcome. HS Three socio-political outcomes (intellectual, social, and political capitals) have positive impacts on the evaluation of collaborative governance. The results of path analysis confirmed the mostly positive influence of intervening variables (intellectual, social and political capitals) on the evaluation of governance performance. In the case of the evaluation of physical outcomes, intellectual and political capitals are verified to influence positively, with statistical significance at 10 % and 1 %, respectively. Political capital has the largest influence with a coefficient value of0.440, followed by intellectual capital with a coefficient value of0.213. Similarly, both intellectual and political capitals are found to affect the evaluation of governance effectiveness positively, both at 1 % significance. Differing from the results from the evaluation on physical outcome, however, intellectual capital is found to have the largest effects on the governance evaluation (coefficient: 0.430), followed by political capital (coefficient: 0.294). Interestingly, the influence of social capital on the physical outcome and governance performance is not statistically significant. Overall, this model explains about 68-78 % of the variations in physical effectiveness (R 2 : 0.678) and governance effectiveness (R 2 : 0.776). Possible 237 explanations are discussed in Section 7. 5. H6 The length of experience with collaborative governance affects the participants' evaluation on the effectiveness of collaborative governance. The longer the length of experience, the higher level of positive evaluation on collaborative governance. In contrast to the research hypothesis stating that a positive relationship between the length of participation and participants' evaluation on collaborative governance exists, the path analysis of survey responses finds no statistically significant relationships between them. Only the relationship between the length of participation and the evaluation on physical outcome was statistically significant at 10 %, but the low coefficient value of0.030 may indicate the relationship is weak. Total effects of the process factors Since the process and institutional setting factors (independent variables) are confirmed to influence the production of intellectual, social, and political capitals significantly, and those three capitals are also confirmed to have positive relationships with participants' evaluations on physical and governance effectiveness, the process and institutional setting factors may be seen to have indirect relationships with physical outcome and governance performance. Then, how can such relationships be detected and verified? One of the strengths of path analysis is that it provides a good mathematical result to discover such indirect influences. Table 7-8 summarizes the results of total effects of the process and institutional setting factors. For example, the total effect of institutional setting that includes the paths from the institutional setting to intellectual, social, and political capitals, as well as other paths from 238 the intellectual, social, and political capitals to physical outcome and governance performance were calculated as 0.072 and 0.057, respectively. In other words, a one-unit change in the standard deviation of institutional setting would contribute to a change in evaluations on physical outcome and governance performance by 0.072 and 0.057, respectively. In the same way, the effects of the four process factors are also calculated. In the evaluation of physical outcome, social learning, deliberation, trust building, and commitment contribute with values of -0.010, 0.203, 0.139, and 0.180, respectively, indicating that in the Korean context, deliberation makes the largest effects on participants to evaluate to what extent their goal was achieved. This may be explained considering that face-to-face dialogue allows for participants to undertake discussions and deliberation in greater detail, by which collective decisions for new plans and projects to improve their environment could be successfully drawn. The positive perception about such experiences with regards to deliberative governance processes may lead to more positive evaluation of the effectiveness of collaborative governance for tangible outcomes such as improved community environment (e.g. newly created public space, clean and safe streets, convenient facilities, etc.). The factor of deliberation is the most important, as well, in terms of the governance effectiveness. Indirectly, this suggests that securing both face-to-face dialogue and deep discussion would be the most effective way to bring better outcomes when attempting to make the collaborative process more deliberative. 239 Table 7-8: Total Effects of the Process Factors Paths from institutional setting to outcome evaluation Estimate Total 1 2 3 1-+2 2-+3 1-+2-+3 Effects Institutional Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.023 0.213 * 0.005 0.072 Design physical outcome Social Capital 0.118 * 0.100 0.012 Political Capital 0.126 * 0.440 *** 0.055 ·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------- Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.023 0.430 *** 0.010 0.057 Social Capital governance 0.118 * 0.084 0.010 Political Capital petformance 0.126 * 0.294 *** 0.037 Social Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.369 *** 0.213 * 0.079 -0.010 Leaming Social Capital physical outcome 0.063 0.100 0.006 Political Capital -0.215 *** 0.440 *** -0.095 ·--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------·------------------------------ Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.369 *** 0.430 *** 0.159 0.101 Social Capital governance 0.063 0.084 0.005 Political Capital petf ormance -0.215 *** 0.294 *** -0.063 Deliberation Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.087 0.213 * 0.019 0.203 Social Capital physical outcome 0.163 * 0.100 0.016 Political Capital 0.382 *** 0.440 *** 0.168 ·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------------------- Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.087 0.430 *** 0.037 0.163 Social Capital governance 0.163 * 0.084 0.014 Political Capital petf ormance 0.382 *** 0.294 *** 0.112 Trust Building Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.214 *** 0.213 * 0.046 0.139 Social Capital physical outcome 0.165 *** 0.100 0.017 Political Capital 0.175 *** 0.440 *** 0.077 ·------------------------------------------------·············--------,_·-------·----------.. ·············· Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.214 *** 0.430 *** 0.092 0.157 Social Capital governance 0.165 *** 0.084 0.014 petformance Political Capital 0.175 *** 0.294 *** 0.051 Commitment Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.073 0.213 * 0.016 0.180 Social Capital physical outcome 0.242 *** 0.100 0.024 Political Capital 0.318 *** 0.440 *** 0.140 ·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------·------------------------------- Intellectual Capital Evaluation on 0.073 0.430 *** 0.031 0.145 Social Capital governance 0.242 *** 0.084 0.020 Political Capital petformance 0.318 *** 0.294 *** 0.093 Note: Estimate values of paths 1 )-.2)-.3) are calculated by (1 -.2)x (2-.3). *Significant at 10 %. **Significant at 5 %. ***Significant at 1 %. 240 The relationships between demographic variables (gender, age) and outcome (both socio-political outcome and perceived evaluation of physical and governance effectiveness) were not statistically significant. The significant influence of group variable on both evaluations of physical outcome and governance performance indicates that participant evaluation of the Gwangju SMCB and the Bupyeong CSB are more positive than those of the Samdeock CBM. This is probable because Samdoeck CBM suffered a somewhat difficult period due to the redevelopment conflict, which as a result abated community-building activities. 7 .5. Discussions This chapter examines relationships among institutional setting, supportive factors (leadership, educational program), governance process and outcomes. To summarize, first ANO VA analysis verified that, contrary to one of the issues this study raised in the beginning, there was no significant difference in different governance structures (government, NGO, and residents-driven models) in the Korean context. From path analysis, it was found that the factor of institutional setting affected the production of social and political capitals significantly, while leadership had no direct relationships with all three socio-political outcomes. The significant influence of educational programs on intellectual and political capitals shows that the provision of educational sessions was helpful for participants to widen and deepen their knowledge and understandability on community-building, enhancing willingness to participate more. Although most relationships between the four selected process factors and three socio-political outcomes are positive and significant, among them, relationships between 241 social learning and intellectual capital, commitment and social capital, and deliberation and political capital are relatively strong. In addition, since the theoretical model proposed a two stage relationship among process factors (independent variables), socio-political outcome (intervening variables), and evaluations on physical outcome and governance performance (dependent variables), the total effects of process factors on the final evaluation was also calculated. It is apparent from this analysis that deliberation makes the largest effects on both physical outcome and governance performance. As several scholars argue (Daniels and Walker 1996, Fischer 2006), this means that making efforts to facilitate face-to-face dialogue and deep deliberation during the governance process could be the most effective strategy to bring about better outcomes. Finally, both intellectual and political capitals were confirmed to make significant influence on participant evaluation on physical outcome and governance effectiveness. These results make several points to discuss. First, contrary to expectations, the results show no significant difference between the process and outcome of collaborative governance between different governance structures. Earlier, Steelman and Carmin (2002) observed that while the community driven, bottom-up initiative was based on human resource and had an open network enabling both bonding and bridging networks, the agency-driven, top-down initiative focused on relationships between networks for task completion. They argued that different types of collaborative forms function differently and produce different outcomes. This discrepancy from this study may stem from contextual difference between study areas (US vs. Korea) or research method (qualitative vs. quantitative). This issue may require further studies. Second, this study finds that when participants evaluate whether or not their goals 242 were achieved, the experience of working together and increased willingness for future collaboration itself make the largest effects. This corresponds with an observation from the interview; one of the important lessons participants learn from collaboration with wide stakeholders is that "collaboration eventually work[s ]."Through systematically coordinated efforts for common goals, participants thought that they could produce better outcomes. This is probable when it is considered that to actualize any project, it is necessary to build close relationships with local government for administrative processes, with experts to increase project feasibility, and with volunteer residents who actually contribute time and effort to proceed with their project. Through these multiple cooperations, various tangible outcomes such as community public space, keeping community environment clean and safe, and new community plans and programs could actually be produced. In other words, skills, know-how, or experiential knowledge accumulated from project inception to implementation, may allow participants to increase self-confidence and faith in finally getting things done. This result supports the literature that individuals who get involved in collaborative efforts may enhance the capacity to make actions, and such enhanced capacity contributes to bring better outcomes that otherwise might be hard to produce (Sorensen and Torfing, 2003). Meanwhile, intellectual capital formed through a collaborative governance process may have a direct contribution to tangible outcomes. The evolutionary development of the electricity distribution facility of the Bupyeong CSB and the artistic achievements by partnership with local artists in the Gwanju SMCB may be good examples illustrating how innovative ideas are developed evolutionally, and how effective combination of diverse knowledge improves the built environment. In the evaluation regarding whether or not their collaborative governance was 243 effective, in addition, the largest contribution of intellectual capital may reflect the importance of collaborative governance process, through which participants got to have transformational experience. As observed in the previous Chapter 6, participants were able to have not only instrumental learning (better understanding of theoretical knowledge) but also to experience changes in views and attitude, thus becoming 'active seekers' to get solutions. The most significant accomplishment made by such active solution-seeking attitudes may be community identity and the creation or discovery of culture. Being transformed into an active seeker and getting new solutions collaboratively allowed participants to perceive that a collaborative governance approach is effective to bring about better outcomes. By recognizing such advantages of collaboration, participants may become supporters of adopting a collaborative governance approach in future community-building practice. Lastly, one notable finding is that the role of social capital is not that significant in both physical outcome and governance performance. In the literature, it is not difficult to find theoretical arguments and broad empirical evidence across many countries emphasizing the important benefits of social capital (Bowles and Gintis 2002, Forrest and Kearns 2001, Cuthill 2003, Purdue 2001 ). However, the result found here may represent the limited production of social capital in the Korean context. Or, it may indicate how difficult improvement in social capital is in practice, possibly because it requires a long time to be produced, or because of the fragility of social capital due to changing circumstances (e.g. social conflicts as the Samdeock CBM case illustrates). 244 CHAPTERS CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study is to find answers to the following questions: how has collaborative community-building governance initiative in Korea worked so far, and what were the outcomes? Building on the existing theory of collaborative governance and empirical evidences that identify critical factors of governance process and outcome, this study creates a conceptual model of collaborative community governance. This model addresses the structure of, and the relationships between, institutional design, governance process and outcome. In addition, a set of evaluation criteria is devised in order to thoroughly explore and assess the three representative collaborative community-building cases. Another aim of evaluation is to verify the relationships among key factors of collaborative governance in order to find evidence on the extent to which factors like the institutional design, leadership, educational programs and governance process influence the expected outcomes. The relatively strong or weak influence of any of the factors included in this study may detect the gap between theory and practice, or discover points underdeveloped in the Korean context. To conclude the study, this chapter first summarizes the major findings of the study. Then discussions and policy implications are provided. The limitations and directions for future research make up the last part of this chapter. 8.1. Summary of the fmdings As a first step, this study evaluates the institutional design of three community-building cases in Korea, specifically the Gwanju SMCB, Samdeock CBM, and Bupyeong CSB, in terms of their broad inclusiveness, process transparency and ground rules. In all three cases the scope 245 of participation was widened to diverse sectors including ordinary residents, public officials, local organizations, NGOs and local experts, thus meeting the criteria of broad inclusiveness. However, a few differences are found in the form and level of participation. While the Gwangju SMCB tried to secure public input by the representation of the RAC, thus revealing a gap between the RAC and other lay people, the Sarndeock CBM tended to strongly depend on the active role of several residents and activists in the YMCA, thus being limited in bringing ordinary residents to the table. In the case of the Bupyeong CSB, however, primary effort was given to include diverse residents in order to have as many voices heard as possible. Only the Gwangju SMCB was successful in building the Community-building Ordinance and Enforcement Regulation, which became a sound process rule to make the collaborative process transparent and legitimate. The Sarndeock CBM and Bupyeong CSB did not seem to operate on the basis of ground rules. Actors of those projects tended to communicate on an irregular basis and depend on casual interactions; such informal communication in the absence of solid procedural rules might make it difficult to secure equality in terms of opportunity and resources. Although many theorists argue that community may be the most potential urban scale that can realize genuine public participation (Taylor 2007, Adams and Hess 2001, O'Toole and Burdess 2004), these differences bring up the issue of direct versus indirect participation. This in turn raises the question of how deep and broad the participation of ordinary residents can reach. In addition, the evaluation herein exposes the deficiency in the pertinent institutional setting, e.g. process rules for equal opportunity and resource sharing and a formalized two-way communication mode, that should be systematically developed to make the collaborative governance process democratic, transparent, and ultimately legitimate. As operationalized in the conceptual model of collaborative community governance 246 (Figure 2-2), collaborative governance is a cyclical and iterative process of trust building, shared understanding, social learning and commitment. The results of the three studied cases show that the collaborative community-building efforts used in those cases were strongly based on face-to face dialogue and direct interaction. By taking part in the governance process, participants in all three cases were able to enjoy a shared understanding of community issues and build consensus on a definition of the problem. Participants were able to benefit from direct learning about community-building as a small gain, and experienced behavior and attitude transformation as a larger reward. As participants began to be involved in the process, they realized that they were in the same boat bound together by a common destiny, which then enhanced willingness to commit to the process in depth. This study finds that the three reviewed community-building cases have been able to develop their community-building practices on the basis of mutual trust. Several interviewees stated that by communicating actively and working together, they were able to understand others more and build trust. However, the Samdeock CBM also shows how easily trust can be broken, since the nine years of community-building and the trust built through it were severely and rapidly eroded due to a redevelopment conflict. The model of collaborative community-building governance operationalizes the governance process through two dimensions of outcome: (I) formation and enhancement of collaborative capacity (intellectual and cultural capital, social capital, and political capital), and (2) physical outcome and perceived effectiveness of collaborative governance. Three cases shared similar features with respect to the development of intellectual and cultural capital. By actively participating in the process, participants were not only able to learn about the basic concept of community-building and acquire specific know-how and skills (theoretical knowledge), but also experienced changed perspectives and attitudes, and thus 247 becoming reborn pro-collaborative-community-building-activists. In addition, they were aware that local knowledge was relevant and to be used in combination with the knowledge and skill of professionals in developing community plans that better reflect the local context. Conventionally, broad-based surveys were often used to examine environmental and cultural issues, needs, constraints, and preferred directions. However, these three community-building cases created community programs that aimed to provide opportunities for local people to evaluate the current conditions and assets of the community from the residents' perspective. Those programs were actually effective in identifying missing points, generating new ideas, and prioritizing community agenda. For example, community tours and mapping were a good strategy to discover hannful and secluded spots, which then brought the issue of children' safety to the foreground and created discussion about the expansion of neighborhood patrols and the installation of security cameras. This can be seen as the process of co-construction of community knowledge, in which professional and experiential knowledge is combined, making it one of the most crucial resources in formulating the community-tailored vision. Another significant outcome is that for about 10 years of the community-building movement in the three community-building cases, residents were able to define collective identity and develop community culture. In many cases, community festivals and events have been used as a typical strategy to cultivate community culture. Although all three projects took such an approach, it is difficult to find strategic invention behind them, regardless oflocal and historical context. Rather, various methods of community-building became historically accumulated resources, from which unique themes were naturally discovered and developed along with the development of the community-building movement. The festival and cultural events became additional social spaces that facilitated new networks among residents or between 248 residents and local organizations, by which solidarity and relationships were strengthened. In other words, the three reviewed community-building cases show that a long history of community-building efforts, integrated with historical and cultural reflection, has resulted in a new form of community culture as an evolving community. These three projects--Gwangju SMCB, Samdeock CBM, and Bupyeong CSB--were also able to enhance the ability to develop social capital (both bonding and bridging capitals) on the basis of new and improved relationships, social norms and trust. As mentioned earlier, the scope of participants was widened with the involvement of diverse stakeholders, developing formal and informal relationships and networks. Such networking allowed for the flow of formal and informal information and knowledge and also increased emotional and physical support within the community. On a wider level, mobilizing and networking with NGOs, diverse local and regional organizations, academic and local experts, and local and national governments have allowed the growth of valuable human and material resources and expanded the structure of opportunities to regional and national levels. Although the network structure was diversified both within and beyond the community, the three cases illustrated somewhat different aspects of network development. Owing to the strong financial and institutional support of the local government, the Gwangju SMCB was able to build the most inclusive and well-structured governance system, which allowed for efficiency in the mobilization of actors with different views and resources. Instead of relying on formal protocols such as regular meetings and public hearings, on the contrary, the Samedock CBM and Bupyeong CSB were based on loosely intermingled informal, yet animated, networks and interactions. The informal interaction served to increase the understanding of other perspectives in a more comfortable environment and to solve conflict. The spontaneous ideas and creative 249 dialogue free from obligation to rules or a certain agenda led to a kind of responsiveness and adaptability, meeting changing needs and circumstances. By taking part in the community-building processes and having opportunities to collaborate with others, the level of participant commitment to the current activities as well as participant willingness to work together in their future activities deepened, hence forming political capital. An important lesson from the strategic alliances with political actors, local administrations, and expert groups was that collaboration eventually worked. In particular, as participants began to form a collaborative governance entity, having expanded the scope of participation and diversified actors with different perspectives, their capacity to mobilize human and material resources increased drastically. In fact, by working together they could accomplish community goals even beyond their expectations as a synergistic effect. However, the experience of the Samdeock CBM was somewhat different. Here the political capital that had enhanced for a long time drastically declined due to the failure of conflict management. The socio-political capitals may be very susceptible to changing circumstances. Thus, how to maintain previously constructed capital is another important issue that became apparent in this process. In terms of the physical outcome, this study finds that all three community-building efforts have improved the community environment remarkably. Not only the beautification of alleys and walls by incorporating public art in the Gwangju SMCB, but also the creation of public community spaces (playgrounds, small and large parks, and community theaters) in the Samdeock CBM, are notable physical outcomes that contributed to enhancing community relationships by providing a communal space, and increasing chances to interact. In Chapter 7, I have examined participant's self-evaluation on the governance process and outcome to empirically verify relationships among institutional setting factors, supportive 250 factors (leadership, educational programs), governance process and outcomes. In the first step, ANOV A analysis verifies that there was no significant difference between the Gwangju SMCB and the Bupyeong CSB. Only the Samdeock CBM stands out as a different group with its relatively low points of evaluation. This difference stems from the severe difficulties Samdeock CBM experienced recently due to redevelopment conflicts, leading to the stoppage of most community-building activities. While controlling this group difference, the path analysis verifies, for the most part, the significantly positive relationships among factors of institutional design, supportive factors, and governance process and outcomes. The significant influence of educational programs on intellectual and political capitals shows that the provision of educational sessions was helpful for participants to widen and deepen their knowledge and understanding of community-building, thus enhancing willingness to participate more. In particular, relationships between social learning and intellectual capital, commitment and social capital, and commitment and political capital were relatively strong, thus indicating that social learning played the most significant role in enhancing intellectual capital, while commitment was most influential in building social and political capitals. Deliberation is found to have the largest effect on both physical outcome and governance performance, which supports the argument of several deliberative democracy theorists (Fung and Wright 2003, Sirianni 2009, Fischer 2006) that making efforts to facilitate face-to-face dialogue and deep deliberation during the governance process could be the most effective strategy to bring about better outcomes. This study also confirms that both intellectual and political capitals have significant influence on the physical outcome and governance effectiveness. Contrary to expectations at the onset of the study, the influence of social capital on physical and governance effectiveness was found to be insignificant. However, this does not indicate negative influence of social capital. 251 Rather, it may be reasonable to assume that the formation of social capital was relatively low compared to that of other intellectual and political factors, which may represent the limited enhancement of social capital in the Korean context, or more broadly, the fragile and time intensive characteristics of social capital. Relative strengths and pitfalls of the three cases Although the three cases share an obvious commonality of successfully developing community-building movements, some differences are also observed from a comparative viewpoint, from which relative strengths and weakness can be identified. First, the Gwangju SMCB as a government-driven collaborative model exhibits the significance of the role of the local government as a powerful manager (broker) that strategically interconnects diverse participants by placing their interventions at pivotal points, thus enabling effective mobilization ofrelevant human and material resources both within and outside community. In particular, the strongest point of active governmental supports can be found from the formation of a formal institution that facilitates diverse community-building efforts systematically. The establishment of the first community-building ordinance in Korea means to build a legal foundation of community-building practice, on which strong commitment and role allocation can be obtained. Speedy progress with many projects may be another benefit from strong supports from the local government on the solid legal foundation. Additional administrative reform with setting of a taskforce team and community-building support center was also helpful to maintain and secure stability of community-building activities, which in turn affected other cities and accelerated institutional reform in wider regional and national levels. However, larger dependency on the local government at the same time exposes its susceptibility to policy change by local elections 252 and subsequent administrative reforms. In addition, since the case admitted the difficulty of direct participation, thus focusing on representation of the RAC, it showed some limitation with building deep relationships with ordinary people, rather made them feeling excluded again. Meanwhile, the Samdeock CBM as a resident-NGO joint model shows a possibility of synergetic combination ofNGO's mission and community-building movement. Since Samdeockdong is an old residential district, lots ofresidents are life-long residents, hence concerned about the decline of the sense of community and wanting to keep the memories from their childhood. In order to maintain and infuse the sense of community, diverse programs were created, for instance, designing of alleys, creating community public spaces, and social programs including children-friendly events. And such community efforts in large part mesh well with the mission of YMCA, pursing social change from the community level. The role of the leader, as a community resident as well as passionate activist as the secretary-general of the YMCA, has been significant in combining such community efforts with projects of the YMCA. Many projects and events were undertaken with assistance of the YMCA staff and their project "operation knowhow," and even financial support, which facilitated diverse ways of activities. Obviously, the active involvement of NGO, which is equipped with more knowledge and experience with administrative process and works, can effectively influence the process and outcome of the community-building practice. After the redevelopment conflict, however, most of community building activities lost thier vitality, leaving only key projects such as Peace Trade (social enterprise), Community Children Center, and Puppet-Mime Festival, two of them are sub- projects of YMCA. In case of the Samdeockdong, such close partnership with NGO has been beneficial, because the community-building movement might have disappeared without YMCA's efforts. However, it is also true that a large dependency on the outside organization instead of 253 horizontal collaboration among diverse stakeholders may results in limited development of social and political outcome, for example, failing to create wide network building and collaborative learning, and resulting in low enhancement of cohesion and political competence. Actually, some of interviewees criticized that the deep involvement of the YMCA made the community-building efforts to be seen as their story, not "our story," so acting as another barrier for ordinary residents to have the opportunity to community-building process. The Bupyeong CSB as a resident-driven governance model represents remarkable improvement of residents' self-esteem and capacity through a series of problem solving process. The formation of residents' organization and its continual reformation shows how local people have systematically adapted to changing circumstances and needs. This suggests that local people's direct experience of participation and relationship building through active interactions are the best way to enhance individual as well as collective capacity. However, they still rely on government for significant funding, various administrative supports and approvals for some of community activities. Another notable point is that the community-building projects even in the middle of conflict converted their focus from the sharp conflicting point into concerns on how to co-exist in a shared place, by which creating a new way to overcome the struggle. This implies that the community-building movement could be an effective strategy for conflict resolution for other communities. 8.2. Discussion and implications From grassroots movement to institutionalized planning practice As explored in Chapter 4, the emergence of collaborative community governance cannot be explained without considering a series of developmental processes of the community 254 movement. This study has understood such community movement developmental processes to be an evolving response to the complicated social and political transformation and subsequent change of urban and regional policies in Korea. In particular, this study has found the origin of the community-building movement in what was earlier considered to be protest activism, and such understanding of community movement is in line with Manuel Castells' theory of grassroots movement and urban change (Castells 1983). In The City and the Grassroots, Castells conducts a comparative study that looks closely at a range of social movements across American and European cities in order to "discover the mechanisms involved in the formation of social movement aimed at the city" (Castells 1983, 300). Basically he understands that "the city is a social product resulting form conflicting social interests and values," and thus studies on urban change should "account both for the spatial and social effects resulting from the action of the dominant interests as well as from the grassroots' alternative to this domination" (Castells 1983, 291 ). Thus, he defines urban social movement as: a collective conscious action aimed at the transformation of the institutionalized urban meaning against the logic, interest, and values of the dominant class ... only urban social movements are urban-oriented mobilizations that influence structural social change and transform the urban meanings (Castells 1983, 305) Grassroots movements itself may not be direct "agents of structural social change, but symptoms ofresistance to the social domination," having "major effects on cities and societies" (p.329). But he argues that "grassroots mobilization has been a crucial factor in the shaping of the city, as well as the decisive element in urban innovation against prevailing social interests" (p.318). The core contribution of his understanding of city and grassroots movements may be that it provides a sound theoretical and empirical foundation that recognizes social movement as a major social actor that plays a fundamental role in social transformation. Through the continual 255 interaction between urban social conflict and grassroots movements, urban change occurs. Such a constructive understanding of the grassroots movement as a major social actor and its innovative potential to restructure the social system in alternative ways overcomes the limit of conventional division between the government and citizens. The dichotomy that urban planning is something done by government while citizens are customers, as well as urban planning is an institutionalized process while grassroots actions are radical protests that exist outside the institutional system, is problematic. Rather the possibility emerges to see urban planning as a production of a social process, which is developed by the interaction between the institutional planning process and grassroots actions. More importantly, when one acknowledges that the nature of grassroots movements is to pursue the realization of equality by addressing conventionally marginalized voices, the role of grassroots movements becomes more significant in the effort to make the voices of disadvantaged people and communities be heard. Indeed, without the complex development of community movement since the 1980s, it might not have been possible for collaborative forms of community movement to emerge. The Sarndeock CBM and Bupyeong CSB can be seen as typical grassroots movements that surfaced earlier in the late 1990s by community residents to initiate a community-building movement (Sarndeock CBM) and to find ways to revitalize local economy and resolve residents' conflicts (Bupyeong CSB). Although these efforts might look trivial and tenuous in their early stage, the continuous efforts to define and share community issues and to find solutions eventually did work to expand the scope of the movement from the small individual level to the larger collective level involving a wide range of social actors. In addition to the positive evaluation of the grassroots activities from outside perspectives, visible outcomes in both the physical environment and social relationships influenced other communities, even cities, to recognize that 256 grassroots' own efforts could bring about change. The more the interest in community issues, the more and stronger are demands to the government, which may cause the government to be more attentive and responsive to community needs. As explored in Chapter 4, the explosive increase of the community-building movement at the grassroots level since the late 1990s can be seen as a critical motivator in forming a broader social debate. Both self-criticism that something was wrong in the existing planning approach and a new expectation of the potential of the community, especially the fundamental role of local actors in transforming the community, began to converge. Finally such social debate influenced the national government, by which it brought about change in local development policy from a government-driven economy development model to a collaborative model that comprehensively considers economic, social, and environmental (ecological) aspects. Of course, as examined in chapter 4, other changes in political and social circumstances should play a supportive role in forming community-based local development policy. In other words, the early grassroots community movement itself was a social actor that was continuously engaged in the mobilization of the community-based urban policy. In 2007 it finally brought about the birth of the collaborative initiative as a formalized, institutionalized community planning policy. Issues of legitimacy The examination of collaborative community governance then brings the issue of legitimacy to the foreground. Given that one of the convictions for the community governance approach is a prospective mechanism to realize democratic value, forming and structuring the governance system to involve a wide range of stakeholders in locality, and in particular to make underrepresented voices heard, has been a central issue. Although direct participation is 257 recognized as the best way to hear and collect local voices, in addition, the difficulty and impossibility of direct participation in contemporary society has led to the popular use of a representative system. However, how exactly representation reflects genuine local opinions has been a contested issue. In fact, tensions between direct participation and representation, and how to incorporate a wide range of stakeholders into their structures in order to identify local interests, needs and priorities is directly related to the issue of legitimacy of community governance. However, as Arnstein (1969)'s ladder of citizen participation shows, the meaning and scope of participation is diverse and to what extent participation is fulfilled or not is not easy to determine. Due to the ambiguity and impossibility of direct participation of all related people in a contemporary urban setting, the procedural perspective that mainly concerns how to design a legitimate governance process seems to have been recognized as critical (Connelly 2011, Hajer and Wagenaar 2003). The new focus on process then leads to concerns as how to bring conventionally under-represented voices to the table, especially with special emphasis on ordinary residents, how to obtain balance in the distribution of power, information and resources during the process, how to stimulate deliberative communication among actors, and how to create diverse methods to support participatory decision-making and representation. Thus, the main question is shifted to "Do we currently accept this process as an appropriate way to make policy (here, collective decision and actions)?"(Connelly 2011, 933) Outcomes through legitimate process, as Dryzek argues, may be perceived as such "to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question" (Dryzek 2001, 651). From this point of view, the three collaborative community-building movements show notable possibilities. Their efforts to work with diverse stakeholders including non-profit and 258 community organizations, development groups, professionals and local government, were based on a recognition that each has their own interests, perspectives, and resources. Thus, without being together, it would not be possible to accomplish the common goals. In particular, they are significant in that the participation of ordinary residents living in the target community, who were mostly under recognized, thus excluded in conventional urban affairs, has been considered as the most important part to actually proceed with community-building practice. The face-to-face dialogue and active communications among participants enabled them to build common ground for collective decisions and future actions. Ongoing and active interaction and communication between participants enabled them not only to build common ground for mutual understanding, but also to discover hidden needs and problems. As Chaskin (2003) states, such inclusive participation and communicative governance process, by which building up a good reputation also contributed to ensure legitimacy. In terms of the process legitimacy, however, the three cases also expose some limitations. Among a number of issues that have been addressed in the community governance debate, unequal distribution of power is critical. The majority or some privileged groups may have stronger power to make their interests effective, while minority or disadvantaged groups again remain underrepresented and behind. Professionals and expert groups who conventionally have enjoyed higher leveraging power with their skills and knowledge may continue to have such privilege unless other efforts are made to keep a balance among diverse actors. Jessop's (2003) argument - the tendency of the private, economic development group's domination over governance process - can also be understood in the same context. The issue of imbalance may also apply to communication modes and resource distribution throughout the process. As evaluated above, institutional design of the three cases appears to be not that 259 satisfactory. Although informal communications and interactions were inherently positive, as stated above, the larger dependence on informal communication and casual interactions without greater consideration to build solid procedural rules and formalized two-way communication, may be impossible to overcome the problems of asymmetrical communication and resource imbalance. An importance suggestion for future community and local polity that further consideration should be given to the more sophisticated institutional design to maximize the potential of collaborative governance as a democratic and legitimate decision-making mode. Public space and public sphere The creation of 'public space' the three cases have commonly pursued through their community-building practices reflects a new recognition about the potential of space. For a long time, the rapid decline of urban public space has been one of continued concerns in both academia and practical world. Banerjee (2001, 12) argues that "the steady decline in the quality and supply of public spaces is a production of a general decline of civility and decorum in public spaces." In addition, Banerjee (2001, 12) criticizes that the pubic space has been increasingly privatized and supplanted by "invented streets and reinvented places" such as corporate plazas, open space, and shopping mall that have become "popular destinations for the public." Such spaces are created under the heading of publicness by the developer and private owner, who actually enjoy incentives such as additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In reality, however, it is 'pseudo-public' in that "public is welcome as long as they are patrons of shops and restaurants, office workers, or clients of business located on the premises ... [A]ccess to and use of the space is only a privilege, not a right" (Banerjee 2001, 12) In this situation, collaborative efforts to create communal spaces such as small and large 260 parks and playgrounds, community museum and theater, or open space with pond and sculptures can be seen to be meaningful. A variety of community activities might not be possible without such community spaces, where residents can get together to having discussion, running social programs, or just having fun at their daily life. As community psychologists argue (Manzo and Perkins 2006), creation of public space becomes also essential if we recognize that it can be a starting point of a virtuous circle including place attachment (psychological ties to place), sense of community, and residents participation and collective action. By having various activities in community public spaces and giving new meaning and value to those space, spaces are reproduced as place as experienced space. This means that community residents may have a greater sense of place attachments, place identity and a sense of community more broadly. When community residents have a stronger sense of place attachments, they may have a stronger motivation to take actions for the community. Another critical issue related with the decline of public space is the lack of site for discursive debate and public participation, in other words, 'public sphere' (Habermas, 1989). Public sphere refers to "the space in which citizens deliberate about their common affairs, hence, an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. [ ... ] a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state" (Fraser 1990, 57). The three cases demonstrate the potential of collaborative community governance as a new public sphere, where wide range of stakeholders can meet, discuss, and deliberate on local issues, and reach shared understanding, agreement, and consensus. Face-to-face dialogue, constructive discussion, and deliberation through the community-building governance process led to social and collaborative learning. In other words, the successful operation of such public sphere results in finding their own identity and culture, respecting its unique social, historical and environmental characteristics. 261 Tricky relationship with government In theory, community governance strongly depends on the assumption that governments and community actors are mutually complementary with different advantages such as better recognition oflocal problems, needs and priorities by community actors based on contextual knowledge, and technical and institutional capacity to realize community level changes initiated by governments. Thus, it has been suggested that the ideal role of community actors is to make input as much as possible to diagnose community problems and prioritize urgent issues. For local governments, emphasis is on the provision of financial and institutional support as well as on the coordination of different interests and needs of diverse stakeholders. This is why Chaskin and Garg view community governance as a an effort to strengthen community by "linking top-down and bottom-up approaches," which promotes community capacity and residents participation and induced the government to become more responsive to local needs (Chaskin and Garg 1997, 641 ). A well-structured governance entity based on active participation and interaction among diverse stakeholders may have strong potential to bring about some positive changes by effectively collecting their own efforts and by successfully advocating to local governments for specific policies. However in reality, the task of building a balanced relationship between community actors and local government may not be that simple and easy. Although community governance emphasizes the devolution of centralized power in decision-making processes and supports active participation of citizens, it cannot be free from the government's hands in practice, for example, in the implementation of proposed plans or the creation of necessary policies. Contrary to its intentions, the extensive dependency of community governance on local government may make it difficult for the community governance structure to act as an alternative arena for the devolution of centralized power and the involvement of citizens, especially for 262 disadvantaged groups, losing the most fundamental feature of the governance structure as a democratic space. Indeed, the limited relationships between community governance entity and local government in the Bupyeong CSB prompted the task of how to enhance a sense of partnership between community members and local government to speed up with diverse activities. In contrast, the extensive dependency of the Gwangju SMCB on local government failed to generate genuine participation of ordinary residents, causing the residents to feel some exclusion again. In other words, how to build an appropriate and balanced relationship between the community governance entity and the local government remains a significant issue. The role of central government for accountable autonomy The tricky relationships between community governance entities and local governments become much more complex if we recognize that local government cannot be free from the hands of the central government. For this reason Talyor (2007, 313) identifies community governance as "the three-way relationship" between central and local governments and the voluntary and community sectors. Given these multiple relationships, some scholars would prefer to focus on the potential role of the national government to find solutions. For example, in their examination of the Empowerment Zone (EZ) programs, Gittell et al. (2001, 99) argue that even under the presumption against federal involvement at the local level, "the lack of federal supervision of the EZ process after the initial planning stage sent a message to city politicians that change was not the priority of the federal authorities. The cities' traditional elites, whose politics created the very problems that the EZ legislation sought to remedy, were free to take control of the new program, 263 manipulate it to their liking, and reduce its potential to restructure the process of development" (Gittell, Newman, and Pierre-Louis 2001, 99). Koontz et al. 's (2004) study on collaborative resource management also supports the important role of the national government in governance activities. Rather than endorsing the argument that underlines the significant role of the central government, in particular, Fung (2004) and Fung and Wright (2003) take one step further, and provide the theories of empowered participatory governance and accountable autonomy.. Focusing on the relationships between central government and local governance, he emphasizes the significance of the institutional setting and the role of the central government such as sensitive guidance, constraint, or monitoring to build accountable community governance. According to him, the central authority is supposed to play two important roles. The first is "to provide various kinds of supports needed for local groups ... to accomplish their ends, yet would be otherwise unavailable to these groups in isolation." And the second is "to hold these groups accountable to the effective and democratic use of their discretionary latitude" (Fung 2004, 8). Although it may seem ironic when combining the seemingly conflicting terms accountable and autonomy, he argues that "support and accountability are two pillars of a reconstructed relationship between central power and neighborhood action that can reinforce local autonomy" (Fung 2004, 6). To sum up, his theory claims that "(l) institutional reforms that follow the design of accountable autonomy can spur (2) robust direct citizen participation and deliberation that (3) contributes to the fairness and effectiveness of governance outcomes through a variety of mechanisms" (Fung 2004, 26). In Korea, indeed, the national initiative of the Livable City and Community-building promoted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTMA) provided a critical 264 momentum to spread and facilitate the community-building movement nationwide. The three cases were also able to take advantage of the national government's program, by having opportunities not only to have financial resources, but also to broaden their community base and articulate the purpose and scope of the movement. However, not only a short-term support for only a year or two was limited to sustain community-building activities afterwards, but the inconsistent urban policy itself has formed a barrier. This means that, as Fung (2003) argues, the central government may play a critical role in the success and continuation of community governance, for instance, by systematically designing and managing governance processes, or reforming the governance system. Here, four advantages of accountable autonomy may provide helpful points to reshape and build balanced relationships between governments and community members: directed discretion, institutionalized innovation, cross-functional coordination, and studied trust (Fung 2004, 18-23). First, the increased discretion for local officials regarding formal rules and centralized oversight are necessary. At the same time, such discretion should be harnessed to achieve public ends. Both internal (direct deliberation between citizens and street-level officials) and external (full documentation of deliberation, subsequent actions, and the results of those actions, and opening that to the wider public) methods may be used to check such increased discretion. Second, since the deliberative process encourages consistent reevaluation of process and outcome to find more effective strategies, successful and creative innovations are likely to be generated easily, by which system-wide learning and adaptation may occur. Thus, an institutional setting that facilitates deliberative decision-making is critical. Third, the conventional logic of hard division and specialization is no longer effective in solving increasingly complicated urban problems. This means that more flexible coordination and joint actions are necessary not only 265 interdepartmentally in government but also between governmental, private, and community actors. Finally, building trust between government officials and community members is important. A direct method may be a governmental effort to change the behavior of government agents in a way that supports local actions. As Ostrom's (1997) well-known study on common pool resource management shows, the continuity of government officials may also be helpful by ensuring repeated interaction and communication, by which officials would better observe each other, thus confirming one another's commitments, and finally modifying their respective behavior to enhance trust among them. Synergy among agents, processes and contents for adaptive governance The examination of the three collaborative community governances in this study has revealed the importance of the engagement of diverse stakeholders, the deliberative decision making process and relationship building during the process. Furthermore, they have enhanced collaborative capacity as a vehicle to sustain community-building practices and to motivate other actions to realize more sustainable and livable cities. During the governance process, different views and interests are confronted, building a basis for shared understanding about issues and the redefinition of problems. The mode of communication and interaction was very critical in not only making collective decisions but also in building relationships among participants. Community knowledge combined with experienced local knowledge and experts' professional knowledge became the most essential source in forming a locally tailored community vision. Strengthened trust allowed participants to resolve conflicts as well as to build shared responsibility and a sense of ownership, moreover, diversified linkages at the individual and organizational levels enabled them to effectively mobilize necessary resources. The participatory 266 experience of collaborative governance and social learning served as a critical momentum. It not only led to a change in the perspectives and attitudes at the individual level, but also provided feedback and critical reflection to the governance structure itself to make incremental adjustments and adaptation, so that the governance process could work better. In particular, it also led to the recognition that collaboration can actually make a difference and it supported the notion that some kinds of change should be made in the larger planning or social and institutional systems to reflect the changing views and social needs. This discussion in fact reveals the synergistic relationships between social actors, processes, and contents for building more adaptive collaborative governance. The notion of agents and processes that structure the interactions of diverse agents echoes the theory of structuration by Anthony Giddens (1986). Diverse social agents' actions are affected and constrained by the existing social structure, but social structure is also reshaped by "active creative force of human agency" (Healey 2003, l ll ). This explains why the participation of diverse social actors with different knowledge, values, interests, and resources, and the mode of communication and interactions among such diverse social actors are important in the collaborative governance discussion. To recognize local people as another major social actor is important and essential. In this sense, the three cases presented positive evidence by making strenuous efforts to involve as many and diverse stakeholders as possible. In addition, the three cases also demonstrated that through deliberative decision-making processes, problems were redefined and alternative and innovative ideas were generated. Accordingly community goals, agenda, and priorities also had to be readjusted to reflect the changed values and new social meaning. In other words, the discursive process of collaborative community governance becomes a process of creating new content. This means that collaborative community governance 267 ultimately depends on how a legitimate governance system is constructed in which diverse stakeholders, particularly conventionally under-represented, disadvantaged communities (social actors), can genuinely deliberate on shared issues (process), by which new visions (contents) are created. It also depends on how synergy effects among these three elements is maximized. More importantly, the learning experience of the diverse social agents through a discursive and deliberative governance process is expected to provide feedback to the governance system so that the governance structure itself can make critical reflections on the limitations of existing institutions and mechanisms of governance and make incremental adjustments. Such reflections and incremental adjustment could then become a process for restructuring the whole governance system. Thus, how to facilitate practice based experiential feedback to the system so that governance can be an evolutionary, self-organizing system becomes another issue that we have to delve into for building sustainable and collaborative community governance. Suggestions for future practices Based on the evaluation of the three cases and the discussion presented in this chapter, a significant consideration of the following points may be helpful to make collaborative community governance work successfully. As argued above, the success and failure of collaborative community governance depends on the three essential elements - agents, processes, and contents - and most importantly, the synergy among them. Suggestions for future practice in this study involve adapting a three-element framework -agents, process, and contents-- along with some additional issues. 268 1) Agents: Identification of stakeholders, and enhancement of mobilization methods for the most inclusive engagement is one critical component. It includes: • Clarifying the range of stakeholders and underlying power relations • Recognizing the potential of ordinary residents as important social agents and their rights of equal power • Creating diverse mobilization methods: creation of community-based organizations, linkages with existing social groups and civic organizations Involving the most diverse actors in the collaborative governance process should be the very first step. This means that the creation of multiple participatory methods is significant. Identifying the range and variety of stakeholders in small and large relationships with community should be a primary concern. Stakeholder analysis such as stakeholder mapping may be helpful. In addition, as proved in the three cases of this study, recognizing the potential of ordinary residents as major social agents is not only necessary, but also very helpful because their experiences, knowledge, information, and know-how can expose a hidden reality. Therefore, setting an environment that allows community residents to exercise their rights of participation and equal power is important. This is related to developing a systematic institutional setting, as is discussed below. As seen in the Bupyeong CSB, the creation of community-based organizations may be the most effective method to draw ordinary residents' interests and participation in various community-building activities, while strengthening ownership and commitment to the process. Furthermore, building linkages with existing organizations within and beyond the community such as various interest groups and associations and other civic groups is also effective in the mobilization of human and material resources and to make opportunities for political intervention. 269 2) Processes: Creating an institutional setting to legitimizing the process is an important requirement. It includes: • Facilitating both formal and informal interactions in a two-way communication mode, setting formal procedural rules and realistic timetables • Considering styles of discussion (e.g. different routines, styles and language) • Opening accessibility of knowledge and resources equally to everyone, especially with careful consideration of conventionally disadvantaged groups • Developing a polycentric institutional system at multiple levels (e.g. community, city, and national government) The aforementioned issue regarding agents is about who, i.e. questioning who gets engaged and who does not; the element of processes is highly associated with institutional design and deals with the questions of when and where to meet and how to communicate. Therefore, developing an appropriate institutional setting is a fundamental issue. To make collaborative processes legitimate, formalized ground rules that provide specific guidance about the when and where issues in every collaborative process are necessary. Because as Ansell and gash (2007, 15) noted, "clear and consistently applied ground rules reassure stakeholders that the process is fair, equitable, and open." 42 Along with a realistic timetable, a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities is also essential to effectively share and allocate necessary roles and responsibilities. In addition, the examination of the three cases in this study found that securing both formal and informal communication and interaction in a balanced manner is not that easy. Since each formal and informal communication has both strengths and weaknesses, as seen in the 42 See also Murdock, Wiessner, and Sexton (2005). 270 previous chapters, to facilitate both formal and informal interactions in a complementary manner would be an effective strategy to strengthen the strengths and make up for the weaknesses. Another important recommendation from the existing literature is that the process should pay careful attention to the styles of discussion. Since each stakeholder from different cultural communities may have different language (different ways of expressing things), routines and styles, different expectations may arise. Forester (1996) refers to it as "the rituals of policy discussion." This actually reflects "how people prepare themselves [for collaborative process], how rooms are arranged, how communicative routines are set up (who speaks when and how), how discussion is concluded, remembered and called up at a later time" (Healey 2006, 273). Therefore, a thorough discussion about the styles of discussion during the collaborative process is necessary to make a comfortable environment for all. For this reason, the role of the facilitator is emphasized (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Given the criticism that even in collaborative governance there is the possibility of asymmetrical distribution of knowledge and resource in which dominant groups may enjoy privilege, making knowledge and resources accessible to all participants should be the first step towards process equality and transparency. For conventionally excluded and underrepresented groups, a sensitive strategy that guides the allocation and redistribution of resources for mobilization and technical consultation is needed. The provision of opportunities for extensive training for the collection and sharing of relevant information, knowledge and experience would also be helpful in building a basic knowledge foundation. Along with strategies for procedural legitimacy, several scholars from the school of new institutionalism have emphasized the significance of building a polycentric institutional system at multiple levels (e.g. community, city, and national levels). According to Ostrom (1997, 2010), 271 polycentric systems are characterized by multiple governing authorities at different scales. While at the higher scale such as national government general direction and guidance is set, at the lower scale the local government exercises considerable independence and latitude "to have a locally tailored form oflegal foundation"(Ostrom 1997, 107). To rephrase this forthe collaborative community governance in Korea, the national government has to set the general legal foundation to provide guidance and overall direction that are consistent and not susceptible to changing political circumstances and urban policy. At the same time local governments, within the general boundary of the national policy, also have to build formalized rules that are specifically designed for community-building governance in greater detail. When necessary, legal options may be helpful to enhance credible commitment among governance participants. The polycentric systems have "considerable advantages given their mechanisms for mutual monitoring, learning and adaptation of better strategies overtime" (Ostrom 2010, 552). 3) Contents: Innovation from deep deliberation requires: • Recognizing the significance of local knowledge and the co-production of community knowledge • Creating new community discourse The aforementioned suggestions including careful consideration of diverse social agents and systematic institutional design are about an environmental and structural setting that lead to building a new community discourse and generating alternative and innovative ideas and solutions. As emphasized above, the engagement of diverse agents is important not only for realizing the rights for voice, but also for the practical efficacy of all kinds of mobilized knowledge. Through collaborative community governance, all knowledge can be exchanged and 272 shared among diverse agents, by which a common ground to generate community knowledge can be built. This study has argued that this process of combining multiple knowledge sources is the process for the co-production of community knowledge. Therefore, collaborative community governance should create strategies to support such co-constructive processes of community knowledge and to use this knowledge effectively in setting new visions and agendas. In particular, all of the collective processes for shared understanding and knowledge exchange to generate alternative solutions and new ideas also become a process for framing issues and creating new community discourse. Here, the concept of discourse refers to "an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to phenomena" (Hajer 1993, 45). The importance of discourse creation is emphasized by Healey (1997, 278), stating that "once a policy discourse has gained attention, it carries forward with it a distinctive storyline, about what is and should be, about what are seen as good or bad arguments and about appropriate modes of argument and claims for policy attention. It gives meaning and significance to issues, problems, and actions, and focuses the setting of priorities for action." This means that creating new community discourse accompanied with reasonable arguments and deliberation can widen the scope of critical discussion about problems and issues, goals, agenda, and desired directions for the community, by which broad support for a new approach is enhanced. 4) Building adaptive governance The trial and error learning by cumulated experiences of success and failure may allow the community governance to develop collaborative capacity and competence. Thus, future collaborative community governance should set a systematic mechanism that continuously reviews and assesses both process and outcome and provides reiterative feedback. A full and 273 detailed documentation of all of the governance process and outcomes of the governance process, subsequent plans and actions, and the results of those actions may be the first step. Reviews and monitoring for process legitimacy and relevant outcomes are critical to detect trends of improvement, stasis, or decline in performance. Then, the self-assessment of strength and weakness, positives and negatives, achievement and challenges, and success and failure should be widely shared among all participants, by which new community discourse can be created. The continual feedback loops and critical self-reflection may transform community governance itself to be adaptive to changing circumstances and needs. Changes at both the individual and collective levels may then contribute to the generation of new interest in alternative approaches at the larger society level, which in turn may bring about the formation of new rules and institutions, and the transformation of the planning culture in the long run. 5) Respecting local identity One of the implications that can be drawn from the three cases is that collaborative community-building strategy should pay significant attention to the inherent local characteristics and identity that may have been developed over a long period of time. Respecting local history and identity is to respect the potential of place not as a mere geographical unit, but as a collective social construct. According to Healey (1999, ll8), Places are not just the spatial organization of phenomena in a particular area, r but] are social constructs, given identity and infused with value through the experience of living, working, and doing business in them and through a historical accretion of value that may sustain an identity even among those who rarely visit a particular place. Any geographical area may be the locus of multiple place identities, developed in the different webs of relationships which transect a place. Within the social relations and cultural resources of each, places are given identity and value in the context of a particular system of meaning. This provides a way of integrating the different aspects of placeness, the relations between society and nature, the relations among the different dimensions of social organization, and the 274 relations among past, present, and future. Therefore, how to discover and respect local identity and the socially constructed meaning of place, and how to incorporate those unique localities into community development strategies should be of major concern for future collaborative community governance. 8.3. Limitations and directions for future research This study has several caveats. In order to understand and examine the structure, process, and outcome of collaborative community governance, and their relationships comprehensively, first of all, this dissertation creates a conceptual model of collaborative community governance. Although this model is built on a wide review of literatures that deal with collaborative governance and participatory and communicative planning theoretically and empirically, the suggested components of the model may not be enough to fully understand the whole dynamical relationships among them. There may exist many factors and elements that have not been observed and defined yet in both theory and practice. Moreover, the governance process and outcome may not only be critically influenced by contextual factors such as cultural and historical background of the target community, but also not be free from the wider socio-political circumstances. In other words, this model is not a template that can be used as an analytical lens or tool to examine all community-building governance. This limitation requires further researches that uncover under-defined conditional and contextual factors that facilitate or hinder collaborative governance. The understanding of the motivation of collaboration and local circumstances in detail would lead to build a more comprehensive and integrative model of collaborative community governance. Another limitation stems from research methods. This study has selected three 275 representative cases on the basis of a thorough review of archival resources and interview with experts. By examining the governance process and outcome of the three cases in a comparative viewpoint, this study has been able to find similarity and difference with relative strength and pitfalls, and thus deriving significant implications for successful operation of community governance. However, this study simultaneously exposes the limitation that does not considerate why some cases had to fail. Actually, many local efforts were not that successful in sustaining their community-building practice due to some internal, external, or both reasons, which remain beyond the scope of this study. In order words, although the lesson and implication of the study may be helpful for others to be a point of bench-marking, those implications are not a magic wand, thus cannot be used as a general solution. This indicates that further studies that widely examine community-building governances are necessary. A comparative study of both successful and unsuccessful practices will be also significant. Lastly, the path analysis this study employs is a useful method to detect multiple relationships among factors of the institutional setting, governance process, socio-political outcomes, and participant's perceived evaluation on the governance outcome quantitatively. In addition, it effectively verifies what factors actually influence on outcomes of collaborative governance in the Korean context. However, the limited number of survey respondents is a major shortcoming. When considering the inherently network-oriented characteristics of collaborative community governance, a network analysis that defines interactions and relationships among participants or flows of information and resources would be very useful. By drawing a network map, not only researchers and practitioners will be better detect points of centrality, segmentation or bridges that may identify points of strategic intervention, but it also allows community members and participants to easily interpret their relationships. 276 Bibliography Adams, David, and Michael Hess. 2001. "Community in public policy: fad or foundation?" Australian Journal of Public Administration 60(2):13-23. Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 1998. "Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (1):67-91. Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2003. "Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of Intergovernmental and Network Management." International Journal of Public Administration 26 (12):1401 - 1422. Agresti, Alan, and BF Agresti. 1999. StatisticalMethodsfor the Social Sciences., CA: Dellen Publishers. Alexander, J.A., M.E. Comfort, and B.J. Weiner. 1998. "Governance in Public-Private Community Health Partnerships: A Survey of the Community Care Network." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 8 ( 4):311-332. Allmendinger, P., and M. Tewdwr-Jones. 2002. "The communicative turn in urban planning: unravelling paradigmatic, imperialistic and moralistic dimensions." Space and Polity 6 (1):5-24. Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia's next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ansell, C. 2003. "Community Embeddedness and Collaborative Governance in the San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Movement." In Social Movements and Networks, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 123-145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. "Collaborative governance in theory and practice." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 ( 4):543. Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Institutional Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. "A ladder of citizen participation." Journal of the American Institute of planners 35 ( 4):216-224. 277 Axelrod, Robert, and William D Hamilton. 1981. "The evolution of cooperation." Science 211 ( 4489): 1390-1396. Bae, Yooil. 2007. "State Restructuring and Pathways to Local Democracy: Idea and Politics of Decentralization in Japan and Korea." Ph.D dissertation, Political Science, University of Southern California. Bae, Yooil, and Sunhyuk Kim. 2013. "Civil society and local activism in South Korea's local democratization." Democratization 20 (2):260-286. Banerjee, Tridib. 2001. "The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places." Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1):9-24. Banerjee, Tridib. 2007. "The Public Inc. and the Conscience of Planning." In Institutions and Planning, edited by Niraj Verma. Oxford: Elsevier. Beierle, Thomas C. 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions." Risk Analysis 22 ( 4):739-749. Bentley, Arthur F. 1995. The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Bentrup, G. 2001. "Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Planning in the Intermountain West." Environmental Management 27 (5):739-748. Berry, Jeffrey M, Kent E Portney, and Ken Thomson. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Bianchini, F., and M. Parkinson. 1993. Cultural policy and urban regeneration: the West European experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bidwell, RD, and CM Ryan. 2006. "Collaborative partnership design: the implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships." Society & Natural Resources 19 (9):827-843. Blokland, Talja. 2003. Urban bonds: Social relationships in an inner city neighborhood. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bohl, Charles C. 2000. "New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner- city neighborhoods." Housing Policy Debate 11 ( 4):761-801. Booher, D.E., and J.E. Innes. 2002. "Network power in collaborative planning." Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (3):221. 278 Bouwen, R., and T. Taillieu. 2004. "Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: Developing relational knowing." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(3):137-153. Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2002. "Social Capital And Community Governance." The Economic Journal 112 (483):F419-F436. Brand, R., and F. Gaffikin. 2007. "Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World." Planning Theory 6 (3):282-313. Bridger, Jeffrey C, and Theodore R Alter. 2006. "Place, community development, and social capital." Community Development 37 (1):5-18. Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1998. "Doing democracy up-close: culture, power, and communication in community building." Journal of Planning Education and Research 18(1):1. Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2004. "Social capital: Easy beauty or meaningful resource?" Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2):151-158. Brody, Samuel D. 2003. "Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans_ Collaborative Ecosystem Management." Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 ( 4):407-419. doi: 10.1177 /0739456x03022004007. Brower, Sidney N. 1996. Good neighborhoods: A study of in-town & suburban residential environments. Praeger Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Brownill, Sue, and Juliet Carpenter. 2009. "Governance and 'Integrated' Planning: The Case of Sustainable Communities in the Thames Gateway, England." Urban Studies 46 (2):251- 274. doi: 10.1177/0042098008099354. Buck, L.E., E. Wollenberg, and D. Edmunds. 2001. "Social learning in the collaborative management of community forests: lessons from the field." In Social Learning in Community Forests, edited by Wollenberg E, Edmunds D, Buck L, Fox J and Brodt S, 1- 20. Desa Putera, Indonesia: SMK Grafika. Buechler, Steven M. 1995. "New social movement theories." The Sociological Quarterly 36 (3):441-464. Capra, Fritjof. 1996. The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Random House Digital, Inc. Carr, D.S., S.W. Selin, and M.A Schuett. 1998. "Managing public forests: Understanding the role of collaborative planning." Environmental Management 22 (5):767-776. 279 Castells, Manuel. 1983. The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory of urban social movements: Univ of California Press. Chaskin, RJ. 2001. "Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative." Urban Affairs Review 36 (3):291-323. Chaskin, RJ. 2003. "Fostering Neighborhood Democracy: Legitimacy and Accountability within Loosely Coupled Systems." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32(2):161-189. doi: 10 .1177 /0899764003032002001. Chaskin, RJ, and S Garg. 1997. "The issue of governance in neighborhood-based initiatives." Urban Affairs Review 32 (5):631. Chaskin, RJ, and ML Joseph. 2010. "Building "Community" in Mixed-Income Developments Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences." Urban Affairs Review 45 (3):299-335. Cherry, Judith. 2005. '"Big Deal'or big disappointment? The continuing evolution of the South Korean developmental state." The Pacific Review 18 (3):327-354. Cho, Hee-Yeon. 1999. "The structural character of the comprehensive civil social movement and prospects for change." Contemporary Criticism 10:320-346. Cho, Young-cheol. 2004. "Korean conglomerates and the developmental ruling coalition." In Developmental Dictatorship and Park Chung-hee Era, 133-60. Choi, Byeong-doo, and Geun-hang Lee. 1999. "Social condition for vitalization of residents environmental movement." K yobo Edu ca ti on & Culture Comments on Environment 1: 81- 124. Chrislip, David D, and Carl E Larson. 1994. Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference: Jossey-Bass San Francisco. Conley, A., and M.A. Moote. 2003. "Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management." Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 16 (5):371 - 386. Connelly, Steve. 2011. "Constructing legitimacy in the new community governance." Urban Studies 48 (5):929-946. Connick, S., and J.E. Innes. 2003. "Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(2):177-197. Considine, Mark. 2001. Enterprising states: The public management of welfare-to-work. 280 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, TL. . 2008. "From Collaborative Public Management to Collaborative Public Governance: Capacity Building for Sustainability." Minnowbrook III Conference, "The Future of Public Administration, Public Management and Public Service Around the World," sponsored by The Department of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, September 5-7, 2008. Corburn, J. 2003. "Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk." Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 ( 4):420. Corburn, J. 2005. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Connick, G. W. 1996. Building consensus for a sustainable future: Putting principles into practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Creswell, JW, and VLP Clark. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cuthill, M. 2003. "The contribution of human and social capital to building community well being." Urban Policy and Research 21 ( 4):373-391. Daniels, S.E., and G.B. Walker. 1996. "Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (2):71-102. Dawes, Robyn M. 1973. "The commons dilemma game: Ann-person mixed-motive game with a dominating strategy for defection." Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin 13 (2): 1- 12. Day, J.C. 2003. "Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Collaborative Planning." Environments 31 (2):21-38. Dryzek, John. 2001. "Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy." Political Theory 29 (5):651-669. Duffy, D.M., M. Roseland, and TI. Gunton. 1996. "A preliminary assessment of shared decision making in land use and natural resource planning." Environments 23:1-16. Durose, Catherine, and Vivien Lowndes. 2010. "Neighbourhood governance: contested rationales within a multi-level setting-a study of Manchester." Local government studies 36 (3):341- 359. 281 Edwards, A. 2006. "Empowering Communities for Environmental Decision-Making: Innovative Partnerships in Cleveland (USA)." In Information and communication technology and public innovation: assessing the JCT-driven modernization of public administration, edited by Victor Bekkers, Hein van Duivenboden and Marcel Thaens, 175. Amsterdam etc.: IOS Press Egri, C.P. 1999. "The Environmental Round Table Role-Play Exercise: The Dynamics of Multistakeholder Decision-Making Processes." Journal of Management Education 23 (1):95-112. doi: 10.1177/105256299902300110. Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2012. "An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (1):1-29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/murOll. Evans, Peter B. 1995. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press. Farazmand, Ali. 2007. "Learning from the Katrina crisis: a global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management." Public Administration Review 67 (sl):l49-159. Finney, N., and C. Rishbeth. 2006. "Engaging with Marginalised Groups in Public Open Space Research: The Potential of Collaboration and Combined Methods." Planning Theory & Practice 7 (1 ):27-46. Fischer, F. 2006. "Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space." The American Review of Public Administration 36(1):19. Fisher, R., and W. Ury. 1981. Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Goston: Houghton Millin. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Morality and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Forester, J. 1982. "Planning in the Face of Power." Journal of the American Planning Association 48 (1):67-80. Forester, John. 1996. "Beyond dialogue to transformative learning: how deliberative rituals encourage political judgment in community planning processes." In Democratic dialogues: Theories and practices edited by S. Esquith. Poznan: University of Poznan. Forrest, R, and A Kearns. 2001. "Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood." Urban Studies 38 (12):2125-2143. 282 Frame, TM., TI. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2004. "The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation ofland and resource planning in British Columbia." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47 (1 ):59 - 82. Fraser, James, and Edward Kick. 2005. "Understanding community building in urban America." Journal of poverty 9 (1):23-43. Fraser, Nancy. 1990. "Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy." Social text:56-80. Frederickson, H George. 1999. "The repositioning of American public administration." PS: Political Science and Politics 32 ( 4):701-11. Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fung, A. 2004. Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy. New Jersey: Princeton Univ Press. Fung, A., and E.O. Wright. 2003. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London and New York: Verso. Garcia, B. 2004. "Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European cities: lessons from experience, prospects for the future." Local economy 19 (4):312-326. Geertz, C. 1983. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Ghose, R. 2005. "The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance." Space and Polity 9 (1):61-75. Giddens, A. 1986. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gittell, Marilyn, Kathe Newman, and Francois Pierre-Louis. 2001. Empowerment zones: An opportunity missed. A six city comparative study. New York: The Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, The Graduate School and The University Center of the City University of New York. Gittell, Marilyn, and Margaret Schehl. 1998. Empowerment Zone implementation: Community participation and community capacity: Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. Giuliano, Genevieve. 2004. "Where is the 'region'in regional transportation planning." In Up 283 against the sprawl, edited by M.P. Wolch and P. Dreier. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Glaser, MA, SJ Yeager, and LE Parker. 2006. "Involving Citizens in the Decisions of Government and Community: Neighborhood-Based vs. Government-Based Citizen Engagement." Public Administration Quarterly 30 ( 112): 177. Goodlad, R., P. Burton, and J. Croft. 2005. "Effectiveness at what? The processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives." Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy 23 (6):923-938. Graddy, Elizabeth. 2008. "Cross-Sectoral Governance and Performance in Service Delivery." International Review of Public Administration 13 (supl):61-73. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems, San Francisco. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gunton, TI., and J.C. Day. 2003. "The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management." Environments-A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 31 (2):5-20. Gunton, TI., J.C. Day, and P.W. Williams. 2003. "Evaluating Collaborative Planning: The British Columbia Experience." Environments 31 (3):1-12. Gusfield, Joseph R. 1975. Community: A critical response. New York: Harper & Row. Gwangju, The North District of. 2010. The beautiful community building white paper: The significance of the Sihwa Community Building Movement. Ha, S.K. 1998. "Demolition and normative value of residential rights." In Demolition from a veiw of evicted residents: The history of anti-demolition movement, edited by Korea Center of City and Environment Research. Ha, S.K. 2001. "Developing a community-based approach to urban redevelopment." GeoJournal 53 (1):39-45. Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action. Messachusetts: Beacon Press. Hajer, M.A., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hajer, Maarten. 1993. "Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain." In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, 284 edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Harrison, Lisa. 2002. Political research: An introduction. London: Routledge. Hassink, Robert. 1999. "South Korea's economic miracle and crisis: Explanations and regional consequences." European Planning Studies 7(2):127-143. Head, B.W .. 2008. "Assessing Network-Based Collaborations: Effectiveness for Whom?." Public Management Review 10 (6):733-749. Healey, P. 1993. "Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory." In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester, 233-253. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: UBC Press. Healey, P. 1998. "Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning." Environment and Planning A 30: 1531-1546. Healey, P. 1999. "Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places." Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(2):111-121. Healey, P. 2003. "Collaborative planning in perspective." Planning Theory 2 (2):101. Healey, P. 2006. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed, Planning, environment, cities. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Healey, P. 2008. "Instituionalist theory, social exclusion and governance." In Social exclusion in European cities: processes, experiences, and responses, edited by A. Madanipour, Goran Cars and J. Allen. London: Jessica Kingsley. Healey, P. 2010. Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Henton, Doug, John Melville, Terry Amsler, and Malka Kopel!. 2005. "Collaborative governance: A guide for grantmakers." Menlo Park, CA: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Holland, John H. 2000. Emergence: From chaos to order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, Ian. 2005. "East Asian social policy in the wake of the financial crisis: farewell to 285 productivism?" Policy & Politics 33(1):145-162. Hu, L., and P. Bentler. 1999. "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1):1-55. Hutchinson, J., and A. Loukaitou-Sideris. 2001. "Choosing Confrontation or Consensus in the Inner City: Lessons from a Community-University Partnership." Planning Theory & Practice 2 (3):293-310. Huxham, C. 2003. "Theorizing collaboration practice." Public Management Review 5 (3):401- 423. Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2000. "Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world." Academy of Management Journal: 1159-1175. Huxley, M., and 0. Yiftachel. 2000. "New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory." Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 ( 4):333. Imperial, M.T. 2005. "Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs." Administration & Society 37 (3):281. Imperial, M.T., and T. Hennessey. 2000. "Environmental governance in watersheds: The role of collaboration." 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), May 31 - June 3, 2000, Bloomington, IN. In, Taeyeon. 1999. The new living space Bupyeong Cultural Street: About walkable city making and residents' participation .. The first national workshop, Urban Action Network. Innes, J.E. 1995. "Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice." Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (3): 183. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 1999. "Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems -- A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (4):412 - 423. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2003a. "Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue." In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, edited by MA Hajer and H Wagenaar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2003b. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance 286 Capacity. Institute of Urban & Regional Development. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2008. "Using local knowledge for justice and resilience." Enhancing Resilience To Catastrophic Events Through Communicative Planning, Blacksburg, VA. Innes, J.E., J. Gruber, M. Neuman, and R. Thompson. 1994. Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jeon, Won-sik, Nam-du Kim, and Hee-yun Hwang. 2008. "Project themes and promotion of community buildng with resident participation." Journal of The Urban Design Insitute of Korea 9 (4):131-148. Jeong, Gyu-Ho. 2012. "The development of the Korean urban community movement and the meaning of collaborative model." Korean Studies Quarterly 35 (2):7-34. Jeong, Jae-Hoon. 2010a. "The effects ofresident organization's leadership on resident's participation .. "Master's Thesis, University of Seoul. Jeong, Seock. 2010b. Astuey on community building supporting system in Seoul. Seoul Metropolitan City Government. Jessop, B. 2000. "Governance failure." In The new politics of British local governance, edited by Gerry Stoker. Palgrave Macmillan. Jessop, B. 2003. "Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony." Governance as social and political communication:lOl-116. Johnson, Chalmers. 1999. "The developmental state: Odyssey of a concept." In The developmental state, 32-60. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Johnson, RA, and DW Greening. 1999. "The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance." Academy of Management Journal 42 (5):564-576. Jones, Jacky, and Margaret M Barry. 2011. "Exploring the relationship between synergy and partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships." Health promotion international 26 ( 4):408-420. Ju, Chang-bum. 2008. "Institutional contestation, network legitimacy and organizational heterogeneity _Interactions between government and environmental NGO in Korea." Ph.D, Public Administration, University of Southern California. 287 Julian, David A. 1994. "Planning for Collaborative Neighborhood Problem-Solving: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Planning Literature 9 (1):3-13. doi: 10.1177/088541229400900101. Kang, Sangkyu. 2005. "Reflexive Idea, Argumentative Struggle, and Institutional Change: Environmental Controversy on the Tong River Dam Construction in Korea." University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center. Keast, Robyn, and Myrna Mandell. 2012. "The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence." Journal of Management & Governance: 1-20. Khakee, A. 2002. "Assessing institutional capital building in a Local Agenda 21 process in Goteborg." Planning Theory & Practice 3 (1):53-68. Kim, Dae Hwan. 1998. "Rush-To Growth, Economic Crisis, Limping Modernization, and a Dual Risk Society,"." Korea Journal 39 (!). Kim, Dong-Choon. 2012. "Growth and crisis of the Korean citizens' movement." In Contemporary South Korean Society: A Critical Perspective, 85. Kim, Euijune, Sung Woong Hong, and Soo Jung Ha. 2003. "Impacts of national development and decentralization policies on regional income disparity in Korea." The Annals of Regional Science 37 (1):79-91. Kim, Jeong-Hee. 2008a. Alckongdalckong Samdeockdong. Kim, Kyeongmin, and Eunhee Kim. 2010. Fence, Is this the only thing they removed?: The community building in Samdeock-dong. Seoul: Hanul. Kim, Soon Yang. 2008b. "Articles: The East Asian Developmental State and Its Economic and Social Policies: The case of Korea." International Review of Public Administration 12 (2):69-87. Kim, Young-jeong. 2006. "Rediscovery of local community- future directions for community reconstruction and revitalization." Korean Social Association Accademic Symposium, 2006.5, 2006.5. Kingsley, G Thomas, Joseph B McNeely, and James 0 Gibson. 1997. Community Building: Coming of Age. Washington, DC: Development Training Institute. Kitsuse, Alicia 2010. "Community, empowerment, and the city: Sources of capacity in local government." Ph.D, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, Ph.D dissertation, University of Southern California. 288 Kline, TJB, and JD Klammer. 200 I. "Path model analyzed with ordinary least squares multiple regression versus LIS REL." The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 135 (2):213-225. Konisky, D.M., and TC. Beierle. 2001. "Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: examples from the Great Lakes region." Society & Natural Resources 14 (9):815-826. Kooiman, Jan. 1993. Modern governance: new government-society interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as governance. London: Sage. Koontz, TM. 2005. "We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy." The Policy Studies Journal 33 (3):459-481. Koontz, TM., J.A. Carmin, TA. Steelman, and C.W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Washington DC: Resources for the Future. Koontz, TM., and C.W. Thomas. 2006. "What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management?" Public Administration Review 66(sl):111-121. Kretzmann, J, and J McKnight. 1996. "Assets-based community development." National Civic Review 85 ( 4):23-29. KRIHS. 2006. Livable city building and the role of urban planning. The Korean Research Institute of Human Resources. KRIHS. 2013a. 2012 Economic development experience moduling project: National and regional development policy. edited by Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport. KRIHS. 2013b. The achievement and problem of the community building promotion project. The Korean Research Institute of Human Resources. KRIHS. 2013c. The national status and prospect of the community building support center. The Korean Research Institute of Human Resources. Ku, Do-Wan. 1996. "The structural change of the Korean environmental movement." Korea Journal of Population and Development 25 (I): 155-180. Kubisch, A., P. , R. J. Brown, J. Chaskin, M. Hirota, H. Joseph, Richman, and M. Roberts. 289 1997. Voices from the field: Learning from the early work of comprehensive community initiatives. Wasington DC: Aspen Institute. Kuzel, Anton J. 1992. "Sampling in qualitative inquiry." In Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by B.F. Crabtree, Miller, W.L., 33-45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lasker, RD, and ES Weiss. 2003. "Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research." Journal of Urban Health 80(1):14-47. Lasker, RD, ES Weiss, and R Miller. 2001. "Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage." Milbank Quarterly 79 (2): 179- 205. Leach, W.D., N.W. Pelkey, and P.A. Sabatier. 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 ( 4):645-670. Leach, W.D., and P.A. Sabatier. 2005. "Are trust and social capital the keys to success? Watershed partnerhips in California and Washington." In Swimming Upstream. Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management, edited by PA Sabatier, W Focht, M Lubell, Z Trachtenberg, A Vedlitz and M Matlock. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Lee, Ho. 2013. "The begining and developmeng of community building in Korea." In The national status and prospect of community building supporting center, edited by The Korean Research Institute of Human Resources. Lee, Jaejoon. 2007. Building livable community with residents participation. In Roundtable: Enhancing local empowerment for building livable region. Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS). Lee, M yeong-K yu. 200 5. The case study of participatory community making for the non-urban community vitalization. Gwangju Chonnam Development Institute. Lee, Myeong-Kyu. 2008. The status and problem of the community building ordinance in Korea. In Building livable city roundtable: Community building and supporting system - ordinance and supporting center Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS). Lee, SM, and S Yoo. 1987. "Management style and practice of Korean chaebols." California Management Review 95:95-110. Lee, Sook-Jong, and Taejoon Han. 2006. "The demise of"Korea, Inc.": Paradigm shift in Korea's 290 developmental state." Journal of Contemporary Asia 36 (3):305-324. Lee, Soyong. 2009. Community building of dreaming retailers: Finding a new way in Bupyeong. Edited by Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Creative Urban Regeneration. Seoul: Read & Change. Leighninger, Matt. 2008. "The promise and challenge of neighborhood democracy." Deliberative Democracy Consortium, Orlando, FL, November 11th, 2008. Lim, Hy-sop. 2000. "Historical development of civil social movements in Korea: trajectories and issues." Korea Journal 40 (3):5-21. Lim, Joon Hyoung, and Shui-Yan Tang. 2002. "Democratization and Environmental Policy Making in Korea." Governance 15 (4):561-582. Lincoln, Yvonna S, and Egon G Guba. 1985. Naturalist inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Long, J Scott. 1983. Confirmatory factor analysis: A preface to LISREL. Vol. 33. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lowndes, V, and H Sullivan. 2008. "How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for neighbourhood governance." Public Administration 86 (I ):53-74. Lowndes, V., and C. Skelcher. 1998. "The dynamics of multi- organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance." Public Administration 76 (2):313-333. Lubell, M., and W.D. Leach. 2005. "Watershed Partnerships: Evaluating a Collaborative Form of Public Participation." National Research Council's Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making Washington D.C. Workshop February 3-4, 2005 Lubell, M., W.D. Leach, and P.A. Sabatier. 2009. "Collaborative Watershed Partnerships in the Epoch of Sustainability." In Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy, edited by D.A. Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft. MacKinnon, David P, Chondra M Lockwood, Jeanne M Hoffman, Stephen G West, and Virgil Sheets. 2002. "A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects." Psychological methods 7 (1):83. Maginn, P.J. 2007. "Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: the potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography." Qualitative Research 7 (1):25-43. doi: 10.1177/1468794106068020. Mandarano, LA. 2008. "Evaluating Collaborative Environmental Planning Outputs and 291 Outcomes: Restoring and Protecting Habitat and the New York--New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program." Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 ( 4):456. Mandell, Myrna P. 2001. "Collaboration through network structures for community building efforts." National Civic Review 90 (3):279(9). Manzo, Lynne C, and Douglas D Perkins. 2006. "Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning." Journal of Planning Literature 20 ( 4):335-350. Margerum, R.D. 2002a. "Collaborative Planning: Building Consensus and Building a Distinct Model for Practice." Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (3):237-253. doi: 10.1177 /0739456x0202100302. Margerum, R.D. 2002b. "Evaluating Collaborative Planning: Implications from an Empirical Analysis of Growth Management." Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 179 - 193. Margerum, R.D. 2008. "A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management." Environmental Management 41 ( 4):487-500. Mason, Michael. 2007. "Collaborative partnerships for urban development: a study of the Vancouver Agreement." Environment and Planning A 39 (10):2366-2382. Matarasso, Fran9ois. 2007. "Common ground: cultural action as a route to community development." Community Development Journal 42 ( 4):449-458. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsm046. Mayer, SE. 1994. Building community capacity: The potential of community foundations. Minneapolis, MN: Rainbow Research, Inc. McMillan, David W, and David M Chavis. 1986. "Sense of community: A definition and theory." Journal of Community Psychology 14 (1):6-23. Moote, M.A., M.P. McClaran, and D.K. Chickering. 1997. "Theory in practice: Applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning." Environmental Management 21 (6):877-889. Murdock, Barbara Scott, Carol Wiessner, and Ken Sexton. 2005. "Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 Project XL case studies." Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (2):223-250. Musso, J.A., C. Weare, N. Oztas, and W.E. Loges. 2006. "Neighborhood Governance Reform and 292 Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles." The American Review of Public Administration 36 (1):79-97. doi: 10.1177/0275074005282586. Naparstek, Arthur, Dennis Dooley, and Robin Smith. 1997. Community building in public housing: Ties that bind people and their communities: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Urban Revitalization. Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Toole, K, and N Burdess. 2004. "New community governance in small rural towns: the Australian experience." Journal of Rural Studies 20 ( 4):433-443. O'Leary, Rosemary, Catherine Gerard, and Lisa Blomgren Bingham. 2006. "Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management." Public Administration Review 66 (s 1 ):6-9. Oakley, Deirdre, and HUI- SHIEN TSAO. 2006. "Anew way ofrevitalizing distressed urban communities? Assessing the impact of the federal empowerment zone program." Journal of Urban Affairs 28 (5):443-471. Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ostrom, E. 1991. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ Press. Ostrom, Elinor. 1997. "State-society Synergy: government and social capital in development." In State-society Synergy: government and social capital in development, edited by Peter Evans. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. "Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change." Global Environmental Change 20 ( 4): 550-557. Paik, Nak-chung. 2013. "South Korean democracy and Korea's division system." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 14 (1):156-169. Park, Se-Hoon, Hyun-Sook Chun, and Seong-Je Jeon. 2009. "Participatory governance analysis in community planning: an instituional approach." Journal of the Korea Planners Association 44 (3). 293 Pill, M, and G Building. 2007. "What rationales are driving neighbourhood governance initiatives in the US and UK?" European Urban Research Association 10th Anniversary Conference, The Vital City, University of Glasgow. Pill, Madeleine. 2007. "What rationales are driving neighbourhood governance initiatives in the US and UK." "Vital City" European Urban Research Association, University of Glasgow. Purdue, Derrick. 2001. "Neighbourhood Governance: Leadership, Trust and Social Capital." Urban Studies 38 (12):2211-2224. doi: 10.1080/00420980120087135. Putnam, R. 1995. "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital." Journal of democracy 6 (1):65-78. Putnam, R., I. Light, X.S. Briggs, W.M. Rohe, A.C. Vidal, J. Hutchinson, J. Gress, and M. Woolcock. 2004. "Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice: Preface." Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2): 142-192. Reddel, Tim. 2004. Exploring the institutional dimensions of local governance and community strengthening: linking empirical and theoretical debates. Brisbane: Griffith University. Reilly, T. 2001. "Collaboration in Action --An Uncertain Process." Administration in Social Work 25 (1):53 - 74. Rhodes, Rod AW. 1996. "The new governance: governing without government." Political Studies 44 ( 4):652-667. Rhodes, Rod AW. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rhodes, Rod AW. 2000. "The governance narrative: Key findings and lessons from the ERC's Whitehall Programme." Public Administration 78 (2):345-363. Ryan, Clare M. 2001. "Leadership in collaborative policy-making: An analysis of agency roles in regulatory negotiations." Policy Sciences 34 (3):221-245. Rydin, Y., and N. Holman. 2004. "Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving sustainable development." Local Environment 9(2):117-133. Sabatier, PA, W Focht, M Lubell, Z Trachtenberg, A Vedlitz, and M Matlock. 2005. Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Sandercock, Leonie. 1978. "Citizen participation: the new conservatism." In Federal power in 294 Australia's cities, edited by P. Troy, 7-16. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger. Sarkissian, Wendy. 2005. "Stories in a park: Giving voice to the voiceless in Eagleby, Australia." Planning Theory & Practice 6(1):103-117. Schmoke, Kurt L, Henry G Cisneros, and Lora Engdahl. 2010. From despair to hope: Hope VI and the new promise of public housing in America's cities. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Scholz, J.T., and B. Stifle!. 2005. Adaptive governance and water conflict: new institutions for collaborative planning. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Selin, S., and D. Chevez. 1995. "Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management." Environmental Management 19(2):189-195. Shin, Kwang-Yeong. 2012. "The Dilemmas of Korea's New Democracy in an Age of Neoliberal Globalisation." Third world quarterly 33 (2):293-309. Shin, Myeong-ho. 2000. "Present and prospect of the urban community movement in Korea." Journal of Urban Studies 6:51-81. Simeonova, V., and A. van der Valk. 2009. "The Need for a Communicative Approach to Improve Environmental Policy Integration in Urban Land Use Planning." Journal of Planning Literature 23 (3):241-261. doi: 10.1177/0885412208327022. Singleton, S. 2002. "Collaborative environmental planning in the American West: The good, the bad and the ugly." Environmental Politics 11 (3):54-75. Sirianni, Carmen. 2007. "Neighborhood Planning as Collaborative Democratic Design." Journal of the American Planning Association 73 ( 4):373-387. Sirianni, Carmen. 2009. Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Smith, I, E Lepine, and M Taylor. 2007. Disadvantaged by where you live?: neighbourhood governance in contemporary urban policy. Bristol: The Policy Press. Son, Sang-Rag, and Si-Hwa Lee. 2001. "A study on the implementation strategy of community development: Wall removal campaign in Daegu." Community Development Review 26 (1):7-27. 295 S0fensen, Eva, and Jacob Torfing. 2003. "Network politics, political capital, and democracy." International Journal of Public Administration 26 (6):609-634. Steelman, TA., and J.A. Carmin. 2002. "Community based watershed remediation: Connecting organizational resources to social and substantive outcomes." In Toxic waste and environmental policy in the 21st century United States, 145-178. Stewart, Murray. 2005. "Collaboration in multi-actor governance." Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement:l49-167. Stoker, Gerry. 1998. "Governance as theory: five propositions." International Social Science Journal 50(155):17-28. Stoker, Gerry. 2000. "Urban Political Science and the Challenge of Urban Governance." In Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy, edited by J. Pierre. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Stoker, Gerry. 2004. New localism, participation and networked community governance. Manchester: University of Manchester/ Institute for Political and Economic Governance. Susskind, L, and J Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse. New York: Basic Books. Swyngedouw, Erik. 2005. "Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance beyond-the-state." Urban Studies 42 (11):1991-2006. Tabachnick, BG, and LS Fidell. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, Using multivariate statistics . . New York: Harper Collins College Publications. Talen, E. 1999. "Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism." Urban Studies 36(8):1361. Talen, E. 2002. "The social goals of new urbanism." Housing Policy Debate 13(1):165-188. Tang, Shui-Yan, and Daniel A Mazmanian. 2008. "An agenda for the study of collaborative governance." Workshop on Collaborative Governance in the United States and Korea on September 2008. Taylor, Heather. 2006. "Preparing Leaders for High-Stakes Collaborative Action: Darrell Darnell and the Department of Homeland Security." Public Administration Review 66 (sl):l59- 160. Taylor, Marilyn. 2007. "Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces." Urban Studies 44 (2):297-317. doi: 296 10.1080/00420980601074987. Tett, L., J. Crowther, and P. O'Hara. 2003. "Collaborative partnerships in community education." Journal of Education Policy 18 (1):37 - 51. Tewdwr-Jones, M., and P. Allmendinger. 1998. "Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning." Environment and Planning A 30: 1975- 1990. Thomas, Craig W. 2003. Bureaucratic landscapes: interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Thomson, A.M., J.L. Perry, and T.K. Miller. 2008. "Linking collaboration processes and outcomes." Collaborative Public Management:97-120. Transfort, Ministry of Land Infrastructure and. 2008. Livable City: Achievement of three years. Van Driesche, J., and M. Lane. 2002. "Conservation through Conversation: Collaborative Planning for Reuse of a Former Military Property in Sauk County, Wisconsin, USA." Planning Theory & Practice 3(2):133-153. Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. 2003. "Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers." British Journal ofManagement 14:S61-S76. Vogt, W Paul. 2007. Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Whitehead, Mark. 2003. '"In the shadow of hierarchy': meta- governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands." Area 35 (1):6-14. Williams, Frederick, and Peter R Monge. 2001. Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Williams, P.W., J.C. Day, and T. Gunton. 1998. "Land and water planning in British Columbia in the 1990s: lessons on more inclusive approaches." Environments 25:1-7. Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington DC: Island Press. Woo-Cumings, Meredith. 1999. The developmental state. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 297 Woolcock, M. 1998. "Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework." Theory and society 27 (2):151-208. Yang, Manjae. 2011. "Community Empowerment in South Korea: Towards developing a local model for practice." Ph.D, Durham University. Yin, Robert K. 2003. Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Press. Yuki, Gary, Angela Gordon, and Tom Taber. 2002. "A hierarchical taxonomy ofleadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research." Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9 (1):15-32. 298 Appendix A Interview protocol Interviewer: Date: Location: 1. Background information on interviewee • Name: • Are you a member of any community group or NGOs? • How long have you been involved in the process of the initiative? 2. Issues Information • What planning issues is the initiative concerned with? • During the initiative process, how such issues were dealt with? Were there some changes of issue? Were some issues emerged during the process? 3. Process and context-specific factors • How often were/are community meetings held? Where? • How did/does these meeting make decisions (e.g. how did the initiative establish its goals)? Would you describe some specific experiences? • Were/are you satisfied with the process of community-building? If not, what were/are the problems? • How do you identify what factors were more significant in the process of initiative? Would you describe your self-evaluation about the process of initiative to me? Or could you tell me some specific example or episode you experienced? • Do you find additional factors that were important in the community-building process? If so, how did those factors function throughout the process? Was it helpful in achieving initiative's goal? • Do you find any other factors (barriers) that have hindered or blocked collaborative efforts? Outcome • What were/ are the outcomes of collaborative efforts (e.g. Physical improvement, social benefits, community solidarity, empowerment, sense of community, enhanced ability to solve common problems, or increased accessibility to resources, etc.)? 299 • Who benefited most from the outcomes of the process? • What do you think the most significant achievements of the planning process are? • Do you think that the initiative in your place was successful? If yes, what are/were the key factors determining success? If no, could you tell me in what sense you think so? General evaluations about initiative • What were the key strengths and weaknesses of the initiative? • Do you think that the process of collaborative community-building was/is effective or ineffective for the goals? Would you describe in what sense you think so? • Do you think that the experience of collaborative community-building practice have changed/will change perception /behavior of people or approach in Korean planning system? • What advice would you give someone who is thinking of participating in a future community building practice? • Would you like to make any additional comments? 300 Appendix B Survey Protocol Dear Respondents: The purpose of the study is to analyze the process and outcome of collaborative initiatives in Korea. This questionnaire focuses on the relationship between process and outcome of collaborative efforts for livable community-building and examines how collaborative planning processes produce enhanced community capacity and improve environmental conditions. The results of this study are expected to be valuable to understand collaborative local governance process. All information you provide will, with no exception, be used confidentially only for academic purposes. Please read the questions carefully and answer them. It should take you no more than 15 minutes to complete this questionnaire. If you would like to know these results, I will be pleased to send you a summary of my study findings and policy implications. If you have any questions or special comments with regard to this questionnaire, please feel free to contact me at sangmink@usc.edu or sangminkim3 2 l@gmail.com. Thank you very much for your time and help in advance. Sincerely yours, SangminKim Ph.D Candidate University of Southern California School of Planning, Policy and Development Los Angeles, California, USA 301 Based on your experience, to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about initiative. Please respond based on the seven-point scale below: circle the number that best indicates the extent to which you agree with each statement. I. Institutional design for process legitimacy A. Democratic and open style of management 1. Broad inclusiveness: All parties with a significant interest in the issues and outcome were involved throughout the process. 2. Process transparency: participants feel confident that the collaborative community-building process operated in transparent and fair ways. 3. Equal opportunity and resources among members: The process provided for equal and balanced opportunity for effective participation of all parties. B. Formation of collaborative identity 4. Formalization of collaborative governance: The initiative established a formalized governance structure to manage the collaborative process (e.g. agreements about the goal of the collaboration, role and responsibility of stakeholders, and coordinated task). 5. Clear ground rules: As the process was initiated, a comprehensive procedural framework was established including clear terms of reference and operating procedures. 6. Time limits: the process had a detailed project plan including clear milestone 302 Never To a Large Extent i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. Facilitated leadership 7. There was/were one or more leaders who took the lead in the community-building process. 8. The leader(s)' role was important in the successful operation of collaborative community-building process. D. The role of education programs 9. I have some experiences of participating in education Yes ( 1 2 ) No( ) 3 4 5 6 7 programs such as Urban/Community College, or Yes ( ) No ( ) Citizen Autonomy College. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. I think those programs were helpful in having 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more interest and participating in my community- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- building projects. II. Structure and quality of collaborative process E. Social learning based on shared understanding 11. Shared vision and clear purpose: Participants collectively identified and agreed upon clear goals and VIS I On. 12. Agreement on a definition of the problem: 13. Participants agreed on problems their community confronted. Collaborative learning: Participants learned a lot during the collaborative community-building process by gaining related knowledge, understanding other perspectives, and obtaining skills. F. Face-to-face dialogue 14. Thick communication: the process encouraged open communication about participants' interest and participants actively communicated with one another by direct dialogue. 15. Principled negotiation and respect: The process operated according to the conditions of principled negotiation including mutual respect and understanding. 303 Never To a Large Extent i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 G. Commitment to process 16. Shared responsibility for the process: participants had ownership and responsibility of the process. 17. All stakeholders are co-producers of collective decisions 18. Commitment to implementation and monitoring: participants committed to implementing the plan/project that was generated from collective decision-making processes. H. Trust Building 19. Trust building: The process created trust among participants III. First order outcomes I. Institutional capitals Intellectual capital 20. Innovation and creativity: The process produced creative and innovative ideas and outcomes. 21. High-Quality Information: The process produced improved data, information, and analyses through joint fact-finding that stakeholders understand and accept as accurate. 22. Importance of experienced knowledge: I realized that experienced knowledge can play an important role in resolving local problems. Social capital 23. Bonding: Participants enhanced a sense of cohesion by participating in the community-building process. 304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never To a Large Extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Bridging within the community: Process created new personal and working relationships within their community. 25. Bridging beyond the community: Process created new personal and working relationships beyond their community Political capital 26. Process increased participants' willingness to work together in future collaborative community practices. 27. Mobilization methods: Community enhanced the ability for collective action by adapting current and new techniques as well as experiencing consensus building and partnership-creating practices. J. Actual and perceived outcomes 28. Successful goal achievement: Initiative achieved their goals successfully. 29. hnproved environmental conditions: initiative has improved environmental conditions in our community (safety, cleanness, public space, etc) 30. Perceived effectiveness of collaborative governance for the goals: The process and outcome are perceived as effective to achieve goals. 31. Understanding and support of collaborative approaches: The experience of collaborative community-building resulted in increased understanding of, and participants support the future use of collaborative planning approaches. 305 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 IV. Second-order effects 32. I have seen changes in behaviors and actions of participants as a result of the collaborative process. 33. I am aware of spin-off partnerships, collaborative activities or new organizations that have arisen as a result of the collaborative process. 34. I expect that current initiatives/movement would create new norms and heuristics, and would affect/transform Korean planning system in the long run. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 V. Please tell me a little about yourself by responding to the following questions. What is your gender? ____ Male Female ---- What is your age? __ 20~29 60 and over 6 6 6 Participant's characteristics: __ Residents __ Public Official __ Expert __ NGOs __ Politician _._( """l\=at=n:.;:t-_;o=f-'' o=r_..,g=an:..:.i=z=at=•c=n=s;;;..L- ), ___ -'Member of local organization __ Etc. How long have you participated in the initiative/Movement? _______ Yr 306 7 7 7 Appendix C List oflivable city and connnunity building initiatives selected and supported by MLTMA from 2007 to 2009 2007 City (5) Projects 1. Ans an Gwangduk-ro Theme Space Making 2. Sukcho Seorak Maple Town Making 3. Incheon Nam-gu Robot complex Zone 4. Seocheon Spring City, Seocheon Making 5. Gwangju Gwangsan-gu Songjeong-gol Communitv (25) 1. Munhwa-dong, Gwangju Si-Wha Munwha Maeul (Poetry-Painting, Culture community) 2. Samdeok-dong, Daegu Winding ally filled with stories 3. Bucheon Simgokbon-dong 'Pearl Buck' culture community-building 4. Jeju Yerae-dong Livable Yerae Eco-community-building 5. Busan Whamyeong-2dong Clean Eco-Educational Community Park 6. Donghae, Simgok-dong 'Yakcheon Namguman' Korean Poem Community 7. Siheung Jeongwang-2dong Fresh 'Jeongwang-2dong' Community-building 8. Suwan Son<>iuk-dong Green Eco-Communitv Son<>iuk Building 9. Jeonju Pungnam-dong Traditional Hang Gyo Community-building (the Confucian temple) 10. Gwangju Pungam-dong Pungam Reservoir Well-being Theme Park 11. Cheongju Pyeong-dong Pyeong-dong Traditional Rice Cake Community 12. Gimcheon Seonmam-dong N amsan Pilot Project for Community-building 13. Gwangju Juwol-dong Community with One Thousand Stories 14. Jeju Yeon-dong Yeon-dong Business Area Redevelopment for Revitalization ofTour-Citv 15. Busan Bansong-2dong 'Let's Build Bansong' 16. Seoul, Gahoe-dong Bukchon Livable Community-building 17. Busan U am-dong Green Forest within City 18. Gwacheon Galhyeon-dong Building Livable Galhyeon Community 19. Seoul Sungsan-dong Sungmisan Community-building by Dolbom Network 20. Suncheon Dosa-dong Suncheon-man of hope 21. Whasung Suwha-dong Changmun Art Community-building 22. Yeosu Mandeok-dong Mansung Black Sand Cure Communitv Buildiing 23. Daejeon Pyeongchon-dong Jeungchon Flower Community-building 24. Incheon Iwha-dong Livable Homecoming Community, Iwha 25. Geoje Okpo-2dong Community-building with Foreigners 307 2008 City (6) Projects 1. Geunsan Communicational Jungbu Area Cultural Education 2. Jeju Education City Encompassing Multi-Cultures 3. Yeosu Beautiful Sea, Yeosu Building 4. Gwacheon Environmental City Responding Climate Change 5. Gwangju Sky, Land, People, Culturally Communicative City 6. Muju Lifetime.ing, Realization of Happiness, Mu ju Community (20) 1. Jeonju Pungnam-dong Traditional Hang Gyo Community-building (the Confucian temple) 2. Busan Geumjeong-gu Sansang Community-building by Recovery of History and Ecology 3. Deagu Buk-gu Participatory Environment-Friendly Water-Edge Making 4. Incheon Bupyeong-gu Participatory Bupyeong Traditional Market Revitalization 5. Gwanju Gwangsan-gu Family, Neighborhood, Community-building Project 6. Gimcheon Apartment Allies Filled with Children's Joy 7. Deajeon Seo-gu Open Sace, Jeongbangyi History-Culture Community-building 8. Suncheon Community-building for Old Town Revitalization 9. Gwangju Nam-gu Green Songam Building with Green Wild Flowers 10. Sangju Railway Greening Project 11. Daejeon Jung-gu Traditional Theme Community-building 12. Siheung Maewha-dong Hojo Field Making, Harmonizing Work, Rest, and Play 13. Ansan Making Livable Culture Street 14. Cheongju Transformation of Butter Area into Eco-Park 15. Seoul, Geumchen-gu Walkable Community with Environment 16. Seoul Mapo-gu Livable Mangwon Building by Local Development Network 17. Busan Haeundae-gu Welfare Network, Environment-Friendly Community-building 18. Suwon Eco-Edu Village, Coexisting with Environment and People 19. Busan Yeongdo-gu ?Happy Sangri Community-building 20. Sokcho Cheongdae-San (Mountain) Green Experience Community-building 308 2009 City (7) Projects 1. Chin ju EcoCulture City, Clean & Green Cheonju 2. Nonsan Nonsan CBD regeneration by making memorable street as army boot camp city 3. Suncheon Making historical and cultural city 4. Geochang Making healthy and energetic city 5. Bupyeong-gu Making Gulpo green corridor responding to climate change 6. Daegu jung-gu Making modern historical culture belt 7. Ulsan nam-gu Making energetic and creative city Community (16) 1. An yang Livable Anyang community making 2. Geumcheon (Seoul) Breathing cultural community, approaching to residents' lives 3. Ans an Hanyang University village 4. Gwangju buk-gu Nostalgic Sandong bridge 5. Donghae Community-building with the lotus pond and phoenix dance (traditional dance) 6. Gwangju Gwangsan-gu Shinchang, historical eco-community-building 7. Busan Seo-gu South port with dreaming seagull 8. Busan Yeonje-gu Mulmangol Eco-community-building 9. Busan Jin-gu Dolsan Park with warm-minded people 10. Anseong Walkable and beautiful community-building 11. Jeonju Hanok (Korean traditional housing) community- building 12. Jeongeup Jeongeupsa Hvoia communitv-building 13. Jeju Eco-friendly Ildo-2dong community-building 14. Pohang Cheongrim-dong refreshment with passion and creativity 15. Daegu Jung-gu Happy Dongseong-ro designed by bicycle 16. Daeieon Seo-gu Jeongchon green communitv-building 309

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the growing interest in local and community governance, a number of empirical studies have been conducted to specifically examine the effectiveness of community governance. However, most are limited due to one-sided evaluations, focusing on topics such as the procedural aspects of community governance, organizational roles (e.g. Community Development Corporations) or socio-political outcomes (e.g. social capital, enhanced capacity and empowerment). There are very few studies that both identify the structure and functions of collaborative governance in a comprehensive manner and evaluate the whole course of community governance including both the dynamic process and social and physical outcomes. Many questions remain unanswered: How might community governance involve a wide range of stakeholders? How might stakeholders develop a shared understanding so that they can act together to address issues of common interest? In what ways might the stakeholders interact and coordinate with each other for collective goals? To what extent might such collaborative processes be affected by structural and institutional settings? What outcomes might these collective efforts produce? ❧ In order to respond to these questions, this study develops a model of collaborative community governance as an integrative evaluation framework, and comparatively assesses three collaborative community governance practices in Korea: Gwangju Siwha-Munwha Community-building (Gwangju SMCB, government-driven model), Samdeock Community-building Movement (Samdeock CBM, NGO driven model) and Bupyeong Cultural Street Building (Bupyeong CSB, residents driven model). In the applied mixed method research design, the qualitative analysis examines the structures, processes, and outcomes of the three collaborative community governances in a great detail. The quantitative analysis, mainly using path analysis, verifies multiple relationships among key factors of collaborative governance (e.g. institutional design, governance process and outcome, and evaluation on the physical outcome and governance performance) in the Korean context. ❧ The results of the qualitative analysis show that the governance processes of the three cases contributed to the building of trust and shared understanding, the facilitation of social learning among participants, and the enhancement of commitment to the process. Collaborative governance was successful in not only forming intellectual and cultural capitals, but also in building new relationships and deepening trust and solidarity. Such enhanced social capital subsequently contributed to deeper participant commitment to the community activities and further willingness to work together in the future. The path results also confirm the significantly positive relationships among factors of institutional design, supportive factors (leadership and, educational programs), and governance process and outcomes. Along with relative strengths and weaknesses, the comparative examination of the three cases in addition exposes a tricky relationship between community governance entity and local government, which significantly influenced the governance process and outcome. ❧ In conclusion, this study discusses the role of central government in realizing accountable autonomy and synergy among agents, processes and contents for adaptive governance, and suggestions for future practices are provided.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

Information sharing, deliberation, and collective decision-making: A computational model of collaborative governance

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

Foreign-related activities of the Chinese local governments and agents of globalization: a case study of 31 provinces in mainland China

PDF

Community, empowerment, and the city: sources of capacity in local governance

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

Governance networks: internal governance structure, boundary setting and effectiveness

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

Does collaborative R&D policy work? The effect of collaborative R&D policy on innovative activities of firms in Korea

PDF

A view from below: the development and role of organizational social capital in neighborhood regeneration in Los Angeles

PDF

Bank community development coporation investments in community economic development

PDF

The crisis of potable water in Mexico City: institutional factors and water property rights as conditions for creating adequate metropolitan water governance

PDF

Local ground-level ozone policies: Governance structure and institutions In achieving federal attainment

PDF

The institutional context of Korean philanthropy and the role of government and (quasi-) community foundations

PDF

Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

PDF

Essays on fiscal outcomes of cities in California

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Sang Min (author)

Core Title How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Planning and Development Studies

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 09/22/2016

Defense Date 05/15/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative capacity,collaborative governance,Community development,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib K. (committee chair), Schweitzer, Lisa (committee member), Sellers, Jefferey M. (committee member)

Creator Email sangmink@usc.edu,sangminkim321@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-484369

Unique identifier UC11286960

Identifier etd-KimSangMin-2973.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-484369 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KimSangMin-2973.pdf

Dmrecord 484369

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kim, Sang Min

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA