지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This dissertation, consisting of seven chapters, is a “multimethodological” study of twenty-eight developing countries in terms of political, administrative and socio-economic development. The study seeks to investigate and explain the relationship between political development and administrative development in the context of socio-economic change. What aspects of political development and administrative development in contributing to the overall goal of national development are significant is the basic question investigated.
It is asserted that governmental action is the principal vehicle for the accomplishment of developmental aims, which is emphasized by socio-economic development in most developing countries. In other words, socio-economic development can be successfully and rapidly attained through the active intervention of government, although socio-economic progress depends in good part on the extent of a country's mineral and human resourses …as well as on its internal position vis-a-vis other countries. With this assertion, the points in the study on which particular emphasis has been laid are: (1) the unbalanced nature of the relationship between politics and administration in developing countries: and (2) the attributes (dimensions) of the concepts of political and administrative development.
The thrust of the study is that there are two types of the unbalanced relationships between politics and administration: one is that the most important decisions are located in administrative structures rather than in political structures (Group Ⅰ), and the other one is that those are in political structures rather than in administrative structures (Group Ⅱ), in which there may be somewhat uneven significance in respect to the attributes of development concepts. The recent writings of selected theorists of development reviewed and evaluated with respect to our inquiry present us four major attributes of political and administrative development...... autonomy, responsiveness, differentiation and capacity which make it possible to assay the prominent characteristics of development. Accordingly, attention is focused upon the comparison between the two types in terms of developmental phenomena, and upon the exploration on the overall relationship between developmental phenomena as well.
A systematic analysis is made of operational reality, based on data which were collected on thirty variables measuring political, administrative and socio-economic development. Four basic dimensions of political and administrative development provided us with the criteria to select those variables. As for socio-economic development variables, the rate of change is estimated within the same period as is polity, in as much as at the outset the politics-administration relationship was determined by the characteristics of polity. Factor and canonical correlation analyses, and stepwise discriminant analysis were employed to meet the study demands.
A summary of significant findings of the study includes the following:
(1) There were various characteristic patterns of political and administrative development in an unbalanced relationship between politics and administration. What is obvious in terms of patterns is that evenly significant dimension do not exist within political and administrative development in the less developed countries.
(2) There was a close relationship between political, administrative and socio-economic development: 47.6 percent of total variation was accounted for between political and administrative development: 19.3 percent was on the aggregate level; and 42.2 and 47.6 percents were for Group Ⅰ and Ⅱ, respectively, in which political stability, differentiation and capacity, and administrative capacity are significant in contributing to the level of socio-economic development.
(3) Administrative capacity and responsiveness is salient in accounting for socio-economic development in Group Ⅰ, whereas political capacity, stability and differentiation, and administrative capacity are prominent in explaining socio-economic development in Group Ⅱ.
These findings answer our question in the affirmative by drawing the conclusions that administrative rather than political development is important for socio-economic development, and that capacity rather than equality dimensions in both political and administrative development.
The study recommands that in order to achieve more socio-economic development (1) a country with a bureaucracy as the route to political power should insist upon established administrative systems in terms of responsiveness and capacity such as position classification and local self-government, and (2) in a country where the constitutive system provides the main route to political power, politically stable, differentiated and administratvely capable and responsive systems such as long continued political parties, multi-numbers of parties in the legislature, position classification and regular legislators' terms of office provide the best expertise for an acceleration in socio-economic development.
These are short-cut ways by which poverty and injustice can be surmounted in our society.
It is asserted that governmental action is the principal vehicle for the accomplishment of developmental aims, which is emphasized by socio-economic development in most developing countries. In other words, socio-economic development can be successfully and rapidly attained through the active intervention of government, although socio-economic progress depends in good part on the extent of a country's mineral and human resourses …as well as on its internal position vis-a-vis other countries. With this assertion, the points in the study on which particular emphasis has been laid are: (1) the unbalanced nature of the relationship between politics and administration in developing countries: and (2) the attributes (dimensions) of the concepts of political and administrative development.
The thrust of the study is that there are two types of the unbalanced relationships between politics and administration: one is that the most important decisions are located in administrative structures rather than in political structures (Group Ⅰ), and the other one is that those are in political structures rather than in administrative structures (Group Ⅱ), in which there may be somewhat uneven significance in respect to the attributes of development concepts. The recent writings of selected theorists of development reviewed and evaluated with respect to our inquiry present us four major attributes of political and administrative development...... autonomy, responsiveness, differentiation and capacity which make it possible to assay the prominent characteristics of development. Accordingly, attention is focused upon the comparison between the two types in terms of developmental phenomena, and upon the exploration on the overall relationship between developmental phenomena as well.
A systematic analysis is made of operational reality, based on data which were collected on thirty variables measuring political, administrative and socio-economic development. Four basic dimensions of political and administrative development provided us with the criteria to select those variables. As for socio-economic development variables, the rate of change is estimated within the same period as is polity, in as much as at the outset the politics-administration relationship was determined by the characteristics of polity. Factor and canonical correlation analyses, and stepwise discriminant analysis were employed to meet the study demands.
A summary of significant findings of the study includes the following:
(1) There were various characteristic patterns of political and administrative development in an unbalanced relationship between politics and administration. What is obvious in terms of patterns is that evenly significant dimension do not exist within political and administrative development in the less developed countries.
(2) There was a close relationship between political, administrative and socio-economic development: 47.6 percent of total variation was accounted for between political and administrative development: 19.3 percent was on the aggregate level; and 42.2 and 47.6 percents were for Group Ⅰ and Ⅱ, respectively, in which political stability, differentiation and capacity, and administrative capacity are significant in contributing to the level of socio-economic development.
(3) Administrative capacity and responsiveness is salient in accounting for socio-economic development in Group Ⅰ, whereas political capacity, stability and differentiation, and administrative capacity are prominent in explaining socio-economic development in Group Ⅱ.
These findings answer our question in the affirmative by drawing the conclusions that administrative rather than political development is important for socio-economic development, and that capacity rather than equality dimensions in both political and administrative development.
The study recommands that in order to achieve more socio-economic development (1) a country with a bureaucracy as the route to political power should insist upon established administrative systems in terms of responsiveness and capacity such as position classification and local self-government, and (2) in a country where the constitutive system provides the main route to political power, politically stable, differentiated and administratvely capable and responsive systems such as long continued political parties, multi-numbers of parties in the legislature, position classification and regular legislators' terms of office provide the best expertise for an acceleration in socio-economic development.
These are short-cut ways by which poverty and injustice can be surmounted in our society.
목차
一. 序論
二. 政治와 行政의 不均衡關係
三. 發展論
四. 資料ㆍ數量化 및 分析方法
五. 政治ㆍ行政 및 國家發展의 關係
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
國際聯合行政上의 諸問題
국제법학회논총
1960 .04
-
한국의 행정계획
서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2007 .12
-
동아시아 행정심판제도 비교연구
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
행정의 행위형식으로서의‘행정계획’개념에 대한 검토－헌법재판소 2000. 6. 1. 선고, 99헌마538등 결정,대법원 1982. 3. 9. 선고, 80누105 판결 및 대법원 2002.10. 11. 선고, 2000두8226 판결에 대한 평석－
일감법학
2013 .01
-
행정지도와 법률유보 및 구제에 관한 이론적 검토
한양법학
2011 .08
-
韓國政治指導者 變遷의 社會ㆍ經濟的 推理
한국정치학회보
1984 .12
-
프랑스, 미국에서의 행정행위 개념에 대한 소고
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
행정계획론 소고
법학연구
2007 .06
-
中国2014年《行政诉讼法》修正案的主要内容及未来发展
동북아법연구
2015 .01
-
글로벌 시대의 公益論
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
Political and Economic Development in Korea and Korea-Japan Relations
국제정치논총
1985 .12
-
Urbanization in Korea : Its Socio-Political Aspects
한국사회학
1977 .12
-
東アジアにおける比較行政法の可能性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
[일반논문]인도의 경제위기와 정치적 민주주의의 발전
민주주의와 인권
2002 .10
-
중국법상 行政審判機關의 終局裁決權과 그에 대한 評價
법학연구
2005 .12
-
태국의 최근 정치적 갈등: 그 평가와 전망
동남아연구
2010 .01
-
The Present and Future of the History of Political Thought in Korea : between the West and the Past
국제정치연구
2014 .12
-
中国行政监察制度的历史演变和未来发展
지방자치법연구
2014 .01
-
한국 제1공화국 정치문화의 특성
국제정치연구
2012 .12
-
참여와 교섭에 의한 행정과정과 행정분쟁의 해결
행정법연구
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-340-017372936