Three Essays on Just Transition : Navigating South Korea’s Climate Policy Discourse in the Path to Decarbonization = 정의로운 전환에 관한 세 가지 에세이: 탈탄소화를 향한 대한민국의 기후 정책 담론 탐색

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Although decarbonization policies aimed at combating climate change are being pursued globally, policies that overlook the justice of both processes and outcomes risk exacerbating existing socioeconomic inequalities. The concept of just transition integrates the principles of distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan justice to ensure a fair and equitable transition to a low-carbon society. However, the versatility of this concept often leads to conflicting or contradictory interpretations among multiple actors, which impedes the practical implementation of related policies. Despite extensive theoretical discussions, empirical research on the context-specific interpretation and de facto institutionalisation of just transition remains scarce, particularly in non-Western cases.
This dissertation explores South Korea’s policy discourse to expand the repertoire of mechanisms shaping the meaning of just transition. Grounded in the theoretical framework of discursive institutionalism, this dissertation comprises three essays that examine the communicative discourse between political leaders and the public, coordinative discourse among policy actors, and interactions among sentient agents, respectively. The overarching research question of this dissertation is: “How is the context-specific interpretation of just transition developed, and how does it contribute to the making and implementation of just transition policies?”
The first essay analyses the policy ideas conveyed and public reactions within the communicative discourse on online news platforms to identify the reasons for the loss of momentum for just transition policies in South Korea. Deep-learning-based natural language processing that analysed news articles and online comments related to just transition revealed that political advocates failed to clearly convey the core goals and practical necessity of just transition. This has led to public confusion and conflation of policy ideas related to justice with socialist ideologies. The failure to secure policy legitimacy within communicative discourse resulted in policy retrenchment, causing the banner of just transition to disappear from the national agenda.
The second essay posits the National Assembly of South Korea as the organisational backdrop for coordinative discourse and explores the role of the Assembly in establishing climate policies that embody the principles of just transition. By analysing the Assembly’s speeches over the past 70 years using topic modelling, it was discovered that the meaning of climate has evolved from a mere meteorological condition to a socioeconomic crisis demanding institutional responses, along with industrial transition and technological development. However, the National Assembly primarily played a passive role, readjusting the policy ideas conveyed by the executive branch rather than leading these discursive shifts. Based on this analysis, this essay contends that the National Assembly should become a frontrunner in realising recognition justice by identifying and institutionally protecting the vulnerable groups affected by decarbonization.
The third essay examines the process of establishing just transition institutions in the Province of Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea. The Province of Chungcheongnam-do, a key region for power production with approximately half of South Korea’s coal-fired power plants, serves as a critical case study because of its pioneering implementation of local just transition ordinances. The case study revealed that during the initial stages of regional discourse formation, just transition was regarded as a democratic and deliberative decarbonization process. However, amid leadership changes in the provincial government and the central government’s political agenda-setting, just transition faced partisan opposition and public scepticism in the region. In response, the regional discourse coalition adopted a strategy of redefining the meaning of just transition in narrower terms, focusing on compensation for workers and communities affected by coal phase-out. This strategic redefinition has helped sustain the regional just transition initiatives. This essay emphasises the leading role of discourse coalitions throughout the institutionalisation, implementation, and dissemination of policy ideas, arguing that achieving the essential goals of just transition requires continuous discursive interactions involving various actors to reinterpret and refine the meaning of just transition within existing institutions.
In summary, the context-specific interpretation of just transition is socially constructed through the refinement and legitimisation of alternative ideas, seeking to overcome the limitations of existing institutions on climate action within the coordinative discourse among policy actors and the communicative discourse between political leaders and the public. When the interests and values of diverse actors converge on specific policy ideas, they act as driving forces for institutional change. However, failure to reach such a convergence may impede policy formulation and implementation.
The implications of this study are as follows. First, it provides empirical evidence of how the institutionalisation process, conceptualised by discursive institutionalism, manifests in the Korean context. The findings of the three essays reveal that policy discourse is far more complex than theoretically assumed, with iterative and multilayered discursive interactions occurring across various organisations and agents. This highlights the dynamic nature of the discourse in policy formation and implementation. Furthermore, by analysing the context-specific interpretation of just transition in South Korea, this study exposes the gap between Western theories of just transition and the public philosophies of non-Western societies. This underscores that the transition to a sustainable society, encompassing decarbonization and carbon neutrality, must be grounded in social consensus through discursive mechanisms that reconcile the ideals and realities of just transition.
In synthesising these implications, the paper underscores the nuanced role of discourse in bridging theoretical expectations and the practical complexities of the policymaking process. By exploring the discursive interactions between agents and their impact on policy dynamics, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the discursive pathways through which just transitions can be achieved in diverse cultural and institutional landscapes.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

기후변화에 대응하기 위한 탈탄소 정책이 전 세계적으로 추진되고 있지만, 과정과 결과의 정의를 간과한 정책은 기존의 사회경제적 불평등을 심화할 위험이 있다. 정의로운 전환(Just transition)은 저탄소 사회로의 공정하고 평등한 전환을 보장하기 위해 분배적, 절차적, 인지적, 회복적, 그리고 범세계적(distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan) 정의 원칙을 통합한 개념이다. 그러나 이 개념의 모호성은 다수 행위자 간 상충되거나 모순되는 해석을 촉발하여 관련 정책의 실질적인 이행을 방해하고 있다. 광범위한 이론적 논의에도 불구하고, 정의로운 전환의 맥락특수적(context-specific) 해석이 구성되고 제도화되는 과정에 관한 경험 연구는 부족한 실정이며, 특히 비서구권 사례에 대한 분석은 거의 전무하다.
이 논문은 대한민국의 정의로운 전환의 의미 형성 과정을 설명하는 인과기제를 정책 담론이라는 개념을 통해 이해하고자 한다. 담론적 제도주의의 이론적 틀에 입각하여, 정치 지도자와 대중 간의 소통 담론, 정책 행위자 간의 조정 담론, 그리고 지각적 행위자(sentient agents) 간 상호작용을 각각 연구 대상으로 하는 에세이 세 편을 관통하는 이 논문의 연구질문은 다음과 같다: “정의로운 전환의 맥락특수적 해석은 어떻게 발전하며, 이는 정의로운 전환 정책의 형성과 실행에 어떻게 기여하는가?”
첫 번째 에세이는 온라인 뉴스 플랫폼이라는 소통 담론의 현장에서 전달된 정책 아이디어와 대중 반응을 분석하여 정의로운 전환 정책이 추진력을 상실한 원인을 규명한다. 딥러닝 기반 자연어 처리를 활용하여 정의로운 전환 관련 뉴스기사와 온라인 댓글을 분석한 결과, 정치적 주창자들은 정의로운 전환의 핵심 목표와 실질적 필요성을 명확히 전달하지 못했다. 이는 대중이 정의와 관련된 정책 아이디어를 사회주의 이념과 혼동하는 현상을 초래했다. 소통 담론의 목적인 정책 정당성 확보에 실패한 결과, 정의로운 전환 정책은 동력을 상실하고 국정 의제에서 사라졌다.
두 번째 에세이는 국회를 기후 변화 정책에 관한 조정 담론의 공간적 배경으로 상정하고, 정의로운 기후 정책을 수립하기 위한 국회의 역할을 모색한다. 지난 70년간의 국회 발언문을 토픽 모델링을 활용하여 분석한 결과, 기후의 의미가 단순 기상학적 상태에서 산업 전환과 기술 개발을 필두로 한 제도적 대응을 요구하는 사회경제적 위기로 변모했음을 발견했다. 그러나 국회는 이러한 담론적 변화를 주도하기보다는, 주로 행정부로부터 전달된 정책 아이디어를 재조정하는 수동적 역할에 머물렀다. 분석 결과를 바탕으로 이 에세이는 국회가 탈탄소 전환의 피해 계층을 식별하고 제도적으로 보호하는 승인적 정의 실현의 선봉장이 되어야 함을 시사한다.
세 번째 논문은 충청남도에서 정의로운 전환 제도가 수립된 과정을 분석하여 담론연합이 제도변화를 이끄는 필요조건임을 주장한다. 충남은 대한민국 화력발전소의 절반 이상이 위치한 전력 생산의 핵심지로서, 지역 수준의 정의로운 전환 조례를 최초 시행했다는 점에서 결정적 사례의 연구 가치가 있다. 사례연구 결과, 지역 담론의 생성 초기에 정의로운 전환은 민주적, 숙의적 탈탄소화 과정으로 간주되었다. 그러나 충남도청의 리더십 변동과 중앙정부의 정치 의제화라는 흐름 속에서 정의로운 전환은 지역 내에서도 정파적 반대와 대중의 회의에 직면했다. 이에 대응하여, 지역 담론연합은 정의로운 전환의 의미를 석탄 퇴출로 인한 노동자와 지역 사회에 대한 보상이라는 좁은 의미로 재정의하는 전략을 사용하여 그 존속에 기여했다. 이 에세이는 아이디어의 제도화, 제도 시행, 그리고 확산 전반에 걸친 담론연합의 주도적 역할을 강조하면서, 정의로운 전환의 본질적 목표를 달성하기 위해서는 다양한 행위자의 참여를 통해 현행 제도와 정의로운 전환의 의미를 끊임없이 반추하고 재해석하는 담론적 상호작용이 필요함을 주장한다.
종합하면, 정의로운 전환에 대한 맥락특수적 해석은 현행 기후변화 대응 제도의 한계를 극복하기 위한 대안적 아이디어가 정책 행위자 간의 조정 담론, 그리고 정치 지도자와 대중 간의 소통 담론을 통해 정제되고 정당성을 확보하는 과정에서 사회적으로 구성된다. 이때, 다양한 행위자의 이해관계와 가치관이 특정 정책 아이디어로 수렴되면 제도 변화의 동력으로 작용하지만, 그렇지 못할 경우 정책 수립과 실행 과정에서 난항을 겪을 수 있다.
본 논문의 함의는 다음과 같다. 먼저, 이 논문은 담론적 제도주의가 상정한 담론 중심의 제도화 과정이 한국적 맥락 속에서 어떻게 구현되는지에 대한 경험적 증거를 제시한다. 세가지 에세이의 분석 결과는 다양한 행위자 간의 반복적이고 다층적인 담론적 상호작용이 정책 형성 및 이행 과정에 초래하는 역동성을 보여준다. 또한, 정의로운 전환에 대한 대한민국의 맥락 특수적 해석을 분석하여 서구의 정의로운 전환 이론과 비서구권 사회의 가치 체계를 포함한 공공철학 사이의 간극을 드러낸다. 이는 탄소중립을 비롯한 지속 가능한 사회로의 전환이 정의에 대한 이상과 현실을 조화시킬 수 있는 담론 메커니즘을 통한 사회적 합의에 기반하여 이루어져야 함을 노정한다.
이러한 시사점을 종합하여 본 논문은 담론이 정책 형성 과정의 이론과 현실 간의 간극을 메우는 역할을 맡고 있음을 주장한다. 행위자 간의 담론적 상호작용과 그 상호작용이 정책 역학에 미치는 영향을 탐구함으로써, 이 연구는 다양한 문화적·제도적 환경 속에서 정의로운 전환이 이루어질 수 있는 경로에 대한 이해를 심화하는 데 기여한다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT i
• 국문 초록 v
• TABLE OF CONTENTS x
• LIST OF TABLES xiii
• LIST OF FIGURES xiv
• ABBREVIATIONS xv
• 1. Introduction: Just transition, easier said than done 1
• 2. “Socialist” transition?: The failure of policy communication on just transition in South Korea 12
• 2.1. Introduction 12
• 2.2. Theoretical underpinnings and case background 16
• 2.2.1. Just transition and communicative discourse 16
• 2.2.2. South Korea’s just transition policy 20
• 2.3. Data and methods 22
• 2.3.1. Data collection and pre-processing: data scraping and parsing 23
• 2.3.2. Topic modelling and sentiment analysis: deep learning-based natural language processing (NLP) 25
• 2.4. Results and discussion 32
• 2.4.1. Communicative discourse on just transition in South Korea: speakers, contexts, and policy ideas 32
• 2.4.2. Public response: persistent scepticism and lingering hostility 36
• 2.4.3. Why did the communicative discourse fail?: Just transition meets ideological roadblocks 42
• 2.5. Concluding remarks 44
• 3. Assessing seven decades of climate discourse in the National Assembly of South Korea: Implications for just transition 48
• 3.1. Introduction 48
• 3.2. Theoretical underpinnings 51
• 3.2.1. Policy ideas and discourse 51
• 3.2.2. The legislature and coordinative discourse: recognition and representation for just transition 55
• 3.3. Case backgrounds 57
• 3.4. Research flow and the methods of application 62
• 3.4.1. Data collection and preprocessing 63
• 3.4.2. Topic model training with BERTopic 64
• 3.4.3. Dynamic Topic Modelling (DTM) and Topics per Class (TpC) 67
• 3.5. Results and discussion 69
• 3.5.1. From weather to crisis: tracing climate perceptions in the National Assembly 71
• 3.5.2. National Assembly in South Korea’s coordinative discourse: led by the President, re-coordinating policy ideas 79
• 3.5.3. For and beyond workers: expanding just transition for farmers 81
• 3.6. Concluding remarks 86
• 4. Old wine in a new wineskin: The discursive construction of just transition in the Province of Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea 89
• 4.1. Introduction 89
• 4.2. Theoretical foundations 92
• 4.2.1. Just transition in reality: challenges and lessons learned from local experiences 93
• 4.2.2. Discursive institutionalism: Ideas, discourse, and sentient agents 97
• 4.3. Case background and research methods 102
• 4.3.1. Case background: the Province of Chungcheongnam-do 102
• 4.3.2. Data and research methods 104
• 4.4. The discursive construction of just transition in PoC 105
• 4.4.1. Just transition as a democratic, decentralised, and collaborative process (2015-2018) 105
• 4.4.2. Just transition as job redeployment and monetary compensation (2018-2021) 111
• 4.4.3. Just transition as a perfunctory policy banner (2022-present) 116
• 4.5. Discussion and concluding remarks 119
• 5. Conclusion: Just transition or just any transition? 124
• 5.1. Summary 124
• 5.2. Theoretical implications and future research 128
• REFERENCES 132
• SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS 153

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. South Korea, Choi, J.-H., https://reutersinstitute. politics. ox. ac. uk/digital-news-report/2022/south-korea, , 2022

2. Year in Search 2022., Google, https://trends. google. co. kr/trends/yis/2022/KR/?hl=ko, , 2022

3. Risk and Responsibility, Giddens, A, 62, 1, , 1999

4. Attention is all you need, Shazeer, N., Jones, L., Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I., Gomez, A. N., Vaswani, A., Uszkoreit, J., Parmar, N., 30, , 2017

5. Backlash to Climate Policy, Patterson, J. J., Global Environmental Politics, 1- 23, , 2022

6. The Tragedy of the Commons, Hardin, G., Science 162(3859), 1243-1248. https://doi. org/doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243, , 1968

7. Discourse and Social Change, Fairclough, N., https://books. google. co. kr/books?id=3H3AoOmjX-oC, , 1993

8. What is the Just Transition, Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., Geoforum, 88, 74-77, , 2018

9. What is the just transition?, McCauley, D., Heffron, R. J., Achieving a Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy, 9-19, , 2021

10. Justice in energy transitions, Doyon, A., Williams, S., Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 144-153, , 2019

11. About Coherence of topic models, Grootendorst, M., https://github. com/MaartenGr/BERTopic/issues/90#issuecomment- 883909108, , 2021

12. National Assembly Minutes Big Data, NAL, https://dataset. nanet. go. kr/, , 2023

13. Why polls fail to predict elections, Caldarelli, G., Serafino, M., Cohan, L., Makse, H. A., Zhou, Z., 8(1), 1-28, , 2021

14. Inefficiency in public organizations, Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L., 2(1), 1-24., , 1999

15. Just transition: A conceptual review, Lo, K., Wang, X., 82, 102291. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. erss.2021.102291, , 2021

16. Ideas, institutions, and policy change, Béland, D., 16(5), 701-718, , 2009

17. Institutional Change and Globalization, Campbell, J. L., https://doi. org/doi:10.1515/9780691216348, , 2004

18. No One Left Behind in Energy Transition, Governor of PoC, GMCC, https://www. goodmorningcc. com/news/articleView. html?idxno=294696, , 2023

19. New Years Adress by President Moon Jae-in, Presidential Archives, https://www. pa. go. kr/research/contents/speech/index. jsp?spMode=viewcat id=c_pa02062artid=1401581, , 2022

20. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change, Mintrom, M., & Norman, P., 37(4), 649-667, , 2009

21. Morality and the theory of rational behavior, Harsanyi, J. C., 623-656, , 1977

22. The political economy of the just transition, Newell, P., Mulvaney, D., 179(2), 132-140, , 2013

23. What is a case study and what is it good for?, Gerring, J, 98(2), 341-354, , 2004

24. Applying energy justice into the energy transition, Heffron, R. J., 156, 111936, , 2022

25. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics, Thelen, K., 2(1), 369-404, , 1999

26. The energyextractives nexus and the just transition, Bainton, N., Kemp, D., Lèbre, E., Owen, J. R., & Marston, G., 29(4), 624-634, , 2021

27. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses, Dryzek, J. S., Oxford university press, , 2022

28. Political science and the three new institutionalisms, Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C., 44(5), 936-957, , 1996

29. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models, Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J., & Blei, D., https://proceedings. neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2009/file/f92586a25bb3145f acd64ab20fd554ff-Paper. pdf, , 2009

30. Discourse of the post-COVID 19 new deal in South Korea, Yoon, K., East Asia, 38(4), 373-388, , 2021

31. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, Gee, J. P., https://books. google. co. kr/books?id=4yOGYwywrsEC, , 1999

32. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns, Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A, 1(5), 1-6, , 2016

33. Greenlash fuels fears for Europes environmental ambitions, Marsh, S., Dickie, G., Abnett, K., Reuters. https://www. reuters. com/sustainability/greenlash-fuels-fears-europesenvironmental- ambitions-2023-08-10/, , 2023

34. Power and changing modes of governance in the euro crisis, Schmidt, V. A., Carstensen, M. B., Governance, 31(4), 609-624, , 2018

35. From a just transition for us to a just transition for all, Galgóczi, B., Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 28(3), 349-366. https://doi. org/10.1177/10242589221125066, , 2022

36. New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice, Sovacool, B. K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C. K., & Wlokas, H., 105, 677-691, , 2017

37. Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-smith, H. C., https://books. google. co. kr/books?id=f6WAAAAAIAAJ, , 1993

38. Climate change and right-wing populism in the United States, Fiorino, D. J., 31(5), 801-819, , 2022

39. Global labour unions and just transition to a green economy, Stevis, D., & Felli, R., 15, 29-43, , 2015

40. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research, Schroeder, H., Tschakert, P., Roberts, T., Huq, S., Newell, P., Klinsky, S., Dauvergne, P., O’Brien, K., Okereke, C., Clapp, J., 44, 170-173, , 2017

41. Just Transition: A whole-systems approach to decarbonisation, Atkins, E., Kirshner, J., Pegram, T., Kiamba, L., Jenkins, K., Kreienkamp, J., Dietzel, A., Santos Ayllón, L. M., Parkhill, K., Abram, S., Climate Policy, 22(8), 1033- 1049., , 2022

42. Just transitions: Histories and futures in a post-COVID world, Henry, M. S., Markuson, C., Bazilian, M. D., 68, 101668, , 2020

43. Centralized vs decentralized solar: A comparison study (India), Thapar, S., 194, 687-704, , 2022

44. How positive is change in climate change? A sentiment analysis, François, J., Ann, D., Shoshana, S., 96, 27-36. https://doi. org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j. envsci.2019.02.007, , 2019

45. Climate policy networks in South Korea: alliances and conflicts, Han, J.-Y., Ku, D., Yun, S.-J., 14(2), 283-301, , 2014

46. Just transition: Pathways to socially inclusive decarbonisation, Atkins, E., Kirshner, J., Hammond, M., Jenkins, K., Pegram, T., Kreienkamp, J., Vining, B., Abram, S., Dietzel, A., Kiamba, L., C. U. N. Briefing, , 2020

47. Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy, Campbell, J. L., 27, 377-409, , 1998

48. Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate AccordInterview, White House, https://trumpwhitehouse. archives. gov/briefingsstatements/ statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/, , 2017

49. The narrative policy framework. In Theories of the policy process, Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Radaelli, C. M., pp. 173-213, , 2018

50. The 8th Local Election: Election Pledges of the Elected Candidates, National Election Commission., https://www. nec. go. kr/site/nec/ex/bbs/View. do?cbIdx=1129bcIdx=188433, , 2022

51. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition, Carley, S., Konisky, D. M., 5(8), 569-577, , 2020

52. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure, Grootendorst, M., arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794, , 2022

53. A critical review of energy democracy: A failure to deliver justice?, Droubi, S., McCauley, D., Heffron, R. J., 86, 102444, , 2022

54. Just Transition Fund is the Responsibility of the Central Government, Governor of PoC, GMCC, https://www. goodmorningcc. com/news/articleView. html?idxno=283283, , 2023

55. Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change, Lieberman, R. C., 96(4), 697-712, , 2002

56. Seven principles to realize a just transition to a low-carbon economy, Atteridge, A., Strambo, C., SEI policy Issue. https://www. sei. org/wpcontent/ uploads/2020/06/seven-principles-for-a-just-transition. pdf, , 2020

57. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse, Schlosberg, D., 22(1), 37-55, , 2013

58. Topic modeling and sentiment analysis of global climate change tweets, Dahal, B., Kumar, S. A. P., & Li, Z, 9(1), 24. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13278-019-0568-8, , 2019

59. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B, 83(2), 340-363, , 1977

60. Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice, Heffron, R., McCauley, D., Energy Policy, 119, 1-7. https://doi. org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j. enpol.2018.04.014, , 2018

61. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, Duverger, M., Wiley https://books. google. co. kr/books?id=KhcOAAAAQAAJ, , 1963

62. The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy, Johnson, G. F., 40, 79-99, , 2007

63. Todays Issue The Campaign Committee to Aging Coal Power Plants Founded, Hello tv NEWS PoC, https://news. lghellovision. net/news/articleView. html?idxno=256814, , 2019

64. Who got their way? Advocacy coalitions and the Irish climate change law, Wagner, P., Ylä-Anttila, T., 27(5), 872-891, , 2018

65. Framework development for just transitionin coal producing jurisdictions, Harrahill, K., Douglas, O., Energy Policy, 134, 110990, , 2019

66. Social construction and policy design. In Theories of the policy process, Schneider, A. L., DeLeon, P., Ingram, H., pp. 93-126, , 2019

67. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research, Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G., 14(3), 227-249, , 2006

68. Arguing about the Eurozone crisis: a discursive institutionalist analysis, Schmidt, V. A, 7(4), 455-462, , 2013

69. Climate change in the UK press: examining discourse fluctuation over time, Dayrell, C., Gillings, M., Applied Linguistics, amad007, , 2023

70. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse, Schmidt, V. A, Annual Review of Political Science 11(1), 303-326. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev. polisci.11.060606.135342, , 2008

71. From Just Transition to the Eco-Social State In Räthzel Stevis UzzellEds, D., N., Galgóczi, B., D., The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies (pp. 539-562) Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-71909-8_23, , 2021

72. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination, Haas, P. M., 46(1), 1-35., , 1992

73. How inequality fuels climate change: The climate case for a Green New Deal, Healy, N., Green, F., 5(6), 635-649, , 2022

74. The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-carbon transitions, Baker, L., Sovacool, B. K., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M., 58, 101958, , 2019

75. Trade unions and just transition: The search for a transformative politics, Sweeney, S., Treat, J, Trade Unions for Energy Democracy, 1-2, , 2018

76. Just transition: Framing, organizing, and powerbuilding for decarbonization, Pastor, M., Cha, J. M., 90, 102588, , 2022

77. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories, Schlosberg, D., 13(3), 517-540, , 2004

78. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction, Healy, J., McInnes, L., Melville, J., arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, , 2018

79. After two years of real progress on climate, a European greenlash is brewing, Tocci, N., The Guardian. https://www. theguardian. com/commentisfree/2023/jul/12/progress-climateeuropean- greenlash-populist-right, , 2023

80. Discursive institutionalism: Scope, dynamics, and philosophical underpinnings, Schmidt, V. A, 85-113, , 2012

81. Rationality as social justice and the spatial-distributional analysis of risk, Houston, D., Lejano, R. P., Piazza, B., Environment and planning C: government and policy, 20(6), 871-888, , 2002

82. Risk society or angst society? Two views of risk, consciousness and community, Scott, A, 33-46, , 2000

83. Social justice, fairness and exclusion in the South Korean electricity sector, Kim, J. D.-Y., Choi, E., Lee, E., 51, 55- 66, , 2019

84. Environmental Justice, Just Transition, and a Low-Carbon Future for California, Cha, J. M., Pastor, M., Wander, M., 50, 10216, , 2020

85. Puplic Perception of the Severity of Climate Crisis and Climate Policies 2021., Gallup Korea, Green Korea United, https://www. greenkorea. org/activity/weather-change/climatechangeacction138 climate-change/89426/, , 2021

86. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research, Sabatier, P. A, Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., &, 3, 183-224, , 2014

87. Just transition on the ground: Challenges and opportunities for social dialogue, Galgóczi, B., 26(4), 367-382, , 2020

88. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries, Lijphart, A., & Lijphart, P. P. S. A, Yale University Press. https://books. google. co. kr/books?id=GLtX2zJrflAC, , 1999

89. Contestation, contingency, and justice in the Nordic lowcarbon energy transition, Sovacool, B. K., 102, 569-582, , 2017

90. Neo-liberal small states and economic crisis: lessons for democratic corporatism, Thorhallsson, B., & Kattel, R., 44(1), 83-103, , 2013

91. Understanding resistance to just transition ideas in Australian coal communities, MacNeil, R., Beauman, M., Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 118-126, , 2022

92. Just transition away from coal: Vulnerability analysis of coal districts in India, Agrawal, K., Pathak, M., Jana, K., Unni, J., Shukla, P., 108, 103355, , 2024

93. Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation, Schmidt, V. A, 5(2), 106-126, , 2011

94. The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea, Valentine, S. V., Sovacool, B. K., Energy Policy, 38(12), 7971- 7979. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. enpol.2010.09.036, , 2010

95. Green transition of iron cities: A comparative case study of Kitakyushu and Pohang, Choi, E., Lee, E., Lee, H., 31(1), 28-53, , 2022

96. How, where and when does discourse matter in small states welfare state adjustment?, Schmidt, V. A, 8(1), 127-146, , 2003

97. The politics of climate change in a neo-developmental state: The case of South Korea, Kalinowski, T., 42(1), 48- 63, , 2021

98. The evolving just transition: definitions, context, and practical insights for Africa, Otlhogile, M., Shirley, R., Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 3(1), 013001, , 2023

99. A Study of Climate Policy Change in Korea: From Historical Institutionalism Perspective, Kim, S. H., Yonsei University. Seoul, , 2021

100. Green new deal policy of South Korea: Policy innovation for a sustainability transition, Woo, J., Lee, J.-H., 12(23), 10191, , 2020

101. Just transition? Strategic framing and the challenges facing coal dependent communities, Weller, S. A., 37(2), 298-316, , 2019

102. Mapping Climate Themes From 2008-2021—An Analysis of Business News Using Topic Models, Sharma, E., Umamaheswaran, S., Dar, V., Kurian, J. S., IEEE Access, 11, 26554-26565, , 2023

103. Populist far right discursive-institutional tactics in European regional decarbonization, Haarstad, H., Yazar, M., 105, 102936, , 2023

104. An experiment for urban energy autonomy in Seoul: The one less nuclear power plant policy, Lee, T., Lee, Y., Lee, T., 74, 311- 318, , 2014

105. Developmental environmentalism: Explaining South Koreas ambitious pursuit of green growth, Thurbon, E., Kim, S.-Y., 43(2), 213-240, , 2015

106. Large-scale computerized text analysis in political science: Opportunities and challenges, Wilkerson, J., Casas, A., 20, 529-544, , 2017

107. Failed internationalism and social movement decline: The cases of South Korea and Thailand, Glassman, J., Choi, Y. J., Park, B. G., 40(3), 339-372, , 2008

108. In search of coherence and consensus: measuring the interpretability of statistical topics, Morstatter, F., Liu, H., 18(169), 1-32, , 2018

109. Research on Establishing an Energy Transition Vision for the Province of Chungcheongnam-do, PoC Research Institute, https://www. cni. re. kr/main/search/down. do?gcd=AC0000064951seq=1, , 2017

110. Visions, innovations, and justice? Transition contracts in Spain as policy mix instruments, Ferrer, C., López-Rodríguez, M. E., Marco-Fondevila, M., Sanz-Hernández, A., 70, 101762, , 2020

111. Just transition frames: recognition, representation, and distribution in Irish beef farming, Murphy, S. P., Walsh, L., Cannon, S. M., 94, 150-160, , 2022

112. Muslims in social media discourse: Combining topic modeling and critical discourse analysis, Anton, T., Petter, T., 13, 132-142. https://doi. org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j. dcm.2016.04.003, , 2016

113. A topic modeling comparison between LDA, NMF, Top2Vec, and BERTopic to demystify Twitter posts, Egger, R., & Yu, J, 7, 886498, , 2022

114. Development and evaluation of laws and regulation for the low-carbon and green growth in Korea, Jang, M., Kim, J.-A., & Sun, S.-T., 14(2), 191-206, , 2010

115. Just Transitions for the Miners: Labor Environmentalism in the Ruhr and Appalachian Coalfields, Abraham, J., 39(2), 218-240. https://doi. org/10.1080/07393148.2017.1301313, , 2017

116. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain, Hall, P. A, 275-296, , 1993

117. The Partisan Origins of Economic Perceptions in a Weak Party System: Evidence from South Korea, Singer, M. M., Lee, H., 44(1), 341-364, , 2022

118. A climate backlash: comparing populist parties climate policies in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, Nonbo Andersen, A., Vihma, A., Reischl, G., 30(3), 219-239, , 2021

119. Taking discourse seriously: Discursive institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory, Panizza, F., & Miorelli, R., 61(2), 301-318, , 2013

120. A Green New Deal for all: The centrality of a worker and community-led just transition in the US, Price, V., Cha, J. M., Vachon, T. E., Stevis, D., Brescia-Weiler, M., 95, 102594. https://doi. org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2022.102594, , 2022

121. Chungnams west coast fine dust twice that of Seoul... due to thermal power plants and refineries, Yonhap News, Yonhap News. https://www. yna. co. kr/view/AKR20160609129600063, , 2016

122. Discursive institutionalism: Understanding policy in context Handbook of critical policy studies, In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, & M. Orsini (Eds, Schmidt, V. A, pp. 171-189, , 2015

123. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice, Collins, L. B., Schlosberg, D., 5(3), 359-374, , 2014

124. South Korean civil movement organisations: Hope, crisis, and pragmatism in democratic transition, Levine, A, 1-176, , 2016

125. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts, Stewart, B. M., Grimmer, J., Political analysis, 21(3), 267-297, , 2013

126. Expanding the scope of just transitions: Towards localized solutions and community-level dynamics, Pai, S., Carley, S., Konisky, D., Bazilian, M. D., Handler, B., Zerriffi, H., 80, 102245, , 2021

127. Governance Policies for a Just Transition–A Case Study in the Rhineland Lignite Mining District, Wagner, O., Kolde, L., 10(1), 1-16, , 2022

128. Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism, Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A, 23(3), 318-337, , 2016

129. Transition to a post-carbon society: Linking environmental justice and just transition discourses, Phelan, L., Evans, G., Energy Policy, 99, 329- 339, , 2016

130. The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications In Theories of the Policy Process, Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Second Edition (pp. 189-220, , 2019

131. Deeper understanding of the barriers to national climate adaptation policy: the case of South Korea, Paavola, J., Lee, S., Dessai, S., 28(1), 4, , 2023

132. Just transition? Conceptual challenges meet stark reality in a transitioningcoal region in Australia, Snell, D., Globalizations, 15(4), 550-564, , 2018

133. Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference, Chung, J.-B., Kim, E.-S., Energy Policy, 116, 137-144, , 2018

134. Just transition towards defossilised energy systems for developing economies: A case study of Ethiopia, Oyewo, A. S., Mensah, T. N. O., Ram, M., Aghahosseini, A., Breyer, C., Bogdanov, D., Solomon, A., 176, 346-365, , 2021

135. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W., 147-160, , 1983

136. Executive-legislative competition in agenda setting: an analysis of longitudinal changes in South Korea, Kim, D.-R., 25(3), 383-400, , 2017

137. Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a just transition, Healy, N., Barry, J., 108, 451-459, , 2017

138. Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation, Sovacool, B. K., 73, 101916, , 2021

139. Fossil fuel companies climate communication strategies: Industry messaging on renewables and natural gas, Bozhilova, D., Stephens, J. C., Desai, D., Si, Y., Puffer, S., 98, 103028, , 2023

140. Resolving energy policy failure: Introducing energy justice as the solution to achieve a just transition, Heffron, R. J., Sokołowski, M. M., 187, 114042, , 2024

141. Unravelling the United Kingdoms climate policy consensus: The power of ideas, discourse and institutions, Gillard, R., Global Environmental Change, 40, 26-36, , 2016

142. Decarbonization and its discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions, Baker, L., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M., Sovacool, B. K., 155, 581-619, , 2019

143. Sentiment analysis of public services for smart society: Literature review and future research directions, Verma, S., 39(3), 101708, , 2022

144. Do travelers reviews depend on the destination? An analysis in coastal and urban peer‐to‐peer lodgings, Sánchez‐Franco, M. J., Rey‐Moreno, M., Psychology marketing, 39(2), 441-459, , 2022

145. How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan, Thelen, K., Cambridge University Press, , 2004

146. Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: who, what and how?, Green, F., Gambhir, A., Climate Policy, 20(8), 902-921. https://doi. org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1657379, , 2020

147. Simulation of Storm Surge due to the Changes of Typhoon Moving Speed in the South Coast of Korean Peninsula, Choi, J.-W., Kwon, J.-I., Kwon, Y.-Y., 95(SI), 1467-1472, , 2020

148. Address by President Lee Myung-bak Celebrating the 63rd Liberation Day and 60 Years of the Republic of Korea, Presidential Archives, https://www. pa. go. kr/research/contents/speech/index. jsp?spMode=viewcat id=c_pa02062artid=1310222, , 2008

149. Advocating a just transition in Appalachia: Civil society and industrial change in a carbon-intensive region, McKane, R. G., Belletto, K., Hess, D. J., 75, 102004, , 2021

150. Who cares about coal? Analyzing 70 years of German parliamentary debates on coal with dynamic topic modeling, Callaghan, M. W., Flachsland, C., Minx, J. C., Leipprand, A., Müller-Hansen, F., Lee, Y. T., 72, 101869. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. erss.2020.101869, , 2021

151. How Do We Manage a Just Transition? A Comparative Review of National and Regional Just Transition Initiatives, Gordon, M., Krawchenko, T. A., 13(11), 6070, , 2021

152. Just energy transitions to low carbon economies: A review of the concept and its effects on labour and income, Carpintero, Ó ., Buendía, L., García-García, P., 70, 101664, , 2020

153. Can citizen pressure influence politicians communication about climate change? Results from a field experiment, Donner, S. D., Wynes, S., Kotcher, J., 168, 1-20, , 2021

154. How deliberation changes public opinions on nuclear energy: South Koreas deliberation on closing nuclear reactors, Yim, M.-S., Kim, P., Kim, J., 270, 115094, , 2020

155. Speaking to the markets or to the people? A discursive institutionalist analysis of the EUs sovereign debt crisis, Schmidt, V. A., 16(1), 188-209, , 2014

156. Urban resilience through progressive governance: The case of the one less nuclear power plantpolicy, Seoul, Korea, Cho, M.-R., 57(7), 1434-1451, , 2020

157. Beyond the policy rhetoric: The limitations of gender mainstreaming in South Korea relating to women and childcare, Lee, S.-H., 19(3), 379-395, , 2020

158. Four case studies on just transition: lessons for IrelandFour Case Studies on Just Transition: Lessons for Ireland, Mercier, S., National Economic and Social Council Research Series Paper(15), , 2020

159. Just transition management: Balancing just outcomes with just processes in Australian renewable energy transitions, Goddard, G., Farrelly, M. A., 225, 110-123, , 2018

160. Partisanship, politics, and the energy transition in the United States: A critical review and conceptual framework, Mayer, A., Energy Research Social Science, 53, 85-88, , 2019

161. Burdened by renewable energy? A multiscalar analysis of distributional justice and wind energy in the United States, Brooks, M. M., Mueller, J. T., 63, 101406, , 2020

162. Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change, Jenkins, K., Sovacool, B. K., & McCauley, D., 117, 66-74, , 2018

163. Civil society, environmental litigation, and Confucian energy justice: A case study of an environmental NGO in China, Lo, K., Wang, X., 93, 102831, , 2022

164. Statement by President Moon Jae-in on the Province of Chungchungnam-dos Energy Transition and Green New Deal Strategy, Presidential, Archives https://www. pa. go. kr/research/contents/speech/index. jsp?spMode=viewcat id=c_pa02062artid=1401381, , 2021

165. Theorizing ideas and discourse in political science: intersubjectivity, neo-institutionalisms, and the power of ideas, Schmidt, V. A, 29(2), 248-263, , 2017

166. Power, politics and environmental inequality: a theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of peripheralisation, Blowers, A., Leroy, P., 3(2), 197-228, , 1994

167. The four major rivers restoration project of South Korea: An assessment of its process, program, and political dimensions, Lah, T., Park, Y., Cho, Y. J., 24(4), 375-394, , 2015

168. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses, Taylor, D. E., 43(4), 508-580, , 2000

169. A just transition for whom? Politics, contestation, and social identity in the disruption of coal in the Powder River Basin, Cha, J. M., 69, 101657, , 2020

170. Dynamics of the Negative Discourse Toward COVID-19 Vaccines: Topic Modeling Study and an Annotated Data Set of Twitter Posts, Aledavood, T., Keller, B., Lindelöf, G., 25, e41319, , 2023

171. The effects of popularity metrics in news comments on the formation of public opinion: Evidence from an internet portal site, Lee, D., Shim, H., Lee, C., Kim, J. H., Park, I., 1-16. https://doi. org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1768485, , 2020

172. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth new institutionalism, Schmidt, V. A., 2(1), 1-25. https://doi. org/10.1017/S175577390999021X, , 2010

173. The European Parliament as an arena and agent in the politics of climate change: Comparing the external and internal dimension, Wendler, F., 7(3), 327-338, , 2019

174. A just transition: why transitioning workers into a new clean energy economy should be at the center of climate change policies, Cha, J. M., Fordham Environmental Law Review, 29(2), 196-220, , 2017

175. Is the just transition socially accepted? Energy history, place, and support for coal and solar in Illinois, Texas, and Vermont, Li, R., Crowe, J. A., 59, 101309, , 2020

176. Networking expertise: Discursive coalitions and collaborative networks of experts in a public creationism controversy in the UK, Allgaier, J., 21(3), 299-313, , 2012

177. Coal waste, socioeconomic change, and environmental inequality in Appalachia: implications for a just transition in coal country, Greenberg, P., 31(9), 995-1011, , 2018

178. Generation, Ideology and Transformation of South Korean Politics Generation, Ideology and Transformation of South Korean Politics, Kang, W.-T., 4(2), 193-217. http://www. dbpia. co. kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE00898528, , 2005

179. Why are we being punished and they are being rewarded? views on renewable energy in fossil fuels-based communities of the US west, Olson-Hazboun, S. K., 5(3), 366-374, , 2018

180. How just are just transition plans? Perceptions of decarbonisation and low-carbon energy transitions among peat workers in Ireland, Schuitema, G., Banerjee, A., 88, 102616. https://doi. org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j. erss.2022.102616, , 2022

181. Moral rifts in the coal phase-out—how mayors shape distributive and recognition-based dimensions of a just transition in Lusatia, Gürtler, K., Herberg, J., 1-16, , 2021

182. Danish nearshore wind energy policy: Exploring actors, ideas, discursive processes and institutions via discursive institutionalism, Fairbrass, J., Dyrhauge, H., Environmental Policy and Governance, , 2023

183. Exploring changes in presidents policy ideas using topic modeling Exploring changes in presidents policy ideas using topic modeling, Shin, N., Park, C., 25(4), 1-33. https://doi. org/10.31553/kpsr.2021.12.25.4.1, , 2021

184. Media coverage and public perception of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a topic modeling approach based on BERTopic, Netov, N., Hristova, G., 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), , 2022

185. Restoration of nature or special interests? A political economy analysis of the four major rivers restoration project in South Korea, Song, H., Lynch, M. J., 26, 251-270, , 2018

186. Cultural Turn in Neo-institutionalism: Discursive Institutionalism Cultural Turn in Neo-institutionalism: Discursive Institutionalism, Choi, K. Y., 153-192. https://doi. org/10.17209/st.2021.09.39.153, , 2021

187. Political economy of just transition: Disparate impact of coal mine closure on state-owned and private coal workers in Inner Mongolia, China, Lo, K., Wang, X., 90, 102585, , 2022

188. Quantitative analysis of large amounts of journalistic texts using topic modelling. In Rethinking Research Methods in an Age of Digital Journalism, Jacobi, C., Van Atteveldt, W., & Welbers, K., pp. 89-106, , 2018

189. Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse In Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse, Chilton, P. A., Schäffner, C., pp. 1-41, , 2002

190. Territorialized party politics and the politics of local ecomomic development: State-led industrialization and political regionalism in South Korea, Park, B.-G., 22(8), 811-839, , 2003

191. Identifying learners topical interests from social media content to enrich their course preferences in MOOCs using topic modeling and NLP techniques, Zankadi, H.,, Hilal, I., Idrissi, A.,, Daoudi, N., &, 28(5), 5567-5584, , 2023

192. Discourse as Framework for Analysis: Policy Construction and Legitimization for Changing Policies and Practices In The Futures of European Capitalism, Schmidt, V. A., Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/0199253684.003.0006, , 2002

193. The Path Dependency of Low Carbon Green Growth Policy in MB administration The Path Dependency of Low Carbon Green Growth Policy in MB administration, Jin, S. H., 25(4), 1049-1075. http://www. dbpia. co. kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06738153, , 2013