Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation / development arguments : analysis of Korea´s Saemangeum project
By: KIM, Seoyong
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer, June 2003Policy Sciences 36, 2, p. 125-149Abstract: This paper examines, through argument analysis & grid-group model, how cultural bias, as the frame of reference of an advocacy coalition (AC), brings about irresolvable conflicts and produces divided arguments between coalitions for development and conservation in Koreas Saemangeum project. Based on different cultural biases, two ACs the advocacy coalition for development (ACD) and the advocacy coalition for conservation (ACC) interpreted the same facts differently in line with their cultural orientations and ways of life. The dynamic argument patterns reflected each coalitions cultural bias, which restricted the frame of reference of actors in each AC. After reviewing argument analysis as an analytic tool, we introduce cultural theoryin which ways of life, consisting of cultural biases and social relations, amplify the irresolvable conflicts between two ACs. Second, to show the culturally constructed nature of the conflicts, we analyze the contrasting arguments between the ACD (dominated by a hierarchy bias) and ACC (led by egalitarianism) in the Saemangeum project. Third, we discuss the implications of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavskys cultural theoryto advocacy coalition framework (ACF) as follows: 1) constraining effects on inter-coalitional learning by cultural biases, 2) coexistence of different solidarities under a coalition, and 3) asymmetric relationships between parties in a coalition
This paper examines, through argument analysis & grid-group model, how cultural bias, as the frame of reference of an advocacy coalition (AC), brings about irresolvable conflicts and produces divided arguments between coalitions for development and conservation in Koreas Saemangeum project. Based on different cultural biases, two ACs the advocacy coalition for development (ACD) and the advocacy coalition for conservation (ACC) interpreted the same facts differently in line with their cultural orientations and ways of life. The dynamic argument patterns reflected each coalitions cultural bias, which restricted the frame of reference of actors in each AC. After reviewing argument analysis as an analytic tool, we introduce cultural theoryin which ways of life, consisting of cultural biases and social relations, amplify the irresolvable conflicts between two ACs. Second, to show the culturally constructed nature of the conflicts, we analyze the contrasting arguments between the ACD (dominated by a hierarchy bias) and ACC (led by egalitarianism) in the Saemangeum project. Third, we discuss the implications of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavskys cultural theoryto advocacy coalition framework (ACF) as follows: 1) constraining effects on inter-coalitional learning by cultural biases, 2) coexistence of different solidarities under a coalition, and 3) asymmetric relationships between parties in a coalition
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.