Citation
Reflexive idea, argumentative struggle, and institutional change

Material Information

Title:
Reflexive idea, argumentative struggle, and institutional change environmental controversy on the Tong River Dam construction in Korea
Creator:
Kang, Sangkyu
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xviii, 304 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Environmental policy -- Korea (South) ( lcsh )
Organizational change -- Korea (South) ( lcsh )
Environmental management -- Korea (South) ( lcsh )
Dams -- Environmental aspects -- Korea (South) -- Tong River ( lcsh )
Dams -- Environmental aspects ( fast )
Environmental management ( fast )
Environmental policy ( fast )
Organizational change ( fast )
Korea (South) ( fast )
Korea (South) -- Tong River ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 275-304).
General Note:
Department of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sangkyu Kang.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
62785372 ( OCLC )
ocm62785372
Classification:
LD1193.P86 2005d K36 ( lcc )

Full Text
REFLEXIVE IDEA, ARGUMENTATIVE STRUGGLE,
AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSY
ON THE TONG RIVER DAM CONSTRUCTION IN KOREA
by
Sangkyu Kang
B.A., KonKuk University, 1991
M.P.A., KonKuk University, 1993
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Affairs
2005


2005 by Sangkyu Kang
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Sangkyu Kang
has been approved
by
Date


Kang, Sangkyu (Ph.D., Public Affairs)
Reflexive Idea, Argumentative Struggle, and Institutional Change: Environmental
Controversy on the Tong River Dam Construction in Korea
Thesis directed by Professor Peter deLeon
ABSTRACT
The constitutive capacity of environmental policy-making processes by which
reflexive social learning and its institutionalization are accomplished has attracted
growing attention to explain the mechanism of institutional change in environmental
management. Yet, how social learning and its institutionalization are obtained in
environmental policy-making processes are seriously arguable.
The dissertation aims to explain the mechanism of institutional changes
through social learning and its institutionaliztion in environmental policy-making
processes. For this purpose, three propositions were proposed based on the conceptual
framework stipulated through reviewing the current relevant literatures. The
Argumentative Institutional Analysis (ALA), based on the integration of Foucaults
archeology, dispositif, and genealogy, is constructed.
Findings from the empirical investigation of the case of environmental policy-
making process in Korea in the context of that Tong River Dam controversy support
i
IV


propositions in the conceptual framework. The causes of institutional disjuncture
were created by involving actors reflexivity on practices of environmental policy-
making. When involved actors recognized threats to their life and the environment
from practices of environmental policy-making structured by the specific
environmental discourse, they generated alternative discourses to preserve their
security.
Confronted with multiple discourses, involved actors interactions were
characterized by argumentative hegemonic struggle to normalize their own discourse
as premier by mobilizing social approval. This pattern of interactions affected the
boundary of institutional changes. When the existed dominant discourse retained its
normalization power, its conceptualization of problematic situation was dominantly
supported, concepts and ideas in different discourses were incorporated with
additional policy instruments, and instrumental learning and its institutionalization
resulted. Conceptual learning and its institutionalization were generated when
alternative discourse replaced the existed dominant discourse by constructing a new
dominant social network that supported the alternative discourse. Yet, social
relational learning (i.e., the generation of social capital among involved actors) and its
institutionalization was difficult because involved actors aimed to repress others
discourse to realize their own objectives.
This dissertation concludes that institutional changes for restructuring the
purpose and direction of environmental management are obtained through the
v


contests of various ideas, argumentative struggles among involving actors, and
reflexive social choices in environmental policy-making process.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.
Signed
Peter deLeon


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A person does not build up his life history only by himself. It is
influenced by many numbers of others. The decision of a study in
abroad, the selection of specific field, and the achievement of the
degree, all of these have others trustful helps and advices. I would like
to acknowledge those people although it is impossible to list all of
them.
When I finished my master degree in Korea, many professors
recommended studying in abroad based on their best experiences.
They are Myungchan Hwang, Sungbok Lee, Byungkook Kim,
Hyuckjae Choi, and Mannhyung Huh. I never regretted that I decided
to study in abroad even though it is not yet clear how this will affect to
or contribute to my future endeavors.
I was not a well-prepared student when I entered the Ph.D
program of GSPA. I was just a little bird under eaves in a rainy night.
The bird was lost for what to do, how and where to fly. Dr. Peter
deLeon enabled me to see the blue sky of policy sciences and to fly to
it. Dr. Linda deLeon cultivated my interest on sociological,
philosophical, and epistemological areas during doctoral courses. Also,


Dr. M. Jae Moon provided many keystones for the completion of the
Ph. D. program.
In addition to the course work, the completion of this thesis
benefited from my committee members. Drs. Robert Gage, Frank
Laird, and Jae Moon provided thoughtful feedback, guidance, and
instruction to increase my perspective on environmental politics, to
condense the theoretical chapter of this dissertation more neatly, and to
improve the field research procedures. Dr. Linda deLeon allocated
much time to discuss my thesis and other topics in spite of her tight
schedule. In particular, my special thanks to my mentor, Dr. Peter
deLeon. His insightful advice (both through detail explanations with
examples and through short comments) and his untiring patience with
me during several years were the most precious building blocks for
completing this thesis. If my dissertation has any worth of reading, it is
all thanks to Dr. Peter deLeon.
In a way, earning a Ph. D degree was an accomplishment of my
personal desire. It would have never been possible without the
unfaltering understanding and tireless patience of my parents and the
priceless friendship from Yeonhee Han during the whole time I was
studying in the United States.


Regarding the content of this thesis, the mistakes might be
existed in the authors transition from Korean to English. All of these
mistakes belong to the author of this thesis.


CONTENTS
Figures....................................................xv
Tables....................................................xvi
Maps....................................................xviii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................1
New Context of Environmental Policy-Making
Politics in Korea..................................1
The Structuring Capacity of the Governing Discourse
and the Constitutive Capacity of Environmental Policy
Making Processes...................................4
The Purpose of the Dissertation....................8
Contributions of the Dissertation.................11
Theoretical Aspect............................11
Practical Aspect..............................14
The Structure of the Dissertation.................16
2. REFLEXIVE IDEA, ARGUMENTATIVE STRUGGLE,
AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.............................18
Introduction......................................18
The Structuring Capacity of a Governing
Discourse and Its Atrophy.........................19
New Understanding about Environmental
Politics and Environmental Policy-Making
Processes.........................................25
x


Types of Institutional Changes....................35
Conceptual Framework..............................47
The Structuring Capacity of a Governing Discourse
and Its Atrophy: the Genesis of Institutional
Cleavage......................................47
New Understanding about Environmental
Policy-Making Processes: Process of
Structuration and Institutionalization........50
Types of Institutional Changes................53
Conclusion........................................55
3. RESEARCH DESIGN: THE ARGUMENTATIVE
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS (AIA).........................58
Introduction......................................58
The Background of Argumentative Institutional
Analysis..........................................59
The Content of Argumentative Institutional
Analysis..........................................67
Research Design...................................72
Data Gathering................................72
Data Analysis.................................79
Research Validation...........................82
4. THE CONTROVERSY OF THE TONG RIVER
DAM CONSTRUCTION IN THE STREAM OF
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF KOREAN
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE....................................85


Introduction
85
The Historical Development of Environmental
Governance in the Process of the Rush-to-Growth...87
The Social Development without Considering
the Environment (from the 1960s to the 1970s)..87
The Confrontation between Social Development
and the Environment (1980s)....................94
The Search for a Balance between Social
Development and the Environment (1990s).......101
The Tong River Dam Controversy (1990-2000).......112
The Genesis of the Controversy................112
The Emergence of Local Protests in the Host
Area..........................................114
New Challenge to the Existed Pattern of Water
Management....................................132
The Strategic Integration between Local
Protesters and National Environmental NGOs....136
The Emergence of Social Sanctions and
Oppositions...................................138
After the Tong River Dam Controversy..........146
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS...............................157
Introduction..................................157
An Emergence of Different Discourses..........158
The Ministry of Construction and
Transportation (MoCT)......................159


Residents in the Host Area
169
Environmental Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs)......................178
Findings....................................187
Process of Structuration and Institutionalization.189
)
1
i
The Struggles between the MoCT and Host
Area Resident.............................190
Argumentative Contestations between
the MoCT and Environmental NGOs..............198
The Establishment of the Coalition between
Host Area Residents and Environmental
NGOs and Its Struggles with the MoCT.........205
The Emergence of the Dominant Public
Opinion on the TRDC.......................218
The Cancellation of the TRDC and Its
Legacies.....................................225
Findings.....................................231
Types of Institutional Changes..................235
Institutional Changes by Participants
Contestation in Policy-Making Process.......236
Findings....................................246
6. CONCLUSION................................................252
Institutional Change without Consensus.........253
xm
I


New Content of the Environmental
Policy-Making Process: Process of Structuration
and Institutionalization within Life Politics.262
The Limitation of Findings....................266
Participatory Policy Analysis for Sustainable
Environmental Governance......................268
APPENDIX
A. GLOSSORY............................................273
B. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES...............................274
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.275


FIGURES
Figures
5.1 Social Relationships between Involved
Actors in the Host Area...........................197
5.2 Social Relationship between the MoCT and
Environmental NGOs................................204
5.3 Social Relationship between the MoCT and
Its Opponents.....................................206
5.4 Social Relationship between the MoCT and
Its Opponents.....................................225


TABLES
Table
3.1 The Categories of Involved Actors in the Tong River
Dam Controversy....................................73
3.2 Primary Sources for the Study......................75
5.1 Average Damages of Flood Disaster.................162
5.2 The Content of the MoCTs Discourse, Strategic
Imperative, and Pattern of Water Management.......165
5.3 Flood Control Capacity of Han River...............168
5.4 The Content of Residents Discourse and Strategic
Imperative........................................177
5.5 The Content of Environmental NGOs
Discourse, Strategic Imperative, and
Pattern of Water Management.......................186
5.6 Involved Actors Discourses, Strategic Imperatives,
and Patterns of Water Management in the TRDC
Process...........................................188
5.7 The Difference of Water Level in the Joyang
River between Before and After the Dam
Construction......................................192
5.8 The Estimation of Water Demand....................215
5.9 Relationship between Water Cost and
Water Use.........................................217


5.10 Issue Sharing between the Coalition and Its
Social Supporters..............................225
5.11 New Discourse for Water Management.............231
xvii


MAPS
Map
4.1 The Map of South Korea.......................91
4.2 The Major Rivers in South Korea..............113
4.3 The Map of the Tong River Dam Site..........116
xviii


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
New Context of Environmental
Policy-Making Politics in Korea
Since the early 1990s, the context of environmental policy-making politics in
Korea has changed. Multiple actors outside the existing institutions have appeared in
environmental policy-making processes to bring out various meanings of
environmental policy problems and interpretative conflicts. Thus, environmental
policy-making processes are increasingly crowded with various actors; the space for
policy-making practices has been expanded to outside the corridors of the
government. The coordination of different interpretations in these turbulent situations
has not been generated by the governments central requirements but by purposeful
interactions among exogenous participants. For this reason, it has become difficult to
explain environmental policy-making practices through a simple reading of the
governments activities.
In previous decades, the purpose of environmental policy-making generally
addressed the control of pollutants through strong regulations because environmental
problems were conceived as pollution problems resulting from the process of
industrialization that threatened public health. For this purpose, the government
1


recognized pollutants, decided policy programs, and implemented them based on the
specific understanding about the relationships between nature and society and
between the government and society. In this framework of environmental governance,
the government was a regulator and citizens and industries were targets of regulation.
The relationship between the government and the regulated were distant and often
adversarial. Environmental conflicts in Korea emerged after pollution accidents that
threatened human health such as air pollution accidents in Ulsan of 1971, Yechen of
1978, and Onsan of 1985 and water pollution accidents in Kwangyang of 1972 and
Asan of 1985 (Jeong and Lee, 1994; Ku, 1996). The principle issues of conflicts were
the causality of the accidents and the compensation for damages. The actors involved
in these conflicts were the government (or industrial companies) assumed as
responsible actors of the accidents and the injured parties.
Starting in the 1990s, the governments understanding of environmental
problems and its approaches, such as the command and control pattern of
environmental management, have become the major targets for environmental
protests (J. K. Kim, 1999). The governments policy initiatives for environmental and
natural resource management have been challenged with serious public protests.
Protesters have developed reflexive ideas about the relationship between nature and
society and the relationship between the government (or the state) and the society.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (1999), the cases of environmental
2


conflicts numbered over three hundred between 1995 and 1998.1 In these
environmental conflicts, participating actors have been various government
organizations, national- and local level environmental Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs), social groups, news media, and local residents.
Environmental conflicts are becoming the civil movements intended to transform the
existing understanding of environmental problems that sustains the governments
practices of environmental management (N. Eder, 1996; KEI, 1996; Lee, 2000a).
Confronted with multiple actors, various meanings of environmental problems, and a
new range of political interactions among involved actors in environmental policy-
making processes, the traditional top-down Korean pattern of environmental policy-
making and decision-making rules (e.g., one largely based on cost- benefit analyses)
and the application of new negotiation techniques for resolving environmental
conflict, such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), could not play key roles.
Faced with the turbulent situation of environmental policy-making processes,
the critical question is how and why new social recognitions of environmental
problems emerged and how they were aligned and incorporated into environmental
policies and institutions. What was the role of new emerging social recognitions of
environmental problems in Korean environmental policy-making processes? Did
these new social recognitions transform the existing understanding of environmental
1 This number involves only the representative cases of environmental conflicts gathered by Ministry
of Home Affair in 1998. In reality, the actual number of cases is greater than the number enumerated in
this study.
3


problems, institutionalize new objects of environmental policies, and change the
existing pattern of environmental governance? What kinds of policy changes are
generated and how are these changes brought out in environmental policy-making
processes?
The Structuring Capacity of the Governing Discourse and
the Constitutive Capacity of Environmental Policy-Making
Processes
Environmental problems originate in human interactions with natural
processes. Yet, the definition of environmental problems depends on how we turn our
attention to and try to make sense of the environment; that is, environmental problems
are products of a particular construction of social reality rather than of a replicable
physical condition (Spector and Kitsuse, 1987; Eckersley, 1992; Cantrill, 1996). For
this reason, the intimate relationship between the environment and political
institutions structuring the way of construction of environmental problems has gained
much attention in environmental politics since the 1970s (Oplus, 1977; Orr and Hill,
1978; Heilbroner, 1980; Rodman, 1980; Taylor, 1984; Lester, 1989; Paehlke and
Torgerson, 1990; Goodwin, 1992). In particular, these studies criticize the existing
institutional pattern of environmental governance in which environmental
considerations are incorporated into institutional level and suggest institutional
changes to increase institutional capacity for responding adequately to environmental
challenges. Nonetheless, as Dobson (1993) and Brulle (2000) argue, the mechanism
4


that explains how these institutional changes for increasing institutional capacity of
environmental management can be accomplished is unclear.
Recently, scholars who study environmental policy-making politics (e.g.,
Hajer, 1995; Torgerson, 1995; K. Eder, 1996; Cantrill and Oravec, 1996; Dryzek,
1997; Brulle, 2000; Fischer, 2003; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003) have given attention to
the structural capacity of the governing discourse in the field of environmental
governance and the constitutive and transformative capacity of environmental
policy-making processes to explain the mechanism of institutional changes in
practices of environmental governance. The governing discourse constituted by a
specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations (Hajer, 1995: 60)
constitutes a way of signifying a particular domain of practice from a particular
perspective (Fairclough, 1995: 14). In particular, as new institutionalists (Giddens,
1984; North, 1990; Powell and Dimaggio, 1991) assume, the governing discourse as
an institutional rule in the field of environmental governance structures the routine
practices of environmental management, generates what Foucault (1991) calls
govemmentality of environmental governance, and constitutes institutional context
of the field of environmental governance.
The governing discourse that shapes the interpretations of problematic
situation and limits actions for solution fixes meanings of the problem and the
boundary of relevant actors, generates objects of environmental management, and
arranges policy tools in the environmental policy-making processes. Thus,
5


environmental policy-making in this nested institutional context structured by the
governing discourse is a context- oriented practice to actualize objects and
meanings embedded in the discourse. Yet, as observers of the current environmental
policy-making politics (Giddens, 1990; Beck, 1996; K. Eder, 1996; Hajer, 2003)
point out, environmental policy initiatives generated in the nested institutional context
frequently trigger the participation of multiple actors outside the existing institutions
with various discourses in environmental policy-making processes. Particularly, the
emerging discourses that differ from the (existing) governing discourse in
environmental policy-making processes typically challenge the existing institutional
rule, become media grist for political debate, and create an institutional cleavage or
institutional void situation of the field of environmental governance (della Porta
and Diani, 1999; Hajer, 2003). The purpose of involved actors in the turbulent
situation is a realization of their interpretation (meaning) of the problematic situation
through the continuation or transformation of the governing discourse (Beck, 1994;
K. Eder, 1996).
New institutional rules (i.e., the governing discourse) that structure
institutional context of the field of environmental governance and institutionalize
objects of environmental governance into practices of environmental management are
(re) produced by involved actors deliberation in environmental policy-making
processes (Healey, 1993, 1999; Hajer, 1995, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Braun and
Busch, 1999; Gualini, 2001; Alimendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Hajer and
6


Wagenaar, 2003). Also, environmental policies and institutional context that affects
them in the institutional cleavage situation are co-evolving because the governing
discourse is reproduced in environmental policy-making processes. For this
constitutive (Lowi, 1972) or transformative (Healey, 1993) capacity (Gualini, 2001),
environmental policy-making processes can be characterized as both the process of
structuration of institutional context of the field of environmental governance and
the process of institutionalization of meanings in environmental policy problems
and objects of environmental management, resulting in accepted practices of
environmental governance (Hajer, 1995).
These characteristics of environmental policy-making processes have been
conceptualized by many who observe policy-making processes with various concepts
e.g., institution-in-action (March and Olsen, 1989); processes of institutional
capacity-building (Janicke, 1996); and processes of policy-oriented learning (Sabatier
and Jenkins- Smith, 1993; Schon and Rein, 1994) although they do not explicitly
mention the structuring capacity of the governing discourse. Historically, according to
Dryzek (1997), the institutional changes in environmental governance have evolved
through different governing discourses and the institutionalization of new meanings
and objects through the process of structuration and institutionalization.
Although the structuring capacity of the governing discourse and the
constitutive capacity of environmental policy-making processes have gained much
attention to explain the mechanism of institutional change in environmental
7


governance, some aspects of environmental policy-making processes are still under-
explored. For example, hoe discourses that differ from the governing discourse
emerge, how a new governing discourse is reproduced in environmental policy-
making processes, and what types of institutional changes result from the
reproduction of the governing discourse? The answers to these questions are highly
debatable, fragmented, and distributed in different disciplines.
The Purpose of the Dissertation
The purpose of this dissertation is two-fold. On the one hand, it aims to
increase theoretical understandings about the mechanism of institutional changes
embedded in environmental policy-making processes. On the other hand, it intends to
extend practical insights on the current characteristics of environmental policy-
making politics, the content of environmental policy-making processes, and the
nature of participants deliberation. For this purpose, the principal research question
in this dissertation is: What is the dominant mechanism of institutional change
underlying environmental policy-making processes? This involves three sub-
questions: 1) how do social actors generate new discourses that encompass different
meanings of the subject matter and their positions (identities) in environmental
policy-making processes; 2) what is the nature of political interactions among
involved actors in environmental policy-making processes; and 3) what kind of
institutional changes in environmental policy-making processes are result?
8


As Hajer (1995: 20) points out, public concern about environmental crisis in a
particular time and place has been dominated by specific emblems. They are issues
that dominate the perception of the ecological dilemma in a specific period and in
terms of which people understand the larger whole of the environmental condition.
For instance, water management has been a dominant emblem in Korean
environmental politics since the late 1980s as illustrated by the pollution accidents of
nation-wide water purification plants in 1989 and 1990, the pollution accidents of
Nakdong River in 1991 and 1994, the Siwha Lake controversy in 1996, and the
controversy of the Yichen industrial complex construction in 1997. The governments
practices of water management have initiated public concerns about the environment
and serious public outcries and therefore generated serious environmental conflicts in
Korea.
Foremost among water management conflicts in Korea was the controversy in
the policy-making process of the Tong River Dam Construction (TRDC), one that
continued for almost a decade. This project was initially proposed by the Ministry of
Construction and Transportation (MoCT) in late 1990 water supply and flood
control were its stated purposes and finally cancelled to preserve the ecosystem of
the Tong River in 2000. According to Lee (2000a), this process of environmental
policy-making is the first case in which a developmental project, such as the dam
construction, was rejected as a function of ecological values in Korea. It was a
representative case that illustrates how the meaning of the environment has been re-
9


institutionalized and the field of water management has been restructured in Korea
since the early 1990s. For this reason, the policy-making process of the TRDC was
selected to recognize a dominant way of Korean environmental policy-making around
which the meaning of subject matters has been re-institutionalized and the field of
environmental governance has been restructured.
To investigate participants various patterns of reasoning, positions, and
political interactions in the policy- making process of the TRDC, the Argumentative
Institutional Analysis (AIA) is utilized in this dissertation. AIA is a methodology
designed to address how the dominant environmental discourse (as an institutional
rule) is transformed and meanings of the subject matter for institutional practices are
re-institutionalized through political interactions among participating actors in
environmental policy-making processes. It is a methodology for institutional analysis
that focuses on the manners of institutional changes through the investigation of
interactive relations among an emergence of different understandings of the
environment, political practices of participating actors, and institutionalization of new
meanings and social relations.
For the thesis, the field research was carried out during the period of eight
months, from October 2001 to May 2002. Documentaries and archival records about
the TRDC from involved governmental units (national governments ministries and
local governments and assembles), key persons (President of the Republic, Provincial
governor, and county managers), local residents, environmental NGOs and other
10


social groups, and media were gathered and reviewed. In addition, unstructured in-
depth interviews were conducted with twenty-one participants in the policy-making
process of the TRDC to gain detailed information about the content of participants
perspectives and political interactions. Discourse analysis focused on the content of
participants discourses and their interactions is utilized to identify involved actors
perceptions, their interactions, and results of the interactions. The methodology is
discussed at greater length in Chapter 3.
Contributions of the Dissertation
Theoretical Aspect
The current theoretical concerns on the mechanism of institutional change
through the transformative capacity of environmental policy-making processes bring
out three arguable points that have to be answered empirically if we are move to a
more concrete understanding about institutional changes. The first debatable point is
the genesis of different discourses that causes institutional cleavage in environmental
policy-making processes. Currently, many agenda-setting theorists (e.g., Baumgartner
and Jones, 1993; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993) just assume the existence of
different coalitions in which involved actors share the same belief- system and
explain policy changes through the transformation of the resource mobilization
capacity among coalitions by exogenous accidents in the field of environmental
11


governance. Thus, it is difficult to explain why different beliefs or ideas emerge
during policy-making processes. The other scholars and practitioners, such as
Giddens (1990), Beck (1992), Lash (1994), and Schlosberg (2002), turn their
attentions to the social actors reflexivity2 to existing pattern of environmental policy-
making as the genesis of plural meanings and positions. Yet it is arguable which
aspect of the existing pattern of environmental policy-making for example,
cognitive (veridicative) vs. procedural (judicative)-- generates this social reflexivity.
With the assumption of the existence of different beliefs, values, experiences,
and ideas among participants, some (Wynne, 1992; Irwin, 1995; Tesh and Williams,
1996; Dunn, 1998) argue that oppression, exclusion, and injustice embedded in the
procedural logic of existing pattern of environmental policy-making initiate various
meanings and positions in the process of policy-making. On the contrary, others
(Giddens, 1984; Beck, 1992; Jamison, 1996) assert that cognitive limitation and
unintended (or unacknowledged) consequences, which resulted from the existing
pattern of environmental policy-making, bring out multiple meanings and positions.
This controversy results in some difficulty in understanding the role of reflexive
participants in environmental policy-making processes. Are they a social agency to
emancipate from oppression and injustice or alternatively a cognitive praxis to
produce new ideas and knowledge in the processes of environmental policy-making?
2 Social reflexivity, according to Giddens (1979), means social actors subjective estimation to the
institutional practices and their institutional context that structures the specific pattern of institutional
practices.
12


The second debatable point is the purpose of participants deliberation in
environmental policy-making processes. There are three positions on the purpose of
participants deliberation according to the different understandings on participants
political practices in environmental policy-making processes. The first position,
advocating Habermas communicative theory, assumes that the purpose of
participants deliberation is public exercises to find an inter-subjective (and mutual)
understanding on the problematic situation for collective social actions. According to
Habermas (1984, 1987,1990, 1993), we can achieve this intersubjective
understanding only when we establish some procedural prerequisites, such as his
well-noted ideal speech situation. Thus, scholars in the first position concentrate
their efforts on highlighting procedural problems in the current form of policy-
making processes and designing institutional spaces to reach the mutual
understanding for environmental policy- making (Kemp, 1985; Forester, 1988, 1993;
Dryzek, 1990; Renn et al., 1995).
The second position, based on the integration of Habermas communicative
theory and Giddens structuration theory, points out that the purpose of participants
deliberation in the processes of environmental policy-making is a truthful relational-
building by open communication among participants to mobilize various knowledge
resources and to generate policy-oriented learning (Healey, 1999; Vigar et al., 2000).
The third position, following Foucaults perspective on the impossibility of the
separation between power-relation and knowledge, acknowledges that the purpose of
13


participants deliberation is a contestation aiming to obtain a hegemonic position to
incorporate their understanding on the subject matter into environmental policy-
making and to exclude others understanding (Hajer, 1995; Flyvbjerg, 1998). For
these different positions, there is little agreement about the purpose of participants
deliberation in environmental policy-making processes (Wagenaar and Cook, 2003).
The theoretical debates on the genesis of different discourses and the purpose
of participants deliberations initiate the third arguable point, the boundary of
institutional changes (e.g., policy changes). Glasbergen (1996) recognizes three
different types of institutional change technical, conceptual, and social relational-
in the current theoretical debate on institutional changes by environmental policy-
making processes. However, the issue still unresolved is what decides the type of
institutional change in environmental policy-making processes (Bennett and Howlett,
1992; Hall, 1993; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993).
Through empirical testing of these three debatable points, this dissertation
contributes to the theoretical development about the mechanism of institutional
change embedded in environmental policy-making processes.
Practical Aspect
In general, institutional changes in the environmental governance of Korea
were accomplished by the after-care pattern. This means that the government
imposed new functions of environmental management onto existing institutional
14


arrangements to resolve the problems after serious environmental accidents (Kim
1994; Yun, 1994; J. Y. Choi, 1998; MoE, 2000a). Because of this patchwork pattern
of institutional changes, the governments efforts for environmental management had
not been integrated but rather seriously fragmented among ministries and agencies
(Park and Kim, 1999). Furthermore, according Kim (1994) and Park and Kim (1999),
the bureaucratic politics and power struggles among ministries and agencies within
the government accelerated this pattern of institutional changes.
The emergence of a new context of environmental policy-making politics
since the early 1990s generates difficulties in explaining institutional changes only by
the reading of the governments activities and therefore leads to the necessity of the
understanding of the new historical situation of environmental policy-making politics
in which institutional changes are developed. For this reason, the practical aim of this
dissertation is to increase our understandings about this new situation in which
environmental conflicts are settled and environmental policies are developed socially.
These understandings, as Fischer and Forester (1993) note, are a key to recognize
how problem definitions, relational building (or power shift) among participants, and
policy-oriented learning are accomplished in environmental policy- making
processes. Also, it is a basis by which we can recognize problems in the existing
pattern of environmental policy-making in Korea and offer some recommendations
for reflexive policy-oriented learning and institutional changes by more democratic
dialogue among participating actors in environmental policy-making processes.
15


The Structure of the Dissertation
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 turns to literatures related to
the genesis of social actors reflexivity to the institutionalized pattern of
environmental governance, to the content of environmental policy-making politics
and environmental policy-making processes, and to the content of reflexive social
learning and institutional changes. Based on the literature review, the conceptual
framework of this dissertation is suggested in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 explains the methodological framework of this study. The concept
of the Argumentative Institutional Analysis (AIA) is introduced, data gathering is
proposed, and analysis procedure is explained in this chapter. In particular, the
meanings of several key concepts (e.g., institution and institutional rule) and focuses
of analysis within AIA differ from those in formal institutional analysis of the
traditional public administration. To increase an understanding about the content of
AIA, the theoretical background constructing AIA is added in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 outlines the historical developments of Korean environmental
governance since the 1960s that have run parallel to the historical process of social
development. Also, the policy-making process of the TRDC as a specific drama in the
developmental process of Korean environmental governance especially, focused on
the activities of participating actors is chronologically narrated in this chapter.
Chapter 5 demonstrates the development of environmental policy-making in
the new situation of environmental policy-making politics in an empirical manner.
16


Why different perspectives on the subject matter and multiple positions among
participants emerged, how dominant perspective of subject matter and social relations
among participating actors were restructured, and how new meanings and objects of
environmental governance were re-institutionalized are illustrated in this chapter.
Finally, Chapter 6 discusses some theoretical points, practical findings, and
policy recommendations. The current pattern of environmental governance in Korea
and the problems embedded in this pattern are explained with theoretical and practical
findings and some reflexive recommendations are suggested for resolving these
problems presented in this chapter.
17


CHAPTER 2
REFLEXIVE IDEA, ARGUMENTATIVE STRUGGLE,
AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Introduction
The object of this chapter is to stipulate a framework useful for understanding
about the mechanism of institutional change underlying environmental policy-making
processes. As many observe, the political context of environmental policy-making
processes is currently changing. Multiple actors with their own ways of reasoning
and acting and new forms of political practices emerge in environmental policy-
making processes. In particular, multiple actors and new form of interactions create
institutional cleavages by breaching the institutionalized pattern of environmental
policy-making. The emergence of these turbulent situations informs the relationship
between structure and practice and the structuring capacity of the governing discourse
that constitutes the relationship in environmental politics and policy analysis.
Especially, the constitutive capacity of environmental policy-making processes by
which a new governing discourse as institutional rule shapes the ways in how an 3
3 The current changes in the political context of environmental policy-making are explained by the
introduction of various concepts, such as a risk society (Beck, 1992) and a reflexive modernizaton
(Giddens, 1990, 1991; Beck, 1994). Responding to these contextual changes, new branches of policy
analysis, such as argumentative policy analysis (Fischer and Forester, 1993), interactive policy-
making (Healey, 1997), and deliberative policy analysis (Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003), have been
introduced.
18


environmental issue is addressed and social relationships are reproduced (Healey,
1993; Hajer, 1993; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Forester, 1999; Brulle, 2000; Innes and Booher,
2003).
Yet, the problem is that there is a little agreement on the genesis of multiple
meanings and identities that generates the situation of an institutional void, the nature
of participants deliberation in environmental policy-making processes, and the
outcome of participants deliberation practices (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Wagenaar and
Cook, 2003). Thus, how environmental policy-making processes (re) produce
institutional rules and institutional context and institutionalize new meanings and
objects into the practices of environmental governance is still contentious.
This chapter constitutes a conceptual framework through a review of various
disciplinary perspectives on the causes of institutional cleavage, the nature of
participants political practices, and the outcome of these practices. These help the
reader to understand the content of environmental policy-making processes in which
new dominant environmental discourse and social relationships are restructured and
the new meanings and objects for environmental governance are reinstitutionalized.
The Structuring Capacity of a Governing Discourse
and Its Atrophy
Faced with the new political situation of environmental governance, the
concern on the structural effects of the governing discourse as opposed to the more
19


formal political organizations, structures, and procedures has increased to explain
the institutional practices of environmental policy-making (Hajer, 1995; Healey,
1999; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003; Fischer, 2003). The governing discourse in the
field of environmental governance as an epistemological context (Rouse, 1994)
provides a particular way of understanding and behaving that facilitates legitimate
political judgments (Brown, 1994; Danziger, 1995; Espeland, 1998), fosters insights
into the situation, and presents public deliberation as the basis for determining what
actions should be taken (Calhoun, 1995; Dryzek, 1995). Thus, it produces acceptable
truth, fixes identities and social relations among relevant actors, and arranges
organizations, procedures, and practices in the field of environmental governance
(Gusfield, 1981; Eckersley, 1992; Dryzek, 1993; Sabatier and Jenkin- Smith, 1993).
Due to these effects of the dominant discourse, environmental governance (e.g.,
environmental policy-making) in a specific time and place carries its own
characteristic perspectives and ways of framing issues, or it may offer particular roles,
channels, and norms for discussion and debate (Rein and Schon, 1993: 156).
Therefore, it reflects a particular mechanism of environmental governance (Foucault,
1991).
The structuring capacity of the particular governing discourse in
environmental governance can not be permanent. Giddens (1990) and others (Beck,
1992; Wynne, 1992; Lash, 1994) explain that social actors judge the behaviors and
trustworthiness of the existing institutions of environmental governance with the
20


received information coming from their rational and moral estimations of institutional
practices at access-points.4 The persistence of the structuring capacity of the
(existing) governing discourse and the continuity of the existing pattern of
environmental governance therefore depend upon these social actors estimations
about the accountability of practices of environmental governance (Giddens, 1990;
Beck, 1992, 1996; Eckersley, 1992; Wynne, 1992; Lash, 1994; Fiorino, 1996). These
judgments, according to Fishoff (1981) and Schwarz and Thompson (1990), are
contingent upon social actors attempted maintenance of the particular way of life,
such as familiar identities and social relationships with others and life circumstances.
In other words, social actors judgments of institutions and institutional practices
depend on the confidence that those institutions will maintain peoples ontological
security (Giddens, 1990). Giddens (1990: 92) defines this security as the
confidence that most human beings have in the continuity of their self-identity and in
the constancy of the surrounding social and material environment of action. For this
reason, according to Hajer (2003), institutional practices for environmental
governance, such as the governments environmental policy-making, focus peoples
reflection on what they actually value, who they are, where they come from, and
where they want to go in environmental policy- making processes.
4 Access- points are points of connection between lay individual or collectivities and expert systems
and representatives of these systems (Giddens, 1990: 88).
21


When people recognize the threats from the governments environmental
policy-making to their lives and to the environment buttressing their lives5 through
their situated knowledge, as many observers of environmental conflicts note (Beck,
1994; della Porta and Diani, 1999), their existential anxiety is increased rapidly and
dispersed widely. They rename the feature of the problematic situation, generate
different objects to manage the situation, and redefine their identities (Wynne, 1992;
Rein and Schon, 1993). They bring more definitions of risk and meanings of life in
terms of local and cultural knowledge than are often recognized by experts (Otway,
1992; Slovic, 1992) and generate different discourses to secure their life and the
environment in environmental policy-making processes (Beck, 1996; Berking, 1996).
In this sense, they often play the role of cognitive praxis or early wamers by
identifying problems, mobilizing critical oppositions, and pointing to the need for
cognitive and institutional adjustment (Jamison, 1996).
The presence of reflexive discourses that constitute meanings of subject
matter and identities represents social actors subjective (self- referential)
performances and their self-escaping efforts from institutional constraints for peoples
ontological security (Offe, 1985; Tesh and Williams, 1996; Berking, 1996; Dunn,
5 The environment provides four different services (values) to people: provisioning services, regulating
services, cultural services, and supporting services (Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem
assessment, 2003: 8). Provisional services are the products people obtain from the environment, such
as food, water, fuel, and so on. Regulating services are the benefits people obtain from the regulation
of the environment, including air quality maintenance, water purification, climate regulation, and so
forth. Cultural services are the nonmaterial benefits people from the environment through cognitive
development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. Supporting services are those that are
necessary for the production of all other services, such as production of oxygen and soil formation.
22


1998). It is a self-presentation and justification of their existential anxiety because
existing institutions and their practices cannot preserve their ontological security.
Particularly, new discourses involve new lifestyle ideas (or tensions) that are
different from (institutionally) imposed ones. These lifestyle ideas include the
subjective and group- related constructions of actors who in this way fashion their
reality, invest it with meaning and give this meaning performative expression
(Berking, 1996: 199; italics in original). That is, they serve as the mode for
organizing ones own personal activity (Giddens, 1994).
The presence of the plurality of meanings, identities, and forms of life through
social actors self- representation signals the possible disruption or what Foucault
called problematization in institutional arrangement (della Porta and Diani, 1999).
Berking (1996: 200) explains this phenomenon that [peoples] expectations are
withdrawn from politically administrative systems and concentrated on the inner
perspectives of social lifeworlds, political mentalities and collective identities are
centered less and less on the idea of the state and more and more on the idea of
particularity. This phenomenon represents not only a simple reassertion of the
modem emancipatory ideal of human autonomy or self-determination but also a
reevaluation of the foundations of, and conditions, for human autonomy and self-
determination (Eckersley, 1992: 18). According to Eckersley (1992: 20), the
emergence of environmental movements that mobilize citizens by new environmental
discourses in western countries since the late 1960s has reflected this reevaluation to
23


the total of the inherent ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the
shared bases of social action and to the existing institutional mechanism that
imposes a specific way of life.
Beck (1992) introduces the concept of a risk society to explain the
emergence of multiple meanings, identities, and forms of life in environmental
policy-making politics. For Beck, environmental crises are unintended (or
unacknowledged) consequences generated by the existing institutional practices of
environmental governance. These unintended consequences (i.e., environmental
problems or risks), according to Beck (1996), 1) cannot be limited in term of time and
place, 2) are not accountable according to the established rules of causality, blame,
and liability, and 3) cannot effectively be compensated (or insured). A risk society
emerges because these unintended consequences which are now decided and
consequently produced by society undermine and cancel the established safety system
of provident states existing risk calculation. However, the existing institutions are
unaware, blind, and deaf to these unintended and unacknowledged consequences
(Beck, 1996: 31). A risk society is a developmental phase of modem society in which
social, political, economic, and individual risks increasingly tend to move beyond the
institutions for monitoring and protection in industrial society. Beck (1994: 10- 11)
explains the situation of the risk society:
It can be shown that not only organizational forms and measures but
also ethical and legal principles and categories, such as responsibility,
guilty and the polluter-pay principle (for tracing damages, for instance)
24


as well as political decision procedures (such as the majority principle)
are not suited to comprehend or legitimate this return of uncertainty
and uncontrollability... it is vital to re-establish the rules and bases for
decisions.
When social actors recognize the existing institutions unawareness of its
unintended (unacknowledged) consequences in a risk society, public concerns for
environmental risks and problems are spread (Eckersley, 1992; Fiorino, 1996);
relational (i.e., trust) problem between the existing institutions of environmental
governance and social actors are also formed (Giddens, 1990; Wynne, 1992; Lash,
1994). That is, the emergence of multiple discourses (meanings, identities, and form
of life) in environmental policy-making processes is a self-refuting effect of the
existing institutional pattern of environmental governance (Beck, 1996).
New Understanding about Environmental Politics
and Environmental Policy-Making Processes
The perceived incapability of the existing pattern of environmental
governance to preserve peoples ontological security allows social actors outside the
existing institutions to appear on the stage of environmental policy-making politics
(Beck, 1994).6 According to Beck (1994), the main issue that mobilizes social actors
in environmental policy-making politics is the existential anxiety that results from
the inabilities of existing institutions and their practices to preserve peoples
ontological security. Social actors represent their existential anxiety through new
6 Beck (1994) defines this phenomenon as the renaissance of political subjectivity.
25


environmental discourses for escaping from the threats imposed by existing
institutions and for actualizing new (reflexive) lifestyle ideas for their security. The
existing discourse and institutional practices structured by this discourse lose their
structural effects in the environmental policy-making politics because social actors as
social agents bring new ideational assumptions (e.g., meaning and identities) into the
processes through their reflexive conversation with the institutional condition (Rein
and Schon, 1993). Thus, environmental policy-making processes are crowded with
antagonistic forces, such as different discourses and instability of identities and social
relations.
Due to the turbulent situation of environmental policy- making processes,
Giddens (1991) explains that environmental politics involve the integration of two
different types of politics, emancipatory politics (politics of life chances) and life
politics (politics of life style or politics of self-actualization). Emancipatory
politics, according to Giddens (1991: 210), is concerned with liberating individuals
and groups from constraints which adversely affect their life chances. In this type of
politics, emancipation means that collective life is organized in such a way that the
individual is capable of free and independent action in the environments of her social
life (213). Thus, emancipatory politics has the aims of overcoming the illegitimate
domination of some individuals or groups by others and is concerned to reduce or
eliminate exploitation, inequality, and oppression (211, Italics in original). Life
politics is a politics of life (style) decision debates and contestations for self-
26


actuation among struggling social actors with subject-centered worldviews
(lifestyles) deriving from their social reflexivity (Giddens, 1991). Life politics focuses
its worldview and its political practice of a reflexive self that, from the perspective
of a self-constructed identity and in the intention of realizing itself, acts towards
changing the social world (Berking, 1996: 201).
Similarly, Beck (1994) explains the current content of environmental politics
in terms of sub-politics. In environmental politics, the main concern is an
existential anxiety coming from social actors reflexivity to existing institutions and
their practices. Social actors represent their anxieties through new environmental
discourses to alleviate problems and threats apparently imposed by existing
institutions (and their practices) and to actualize new lifestyle ideas for enhancing
their security. The focal conflicts among different discourses in environmental policy-
making politics, according to Beck (1994), are the issues related to who defines and
makes decisions on life (lifestyle) and in what way. The existing decision-making
rules and processes for environmental governance are less effective in this situation
because they are a source of social actors reflexivity to problems embedded in
existing institutional practices. For this reason, Beck (1994) claims that current
environmental politics are the sub-politics that aim the creative alteration of the rules
of the game to re-structure institutional activities of environmental governance. Thus,
the sub-politics guide or frame the re-alternation of the form of rationality, decision
process, decision style, and other rules mainly by the agent outside the existing
27


institutions. Beck (1994: 38) explains that these sub-politics are practices and
struggles for spaces, forms, and forum of style and structure formation inside and
outside the political system.
The major source of conflicts among participants in environmental policy-
making processes, as life- or sub-politics indicates, is not observable and testable
realities of the problem but ideas (i.e., discourses) for realizing a specific way of life.
These ideational conflicts create two specific characteristics of environmental policy-
making processes: incommensurability among ideas and interdependence among
participants. Reflexive social actors participate in environmental policy-making
processes with emphases of different features of the problematic situation, different
objects of social actions, and different concepts to alleviate (or to escape) threats to
their lives and life circumstance that are institutionally imposed. Yet, there are no
objective standards and criteria to compare different ideas and to select the premier
one. Because of this fundamental incommensurability among ideas, the realization of
participants ideas and ways of life (i.e., as usually incorporated into environmental
policies) depends on the relationship among participants (i.e., force- relationships) in
environmental policy-making processes (Healey, 1999). In other words, it depends on
the institutional contexts of environmental policy-making processes that imposes
specific structural imperatives on social relationships among participants (Giddens,
1984; Dyrberg, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001).
28


Institutional contexts that condition environmental policy-making processes,
according to Dryzek (1993), are constituted by institutional rules (i.e., the governing
environmental discourse) and social (power) relationships among participants that
buttress these rules. Yet the emergence of reflexive social actors and their particular
discourses creates the institutional cleavage (K. Eder, 1996) or institutional void
(Hajer, 2003) situation of environmental policy-making processes. Thus, the existing
institutional rules lose their structuring capacity. Confronted with this institutional
void situation, Habermas (1990, 1993) and his followers propose that the rational
basis for collective action (the consensus on the governing discourse) can be re-
obtained by participants communicative deliberation only when the appropriate
relational condition among participants for this process of deliberation practice i.e.,
what Habermas calls ideal speech situation- is established. This condition,
according to Habermas (1990), has particular presuppositions such as: no party
affected by what is being discussed should be excluded from the discourse; all
participants should have equal possibility to present and criticize validity claims in
the process of discourse; participants must be willing and able to empathize with each
others validity claim; existing power differences between participants must be
neutralized such that these differences have no effect on the creation of consensus;
and participants must openly explain their goals and intentions and, in this
connection, desist from strategic action.
29


When these presuppositions are established, each participant in public
deliberation processes, such as environmental policy-making processes, projects
himself into the perspectives of others and is open to reciprocal criticism of the
appropriateness of his interpretative perspectives. In particular, public deliberation
becomes a process of ideal role taking, in which participants are engaged in
checking and reciprocally reversing their interpretative perspectives, thereby enabling
them to alter their own self need-interpretations and to discover common or
generalized interests when these presuppositions are realized. Benhabib (1996: 69)
puts Habermas ideal speech situation for public deliberation in the following way:
[I]t is a necessary condition for attaining legitimacy and rationality
with regard to collective decisions making processes in a polity, that
the institutions of this polity are so arranged that what is considered in
the common interest of all results from processes of collective
deliberation conducted rationally and fairly among free and equal
individuals.
Many scientists concerned about the processes of public deliberation point out
the impracticability of the establishment of this ideal social relationship among
participants. For example, how do participants give up their strategic actions toward
securing their own aims in order to attain the agreement when they are faced with
threats to their life and life circumstances or how might the privileged participants
give up their power when they see threats to their positions (Huxley, 2002). It is
unlikely that participants will be completely able to leave aside their different aims
30


and positions to achieve the common understanding about the problematic situation
(Mouffe, 1999).
Rather than efforts for attaining consensus, participants political practices
(practices for deliberation) in environmental policy-making processes are understood
as a strategic articulation (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Stone, 1988; Beaugrande,
1997) of their discursive elements (e.g., objects and concepts) to contest different
discourses for restructuring a specific social relationship (Dryzek, 2001). That is,
participants political practices propose a war on position (Gramsci, 1971) or
construct an advocacy position (Opie and Elliot, 1996) by fixing other participants
and audiences (e.g., public opinion) into their discourses (Hajer, 1995). These
practices represent a contestation for ideational hegemony in which participants not
only try to make others see problems according to their views but also position others
in a specific way (Hajer, 1995). This fixation is accomplished by inducing normative
sanctions (Foucault, 1972; Crozier and Friedberg, 1980) or practical consciousnesses
(Giddens, 1979) from others and by repressing other participants discourses (Stanley,
1978; Brinton, 1985; Brubaker, 1985; Brown, 1994). For this reason, environmental
policy-making processes involve a character of moralization of politics (Giddens,
1991) or moral-political connectedness (West, 1994). In this fixation practice,
elements of discourse are the organic cement and source of power necessary to
mobilize support or to repress opposition for social networking (Laclau and Mouffe,
1985; Hajer, 1995; Braun, 1999; Fischer, 2003). The influence of these discursive
31


elements depends not only on their cognitive power but also on their (emotional and
moral) attractiveness (Hajer, 1995).
The realization of participants ideas and ways of life in the institutional void
situation depends on their transformative (or re-constructing) capacity of institutional
context (especially force-relationships) to support their positions (Healey, 1999).
Because some version of reality and meaning of the problematic situation are evolved
by a participants transformative or constitutive capacity of institutional context in
environmental policy-making processes, Giddens (1979) and Foucault (1980)
understand this capacity as a productive or generative power. Foucault (1980)
explains that the productive power is not possessed by a dominant agent, nor located
in that agents relations to those dominated, but is distributed or generated through
what he calls a complex social network. This power emerges from the support
which force relations find one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the
contrary, the disjunction and contradiction which isolate them from one another
(Foucault, 1978: 98). Productive power, to Foucault, is constituted by on-going
attempts to produce an effective social network, and conversely, to avoid or erode its
effect by producing various counter or oppositional networks.
The emergence of a dominant social network in environmental policy-making
processes is a contingent and temporal institutional context for surviving a dominant
environmental discourse (Rouse, 1994). This dominant network articulates a
worldview, grounded in historically specific sociopolitical conditions and production
32


relations, which lends substance and ideological coherence to its social power
(Rupert, 1993: 81). This dominant social network provides a way of understanding
the field that constitutes a situated power relation as power relationship
(Wartenberg, 1990: 150). The dominant social network leads environmental policy-
making processes through ideational elements and symbolic rules as well as rules it
by force (Cooper, 1996). Yet, there are no privileged or fundamental social networks,
but rather a series of unstable and shifting ones (Sawicki, 1991). The dominant social
network is something that circulates (Foucault, 1980: 98) and is being produced
from one moment to the next (Foucault, 1978: 93).
Hajer (1993) refers to these social networks as the discursive coalitions
because they share a specific environmental discourse; Berking (1996) coins these
networks as lifestyle coalitions because they are constituted with shared meaningful
lifestyle ideas. Related to the territorial boundary of social networking in
environmental policy-making processes, Blatter et al. (2001: 49) introduce the term
t n
imagined communities. They comment that social networks in the environmental
policy-making processes are imagined communities because they rely on
ideologies or belief systems rooted in place when, in fact, they are not territorially
bound; they transcend the boundaries of geographic regions and nation-states.
A certain (group of) participants meaning of the problematic situation
becomes a public opinion (Dryzek, 2001), collective will (Gramsci, 1971), 7
7 The term imagined communities is originally coined by Anderson (1991).
33


institutional rule (Giddens, 1984), regime of truth (Foucault, 1972), or nodal
points (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985) that (temporally) fix the meaning of the
problematic situation when the discourse successfully constructs the dominant social
network by means of social sanction. This new dominant discourse discourages the
flow of difference in meaning, setting itself up as the center of interpretative process,
and thus fixing the meaning (Brown, 1994). It is an operation of closure. The
dominant discourse discounts the value of pursuing further implications and protects
its interpretation by mobilizing social sanctions that marginalize or silence dissident
interpretations. This closure by social sanctions therefore involves the repression of
alternative meanings and discourses. These marginalized discourses, according to
Foucault (1980: 82), are characterized as a whole set of knowledge that has been
disqualified as inadequate to their task or insufficiently elaborated.
Because of participants transformative struggles, the content of
environmental policy-making processes in the institutional cleavage or institutional
void situation can be understood both as a process of structuration, in which
institutional context of environmental policy-making is reconstituted by the
reproduction of institutional rule (i.e., the governing discourse) that structures the
ways of seeing and acting, and as a process of institutionalization, in which new
meanings and objects created by new institutional rule are incorporated into
environmental policies and programs. For this new content, the institutional rule (i.e.,
the dominant discourse), institutional context of environmental policy-making
34


processes, and environmental policies are co-evolving in environmental policy-
making processes (Gualini, 2001; Hajer, 2003; Fischer, 2003).
Types of Institutional Changes
Multiple social actors bring out various reflexive ideas generating from their
experiences with the existing environmental policy-making practices that threaten the
security of their lives and life circumstances. The conflicts among participants are the
creative struggles to institutionalize their own ideas (objects and meanings) into
environmental policies through the reproduction of institutional rules. The changes of
policies, institutional rules, and social relationships are results of these creative
struggles among participants. Historically, according to Paehlke (1990) and Janicke
(1996), environmental conflicts have been a strong driver of institutional innovation
in environmental governance. For this reason, these creative struggles are recognized
as a reflexive social (and policy- oriented) learning process (Heclo, 1974; Habermas,
1975; Offe, 1985; Sabatier, 1987; Hall, 1988; Reich, 1990).
Glasbergen (1996) suggests three types of learning and their
institutionalization: technical, conceptual, and social. Technical learning consists of a
search for new policy instruments without a fundamental discussion of the objectives.
The normative legitimacy of the policy goals and cognitive appropriateness of the
policy theory are not questioned. Conceptual learning is possible when the objectives
of the policy themselves come under discussion, the perspective on the problems
35


changes, and chosen control strategy is also subsequently adjusted. Conceptual
learning becomes necessary when it appears that problems are more resilient than first
realized and when completely new problems emerge. New concepts are apparent in
the process of conceptual learning. Social learning focuses on changes of social
relations and forms of communication and interaction among actors in the field. The
basic idea embedded in Glasbergens concept of social learning is that social actors in
environmental policy-making processes can learn from each other by more open and
responsible communication. Thus, social learning is a process of re-forming relations
among actors and increasing the quality of the dialogue. Social learning is encouraged
by removing barriers to communication and encouraging interactions among actors.
In short, it is the process to reach a new form of public-public and public-private
cooperation as a mean of tackling environmental problems.
The pivotal questions are which types of reflexive learning and
institutionalization are accomplished in environmental policy-making processes and
what decides the types of learning and their institutionalization? Participants
reflexive discourses resist the existing governing discourses in environmental policy-
making processes, generate ideational (interpretative) conflicts, and challenge the
existing pattern of environmental policy-making because they reflect different logic
of reasoning (Bourdieu, 1977). As Offe and Preuss (1991: 169) note, no set of values
and no particular point of view can lay claim to correctness and validity by itself in
these interpretative struggles, but at best only after it looks upon itself from the
36


outside, thus relativizing it through the insight that are to be gained by taking the
point of view of the other. The realization (institutionalization) of participants
interpretations and ideas is dependant on the generation of others sanctions and
obligations (e.g., the establishment of a dominant social network) by participants
generalizing and normalizing capacity of their interpretations and ideas. In other
words, it depends on the force-relationships among participants in the nested
institutional context (Rein and Schon, 1993) constituted with specific institutional
rules (i.e., the prevailing environmental discourse).
The force-relationships among participants in the nested institutional context
are often challenged by the emergence of different institutional rules. For participants
in this institutional cleavage condition, the transforming or continuing of the force-
relationships is a precondition for institutionalizing their ideas (Hall, 1993; Sabatier,
1993; della Porta and Diani, 1999; Hays, 2000). Many of the current learning
theorists such as Hall (1993), Sabatier (1993), and Braun and Busch (1999)
explain the changes of force-relationship with the event causality. For example,
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smiths (1993) Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) suggests
that policy paradigms or the governing discourses persist as long as the dominant
coalition in a specific domain remains in power continuously; the force-relations
among coalitions in that domain are dependent upon the distribution of political
resources, such as money, expertise, and number of supporters, among them; and the
37


shift of force-relations (i.e., the distribution of political resources) is the product of
external events to that domain such as changes in socioeconomic condition.
Contemporary learning theorists accord little attention to the transformations
of force relationships among coalitions (among groups and individual participants) in
a particular domain by participating actors (discursive) political practices (Hajer,
1995). The ACF framework assumed that the continuity of the existing force-
relationships among coalitions in a particular domain is depended upon the
distribution of political resources. Yet, according to Foucault (1980) and Giddens
(1984), the persistence of force-relationships among coalitions depends on the
privileged coalitions normalization capacity in its discourses that constrains the way
of seeing and acting and thus constitutes force-relationship for that domain. In
environmental policy-making processes, participants develop reflexive ideas, apply
various political strategies to induce social sanctions of their ideas and to marginalize
others ideas, and mobilize other participants and audiences for re-building force-
relationships. These practices are also the participants techniques to close or repress
others ideas by social sanctions. According to Healey (1999), new social (force)
relationships are developed and new system of meaning (the governing discourse) is
evolved through participants (discursive) political practices.
The involvement of multiple actors and their reflexive ideas invites resistances
from the privileged actor or coalition (e.g., the government) because new actors and
their ideas threaten habitual inertia- such as path dependence pattern of
38


institutional practices (North, 1990; Putnam, 1993)-- and established power bases
(Mintzberg, 1979). It is difficult for the privileged actor (or coalition) to incorporate
different ideational components that threaten its position. For this reason, there is only
a possibility of the technical learning and its institutionalization when a governing
coalition (or the state) retains its (generalize and normalize) power continuously in
environmental policy-making processes, given its existing environmental discourse.
Exogenous pressures (e.g., different discourses) are diverted (or consolidated) by the
dominant coalition with additional policy instruments designed to relieve institutional
disjunctures within the existing institutional framework patch up or functional
differentiation (Hemerijck and van Kersbergen, 1999; Huxley, 2002). The alteration
or incorporation of new concepts, ideas, and discourses (i.e., conceptual learning and
its institutionalization) resulted only when the force-relationships are shifted by the
hegemonic struggles among participants (Hall, 1993; Sabatier, 1993; Wilson, 2000).
Yet, as Mouffe (1979), Laclau and Mouffe (1985), and Hall (1988) indicate, there is
no wholesale replacement of an existing environmental discourse by an entire new
discourse because of participants tactical polyvalence of discourses.
The involvement of multiple meanings and positions in environmental policy-
making processes results not only ideational struggle but also the struggle for
standing (Rein and Schon, 1993). Actors or groups have to gain their positions as the
legitimate participants of the controversy. Thus, results of the struggles among
participants are not only a cognitive but also a social relational-learning and
39


institutionalization. According to Rein and Schon (1993), participants political
practices to restructure force-relationships convey not only messages whose meaning
is constructed by others but also attitudes toward the existing pattern of interactions
among participants themselves. These practices create a behavioral world among
participants (more or less) trusting or suspicious, authentic or deceptive, contentious
or cooperative. Particularly, the content of the behavioral world (e.g., agonistic
respect, antagonistic relationship, or reciprocal relationship) constructed by political
practices of participants affects the mobilization of intellectual, cultural, and political
resources, such as the mobilization of various cognitive resources and the production
of legitimate knowledge, interpretations, and realities (Putnam, 1993; Healey, 1999;
Innes and Booher, 2003). The transformation from hierarchical governance based on
strong regulation and control in the 1970s to the current emphasis of the collaborative
governance in environmental politics has been largely achieved through the
experiences of the reflexive social relational learning.
In a hegemonic and power-seeking struggle, the social meanings of the
problematic situation and social objects for collective actions are generated by
participants political practices that are intended not to mobilize (exchange and
integrate) diverse ideational resources but to repress other participants ideas and
alienate other participation by potential social sanctions. Because these political
practices cannot readily arrange participants into the designing system for co-
designing the common interpretation of the situation, according to Rein and Schon
40


(1993), the relationship among participants forms an array of antagonistic parties.
Although these practices institutionalize some participants cognitive elements into
environmental policies by the domination over others ideas, they cannot create
collaborative attitudes among participants for the intersubjective understanding of the
situation. The power-seeking pattern of political practices cannot create reflexive
(social) relational learning, such as a reciprocal relationship among participants, that
improves mutual recognition and understanding of the true needs and desires of
others, initiates the empathetic care for others, and generates the mutual expectation
among participants that the common understanding obtained intersubjectively makes
every participants better off and their sacrifices to product this understanding will be
redeemed (Putnam, 1993; Mathews, 1996).
Most western nations initially particularly in the 1970s approached
environmental problems through technical learning and its institutionalization
(Dryzek, 1997). Although public recognitions of environmental problems increased,
the public belief in the constructability of society the control of the nature and
society through science and in material progress still remained socially in place
(Glasbergen, 1996). Government agencies were seen as necessary to provide the
leadership for social development. In that situation, environmental problems were
basically recognized not as structural problems (for instance, the basic normative
values were guaranteed) but as side payments of industrial development. They were
narrowly regarded as local hygiene problems generated by industrial pollutants that
41


threatened the human health. Thus, symptoms rather than causes primarily defined
problems and policy strategies (Fiorino, 2001).
To address such problems, end-of-pipe strategies (e.g., smoke-stack
scrubbers) were utilized with the governments direct regulation that emphasized
hierarchy and control (Hajer, 1995). Particularly within the government, the
responsibilities for the task of tackling the problems were largely mandated into one
sector of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
United States, which tried to tackle the problems compartmentally, dividing the
environment into air, water, and soil. The relationships between the government and
others (e.g., industry and other stakeholders) were legalistic and adversarial in 1970s.
The regulated entity was seen less as a participant in environmental policy-making
and governance than as an object of regulatory authority (Glasbergen, 1996).
According to Glasbergen (1996), the subsequent changes in existing environmental
policy were mainly adjustments based on experiences with the implementation of the
policy. There were many adjustments on the margins, but no fundamental changes.
The changes were mostly concerned with facilitating the implementation of the
objective set.
Since the early 1980s, the reflexive conceptual learning about past approaches
has emerged (Rinquist, 1993; Jone, 1994; Fiorino, 2001). Our Common Future from
the Brundtland Commission (1987: 22) described the new phase: The time has come
to break out of past patterns. Attempts to maintain social and ecological stability
42


through old approaches to development and environmental protection will increase
instability. Security must be sought through change. The performance crisis or
deficiency of the dominant direct-regulatory strategy had generated distrust of the
governmental authority as well as stifling individual initiatives that brought multiple
actors- such as individual scientists, (international) environmental Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), citizen groups, and industry- into the field of
the environmental governance, and initiated efforts to redefine goals and strategies.
These efforts, as Jone (1994) reported, were concerned more on the strengthening of
intrinsic environmental values (i.e., a shift from human health concern to the health of
the ecosystem), the balance between environmental and economic values, and the
concept of sustainable development (involving ideas such as limits to growth,
linking poverty and environmental quality, and the uncertainty about environmental
outcome).
These efforts of various actors introduced at lest five new conceptualizations
about environmental problems (Jone, 1994; Glasbergen, 1996): 1) environmental and
economic goals were conceived as complementary rather than conflicting; 2)
environmental problems demanded reform of the governments environmental
management because it could not adequately handle global environmental problems,
non-point (mobile) sources, and cross-media pollutants; 3) the fragmented structure
and intersections of environmental law and policies made it difficult to tackle
environmental problems; 4) procedures, such as alternative dispute resolutions, were
43


required for dealing with uncertainty and complexity; and 5) new strategies based on
market incentives, information, and government-industrial partnerships gained
attention.
But conceptual learning since the 1980s did not generate visible progress in
environmental governance, especially in the U.S. compared with European countries
(Fiorino, 2001). The reason arguably may lie in the institutional context in
particular, power relations of reflexive social learning process. Even though various
actors from the government, citizen groups, industry, and environmental NGOs
initiated new concepts and strategies, the conceptual learning and institutionalization
had advanced through environmental occupation of the relatively vacant nooks and
crannies of the existing institutional framework (Hays, 2000: 230). According to
Fiorino (2001), conceptual learning in the 1980s made little progress into policy-
making; the legal, bureaucratic, and institutional frameworks were still based on
technical (instrumental) learning. To borrow Kingdons (1995) framework, although
the policy and problem streams led conceptual learning in the 1980s, the existing
political stream reinforced existing institutional patterns of environmental
governance.
Environmental problems can be recognized as the policy problems that
involve not only the complexity but also the uncertainty. These characteristics stress
the need for collaborative efforts among social actors to decide what action should be
taken in the absence of the conclusive conceptual evidence. What was lacking in the
44


learning phase of the 1980s was a concern about the social mechanism or reflexive
institutional arrangement (Hajer, 1995), which may generate a productive dialogue
among social actors. Thus, it was difficult to institute a common vision and language
(Barber, 1984), to initiate participants preparations to take responsibility for
implementing policy (Glasbergen, 1996), and to produce participants self-
transformations (Warren, 1992) toward a more ecologically sustainable society.
Due to limitations in the conceptual learning in the 1980s, reflexive learning
of social relations has been begun mainly in the 1990s.8 Before the 1990s, reflexive
social learning might have been concentrated mainly upon the characteristics of
environmental problems, thus, technical and conceptual learning were generated. Yet
the current learning phase is about the condition of the reflexive social learning
process e.g., the institutional context of environmental policy-making processes as
a public deliberation process. This social learning is a reflexive phenomenon based on
the problems embedded in the current processes of environmental policy-making.
Faced with the new situation of environmental governance, reflexive social
(relational) learning reflects upon the way in which the fundamental meaning of the
environment is produced, that is, the relationship between learning and power.
In the technical learning phase, environmental governance was based on
control, with government as the effective controller. The relationships between
8 Szerszynski (1996) conceptualizes this new phase of social learning as the emergence ofneo-
modernism in ecological thought. Theoretically, according to him, this phase is affected mainly from
Habermas.
45


regulators and targets were often distant and adversarial. The recognition of the
complexity and uncertainty of environmental problems challenges this hierarchy.
According to Max Weber (1978), control of information is the basis of governments
bureaucratic and instrumental control. As the current complexities and uncertainties
illustrate, political resources in a pluralistic society perceptions, ideas, concepts, and
information for the control and decision are dispersed widely among multiple social
actors. In this situation, the perceptions of the problem, production of the common
worldview, initiation of relevant actors responsibility, and self-transformation of
actors depend on practical consciousness or trust among actors (Giddens, 1994;
Hajer, 1995). Meanings, concepts, and knowledge are currently produced in the
process of environmental policy-making by the power-seeking struggle for hegemony
among actors. This pattern of environmental policy politics limits integration and
collaboration among actors in the process of environmental policy-making. What is
then needed is moral-political connectedness to generate practical consciousness
and trust.
The focus of the current learning phase is thus a re-establishment of the
trustful social relationships among social actors e.g., social capital (Coleman, 1990;
Putnam, 1993) that can mobilize dispersed resources so that collective action can be
orchestrated to resolve environmental problems (Healey, 1997; Innes and Booher,
1999). In this situation, the pattern of governance and quality of dialogue among
multiple actors determine the problem-solving capacity far more than the specific
46


policy instruments (Wallas, 1995). Based on reflexive social (relational) learning,
participatory policy analysis (deLeon, 1990, 1997; Dryzek, 1990; Fischer, 1993,
2000), interactive policy- making (Healey, 1997), network management (Glasbergen,
1995), and collaborative resource management (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000) have
been increasingly recognized as useful methodologies for environmental policy-
making and management and started an institutionalization in the processes of
environmental policy-making and management. In general, they represent discursive
designs of the institutional form that can generate more horizontal, trustful, and
democratic social relations through accumulation of various reflexive ideas,
argumentation, and negotiated social choice (Giddens, 1994; Hajer, 1996).
Conceptual Framework
The Structuring Capacity of a Governing Discourse
and Its Atrophy: the Genesis of Institutional Cleavage
In the field of environmental governance, the governing discourse as an
institutional rule limits the interpretation regarding the problematic situation, imposes
identities and social relationships among relevant actors, and arranges political
institutions, their practices, procedures, and strategies. It therefore provides a specific
pattern of environmental governance. For this reason, according to Dryzek (1997), the
historical development of environmental governance has resulted in the evolution of
47


different discourses and the institutionalization of new meanings and objects provided
by these discourses.
The continuity of the structuring capacity of the governing discourse and the
existing pattern of environmental governance are dependant on social actors
judgment concerning the accountability of institutional practices in environmental
governance. Giddens (1990) and others (e.g., Beck, 1992, 1996; Wynne, 1992; Lash,
1994) explain that social actors assess the practices of environmental governance,
such as the governments environmental policy, based on their experiences at the
interfaces with the existing institutions. In particular, this judgment is contingent
upon social actors attempted maintenance of their ontological security and ways of
life (Fischoff, 1981; Schwarz and Thompson, 1990; Giddens, 1990). When social
actors recognize threats from the practices of environmental policy-making structured
by the prevailing discourse to their lives and to the environment, their existential
anxiety increases rapidly, the concern on environmental risks spreads widely, and
serious relational problem between the existing institutions and social actors emerges
(Douglas, 1985; Eckersley, 1992; Fiorino, 1996).
Faced with institutionally imposed threats, social actors rename (or reffame)
the feature of the problematic situation, generate different meanings of the problem,
and redefine their identities (Offe, 1985; Rein and Schon, 1993; Hajer, 2003). They
introduce different ideas, concepts, and discourses to (re) secure their lives and life
circumstances (Giddens, 1990, 1991; Beck, 1992; 1994; 1996; Berking, 1996; K.
48


Eder, 1996). These different ideas, concepts, and discourses explain social actors
situationally adapted and contextualized definitions of the problematic situation and
their identities and social actors reflexivity on the existing foundation of institutional
practices for environmental governance (Tesh and Williams, 1996; Dunn, 1998).
According to Beck (1992), the content of this reflexivity is the social actors
awareness of the existing institutions ignorance/ neglect of unacknowledged
consequences of their institutional practices. The institutional practices for
environmental management (e.g., the governments construction of refuge dumping
facilities for waste management) often bring out unacknowledged and unintended
consequences (e.g., the destruction of ecology and residents way of life in the host
area). Yet the existing institutions based on the prevailing discourse frequently
overlook (or are unaware) of these unintended consequences. Because of the neglect
of these unintended consequences, as Beck (1996) notes, the occurrences of
environmental crises represent a self- refuting problem of the existing institutional
mechanism of environmental governance. As the cognitive- praxis, social actors (i.e.,
social actors discourses) identify these unintended problems, mobilize critical
oppositions, and point to the need for institutional adjustment (Jamison, 1996).
This conceptual understanding on the logic of social reflexivity leads to the
following proposition:
49


Proposition 1. The Genesis of Institutional Cleavage
Social actors generate different discourses when they recognize threats
to their lives and risks to the environment from the existing
institutional practices of environmental governance structured by a
particular discourse (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992, 1994, 1996; Wynne,
1992; Berking, 1996; K. Eder, 1996).
New Understanding about Environmental Policy-Making
Processes: Process of Structuration and Institutionalization
The inability of the existing mechanism (pattern) of environmental
governance to preserve the security of peoples lives and the environment allows
social actors from outside the formal institutions to enter into the environmental
policy-making processes. These new actors bring various reflexive ideas (e.g.,
different meanings of the problematic situation and definitions of identities) created
by their experiences with the existing environmental policy-making practices (Rein
and Schon, 1993). Environmental policy-making processes therefore become
crowded with different meanings concerning problematic situation and various
identities (positions). Yet, there are no common grounds, no objective criteria, to
compare incommensurable (or antagonistic) ideas among participants in these
turbulent situations.
Participants realization of their ideas and identities depends on other
participants (and audiences) sanctions and obligations to their ideas and positions.
Thus, they are strongly affected by social relationships in the nested institutional
50


context structured by the governing discourse (Rein and Schon, 1993). For
participants, the transformation and continuation of social relationships in this nested
institutional context through the mobilization of social sanctions to their ideas and
positions is the precondition for incorporating their ideas into environmental policies
(della Porta and Diani, 1999). The primary purpose of participants is a restructuration
(or transformation) of institutional context with their discourses for institutionalizing
their own ideas. According to Giddens (1979) and Foucault (1980), participants
transformative capacity of institutional context for incorporating their ideas into
environmental policies is a productive or generative power. This power is constituted
by the generation of force- relationships, or what Foucault (1986) called the complex
social network.
Participants political practices in the transformative struggle are the
articulation of their ideas to reconstitute (or transform) the dominant social network
by the mobilization of social sanctions and by the repression of others ideas (Hajer,
1995; Opie and Elliot, 1996; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Dryzek, 2001; Young, 2001). These
participants practices manifest the conflict over position (Gramsci, 1971; Laclau and
Mouffe, 1985), or, the fixation of other participants and audiences into their ideas and
positions (Hajer, 1995). For this fixation, participants utilize various political
strategies to mobilize social sanctions and to marginalize others ideas and positions.
When (a group of) participants successfully construct the dominant social network
with means of social sanctions, their ideas become a legitimated collective will (i.e.,
51


the dominant public opinion) that defines the meaning of the problematic situation.
This dominant idea (and discourse) as a regime of truth essentially defines the
meaning of the situation and represses dissident interpretations.
Since the transformative can be seen as an on-going struggle among
participants, environmental policy-making processes are both a process of
structuration, in which institutional context of environmental policy-making (i.e.,
force- relationships) is reconstituted through the reproduction of the governing
discourse, and a process of institutionalization, in which new meanings and ideas
embedded in new governing discourse are incorporated. Environmental policy-
making processes reproduce a new dominant environmental discourse, the
institutional context, and their environmental policies (Gualini, 2001; Fischer, 2003;
Hajer, 2003).
The conceptual understanding about the content of environmental policy-
making processes offers the proposition on the nature of participants political
practices:
Proposition 2. Nature of Participants Deliberation in Process of
Structuration and Institutionalization
Participants political practices in environmental policy- making
processes are contestations of discourses through strategic articulations
of their discursive elements for mobilizing social sanctions to their
discourses and for de-legitimizing others discourses (Foucault, 1980;
Giddens, 1984; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Stone, 1988; Hajer, 1995;
Opie and Elliot, 1996; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Dryzek, 2001; Young, 2001).
52


Types of Institutional Changes
The environmental conflicts in environmental policy-making processes are
initiated not only by a cognitive difference but also by a social relational problem
among participants. Thus, both a cognitive and a social relational change are possible
through the transformative struggle among participants, even though many of the
current policy-oriented learning theorists are concern just on a cognitive change.
The institutionalization of participants ideas depends on their productive or
generative power (Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984). The incorporation of their ideas
into environmental policies or what Rein and Schon (1993) call framing, is
dependant on how they obtain a hegemonic position in environmental policy-making
processes through the mobilization of social sanctions to their ideas and positions.
When a certain participant (or group of participants) successfully structures force-
relations by means of social sanctions, their ideas affix the meaning of the
problematic situation and concomitantly repress others ideas. The meaning and
object embedded in this dominant idea are incorporated into environmental policies
and programs. Because of this power-seeking hegemonic struggle, there is only a
possibility of technical learning and its institutionalization when the existed dominant
coalition (or actor) retains power continuously by the normalization of its own idea.
The other participants dissenting or opposing views are diverted by this dominant
coalition with additional policy instruments designed to relieve institutional
disjuncture within the existing mechanism of environmental governance (Hemerijck
53


and van Kersbergen, 1999; Huxley, 2002). Therefore, conceptual learning and its
institutionalization (e.g., incorporation of new ideas, concepts, and objects) result
only when the force-relationships are shifted, that is, when the (existed) dominant
coalition (or actor) is replaced by the new dominant coalition (Hall, 1993; Sabatier,
1993; Wilson, 2000).
In the power-seeking hegemonic struggles, the relationships among
participants represent arrays of antagonistic parties (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Mouffe, 1999). Conventionally, political practices in these struggles cannot arrange
participants into the designing system for co-designing the common interpretation of
the problematic situation (Schon and Rein, 1994) and therefore cannot create
collaborative attitudes among participants for intersubjective understanding of the
situation. In short, participants political practices cannot create (social) relational
learning that improves mutual recognition of the true desires of others, initiates the
empathetic care for others, and generates the mutual expectation that the common
understanding obtained intersubjectively makes every participant better off (Putnam,
1993; Wallas, 1995; Mathews, 1996: Glasbergen, 1996). For these reasons,
Proposition 3. Types of Institutional Changes
The nature of participants political practices conditions types of
institutional changes. Because participants political practices in
the processes of environmental policy-making aim at the
domination over others, 1) there is only a possibility of technical
learning and its institutionalization when the existing dominant
coalition (or participant) retains power continuously. On the
contrary, 2) there is a possibility of conceptual learning and its
54


institutionalization when the existing dominant coalition is
substituted by other coalition (Hall, 1993; Sabatier, 1993;
Glasbergen, 1996; Hemerijck and van Kersbergen, 1999; Wilson,
2000; Huxley, 2002). Yet 3) it is difficult to obtain social relational
learning and its institutionalization (Putnam, 1993; Wallas, 1995;
Mathews, 1996: Glasbergen, 1996).
Conclusion
The intimate relationship between the environment and political institutions
has been central in environmental politics since the 1970s. The problems of an
administrative state in handling environmental problems (Taylor, 1984; Lester, 1989;
Janicke, 1990), the appropriate types of political institutions for incorporating
environmental values (Oplus, 1977; Orr and Hill, 1978; Heilbroner, 1980; Rodman,
1980), and the linkages between the environment and a democracy (Dryzek, 1990;
Press, 1994; Williams and Matheny, 1995; Lafferty and Meadowcroft, 1996) have
gained much attention from environmental policy scholars and practitioners. In
particular, they are concerned the institutional pattern of environmental governance in
which environmental considerations are incorporated into the institutional level
(Paehlke and Torgerson, 1990; Goodwin, 1992; Mathews, 1996; Lash et al., 1996).
They therefore emphasize structural problems embedded in the existing pattern of
environmental governance and suggest changes to increase institutional capacity for
responding adequately to environmental challenges. In spite of the increasing
attention to institutional changes, the conceptual framework that can explain the
55


mechanism of institutional change in environmental governance is still
undertheorized (Dobson, 1993; Brulle, 2000).
Historically, the institutional development of environmental governance has
resulted by the evolution of different environmental discourses and the
institutionalization of new meanings and objects provided by these discourses
(Torgerson, 1995; Williams and Matheny, 1995; Dryzek, 1997). We propose that the
main reason of the current theoretical limitation on institutional changes is a lack of
careful studies on how different discourses are evolved and institutionalized, that is,
limited attention has been paid to the process of structuration and institutionalization
(Beck, 1996). The recent contestable debates on the content of environmental policy-
making processes in environmental politics and environmental policy analysis
represent reflexive efforts for increasing theoretical understanding about the
mechanism of institutional changes underlying environmental policy-making
processes.
This chapter has advanced a possible conceptual framework that can explain
the content of environmental policy-making processes in which institutional rule
(environmental discourse), institutional context, and environmental policies are (re)
produced. Basically, this framework assumes three premises. First, this framework
focuses on the structural effects of ideological and cultural elements (e.g., ideas,
values, and beliefs) in environmental governance. Although Sabatier and his
colleagues (1993) assume these elements as a priori (fixed or pre-determined), the
56


framework in this chapter emphasizes what Giddens (1979, 1984) calls the duality of
structure. The different ideological and cultural elements that have emerged from
social actors reflexivity on the prevailing ones and the new dominant (ideological
and cultural) elements that structure institutional practices of environmental
governance are reproduced by involved actors deliberations in environmental policy-
making processes.
Second, participants deliberation practices and institutional context that
constitutes these practices are not separable. Since Habermas, many policy theorists
assume the possibility of the separation and suggest models of institutional context as
a prerequisite (e.g., Habermas ideal speech situation) for participants practices
(Flyvbjerg, 2001). Yet this framework asserts that institutional context can be re-
structured by participants deliberation practices in environmental policy-making
processes. And third, the framework emphasizes that institutional rules, institutional
context, and environmental policies are generated, even dictated by participants
deliberation practices in environmental policy-making processes.
57


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN:
THE ARGUMENTATIVE INSTITUTIONAL
ANALYSIS (AIA)
Introduction
This dissertation purposes to identify the mechanism of institutional change
underlying environmental policy-making processes that explains how the dominant
environmental discourse and power relation are reproduced by participants political
practices and how new meanings and objects in the dominant discourse are
incorporated into the practices of environmental governance. The aim of this chapter
is to construct the specific methodological framework and the data-processing
procedure for empirically satisfying this purpose.
The current environmental conflicts in environmental policy-making
processes reflect the interpretative and representative struggles (Hajer, 1995).
Multiple participants bring in various meanings, positions, and environmental
discourses that create these struggles. In this turbulent situation, the content of
environmental policy-making processes is both a restructuring process of institutional
context by reproducing new governing discourse that constraints ways of seeing and
acting as well as social relationships, and an institutionalizing process of new
meanings and objects into the practices (Healey, 1993; Hajer, 1995; Gualini, 2001).
58


The institutional context of the field of environmental governance and environmental
policies are defined and constituted by participants political practices.
Considered the current growing concern of the constitutive capacity of
environmental policy-making processes, the problem is that a concrete
methodological framework that can explain how participants political practices
transform the institutional context and produce environmental policies is not yet well
developed. If the institutional context and environmental policies are constituted by
participants political practices in environmental policy-making processes, as Hajer
(2003: 102) suggests, we need a different set of tools that allow for such a more
dynamic analysis of political formation, mutual positioning, and the influence of
particular policy discourses. This chapter offers a specific methodological
framework, theoretical background constructing the framework, and the data-
processing procedure for empirically identifying the content of various environmental
discourses among participants, participants political practices, and results of these
practices.
The Background of Argumentative
Institutional Analysis
The constructive idea of AIA is based on the theoretical development of
historicity or history of ideology in social sciences. Since Marx, political
theorists (e.g., Gramsci, Mannheim, Althusser, and Habermas) have concerned with
59


the structuring effects of a prevailing ideology (set of ideas) in social practices.
According to these theorists, this ideology is not a simple system of ideas but is
embedded in institutions and rituals as an institutional rule that constrains these social
practices (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). Any instance of social practice therefore can be
interpreted in terms of its relationship with ideological context (Fairclough, 1995). In
the current new institutionalism (March and Olsen, 1989; North, 1990; Powell and
Dimaggio, 1991), the structuring effects are understood for as institutional rules (or
institution itself) because the prevailing ideology constitutes an enduring feature of
social life (i.e., solidarity) by regulating a way of addressing a certain social affair and
a way of acting. For this reason,
In particular, the emergence of various social conflicts in western society
since the late 1960s (e.g., civil right, race, gender, and the environment) has generated
increasing concerns about the relationship between social structure and practices and
the transformation of the dominant ideology (or culture) that structures this
relationship for understanding social change in such disciplines as post-structuralism,
post-Marxist theory, social construction theory, feminist theory, and the theory of
postmodernism.9 The common theme of these theories, according to McHoul and
Grace (1993), is opposition to the traditional Marxism, the Hegelian understanding of
9 Since the 1960s, the focal issue related to the structuring effects of ideologies is how a dominant idea,
belief, or discourse is transformed and reproduced, that is history of idea (Kuhn, 1962; Bourdieu,
1977; Giddens, 1979; Foucault, 1980; Habermas, 1984, 1987). Currently, the study on the process of
policy-making in which a new dominant discourse is reproduced is strongly affected by Habermas
communicative theory, Foucaults power/knowledge, and Giddens structuration theory.
60


the continuity of ideology, and the progressivist theory of ideology. These theories
point out that ideological struggles are not limited only to economic class struggles,
as new social conflicts related to race, gender, and ecology illustrate. Also, each stage
of ideological change is not marked for its continuity in terms of the progress of
universal reason. A superior ideology does not always replace an inferior one. Rather,
these theories emphasize a recursive character of social life and a mutual
interdependence of structure (ideology) and agent (practices).10
A dominant ideology as social structure contains codified elements (e.g.,
Foucaults archives) that constitute institutional practices. Yet these elements are
empty without practices sustain to them. The institutional practices and institutional
contexts are constantly examined and experienced by social actors. The knowledge
coming from social actors experience with the prevailing ideology is used to recast
practices and the existing ideological frame that structures the practices. Giddens
(1979) explains this basic understanding through his concept of duality of structure
in which a dominant ideology as social structure constitutes institutional practices;
this dominant ideology is reproduced by social interactions among social actors.
Thus, the major concerns in these theories are those who have been culturally
degraded, politically oppressed, and economically exploited by existing political and
social contexts structured by the particular ideology and their diverse local practices
for changing these contexts.
10 Kuhn (1962) explained this aspect of ideological change with his concept of paradigm in natural
science.
61


Many who are concerned about social interactions in ideological changes
(particularly post-structuralism) assume a language use as the major instrument of
social interactions by which people construct a social world. According to Harre et al.
(1999), language is a repository of accumulated ideology-bound experiences and its
use also has been affected by existing ideology because different ideologies
appropriate different linguistic resources, such as vocabularies, judgments, and
categories. As the structural rule, the epistemic bases embedded in ideologies regulate
the way of addressing social affairs (Foucault, 1972). This regulated way of
addressing a social affair in a specific domain by the particular ideology defines the
concept of discourse as a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice
from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1995: 14), constituted by a specific
ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that is produced, reproduced, and
transformed in a particular set of practices (Hajer, 1995: 60). In particular, it
conditions the way we define, interpret, and address social affairs (Dryzek, 1997).
By adopting a particular discourse, people have a basis for acting together in an
organized manner (Brulle, 1994).
In a particular domain of social practice (e.g., environmental governance), the
prevailing discourse produces objectives of collective social action and positions of
relevant actors, arranges institutional apparatuses (e.g., organizations and policy
programs), and provides strategies (and technologies) for realizing objectives
(Foucault, 1972). The prevailing discourse controls social activities in the particular
62


domain through the justification (or normalization) of the existing objectives,
institutional arrangement, and strategies. For these reasons, the cultivation of different
discourses in the particular domain means a problematization of the prevailing
discourse and a resistance to the existing social order for social change. Competing
discourses reflect different patterns of reasoning, i.e., different collective habits of
mind and action (Bourdieu, 1977). The emergence of competing discourses
introduces an epistemological conflict and generates a truth game in the domain.
The regeneration of the dominant discourse is the contingent outcome of a struggle
between competing discourses (Rorty, 1989).
The discursive struggles for generating a new discourse are not conducted in a
void, rather, they are affected by social arrangements. For this reason, the process of
discursive interactions and a discursive context (e.g., power relationship) in which the
process of discursive interactions is accomplished warrant much attention (Flabermas,
1984, 1987, 1990; Foucault, 1980, 1986,1991). Habermas (1984, 1996) posits that
new discourse as the universal foundation of social practice can be founded inter-
subjectively by discursive interactions among social actors only when we establish a
specific discursive (deliberative) context for these discursive interactions. He
proposes five key prerequisites to construct this context: 1) any party affected by
what is being discussed should not be excluded from the discourse (the requirement
of generality); 2) all participants should have equal possibility to present and criticize
validity claims in the process of discourse (autonomy); 3) participants must be willing
63


and able to empathize with each others validity claims (ideal role taking); 4) existing
power differences between participants must be neutralized such that these
differences have no effect on the creation of consensus (power neutrality); and 5)
participants must openly explain their goals and intentions and in this connection
desist from strategic action.11
When these prerequisites for ideal speech situation are established,
according to Habermas (1990: 198), all concerned in principle take part, freely and
equally, in a cooperative search for truth, where nothing coerces anyone except the
force of the better argument. For Habermas (1990), discursive interaction
(argumentation) with the aim of restoring a consensus that has been disrupted (67)
is a reflexive form of communicative action and the structures of action oriented
toward reaching understanding always already presuppose those very relationships of
reciprocity and mutual recognition (130) among participants. When these
relationships are established by his prerequisites, new discourse that guides social
practice in a particular domain is obtained inter-subjectively without systematic
distortion of powerful actors (e.g., the state).
In spite of its attractiveness, Habermas perspective elects critical opposition
on the impossibility of a consensus between competing discourses and the
impracticability of his model of ideal speech situation (Fay, 1987; Fraser, 1990;
Young, 1990, 2000; Mouffe, 1999; Dryzek, 2001; Flyvbjerg, 2001). Dryzek
11 Listed in Flyvbjerg (2001: 91); also see Kemp (1985).
64


(2001:661) acknowledges that the ideal of consensus has long been rejected... even
those sympathetic to the Habermasian tradition where consensus once played a
central role. Habermas, according to Flyvbjerg (2001: 92-3), describes to us the
utopia of communicative rationality but not how to get closer to it, that is, his project
lacks an agreement between ideal and reality, between intentions and their
implementation. Particularly, Habermas lacks concrete understanding of relations of
power, which is needed to implement social change.
The apparent impossibility of consensus among different discourses generates
concerns about Foucaults contextualism or ontology of present. To Foucault, the
dominant discourse (or knowledge) is produced not in a pre-given ideal social context
but in a historically conditioned social context, that is, relationships of force:
We should abandon a whole tradition that allows us to imagine that
knowledge can exist only where power relations are suspended and
that knowledge can develop only outside its injuctions, its demands,
and its interests... we should abandon the belief that power make mad
and that, by the same token, the renunciation of power is one of the
conditions of knowledge. We should admit rather that power produced
knowledge... that power and knowledge directly imply one another;
that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a
field of knowledge. (Foucault, 1979: 27)
Furthermore, Foucault (1978: 94) notes that,
Relations of power are not in a position of exteriority with respect to
other types of relationships (economic processes, knowledge
relationships, sexual relations), but are immanent in the latter; they are
the immediate effects of the divisions, inequalities, and
disequilibriums which occur in the latter, and conversely they are the
internal conditions of these differentiations.
65


For Foucault (1978), power is not possessed by a dominant actor nor located
in that actors relation to those dominated because power is exercised through an
actors actions only to the extent that others actions remain appropriately aligned
with them. Power is co-constituted (and dispersed) by those who support and resist it;
Power is constituted by dynamic attempts to produce effective social network, and
conversely, to avoid its effect by producing counter networks. The emergence of the
dominant network in the particular domain is the social context for surviving a
specific discourse (Rouse, 1994). Because social actors have the possibility either to
oppose or transform the existing relationships of power, there are no privileged (or
fundamental) social networks but rather a series of unstable and shifting ones
(Sawichi, 1991). This possibility of resistance is a point of departure to transform a
particular discourse for social changes. Thus, according to Foucault (1977: 154),
discursive interactions to transform or displace a particular discourse are events
aimed at the reversal of a relationship of forces, the usurpation of power, the
appropriation of a vocabulary turned against those who had once used it, a feeble
domination that positions itself as it grows lax, the entry of a masked other.
Foucault envisions that new discourse structuring social practices in the particular
domain is obtained not by inter-subjective consensus among participants in discursive
interactions but by the alternation of relation of power resulted from participants
discursive contestations.
66


The Content of Argumentative
Institutional Analysis
AIA is a methodology to explore the mechanism of institutional changes
underlying policy-making processes. The constructive ideas coming from the theories
about history of ideas generate the particular meanings of key concepts and focuses of
analysis in AIA. To AIA, institutions do not refer to the formal structures or
procedures of public organizations as in the traditional public administration view.
Rather, as Giddens (1984) and other new institutionalists (North, 1990; Powell and
Demaggio, 1991) assume, AIA understands institutions as the enduring practices or
features of social life in a particular domain sustained by particular ways of thinking
and acting. A discourse (i.e., a set of idea) that constitutes these ways of thinking and
acting represents an institutional rule or structure. It influences actors in policy-
making processes by shaping the interpretation of the problems they have to deal with
and by framing the action for the solution (Fischer, 2003). Thus, the production,
reproduction, and transformation of discourses in policy-making processes are a root
cause of institutional change. In this sense, AIA focuses on the displacement or
transformation of discourses in policy-making processes to explain institutional
changes.
As Giddens (1984) duality of structure indicates, discourses not only
regulate practices of policy-making, they also are reproduced by political interactions
among participants in policy- making processes. The continuity or transformation of
i
i
67


discourses is contingent on these political interactions among participating actors.
Moreover, as Foucault (1978) argues, the continuity or transformation of discourses
depends on power-relationships among participants in policy- making processes. The
driving force of institutional change is a transformation of power-relationships by
participants social interactions (Healey, 1999). For these reasons, AIA focuses on
how power-relationships among participants are transformed in policy-making
processes to explain the way of institutional changes.
In policy-making processes, the content of participants different discourses is
represented in linguistic forms and participants interactions are conducted through
the utilization of these linguistic resources (Stone, 1988; Fischer and Forester, 1993;
Rein and Schon, 1993). By articulation of these linguistic resources, participants try
to impose their view of reality on others, suggest certain positions and practices, and
criticize alternative social arrangement in policy-making processes (Hajer, 1993:
47). The analytical focus of AIA therefore is on linguistic forms of different
discourses and the styles of the articulation of these linguistic resources to identify the
content of different discourses and the pattern of participants interactions.
Based on some premises above, AIA helps to explain the mechanism of
institutional changes underlying policy-making processes by the discovery of the
manner of the transformation of discourses. For this aim, AIA applies discourse
analysis that integrates Foucaults three analyses i.e., archeology, dispositif, and
genealogy analysis.
68


The urgent problem or a problematic situation that initiates the necessity of
policy-making is interpreted by the existing discourse. Also, it generates new
discourses that interpret the problem and problematic situation differently. Related to
the content of these discourses, archeology intends to discover a discursive
formation, i.e., the regularity of objective, participants position, policy concepts
(conceptualizations), and strategies in each participants discursive practice. In
particular, it focuses on the discovery of the specific rules embedded in participants
discourse what Foucault calls archive in accordance with which objective,
participants position, and concepts have been formed (Foucault, 1972). For
participants, Foucaults archive is the set of rules forming the condition of inclusion
and exclusion in discursive practices that enable the emergence of certain objective,
position, and concept, strategies and prevent others.
For Foucault (1980: 194), dispositif (or apparatus) means ensemble of
discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative
measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral, and philanthropic propositions,
or, the system of relations that can be established between these elements. In
general, it might be a specific pattern of governance in a particular domain. The
particular dispositif or pattern of governance at a given historical moment functions
strategically as a response to the urgent need. Thus, strategic imperatives generated
by the interpretation of urgent problem with the particular discourse act as the matrix
for an apparatus. In the policy- making process, participants generalize strategic
69


imperatives by the interpretation of urgent problem with their own discourses and
initiate particular pattern of action programs to solve the urgent problem based on
their own strategic imperatives. The focus of dispositif analysis in policy-making
processes is how participants generalize their own pattern of action programs based
on the strategic imperatives.
The basic perspective of Foucaults genealogy on the history of idea is that it
is not a progress of universal reason but a depiction of power (Dreyfus and Rainbow,
1982). History has been advanced from one domination to another. Genealogy aims
to record the emergence of imposed idea-( discourse) in a particular period (i.e.,
domination), not by its appropriation but by dispositions, maneuvers, and tactics.
Genealogy outlines the historical conflicts and strategies of domination by which
discourses are constituted and operated (Anderson, 2003). In policy-making
processes, genealogy focuses on participants strategies of domination to construct a
(dominant) discursive alignment (i.e., the dominant social network in the specific
domain) to impose their discourses over other and thus into politics and policies.
Confronted with heterogeneous discourses and discursive elements in policy-
making processes, participants strategies for domination represent a tactical
polyvalence of discourses (Foucault, 1978) in which heterogeneous discursive
elements in different discourses are realigned with or opposed to one another to
construct a dominant social alignment. In linguistic terms, these strategies in
discursive practices are intertextuality or heteroglossia (Kristeva, 1980; Bakhitin,
70


1981; Fairclough, 1992). The participants strategy or intertextuality in discursive
practices is a process of citing, quoting, and lamenting others discursive elements
(and discourses) for refuting, confrontation, and supplementation (McHoul and
Grace, 1993). Bakhitin (1981: 291) explains a function of this intertextuality that,
[A]t any given moment of its historical existence, language is
heteroglot from top to bottom: it represents the co-existence of socio-
ideological contradictions between the present and the past, between
different epochs of the pasts, between different socio-ideological
groups in the present, between tendencies, schools, circles, and so
forth, all given a bodily form. These languages ofheteroglossia
intersect each other in a variety of ways, forming new socially
typifying languages.
For this character of discursive practice, Fairclough (1995) asserts that the
patterns of intertextuality are an indicator of socio-cultural conflicts and a barometer
of their evolution. Through the analysis of this intertextuality, 1) the position of
participants, 2) the emergence or change of discursive alliances among participants,
and 3) the dominantly supported discourse are recognized.
Faced with interpretative struggles among participants different discourses in
policy-making processes, AIA utilizing three analytical tools that might explain 1)
how new dominant discourse that regulate ways of addressing the problematic
situation are reproduced, 2) power-relations among involved actors are reconstituted,
and 3) policy programs are re-established through the analysis of the content of
participants different discourses, the style of participants discursive interactions, and
the outcome of the interactions. Thus, AIA proposes to discover how the governing
71


discourse is (re) produced and how this reproduction generates a new pattern of the
governance in the particular domain.
Research Design
Data Gathering
The necessary data to investigate the controversy in the policy-making process
of the TRDC with AIA for discovering the mechanism of institutional change are
involved in the relevant actors various statements addressing the TRDC. The
selection criteria of statements are their functions because they bring force involved
actors perspectives, positions, and interactions through enunciation (Fairclogh, 1992;
McHoul and Grace, 1993; Anderson, 2002). Thus, statements that include involved
actors objectives, positions, particular policy concepts, strategies, epistemic notions
(archive), strategic interpretations of the urgent problematic situation, and interactions
with other actors are necessary to study the TRDC.
The important consideration to obtain these statements is who were the
involved actors creating statements and where the statements were produced, or the
boundary of actors and space. The practice of policy-making is accomplished
generally within an institutionalized space for policy-making.12 In Korea, the space
12 Thus, Sabatiers (1993) Advocacy Coalition Framework, Renns (1992b) social arena model,
and Palmlunds (1992) social drama focus on the structure of policy arena that affects patterns of
policy-making.
72


for policy-making of multi-purpose dams had been formed by the Multipurpose Dam
Act of 1966 untill 1999. According to this law, the policy had been decided by the
limited formal actors (i.e., the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) within
the national government. Yet, the space for policy-making was expanded to the
outside the corridor of the national government by involved actors, which increased
the relevant actors in the policy-making process of the TRDC.
Because of the expansion of the space and involved actors, four categories of
involved actors were identified by the review of previous studies and news scripts and
discussions with informants about the controversy of the TRDC (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. The Categories of Involved Actors in the Tong River Dam Controversy
Categories Actors
1. Conflicting actors Ministry of Construction and Transportation, residents in Youngwol County, residents in Jungsun County, residents in the planned evacuated area, and environmental NGOs (especially the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement).
2. Key persons the President of Korea, the governor of Kangwon Province, and managers of Youngwol and Jungsun counties.
3. Audiences a. news media. b. group of national congressmen, group of writers, association of radio and television producers, religions (Catholic and Buddhist) groups, international environmental NGOs, social organizations in Youngwol and Jungsun counties (e g. Junior chambers and associations for the prosperity of the county), and so on. c. Kangwon provincial government, Youngwol County government and assembly, Jungsun County government and assembly, the Ministry of Environment, the Korean Forest Research Institute under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, and the Bureau of Cultural Properties under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. d. Korean Water Resource Research Institute, National Institute for Disaster Prevention, Korean Environmental Institute, and so on.
4. Mediator Policy Adjustment Committee for water management in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM).
The first category is the conflicting actors, who generated their own
discourses and participated continuously to the process of the controversy with their
own discourses for affecting outcomes of the process. The second category is the key
73


persons who were final decision-makers such as the President at the national level,
the governor at the provincial level, and managers at the county level. Because
political actions of these persons reflected the trends of the public mood (e.g., public
opinion), their statements indicated the dominantly supported opinions in their
administrative districts at a particular time.
The third category represents the audiences. Although these audiences did not
produce their own discourses, they indirectly affected the controversy through the
ideational connectedness with the conflicting actors, the functional relevance with the
process of the dam-construction decision, or the scientific studies about the embedded
problems in the TRDC. This category involves four sub-categories. The first sub-
category represents national news media that reported conflicting actors perspectives
on the TRDC. Their coverage either supported or criticized a particular actor with
their own patterns of editorialization of conflicting actors argumentations. The
second sub-category represents (international, national, and local) social and political
groups that were supporting or criticizing the specific conflicting actor and
establishing ideational alliances with this actor. The third sub-category represents the
governmental organizations that were functionally related to the process of the dam-
construction decision. The fourth sub-category represents research institutes that were
either supportive or critical of particular conflicting actors through their own
scientific research.
74


The final category represents the mediator of the controversy. In this case
study, the mediator was ultimately a governmental unit within the Office of Prime
Minister (OPM) that tried to integrate and adjust conflicts about water management
among governments, departments, and civil organizations.
The statements of involving actors were obtained by documentary review
method over the period of eight months from October 2001 to May 2002 (see Table
3.2). Although the TRDC started early 1991 and was terminated in June 2000, the
involved actors written statements in documents between September 1990 and May
2002 were gathered to identify the genesis of the controversy and to recognize policy
changes that were caused by this event.
Table 3.2. Primary Sources for the Study
Actors Primarv Sources
]. Government units plans, proposals, processing reports, public announcements, and research papers that were related to the TRDC, government documents related to Environmental Impact Assessment, and records of public hearings
2. County assemblies assembly records and public statements
3. Environmental NGOs and other social groups policy proposals and public statements (manifestos)
4. Residents in the host area public statements
5. Key persons public announcements
6. Research institutes research papers, journal articles, and conference papers
7. Media news scripts of the major newspapers and journals and special television programs that were related to the controversy of the TRDC
For documentary review, the author of this thesis listed the necessary
documents by reviewing previous studies, news scripts, and discussions with
informants. He then contacted the government units (e.g., the MoCT, the KWRC, the
75


MoE, the OPM, and three local governments), county assemblies, environmental
NGOs (e.g., the KFEM and Uiryong Conservation Club), and residents in the host
area and visited their offices and houses to access the listed as well as additional
documents. The documents they held were copied. Research papers, journal articles,
and conference papers were obtained through contacting the original authors. Journals
and video-tapes recording special television programs about the TRDC were
purchased. Also, the researchers who had earlier studied the TRDC and preserved
relevant documents were contacted to obtain additional documentation.
In addition to documentary review, unstructured in-depth interviews were
conducted in the same period of documentary review. Interviews were a necessary
data gathering method for undertaking the analysis focusing on processes (Patton,
1990). Because depicting process requires detailed description, the experience of
process varies for different people, and participants perceptions are keys to
understand process; thus, as stipulated by Patton, the open-ended interview is used.
Therefore, interviews were conducted to gain information about the entire policy-
making process of the TRDC and conflicting actors perceptions and their
interactions in this process.
The first stage for interviewing was identifying the best (or key) informants to
provide thick description of the TRDC. For selecting these interviewees, a snow-
ball sampling technique was employed and was initiated after a review of news
scripts and previous studies and discussions with the informants who had a thorough
76


understanding about the whole process of the TRDC. Primarily, the target persons for
interviewing were selected based on their positions during the controversy of the
TRDC. The MoCTs and MoEs officers, members of OPM, the local governments
officers, staffs of KFEM, representatives of local citizen associations, representatives
of the evacuating people, and news media were interviewed. Prior to the interview,
the target persons were contacted, the research topic was introduced, the nature and
purpose of the research was provided, and confidentiality was offered through
telephone. After their consents, 21 interviewees were selected and venues and
schedules for interviewing were arranged (see Appendix B).
The procedure of unstructured in-depth interview was conducted with three
steps. The research at first encouraged interviewees to describe freely their own
points of view to the TRDC, their perceptions on others points of view, and the
reasons supporting their views and perceptions. Then, they were asked several
questions about the meanings of words and concepts, interviewees objects, and their
positions underlying their description. Finally, the author verified his understanding
with interviewees. Fourteen interviews were tape recorded with interviewees
consent. In the seven cases in which the interviewees declined to be recorded, notes
were taken during the interview. The process of this interview was reviewed and
approved by the Human (subject) Research Committee (HRC) in University of
Colorado at Denver.
77


The documentary review and interviews were used in this data gathering
process for data triangulation. The TRDC controversy continued almost a decade.
Within this long period, several documents had disappeared and persons in
governmental and environmental organizations had been rotated. Thus, interviewees
poor recall and inaccurate articulation were supplemented by documentary review
and the content of disappeared documents was recognized by interviews.13 The
gathered data including documents (originals and copies), transcriptions and notes of
interviews, tapes of recorded interviews, and diskettes that have the transcriptions of
interviews are preserved by the researcher and will be kept for three years.
On the surface, the controversy of the TRDC was conceived as struggle for
dam construction. However, it expanded and involved various issues of
environmental governance through the developmental process of controversy, such as
water management, conservation of the environment, land planning, and so forth.
Thus, laws and policies related to these various fields in Korea and previous studies
about the controversy of the TRDC were gathered and reviewed to understand the
historical situation of the TRDC controversy in Korean environmental governance in
addition to statements produced by involved actors.
13 In addition to interviews, the same content of involved actors statements duplicated in several
documents even though they were published in different time. Thus, the content of disappeared
documents could be identified through other documents.
78


Data Analysis
In interpretative and representative struggles among involved actors in policy-
making processes, actors statements indicate the existence of different discourses
(objects, actors positions, strategies, and epistemological rules that produce these
objects, positions, and strategies) through enunciation (Halliday, 1978; Potter and
Wetherell, 1987; Fairclough, 1992). Also, these statements contribute to the
construction of a dominantly supported discourse and social relations among relevant
actors by involved actors articulation (Fairclough, 1992). This dissertation therefore
traces the content of different discourses and the style of discursive practices among
involved actors through the analysis of involved actors statements to understand how
involved actors language use contributed to or neglected the construction of the
dominantly supported discourse and social relationships in the policy-making process
of the TRDC.
The focus of data analysis using discourse analysis is to find the existence and
content of different environmental discourses among relevant actors, patterns of
involved actors discursive interactions for constructing power-relationships, and the
content of new dominantly supported discourse and policy programs in the TRDC.
Thus, the segments of gathered data (statements from documents and transcribed
interviews) were sorted into categories according to the chronology of events and
involved actors. Also, they were coded according to the involved actors discourses,
discursive interactions among involved actors, and outcomes after the controversy.
79


These categories were derived from the conceptual framework and propositions of
this dissertation. In particular, two additional coders were selected during coding
process to increase an inter-coder reliability or investigator triangulation (Patton,
1987).14
Data analysis in this dissertation is constituted in three steps. The first step is
the analysis about the existence and content of different discourses in the TRDC
controversy. Its purpose is to find discursive formations constituted with participants
objectives, positions, and policy-oriented concepts, strategies, and epistemic notions
(archives) that structured these formations through analysis of regularity and
dispersion (consistence and variance) of these discursive elements among involved
actors statements (Foucault, 1972). In addition to different discursive formations,
strategic imperatives generalized through the interpretation of the urgent situation by
their own discourses and pattern of action (policy program and management) to
accomplish their objectives embedded in involved actors statements were coded and
the consistence and variance of them among involved actors were analyzed in this
step. This first step analysis is to answer the research question about the emergence of
social reflexivity or institutional cleavage. Also, it increases an understanding about
involved actors patterns of reasoning and acting working within their own discourses
(Skillington, 1997).
14 These additional coders were graduate level students in Korea. Coders were trained, worked
independently, and prohibited from discussing studies with one another.
80


The second step is an analysis of discursive interactions among involved
actors by which social relations and a dominantly supported discourse are reproduced
through intertextuality (Kristeva, 1980; Bakhitin, 1981; Fairclough, 1992). Its
purpose is to answer the research question about the process of structuration in which
social relationships among involved actors are reconstituted by their discursive
interactions. Intertextuality (or heteroglossia) that explains the pattern of discursive
interactions among involved actors is about the process of citing, quoting and
lamenting others discursive elements and discourses among involved actors for
refuting, confrontation, and supplementation. Through the analysis of this
intertextuality in involved actors statements, the emergence or change of the
discursive alliances and oppositions among involved actors and the dominantly
supported discourse among involved actors are recognized. The patterns of
structuration are therefore identified with the analysis of the patterns of intertextuality
among involved actors.
The third step is an analysis of the content of new dominantly supported
discourse and policy changes generated by this new discourse. The hegemonic
discourse not only restructures the social relationships among relevant actors in the
specific domain but also institutionalizes new ways of addressing and acting into the
practices (Hajer, 1995). Therefore, the content of new dominantly supported
discourse (i.e., discursive formation) is identified by the analysis of the regularity
(consistence) of objectives of water management, policy-oriented concepts, and
81


epistemic notions in statements existing in new acts and plans for water management
produced after the TRDC controversy. Also, the content of policy changes resulted by
new dominant discourse is discovered through the analysis of directions of action to
actualize new objectives produced by new discourse in statements existing in new
acts and plans for water management produced after the TRDC controversy. In
particular, the boundary and mechanisms of institutional changes in environmental
governance of Korea are recognized through the analysis of the second and third
steps.
Research Validation
AIA purports to discover the mechanism of structuration and
institutionalization underlying policy-making processes. It focuses on the
transformation of the dominantly supported discourse by relevant actors discursive
practices in policy-making processes. Yet, these discursive practices in policy-making
processes are fluid and difficult to model on the general scale because the content of
discourses has a temporal and place-specific character and the transformation of the
dominant discourse is outcome of situational and tentative discursive interactions
among involving actors (Healey, 1993; Hasting, 1998; Tonkiss, 1998; Harre et al.,
1999). The context dependent characterizations of discursive practices offer some
difficulty in confirming the internal and external validity of the research.
82