The basic components of a public deliberation include participation and deliberation, but it may proceed in various forms depending on the characteristic of the conflict. This study aims to investigate the local community public deliberation process that befits the nature of the public conflict. In order to do so, this study has constructed an analytical tool across the entire public deliberation process and used this tool to analytically reassess the Gwangju Metro Line 2 public deliberation case. As a result of the case study, this study has discovered that the prior consensus of the local community on the public deliberation agenda, devotion of the Public Deliberation Preparation Committee comprised of an equal number of private and public sector members, formation of a neutral Public Deliberation Committee, usage of a civic participatory poll that was recently familiar to the Korean society, and securing of the representativeness of the civic participation group and its deliberation were the key factors that made the Gwangju Metro Line 2 public deliberation case a success. However, there were also areas of improvement, especially regarding the confusion due to the double role of the local government, need to improve the roles of the stakeholders, securement of fairness across the public deliberation process, and issue of the legitimacy of decision making method.
Discussion on the Case Analysis Results
Conclusion and Policy Implications