Democratic Innovations and Citizen Participation: Comparing Participatory Initiatives in South Korea and the European Union

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the blog articles belong solely to the author of the content, and do not necessarily reflect the European Commission's perspectives on the issue.

Submitted by Laure Gillot-Assayag on

Democratic Innovations and Citizen Participation: Comparing Participatory Initiatives in South Korea and the European Union

EU and South Korea
Amid historically low levels of trust in national governments throughout OECD nations, South Korea and the EU are pioneering participatory reforms that signal a shift toward more inclusive, citizen‑centred governance. The KEY report Democratic Participatory Experiments maps the strengths, limits and distinctive features of each region’s participatory ecosystem – from compulsory budgeting and citizens’ assemblies in Korea to the EU’s multi‑level digital petitions and transnational panels.

With trust in national governments at historic lows across OECD countries, participatory reforms in South Korea and the European Union reflect a broader democratic transformation toward more inclusive, citizen-centred forms of governance.

“Democratic Participatory Experiments: A Comparison of Democratic Initiatives in South Korea and the EU”, a report published by KEY (Korea Europe & You, a French nonprofit focused on strengthening Europe - South Korea connections), provides the first comparative mapping of the strengths, limitations, and distinctive features of participatory democracy ecosystems in South Korea and the European Union. It examines a wide range of participatory mechanisms, from mandatory participatory budgeting and citizens’ assemblies to digital petitions and transnational participatory panels, highlighting how different models of citizen engagement can generate lessons for strengthening democratic participation.

The report examines their respective institutional frameworks, participatory practices, and democratic innovations, addressing the following question: how can participatory experiences and mechanisms developed in each context inspire and enrich one another?

The authors first analyse participatory mechanisms in South Korea, showing how democratic civic mobilisation since the 1990s, legal reform, and digital innovation have combined to embed participation in public administration; they then map existing democratic mechanisms in the EU, focusing on how the EU has developed different types of participatory tools to address legitimacy and trust concerns within its multi-level governance system; and conclude by drawing comparative lessons from both models and offering recommendations to strengthen participatory governance.

The main strength of the South Korean participatory model lies in its speed and digital integration, which create a strong perception that citizen input can generate immediate institutional reaction. South Korea stands out for having embedded participation deeply in law through compulsory participatory budgeting, citizens’ assemblies, and digital petitions, yet these mechanisms remain vulnerable to underfunding, unequal access to participation, and risks of political capture.

The EU’s multi-level institutional structure offers stronger protection against direct political capture. Its distinctive strength lies in its capacity for institutional experimentation, creativity, and normative ambition: it seeks to accommodate participation across 27 member states and multiple institutional layers. However, participatory tools are fragmented, often difficult for citizens to navigate, and not always clearly connected to legislative outcomes.

The comparison shows that different forms of participation require tailored reforms: co-decision mechanisms need stable resources and protection from political reversal; deliberative forums require stronger links to decision-making; agenda-setting tools need safeguards against capture; and accountability mechanisms require greater digital inclusion. Participatory assemblies and broader participatory mechanisms could also benefit from stronger links with existing national lifelong education initiatives, providing participants with the knowledge and resources necessary to better understand policy issues and make informed decisions.

Though the two systems face different weaknesses, both need greater visibility, accessibility, and safeguards to ensure that participation meaningfully shapes democratic decision-making.

About the Author
Dr. Laure Gillot-Assayag is a specialist in democratic theory and democratic participation. She is currently a UNU-CRIS Visiting Fellow, Senior fellow of the Global Governance Institute (Brussels), and a “Democratic Vistas” Postdoctoral Scholar at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. Prior to that, she served as a Policy Analyst at the European Parliament, as a Legislative Fellow in the U.S. Congress (Washington, D.C.), and at the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. She also contributed her expertise as a consultant on democratic education for the UN. Laure received her PhD in Political Studies from EHESS (Paris, France) in 2025, with a dissertation on participatory and deliberative democracy. She holds a university diploma in Korean Studies from the University of Bordeaux and four master’s degrees in law, history, and philosophy, from French universities and grandes écoles.

Hyunkyeong Yun is a Junior Policy Analyst at the OECD’s Science, Technology and Innovation directorate (STI/STP), where she works at the intersection of research governance, digital policy, and international cooperation. She has contributed to flagship OECD publications including the STI Outlook 2025 and the Digital Education Outlook 2023, and led analytical work on the Egypt Innovation Review Report 2026. Hyunkyeong holds a Master of International Governance and Diplomacy from Sciences Po Paris and is fluent in English, Korean, and French.