evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Seoul's Machine-Learning Pipeline for Screening Participatory Budgeting Proposals

South Korea · Seoul · See the South Korea profile · See the Seoul profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 83% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A peer-reviewed study applied topic modelling and a Random Forest classifier to 21,833 real proposals from Seoul's participatory budget (2013–2021), reaching 0.73 AUROC in predicting selected proposals — a research-stage tool to cut proposal-screening workload.

50 KRW billion
Annual participatory budget allocated by Seoul (annual, since 2012)
2.2 %
Share of city budget allocated via participatory budgeting (annual)
1,533 proposals
Proposals received in 2014 (2014)
352 proposals
Proposals selected for funding in 2014 (2014)
21,833 proposals
De-duplicated proposals analysed in the machine-learning study (2013–2021)
0.73 AUROC
Random Forest classifier accuracy (AUROC) predicting proposal selection (2026 study)

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Period
2013–2021 (PB data studied); ML study published 2026
Keywords
participatory budgeting, civic tech, public administration, machine learning research

Context

Seoul has run one of the world's largest participatory budgeting (PB) programmes since May 2012, allocating roughly 50 billion Korean won (about 2.2% of the city budget) through a General Committee of 250 citizens, officials and civil-society representatives; in 2014 alone the process received 1,533 proposals, of which 352 were ultimately selected for funding.

Objectives

To help handle this volume, researcher Bokyong Shin (University of Helsinki) published a 2026 study aiming to cut citizens' 'learning costs' through automated categorisation and summarisation, and 'compliance costs' through predictive feedback before formal deliberation.

Activities

The study analysed 21,833 de-duplicated proposals (from 25,415 originally submitted) spanning 2013–2021, combining unsupervised topic modelling using Sentence-BERT embeddings — identifying 17 major topics across two clusters (nine infrastructure-focused, eight social/welfare-focused) — with a supervised Random Forest classifier that predicted proposal selection.

Results

The Random Forest classifier predicted proposal selection with an AUROC of 0.73, outperforming logistic regression, gradient boosting, SVM and decision-tree alternatives.

Conclusions

This remains a research-stage capability built on historical open data rather than a tool confirmed to be running inside Seoul's live PB workflow, so its screening role should be read as a validated proof of concept, not an operational system. The programme's underlying scale and governance structure are independently corroborated by Participedia's case documentation.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Research conducted on existing open administrative data; no operational deployment budget is reported in the source.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — PB programme running since May 2012; proposal data studied spans 2013–2021; machine-learning study published 2026.
Staffing & skills
Seoul Metropolitan Government (PB programme owner), Academic researcher: Bokyong Shin, University of Helsinki

Conditions for success

  • Availability of historical PB proposal data with recorded selection outcomes for model training
  • A well-established, high-volume PB programme generating enough data to model (21,833 proposals over 2013–2021)

Common failure modes

  • Remains research-stage; not confirmed to be running inside Seoul's live PB workflow
  • An AUROC of 0.73 leaves substantial misclassification risk if deployed operationally without further validation

Where it fits

Governance type
city government with a citizen general committee
Scale
city-wide (Seoul)
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful