IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cposxx/v39y2018i1p54-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative policy-making and its limitations: the case of the Charter of Human Rights for Seoul Citizens in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Da Kyoung Kim
  • Pan Suk Kim
  • PerOla Öberg

Abstract

Recent criticism of representative liberal democracy has spurred democratic experiments involving citizen consultations in deliberative forums. However, more research is needed in order to understand the conditions necessary to make them work. The aim of this paper is to help mitigate this deficiency and at the same time contribute to an informed reflection over the specific conditions for deliberative democracy in Korea. The study focuses on a unique deliberative process organized in order to establish a Charter of Human Rights for Seoul Citizens. Several lessons from this democratic experiment are discussed. While the process worked surprisingly well, its legitimacy was questioned because of controversies over the representativeness of participants and the involvement of external stakeholders. Although a complete consensus was not reached, initially disrespectful attitudes changed within the process to a situation where diverging positions were better acknowledged. How ideas of deliberation can be implemented in real-world public policy-making is discussed based on these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Da Kyoung Kim & Pan Suk Kim & PerOla Öberg, 2018. "Deliberative policy-making and its limitations: the case of the Charter of Human Rights for Seoul Citizens in South Korea," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 54-69, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:39:y:2018:i:1:p:54-69
    DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2017.1410880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01442872.2017.1410880
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01442872.2017.1410880?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:39:y:2018:i:1:p:54-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.