Hun Myoung Park

International University of Japan
Public Management and Policy Analysis

International University of Japan
Office 311, 777 Kokusai-cho
Minami Uonuma, Niigata
949-7277 |  Visit Personal Website

Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

His research interests include policy analysis & modeling, public management information systems (e-government), public & nonprofit management, and econometric data analysis. He is currently studying Web accessibility of government Web sites and its implications for e-government policy and management.

Park, Hun Myoung. 2016. Moon-Young Lee's Transcendence Ethics in Conflict Management: Lee’s Nonviolence, Conflict Episode, and Principled Negotiation. World Environment and Island Studies 6(2): 99-108.
Abstract: Moon-Young Lee’s transcendence ethics are compared to Pondy’s (1962) conflict episode and Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s (2011) principled negotiation. Lee’s nonviolence, like conflict episode, posits various phases of a conflict between the weak and the strong and requires the weak to persevere with persecution and wait patiently for the right time. Like principled negotiation, Lee’s nonviolence adheres to rationality and objective standards without release of emotional enmity. Personal ethic to obtain knowledge and pursue agreement is consistent with principled negotiation, which suggests inventing options for mutual gain. Social ethic and self-sacrifice do not appear in conflict episode and principled negotiation. A conflict episode, “Lieutenant‘s Gentle Revolt,” illustrates how Lee’s nonviolence and principled negotiation can be effectively applied, especially to a bureaucratic model of conflict in which the counterpart is bad and powerful. Lee’s nonviolence is a likely choice for those who do not have power and who are persecuted by the strong, but must deal with violence of the strong. In fact, nonviolence, although sounding only theoretical and idealistic, provides practical and realistic guidance for conflict management.
Park, Hun Myoung, and James L. Perry. 2013. The Transformation of governance: Who are the new public servants and what difference does it make for democratic governance?American Review of Public Administration 43(1): 26-49.
Abstract: The latter 20th and beginning of the 21st century have ushered in new forms of governance, opening the gates to what has been variously described as a “new public service,” a “multisectored public service,” and a “state of agents.” As government authority is dispersed, we increasingly rely on these new public servants for service delivery and policy implementation. But who are now the agents of the state? How might the changed makeup of a new public service alter our expectations about democratic governance? The questions we investigate in this study are, first, now that the public sector has been transformed, what are the characteristics of the agents of the new governance? And are the new public servants, in the words of Charles Goodsell, “ordinary people”? We use the General Social Survey to shed light on our focal question. Our results suggest that public servants in for-profit settings resemble traditional civil servants in many ways. The growing ranks of social, health, and education public servants in nonprofit settings are distinct in many ways from civil servants and for-profit public servants. Implications of the changing composition of the public sector in an era of transformed governance are discussed.
Park, Hun Myoung, and James L. Perry. 2008. "Do Campaign Websites Really Matter in Electoral Civic Engagement? Empirical Evidence from the 2004 Post-election Internet Tracking Survey." Social Science Computer Review 26 (2): 190-212.
Abstract: This study explores the impact of campaign web sites on electoral civic engagement by examining 2004 Internet Tracking Survey data. Propensity score matching and the recursive bivariate probit model are employed to deal with endogeneity and the missing data problem, which are often ignored in existing literature. Findings show that effects of campaign web sites vary across individual engagements and generally support reinforcement theory rather than mobilization theory.

Substantive Focus:
Science and Technology Policy PRIMARY
Comparative Public Policy SECONDARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory SECONDARY
Policy Analysis and Evaluation PRIMARY