RESEARCH ON THE GOVERNANCE OF GOVERNMENT NETWORK PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AGE OF BIG DATA

With the popularization of mobile terminals, information is becoming more and more unimpeded, along with the advent of the era of big data. It brings both opportunities and challenges to the governance of government network public opinion. Using the literature research methodology and the case analysis, combing the research results of domestic and foreign scholars, this paper analyzes the current situation of the network public opinion governance, concludes that having initially built a big data platform for network public opinion and realized the transformation from managing to governing network public opinion, the government strengthens the awareness of the rule of law of network public opinion gradually. Also, it is believed that the government has not fully grasped the opportunity brought about by the big data, with idea, technology as well as ethical dilemma remaining. Finally, from the three aspects it provides development strategies for the government to create a healthy and green network public opinion ecology.

Aligning a Multi-Government Network With Situational Context

The governance of major metropolitan areas is often associated with a “fragmented” and “uncoordinated” multi-government apparatus, frequently sculpted from years of particularistic ad hoc administrative reforms. This image of dysfunctional structure gains high salience when the metropolitan context is accentuated by complexity and fluidity, especially where intense paradoxical forces of economic development and ecological sustainability are present. The most visible “solutions” for such a state often come from bureaucrats seeking to “streamline” government according to norms of standardization and hierarchy. But, calls for reform may also come from scholars of polycentric government, who see the problem as a misalignment of administrative structure with the metropolitan context. This article adopts the latter, less-appreciated perspective that argues such dysfunctions in a metropolitan multi-government network are essentially problems of adaptive organizational design. Different than the bureaucratic model, treatises on new public management or group-behavior theory, it emphasizes the contextual nature of public administration by employing the holistic framework of “organizational systems.” It illustrates the logic by introducing a toolbox for multi-government design that speaks to the adaptive qualities of government networks in whole metropolitan areas. Its purpose is to reinvigorate this holistic approach in thinking about the way we look at multi-government networks in major metropolitan areas.

Collaborative governance difficulty and policy implication

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the case of the disaster involving the South Korean ferry, Sewol; offer policy implications; and point to the difficulty of collaboration in the functioning of the national disaster management system. Design/methodology/approach – The government network approach of this paper is adopted in order to study how to link different policy actors, how to deal with disaster issues in their networking, and how to produce social-political resilience. This paper explores why the national incident management system was not working properly in terms of “governance networking”, and focuses on changes that have been made to the legal system and the government organizational system since 2000. Findings – The principle results of the analysis are as follows: first, the collaboration between organizations that existed at the time of the accident focused only on sharing resources, and service delivery involved little connection between organizations. Second, assessment of the scale of the disaster was not carried out correctly because of dysfunctional relations between government network organizations and disaster victims, which affected both sides’ awareness of policy issues and priorities. Originality/value – This paper found that an integrated disaster management framework was not available, and activities were carried out for the sake of form. Also, no governance network for collaboration had been systematically built up, and there was also little collaboration between public and private organizations.