Online Versus Offline Participation: Has the Democratic Potential of the Internet Been Realized? Analysis of a Participatory Budgeting System in Korea

References

• Ahn, S. (2013). Participatory budgeting in Dong-gu, Ulsan: A Korean case study. In Y. Sintomer, R. Traub-Merz, & J. Zhang (Eds.), Participatory budgeting in Asia and Europe (pp. 36–49). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62–82. doi:10.1080/13691180500519548
   Google Scholar
• Argen, P. O. (2001). Is online democracy in the EU for professionals only? Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 36–38. doi:10.1145/357489.357502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armony, A. C. (2004). The Dubious link: Civic engagement and democratization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society, 14(3), 363–383. doi:10.1177/1461444811413191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. (1999). Building a deliberative democracy: An evaluation of two citizens’ juries. London, UK: IPPR.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, T. (2001). Rating the impact of new technologies on democracy. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 39–43. doi:10.1145/357489.357503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 587–602. doi:10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<587::aid-pam4>3.0.co;2-q
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, C., & Taylor, J. A. (1998). Governing in the information age. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 105–112. doi:10.2307/977058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, J., & Witzner, D. J. (1997). Technology and democracy. Social Research, 64(3), 1313–1318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183–216. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Participatory local governance and transport planning. Environment and Planning, A, 33, 431–451. doi:10.1068/a33173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bukgu District Office in Gwangju Metropolitan City. (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). Proposals for Budget Adjusting and Approving for Budget Plans. Gwangju, South Korea: Bukgu District Office. (in Korean)
   Google Scholar
• Bukgu District Office in Gwangju Metropolitan City. (2012). Statistical Yearbook. Gwangju, South Korea: Bukgu District Office. (in Korean)
   Google Scholar
• Carr, D. S., & Halvorsen, K. (2001). An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: Surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners. Society & Natural Resources, 14(2), 107–126. doi:10.1080/089419201300000526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, H. D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in Buk-gu, Korea. Focus on citizens: Public engagement for better policy and services (pp. 135–141). Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264048874-en
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S. (2003). The future of the internet and democracy beyond metaphors, towards policy. Promise and problems of e-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement (pp. 143–162). Paris, France: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/governance/public-innovation/35176328.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• D’Agostino, M. J., Schwester, R. W., & Holzer, M. (2006). Enhancing the prospect for deliberative democracy: The America-speaks model. The Innovation Journal, 11(1), 1–20. http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/holzer_usa_l2gostino_schwester_holzer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030
   Google Scholar
• Danziger, J. N. (1976). Assessing incrementalism in British municipal budgeting. British Journal of Political Science, 6, 335–350. doi:10.1017/s0007123400000739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denters, B., & Lawrence, E. R. (2005). Comparing local governance: Trends and developments. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 307–336. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28. doi:10.2307/1958525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster, J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferdinand, P. (2000). The Internet, democracy and democratization. Democratization 7(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/13510340008403642
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. (2003). Deliberation day. In J. Fishkin & P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 7–30). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. L., & Carberry-George, B. (1999). Analyzing how local governments establish service priorities. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(3), 31–46. doi:10.1046/j.0275-1100.1999.01170.x
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. L., Ho, A. T., & Ebdon, C. (2009). Participatory budgeting in Midwestern states: Democratic connection or citizen disconnection? Public Budgeting & Finance, 29(3), 52–73. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5850.2009.00936.x
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York, NY: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grὅnlund, A. (2002). Democracy in an IT-framed society: Introduction. Communications of the ACM, 44, 22–26. doi:10.1145/357489.357498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, L. K. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haque, M. S. (2002). E-governance in India: Its impacts on relations among citizens, politicians, and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 231–250. doi:10.1177/0020852302682005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, D. K. (1972). Theories of government related to decentralization and citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 32, 603–621. doi:10.2307/975228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeks, R. (2001). Understanding e-governance for development. Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management. http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/IDPM/working_papers/igov/igov_wp11.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A. T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the E-government initiative. Public Administrative Review, 62(4), 434–444. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, B. S., & Lim, S. (2011). Citizen participation in the budget process: Participatory budgeting in Gwangju Bukgu District of Korea. In M. Holzer, D. Kong, & D. Bromberg (Eds.), Citizen participation: innovative and alternative modes for engaging citizens (pp. 155–175). Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance. http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/files/Books/citizen_participation_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326. doi:10.2307/977561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koop, R., & Jansen, H. J. (2009). Political blogs and blogrolls in Canada: Forums for democratic deliberation? Social Science Computer Review, 27(2), 155–173. doi:10.1177/0894439308326297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the Web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34(4), 411–446. doi:10.1177/0095399702034004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, S., & Kim, B. S. (2010). A study on the effectiveness of citizens’ participatory channels. Korean Public Administration Review, 44(3), 61–86. (in Korean)
   Google Scholar
• Macintosh, A., Robson, E., Smith, E., & Whyte, A. (2003). Electronic democracy and young people. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 43–54. doi:10.1177/0894439302238970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. (1999). Technological determinism. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age (pp. 39–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of E-democracy: Identifying the notion of the “middleman paradox.” Info Systems Journal, 15, 27–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00184.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikesell, J. L. (2014). Budget classifications, systems, and reform: Trying to make better choices. In J. L. Mikesell (Ed.), Fiscal administration: Analysis and application for the public sector (9th ed.) (pp. 240–298). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Montero, A. P., & Samuels, D. J. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Norte Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizens summits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164–188. doi:10.1177/0275074003251379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York, NY: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Nip, J. Y. M. (2004). The relationship between online and offline communities: The case of the queer sisters. Media, Culture, & Society, 26(3), 409–428. doi:10.1177/0163443704042262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide? Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet in democratic societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nugent, J. D. (2001). If e-democracy is the answer, what’s the question? National Civic Review, 90(3), 221–233. doi:10.1002/ncr.90303
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. doi:10.1177/14614440222226244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Planning and Inspection Bureau of Bukgu District Office. (2006). Official documents on the members of 2006 civil committee. Gwangju, South Korea: Bukgu District Office. (in Korean)
   Google Scholar
• Polat, R. K. (2005). The internet and political participation: Exploring the explanatory links. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459. doi:10.1177/0267323105058251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reddick, C. G. (2002). Testing rival decision-making theories on budget outputs: Theories and comparative evidence. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(3), 1–25. doi:10.1111/1540-5850.00078
   Google Scholar
• Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). The empires strike back: Is the Internet corporatizing rather than democratizing policy processes? Public Administration Review, 67(2), 199–215. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00707.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbin, A., Courtright, C., & Davis, L. (2004). ICTs and political life. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 38, 410–482. doi:10.1002/aris.1440380110
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, M. D., Simonsen, B., & Feldman, B. (2008). Citizen and resource allocation: Improving decision making with interactive Web-based citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 564–575. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00891.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion: A case study of abortion conversation on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14, 373–393. doi:10.1177/089443939601400401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, E. (1996). Netactivism: How citizen use the Internet. Sebastapol, CA: Songline Studios.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the people: Do U.S. municipal government Web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00593.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo, I. S., Kwon, G. H., Lee, J. K., & Kim, T. J. (2009). The National budget bill’s decision making in the national congress and the Seoul City assembly. Korean Public Administration Review, 43(4), 47–80. (in Korean)
   Google Scholar
• Sintomer, Y., Traub-Merz, R., & Zhang, J. (2013). Participatory budgeting in Asia and Europe. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, K. (2007). Write the rules and win: Understanding citizen participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1067–1076. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00798.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Democratizing democracy: Strong democracy, US political campaign and the Internet. Democratization, 7(1), 36–58. doi:10.1080/13510340008403644
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S. (1989). Struggle, politics, and reform: Collective action, social movements, and cycles of protest (Western Societies Paper No. 21). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Studies in International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizen and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50. doi:10.1177/0275074006296208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administrative Review, 60(4), 349–359. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wampler, B., & Avritzer, L. (2005). The spread of participatory democracy in Brazil: From radical democracy to good government. Journal of Latin American Urban Studies, 7, 37–52. http://depts.washington.edu/jlaus/JLAUS7.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (1992). Democratic theory and self-transformation. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 8–23. doi:10.2307/1964012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (2002). What can democratic participation mean today? Political Theory, 30(5), 677–701. doi:10.1177/0090591702030005003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political Communication, 25, 1–22. doi:10.1080/10584600701807752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838. doi:10.2307/1912934
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, A. G. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion? Information, Communication, & Society, 1(3), 313–338. doi:10.1080/13691189809358972
   Google Scholar
• Wilhelm, A. G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M. E., Baek, Y. M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). What is really going on? Structure underlying face-to-face and online deliberation. Information, Communication & Society, 12(7), 1080–1102. doi:10.1080/13691180902725768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191–216. doi:10.1080/15309576.2005.11051865
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., & Liao, Y. (2011). Participatory budgeting in local government: Evidence from New Jersey municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(2), 281–302. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576350203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., & Yang, K. (2009). Citizen participation in the budget process: The effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2), 289–317.
   Google Scholar