This paper explores the transformative journey of cultural governance in Korea, elucidating the delicate nature of such governance models through the lens of the Cultural City Project (CCP). Tracing the evolution of Korea’s urban development policies from post-WWII reconstructions to contemporary paradigms, the study aims to provide an in-depth analysis of Korea's endeavor to cultivate a distinctive model of cultural governance conducive to its societal norms and values.
In the pursuit of developing a nuanced paradigm of cultural governance, various cities in Korea have been navigating policies fostering the integration of cultural creativity within urban developmental frameworks. Central to this discussion is the CCP, an emblematic initiative highlighting public-private partnerships in promoting local arts and culture. The project embarked on a trajectory aimed at decentralizing cultural governance, fostering local community engagement, and enhancing regional cultural prosperity. However, the intricacies of political transitions have surfaced as formidable challenges, revealing the vulnerable facets of cultural governance models like the CCP. Despite initial optimism, recent political shifts have culminated in uncertainties, policy reconfigurations, and alterations in focus, underscoring the inherent fragility of the operational dynamics of cultural governance.
While robust collaborative synergies and vibrant cultural dynamism characterized the early phases of the CCP, the study unravels how subsequent policy recalibrations and governmental transitions have precipitated a nuanced shift in focus towards economic imperatives, such as local business promotion and job creation. The narrative of the CCP’s evolution accentuates the susceptibility of cultural governance models to changing political landscapes and policy orientations. The precarious nature of cultural governance is further exemplified by recent government announcements concerning the CCP’s future, resonating with elements of surprise and uncertainty among stakeholders and researchers alike. Such developments prompt a reflective evaluation of the CCP, not merely as a conduit of cultural promotion, but also as a poignant illustration of the fragility characterizing cultural governance models.
This paper endeavors to contribute a well-rounded exploration of Korea's CCP, advocating for a cautious and reflective approach in interpreting and analyzing cultural governance models. In chronicling the developmental journey of the CCP, this study employs a multi-method approach comprising literature reviews, policy document analyses, and numerous interviews with various stakeholders. Such a comprehensive methodology fosters an enriched perspective, enabling an exploration of the complexities and unique attributes intrinsic to the cultural governance processes of each participating city. In doing so, it emphasizes the need for enhanced empirical engagements and a careful avoidance of overgeneralizations, fostering a balanced discourse that truly resonates with the complex realities of cultural governance in contemporary societies.

References
Anheier, H. K., & Isar, Y. R. (Eds.). (2012). Cultures and globalization: cities, cultural policy and governance. Sage.
Campbell, P. (2011). Creative industries in a European Capital of Culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(5), 510-522.
Chang, W. (June 23, 2023). Local Creators for Local Innovation: Balancing Artisans and Entrepreneurs and their Sustainability. Paper presented at 2023 Summer Conference of Korea Association of Cultural Economics. Gochang, Korea. [in Korean].
Chang, W. (June 3, 2023). Cultural Governance and Sustainable Cultural Cities. Paper presented at 2023 Spring Conference of the Korean Industrial Economic Association. Seoul, Korea. [in Korean].
Chang, W. (May 7, 2023). City Brand and Art Governance of Seoul. Paper presented at the 4th Urban Competitiveness Forum, Hotel President, Seoul, Korea. [in Korean]
Chang, W. (April 13, 2023). To Prove and To Improve: Evaluators as Arts Entrepreneurs in Policy Making. Paper presented at Society for Arts Entrepreneurship Education 2023 Annual Conference, Virtual Webinar Conference.
Chang, W. & Lee, B. (Dec 17, 2022). Building Governance: A Study of the Cultural City Project in Korea. Paper presented at the 46th International Conference on Social Theory, Politics, and the Arts, Hongik University, Seoul, Korea.
Cogliandro, G. (2001). European Cities of Culture for the year 2000. Brussels, AECC. Retrieved from http://www.krakow2000.pl/acceraport.pdf
Jewson, N., & MacGregor, S. (2018). Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial Divisions. Routledge.
Jo, K. & Yoon, S. (2013). Study on Designation of Cultural town/city and the Support Plan. Korea Culture & Tourism Institute. [in Korean]
Jo, K. (2016). Study on Designation of Cultural City and the Support Plan. Korea Culture & Tourism Institute. [in Korean]
Kim, S., & Chang, W. (2022). A Study on Local Creators in a Value Based Economy - Focusing on the Haenyeo Kitchen in Jeju Island. Cultural Economics Research, 25(1), 133-159. [in Korean]
Kinsella, S., NicGhabhann, N., & Ryan, A. (2017). Designing policy: collaborative policy development within the context of the European capital of culture bid process. Cultural Trends, 26(3), 233-248.
Lee, J. R. (2016). Process, governance, and performance of creative-city related policies of Suncheon city, Korea. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, 19(4), 660-676. [in Korean]
Mooney, G., & Danson, M. (2018). Beyond ‘Culture City’: Glasgow as a ‘dual city’. In Transforming cities (pp. 73-86). Routledge.
Mulligan, M., & Smith, P. (2010). Art, governance and the turn to community. RMIT University.
Palmer, R., Richards, G., & Dodd, D. (2007). European cultural capital report. Arnheim: ATLAS.
Park, S. H. (2015). Global knowledge and local practices: reinventing cultural policy in Busan, South Korea. In Making Cultural Cities in Asia (pp. 181-194). Routledge.
Rentschler, R. (2014). Arts governance: People, passion, performance. Routledge.
Richards, G. (2000). The European cultural capital event: Strategic weapon in the cultural arms race?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 6(2), 159-181.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Urban regeneration through cultural diversity and social inclusion. Journal of Urban Culture Research, 2, 30-49.
Seo, U. & Cho, K. (2019). How to Create Social Value in Cultural City - Comparing between European Capital of Culture and Korean Cultural City Projects. Review of Culture & Economy, 22(1), 129-160. [in Korean]
Schmitt, T. M. (2011). Cultural Governance as a conceptual framework. MMG Working Paper 11-02. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Son, M. (2018). ‘Urban regeneration’to ‘Social regeneration’: Culture and social regeneration through the Culture City of East Asia event initiative in Cheongju South Korea (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).
Wang, J., Oakes, T., & Yang, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Making Cultural Cities in Asia: Mobility, assemblage, and the politics of aspirational urbanism. Routledge.
Žilič-Fišer, S., & Erjavec, K. (2017). The political impact of the European Capital of Culture:‘Maribor 2012 gave us the power to change the regime’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(5), 581-596.