정책과정에서 시민사회의 참여에 관한 연구 : 중앙행정부처 산하 정부위원회 비공식행위자의 참여를 중심으로 :(The) participation of civil society in the policy process : exploration of governmental committee participation of the unofficial actors

함주빈

추천

검색

자료유형: 학위논문

저자정보: 함주빈 (성균관대학교, 성균관대학교 대학원)

지도교수: 박형준

발행연도: 2017

저작권: 성균관대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.

이용수23

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

사회적·행정적 변화를 거치면서 등장한 거버넌스(governance) 시대의 도래와 함께, 정부의 정책결정은 국가기관의 일방적 작용이아니라 민간부문을 포함한 다양한 행위자들간의 상호작용의 결과라는 인식이 널리 확산되고 있으며, 시민사회를 비롯한 다양한 행위자들의 정책과정 참여는 불가피해지고 있다. 그러나 우리나라 정부와 시민사회의 관계는 거버넌스적 측면에서, 협력과 공조보다는 형식적인 수준에 머물러 있다. 이는 시민사회 및 민간의 역할에 대해 거버넌스 파트너적 인식보다는 정부주도의 거버넌스를 유지해온 것으로 볼 수 있다. 정책과정에서 합의제(polycracy)적 거버넌스로 가기 위해서는 정부와 시민사회의 관계가 부분적, 도구적 차원을 넘어 제도적 보완과 노력을 통해 정책의 파트너관계를 지향해 가는 지속적인 과정이 필요하다 할 수 있다. 이에 정부위원회 제도는 합의에 의한 정부 기능 수행을 가능케하며, 이를 통해 행정의 민주성과 책임성 등을 확보할 수 있다.
이를 위해 본 연구는 거버넌스적(governance) 측면에서 정책과정의 다양한 행위자(actors)들이 공통의 문제 해결을 위해 협력하는 합의제 기구인 ‘정부위원회’ 를 중심으로 정책과정에 참여하는 정책행위자(policy actors) 중 시민사회를 비롯한 민간 위촉직 위원들의 참여에 대해 실증 분석하고자 한다. 이에 중앙행정부처 산하 정부위원회를 중심으로, 정부위원회에 소속된 위원들 중 정부위원이 대다수인 당연직 위원을 제외한 위촉직 위원을 대상으로 ‘비공식행위자’의 4가지 범주(방송언론, 시민단체, 이익집단, 전문가집단)로 유형화하고, 정부위원회를 위원회 성격별(행정위원회, 자문위원회, 단순자문위원회, 심의·의결위원회), 년도별(2013년, 2014년, 2015,년, 2016년), 부처별(시민단체 참여가 나타나지 않은 각 중앙행정부처 산하 위원회)로 나누어 다각도로 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 통해 각 분석단위에서 위원 간 비율(당연직 위원, 위촉직 위원)의 차이가 있는지, 비공식행위자의 수는 비슷하게 나타나는지, 또 위원회에 따라 혹은 비공식행위자 내에서도 차이가 있는지, 차이가 있다면 어떤 차이가 나타내는지 등을 다양한 측면에서 비교·분석 하였으며, 분석 결과는 다음과 같이 도출되었다.
첫째, 정부위원회 성격별 비공식행위자들의 참여를 분석한 결과 행정위원회와 단순자문위원회에서 유의미한 차이가 발견되었다. 권한과 역할의 비중이 낮은 단순자문위원회에서 시민사회의 참여는 가장 높게 나타난 반면, 행정집행권과 더불어 준입법·준사법적 권한을 가지는 행정위원회에서 시민사회의 참여가 가장 저조하게 나타났으며, 전문가집단의 경우 위원회 성격별로 가장 높은 비중을 차지하고 있었으며, 방송언론의 참여는 모든 위원회에서 극히 적은 것으로 나타나, 위원회 성격별 차이가 크지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 정부위원회 년도별 비공식행위자들의 참여를 분석한 결과 2013년, 2014년, 2015년 그리고 2016년 큰 차이가 나타나지 않았으며, 비슷한 분포를 나타냈다. 이는 위 년도가 모두 현 정부에 해당하는 범주로써, 정권의 변동의 영향을 받는 정부위원회의 특성이 실증분석을 통해 동일하게 나타나고 있음을 발견하였다. 다음으로 정부위원회 부처별 비공식행위자들의 참여를 분석한 결과, 부처별 유의미한 차이가 발견되었다. 정부부처의 특성에 따라 위촉직 위원, 비공식행위자들의 분포가 상이하게 나타났다. 정부위원이 대다수를 이루는 당연직위원의 참여비율은 문화체육관광부에서 가장 높게 나타났으며, 반면 민간 위촉직 위원들의 참여는 매우 저조한 것으로 나타났다. 민간 위촉직 위원들 중 비공식행위자의 참여가 가장 높게 나타난 부처는 교육부였으며, 행정자치부의 경우 정부위원회 주관 부처임에도 불구하고, 가장 낮게 나타났다. 이중 ‘전문가집단’은 부처별 분석에서도 비공식행위자 중 80%이상을 차지하는 것으로 나타났으며, ‘이익집단’의 경우, 정부부처 및 위원회의 특성에 따른 영향을 가장 크게 받는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 비공식행위자 중 언론과 시민단체의 참여는 극히 적은 것으로 나타나고 있으며 분석단위별 차이가 크지 않는 것으로 보여진다.
이러한 결과에 따라 본 연구는 다음과 같은 함의를 가진다. 첫째, 본 연구는 정부위원회에 참여하고 있는 위원들을 전수 조사하여 데이터화 하고, 실제 정부의 정책과정에서 시민사회를 비롯한 민간 위촉직 위원들의 참여를 분석한 실증연구 자체에 대한 함의를 가진다. 둘째, 정부위원회에 참여하고 있는 민간 위촉직 위원들에 대한 유형화를 통하여 이들의 정책과정 참여에 대한 폭넓은 이해와 다양한 해석을 제공하였다는데 함의가 있다. 마지막으로, 민간 위촉직 위원의 유형화와 함께 중앙행정부처 산하 정부위원회를 위원회 성격별, 년도별, 부처별로 나누어 보다 다각도로 살펴보고자 하였으며, 정책과정 참여에 대한 다측면적 분석 작업이 이루어졌으며, 유의미한 차이를 발견할 수 있었다. 이에 정부위원회 성격별, 년도별, 부처별 분류에 따라 위원들의 참여 비중이 각기 다르게 나타나고 있음을 실제적으로 발견하였다는 점에서 연구의 의의가 있다.

With the emergence of the era of governance along with social and administrative change, there has been a widespread belief that policy making by government is not a unilateral act of a national institution, but the result of interaction between various actors, including the private sector. Further, it has been inevitable for a variety of actors such as civil society to engage in the policy-making process. In terms of governance, however, relations between the government and civil society in Korea are still at the formal level rather than cooperation and assistance. This status indicates that governance is led by the government without being aware of partnership with civil society and private sector. It is required to ensure a continuous process to pursue partnership for policy in the relations between the government and civil society by institutional supplementation and efforts beyond a partial and instrumental level in order to achieve polycracy governance. Accordingly, the government commission system allows performing governmental functions based on agreement, which secures democracy and responsibility in administration.
For this goal, this study aims to conduct empirical analysis for engagement by appointed members in the private sector such as civil society among policy actors who participate in policy-making process based on “government commission,” a council system organization in which various actors in policy-making process to address common issues in terms of governance. Among members who belong to government commissions based on those under the central administrative government agencies, appointed members except for ex officio members whose majority are government members are classified into four categories (broadcasting and media, civic group, interest group, specialist group) of “unofficial actors.” In addition, government commissions are examined in diverse perspectives by dividing them based on characteristics (administrative commission, advisory commission, simple advisory commission, deliberative and legislative commission), each year (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) and department (each commission under central administrative departments without engagement by civic groups). With this process, the status is compared and analyzed in various terms by checking if there is any difference in the proportion of members in each analysis unit (ex officio members, appointed members), the number of unofficial actors is similar, and there is any difference in unofficial actors depending on a commission; if so, what difference they have. The results of analysis are as follows:
First, the results of analysis for engagement by unofficial actors based on each characteristic of government commission indicate significant difference in the administrative commission and simple advisory commission. While the level of participation by civil society is the highest in the simple advisory commission in which the proportion of authority and role is low, the administrative commission, which has the quasi-administrative and quasi-judicial authority with administrative executive power, has the lowest level of participation by civil society. The specialist group has the highest proportion based on each characteristic of commission, whereas engagement by broadcasting and media is extremely low in all types of commissions; this indicates little difference in each characteristic of government commissions. Second, according to the results of analysis for engagement by unofficial actors in government commissions based on each year, little difference was found in the year of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, but similar distribution was indicated. This highlights that the characteristics of government commissions which are influenced by change of government are shown similarly by empirical analysis as all the above-mentioned years are in the current government. Next, the analysis of engagement by unofficial actors in each department of government commissions results in significant difference. Distribution of appointed members and unofficial actors is different depending on the characteristics of government departments. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has the highest ratio of participation by ex officio members in which majority are government members and the extremely low level of participation by members appointed from the private sector. The Ministry of Education has the highest level of engagement by unofficial actors among private appointed members. Despite the ministry in charge of government commissions, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs has the lowest level of engagement. In the analysis of each department, the “specialist group” accounts for 80% or over in unofficial actors, and the highest impact by the characteristics of government departments and commissions is given to the “interest group.” It is also indicated that engagement by media and civic groups among unofficial actors is very low and shows little difference in each analysis unit.
Based on such results, this study has the following implications: first, this study has implications in empirical research in which data are built up based on complete enumeration for members who engage in government commissions and any participation by private appointed members such as civil society in the actual policy-making process by government is analyzed. Second, this study has implications in providing extensive understanding and various interpretations for engagement in policy process by classifying private appointed members in government commissions. Lastly, this study seeks to examine government commissions under the central administrative departments based on characteristics, years and departments along with the classification of private appointed members and conducts polyphasic analytical tasks for engagement in policy process to find important differences. Accordingly, this study has significance in finding actual difference in the proportion of engagement by members depending on each characteristic, year and department of government commissions.

#정부위원회 #정책참여 #비공식행위자 #시민사회 #시민참여

제1장 서 론 ························································1
제1절 연구의 배경 및 연구목적 ································1
제2절 연구의 범위 및 연구방법 ································4
1. 연구의 범위 ·····································································4
2. 연구의 방법 ·····································································5
제2장 이론적·제도적 배경 ·········································7
제1절 거버넌스와 시민사회 ·····································7
1. 거버넌스(Governance) ··························································7
1) 거버넌스 논의의 등장과 개념 ··········································7
2) 거버넌스의 유형 ························································10
2. 시민사회(Civil Society) ·······················································14
1) 시민사회의 개념 ·························································14
2) 시민사회의 유형 ·························································18
3. 정부-시민사회 관계 ···························································21
1) 정부-시민사회 관계에 관한 논의 ······································21
2) 정부-시민사회 관계 유형에 대한 연구동향 ··························28
제2절 정책과정에서 시민사회 참여 ···························36
1. 정책과정 행위자································································36
1) 공식 행위자 ·······························································36
2) 비공식 행위자 ····························································38
2. 정책과정과 시민참여 ·························································39
1) 시민참여의 개념 및 의의 ··············································39
2) 정책과정에서 시민참여 유형 ··········································42
제3절 정부위원회(Governmental Committee) ···············48
1. 위원회 제도에 관한 이론적 논의 ··········································48
1) 위원회 제도의 개념 및 의의 ·············································48
2) 위원회 제도의 기능 ·······················································49
2. 정부위원회에 관한 제도적 논의 ············································52
1) 정부위원회의 개념 및 유형 ··············································52
2) 정부위원회의 현황 ························································55
3) 우리나라 정부위원회 제도의 문제점 ···································60
제3장 연구 설계 ··················································65
제1절 연구의 개요 ··············································65
1. 연구대상 ······································································65
2. 연구모형의 구성 ······························································67
제2절 자료수집 및 분석방법····································68
1. 자료 수집 방법 ·······························································68
2. 분석방법 ·······································································69
제4장 정책과정 비공식행위자의 정부위원회 참여 분석 ········71
제1절 비공식행위자의 정부위원회 참여 개관 ·················71
1. 전체 개관 ·····································································71
2. 정부위원회 소속 위원간 분석 ··············································73
3. 위촉직 위원·비공식행위자 유형별 분석 ···································75
제2절 성격별 정부위원회 참여 분석 ··························78
1. 행정위원회 ····································································79
2. 자문위원회 ····································································82
3. 단순자문위원회 ·······························································85
4. 심의위원회·의결위원회 ······················································89
제3절 년도별 정부위원회 참여 분석 ··························92
1. 2013년 정부위원회 ···························································92
2. 2014년 정부위원회 ···························································95
3. 2015년 정부위원회 ···························································98
4. 2016년 정부위원회 ··························································101
제4절 부처별 정부위원회 참여 분석 ·························104
1. 시민단체 참여가 없는 부처 위원회 ······································104
2. 부처별 분석 ··································································111
제5절 분석의 종합·············································128
1. 정부위원회 성격별 ··························································128
2. 정부위원회 년도별 ··························································131
3. 정부위원회 부처별 ··························································134
제5장 결 론 ······················································140
제1절 연구의 함의 및 시사점 ································140
제2절 연구의 한계 및 향후 연구과제 ························146
참고문헌 ·························································148
ABSTRACT ·····················································162

최근 본 자료

전체보기

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	원문	원문 PDF 파일
AI 학습용 데이터	원문 + 메타 (기본/상세)	원문 PDF 파일 및 서지정보 CSV
대량 구매용 데이터	B2B 구독 방식	특정 자료 한정으로 원문 접근 권한 부여
대량 구매용 데이터	URL 전달 방식	바로 PDF 뷰어를 열람할 수 있는 URL 제공

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	기본 메타	발행기관명, 간행물명, 권호명, 권(vol), 호(issue), 통권, 발행연도, 발행월, 논문명, 저자명, 시작페이지, 종료페이지, 전체페이지, 상세페이지URL
상세 메타 데이터	발행기관 메타	발행기관 이명, 영문명, 창립연도, 홈페이지URL, 발행기관 소개
	간행물 메타	부제목, 간행물 유형, ISSN, ISBN, 최초발행연도, 폐간연도, 간행빈도, 발행주기, 등재사항, 이용수, 피인용수, 권호수, 논문수, 표지이미지
	논문 메타	작성 언어, 부제목, 대등제목, 목차, 키워드, 초록, 이미지, 참고문헌, 이용수, 피인용수, 논문활용도, DBpia통합주제분류, KDC분류, DDC분류, 한국연구재단분류, UCI, DOI
	저자 메타	소속기관, 소속부서, 직급, 연구분야, 연구키워드, 이용수, 피인용수, 저자 논문활용도

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
※ 결합형/맞춤형 메타 데이터는 신청 내용에 따라 다양하게 제공 가능
이용순위 정보	주제분야별 많이 이용된 논문	“인문학”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	이용기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“중고등학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	세부기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“서울대학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	키워드별 많이 이용된 논문	“Chat GPT”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
키워드 정보	많이 이용된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 이용된 키워드
	많이 발행된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 발행된 키워드
	많이 검색된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 검색된 키워드
	연구 트렌드 키워드	특정 키워드 연관 연구동향 분석 데이터 키워드

논문 기본 정보

초록· 키워드

목차

최근 본 자료

댓글(0)