Sunhyuk Kim Dept of Public Administration, Korea Univ Seongeun Cho Institute of Governmental Studies, Korea Univ

Contents Introduction Theoretical Overview & Methodology Analysis: Environmental Protest and Policy Change Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ C Conclusion Ⅳ

Introduction Environmental Governance ▪ Growth of environmental movement →Rethinking of the developmental paradigm →Considerable impact on policy, such as cancelling planned construction Since 1990 Democratic Transition ▪ Relative attention to environmental issues Rapid Economic Development ▪ Policy of “growth-first, environmental degradation later” ▪ Absence of attention to the environment 1960s-80s Democratic Transition (1987) Environmental Governance (1990-) ▣ Historical trajectory toward a environmental governance in South Korea

Introduction To explain the relationship between environmental protests and policy changes  What effects did environmental protest have on the environmental policy?  Which aspects of environmental protest led to environmental policy change? Research questions Aim of this research

Theoretical Overview & Methodology 1. Policy Change: A Theoretical Overview 1) Determinants of policy change Previous works ▪ have focused on institutional variables and policy entrepreneurs. ▪ however political and policy changes in Korea have been initiated and propelled by civic mobilization. This research ▪ focuses on general public and civic groups.

Theoretical Overview & Methodology 1. Policy Change: A Theoretical Overview 2) Social protest as a determinant of policy change Previous works ▪ have been interested in the relationship between social protest and policy change ▪ however they have not yet reached a consensus on the specific contents of which variables affect policy change This research ▪ focuses on different aspects of protest-scope, strategies and methods, the contents and number of demands/ grievances, and analyze their effects on policy change.

Theoretical Overview & Methodology 2. The Dataset and Methodology 1) Dataset: PEDAK(Protest Event Data Archive Korea) ▪ PEDAK is a database based on protest events that took place and were reported in newspapers between 1988 and 2007 in Korea. ▪ PEDAK collects the following data by analyzing and coding newspaper reports on post-transitional popular protests. -Number of protests per year -General measures of protest activities -Sociovocational category of protest participants -Repertoires of contention -Types and contents of protest goals, demands, grievances -Reactions to protest actions

Theoretical Overview & Methodology 2. The Dataset and Methodology 2) Variables & Measurement Variables Measurement Dependent variable Policy changeNo policy change, Policy modified, Policy changed Independent variables Scope -Duration of protest -Number of protest participation Strategy TypeViolent, Nonviolent but disruptive, Nondisruptive Consistency/ Continuity No change, Original methods combined with new ones, Original methods replaced by new ones Legality/ Illegality Legal(0), Illegal(1) ParticipantsSociovocation Blue-collar working, Unspecified, White-collar working Demands Contents Economic, Political, Ecological, Economic/Political, Political/Ecological, Economic/Ecological, Economic/Political/Ecological Number

Analysis: Simple Correlational Coefficients Policy change Scope Duration.000 Number of Participants.025 Strategy Violence-.059 Consistency/Continuity.008 Illegality-.197** ParticipantsSociovocational Categories.153 Demands/ Grievances Contents Political.058 Economic.007 Political/Ecological-.159* Economic/Ecological-.192* Political/Economic/Ecological.100 Number.134 *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

Analysis: Simple Correlational Coefficients ▣ DISCUSSION  Illegality of protest : Negatively correlated with policy change  Contents of demand : Political or economic demands to ecological demands seem to be counterproductive in bringing policy change.  Protest Scope: Positively correlated with policy change.  Violent protest: Negatively correlated with policy change.

Analysis: Multiple Regression Policy change B(S.E)Beta Constant.194(.822) Scope Duration-.105(.089)-.164 Number of Participants.036(.069).062 Strategy Violence.785(.439).458 Consistency/Continuity.109(.284).047 Illegality-1.278(.529)**-.613 Participants Sociovocational Categories.366(.198)*.225 Demands/ Grievances Contents Political.125(.252).068 Economic.109(.504).027 Political/Ecological-1.455(.920)-.186 Economic/Ecological-1.311(.600)**-.328 Political/Economic/Ecological-.112(1.015)-.014 Number.705(.350)**.287 F-Value R * 0.264

Analysis: Multiple Regression ▣ DISCUSSION  R 2 of model is 26.4%, Significance level is 0.1.  Statistically significant variables: -Legality/illegality of the protest strategies :Illegal protest strategies are less likely to lead to policy change. -Economic/ecological demands/grievances : Ecological demands combined with economic demands seems to decrease the likelihood of policy change. -The number of demands/grievances : As the number of protest demands increase, likelihood of policy change increases.

Conclusion & Implication Environmental policy change Strategy Demand/ Grievances Demand/ Grievances Participants

Conclusion & Implication ▣ Conclusion Environmental policy change is significantly affected by protest strategies, demands/grievances, and not by protest scope. ▣ Implication It is not the objective/absolute size of resource mobilization but the subjective/relative usage of strategies and framing of demands/grievances that are far more closely correlated with policy change.

LOGO THANK YOU Association for Public Analysis and Management