Collaborative and network governances can be adapted into a governance model for building an integrated system. It is common between these governances that they can make co-managing and co-ruling as a way to move
Chapter 02 away from the existing bureaucratic hierarchy and solve policy problems.
However, they are different in that collaborative governance is process-centered, emphasizes an autonomous co-ruling, concentrates on network cooperation and the corresponding results, focuses on the governance as a network, while the network governance is structure-centered and concentrates on adjustment and structure of interests arising between the relevant interested parties in order to solve policy problems.
Additionally collaborative governance takes a new social problem-solving approach to create new public values, transcending existing organizational boundaries and policies through interchanges between autonomous actors and organizations, whereas network governance is a way to solve social problems through mutual consensus in an informal and autonomous manner.
The collaborative governance is characterized by allowing participation of non-governmental organizations or community members, direct involvement of stakeholders, seeks intercommunications related to formally organized collective action and public problem-solving based on public entity-led interchanges. In contrast network governance is characterized by maintaining horizontal relationships among independent and autonomous stakeholders on the basis of their voluntary participation and cooperation, enables informal and flexible networks, and emphasizes pertinent public opinions by means of regulations through autonomous control with a down-top approach avoiding regulations or legal process.
The nationwide public transport system has a number of stakeholders intricately involved. But intercity bus services are directly related to the public’s right-of-travel. Network governance fails in attempting to keep a horizontal relationship and managing conflicts.
So the collaborative governance type is judged to have higher suitability for managing expected conflicts by public institutions like the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport who actively requires stakeholders to participate seeking to solve stakeholder conflicts of integration of public transport through intercommunications.
If the collaborative governance type is more suitable as a governance
model for building an integrated system of public transport then the key task is how to organize stakeholders. To do this the Committee on Bus Reform, created by Seoul in 2004 when the bus transport system was reorganized, can be the benchmark. Above all, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport precedes the research project on the integrated system of nationwide public transport with making an in-depth study concerning the legal basis, objects, scopes, structures, procedures, contents, methods, benefits, and risks of integration. Such studies can be performed by the Korea Transport Institute.
Meanwhile the tentatively titled National Intercity Bus Reform Committee will need to be formed and operated. As seen in Figure 1.11, the committee would be composed of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, metropolitan local governments, the intercity bus office for National Federation of Unions of Bus Transport Services, civil society organizations, experts for transport, business management, law, accounting, and so on. The number of its members can be adjusted depending on their function and role.
The committee plays a role in discussing and deliberating agendas requested both by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and from research projects, then finally reviewing and implementing the agendas consented by the committee members on the side of the ministry. An upmost need of the committee is to reflect the advantages of the collaborative governance, such as forming a network between its members, creating a bond of sympathy, respecting opinions, emphasizing communication, managing conflicts constructively at the time of disagreement between its members and intensifying discussions about the agendas for discussion and presentation of implementation measures.
As shown in Figure 1.12, the National Intercity Bus Reform Committee plays a role in discussing, adjusting, deliberating, deciding integration agendas, reviewing the legal system related to the integrated system of the intercity bus and implementing the agendas decided by the committee in terms of the ministry. On the other hand, the Korea Transport Institute
Chapter 02
studies the systems of routes, fares, information system, transfer system, administrative management related to intercity bus integration and develops agendas. Interested parties consisting of intercity bus companies, civil society organizations, and residents present their proposals to the committee or ministry and attempts are made to reflect them in the reform project.
Figure 1.11 Nationwide Intercity Bus reform Committee
I]ZB^c^hignd[AVcY!
>c[gVhigjXijgZVcYIgVchedgi
I]ZWj^aY^c\d[Vc^ciZ\gViZY
hnhiZb[dgi]ZcVi^dcl^YZ
ejWa^XigVchedgiVi^dc I]ZCVi^dcVa
;ZYZgVi^dc
d[Jc^dchd[7jh
IgVchedgiVi^dc
HZgk^XZh
8^k^ahdX^Zin
dg\Vc^oVi^dch
:meZgih\gdjeh
Figure 1.12 the roles between actors for building an integrated system of intercity buses
I]ZGZ[dgb8dbb^iiZZ
[dgi]ZCVi^dcVa>ciZgX^in7jh
Y^hXjhh^dch!VY_jhibZcih!
YZa^WZgVi^dch!YZX^h^dch
I]ZB^c^hignd[AVcY!
>c[gVhigjXijgZVcYIgVchedgi
^chi^iji^dcgZk^Zl!
^beaZbZciVi^dc
HiV`Z]daYZgh
^ciZgX^inWjhXdbeVc^Zh!gZh^YZcih!
X^k^ahdX^Zindg\Vc^oVi^dch
I]Z@dgZVIgVchedgi>chi^ijiZ
hijY^Zhdci]ZhnhiZbh
d[gdjiZh![VgZh!^c[dgbVi^dc
gZedgih!igVch^i!VcY
VYb^c^higVi^kZbVcV\ZbZci