한국 분점정부에 관한 연구 : 의회-행정부 관계를 중심으로 = (A) Study on Divided Government in Korea : With reference to Legislative-Administrative Relations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Divided government, in which the majority political party or party coalition in legislature is not identical to party of the executive head, is a usual governmental type in presidential regime. Until recently, Korea was faced with a divided government repeatedly since 1988. But divided government has stirred controversies -good or bad- in any presidential separation-of-power system. In one side of the controversy, ones contend that divided government aggregates gridlock and between the legislative and executive branches and thus deepens governability crisis. And on the other hand, ones divided government is rather desirable to represent various interests and prevent a majority tyranny. However, both sides cannot be still providing a clear basis about the controversies.
Specially, negative recognition about divided government was dominant in Korean politics, Therefore an abnormal politics action to convert divided government to unified government by an artificial way has been repeated. Compare to unified government, does divided government deepens a trouble between the legislative and executive branches and a deadlock. And does bring the national government operating inefficient results? Does divided government cause only the always negative results?
This study was based on these formulas in question and analyzed the real operation results of Korean divided government. It is going to have been groped for the alternative that divided government can be stably and efficiently operated with a base by these results.
I looked into the divided government operating real results greatly in two sides. Does the only unified government bring the efficient results than divided government? And What is the reason that was made to convert divided government to unified government? In another side, What is difference along a type of divided government in the process and the consequence when divided government is operated practically
First of all, as comparing the result of the management of unified government with it of divided government, I can't conclude that some governmental type is more stable and or efficient. A difference of the consequence between two governmental types is not large in all side - Days in session and stalemate of the National Assembly, legislative activities, a budget process, and supervision and check the Administration. Therefore, I evaluate that a political trouble and deadlock is not the results caused by divided government itself, and it is the results by a composite operation of various factors as political situations, a type of divided government, and a management method. Consequently, it cannot have a logical reason that divided government have to be converted to unified government for stability and efficiency. Therefore a focus of analysis must be concentrated on real management and consequence than artificial solution of divided government.
Based on this view, I try to analysis management methods of divided government and the result by types of divided government in Korea. As comparing the result of the management by types of divided government, I seek some different results between types of divided government.
The divided government which must be considered most momentously is the type of divided government which existed majority party. Compared a case of the divided government which majority party existed in a congress with other cases of divided government, I find that troubles and stalemate was relatively much in the former. Also, ratio to modify bills introduced by executive branch to carry out government policy was the highest in also divided government which existed majority party. In particular, immediately after minority party win in a President election, the degree was harsh. In divided government which existed majority party, the President have to endeavor in order to seek a way to acquire a support and cooperation of a majority party.
On the other hand, a degree of a trouble was relatively low in legislation of government policy in the divided government that rulling party gained a position of the largest party. Appropriate concession and compromise of rulling party were relatively high. This was to show possibility of stable management in divided government which don't exist majority party but rulling party is the largest party in National Assembly
On the other hand, a difference by type of divided government was not conspicuous in a budget process, and supervision and check the Administration. But cases of appointment agreement is rejected and discharge suggestion is approved about government important positions were relatively much in divided government which existed majority party. It is showing an influence of divided government which exist majority party.
These results provide some hint point related to management of divided government. The first, When divided government which exist majority party was formed, it is necessary to seek any system to minimize a trouble between Legislature and Administration. The second, divided government have to be managed it must be managed concession and a compromise to the center. The third, core of management of divided government is not efficiency but stability. Therefore, the focus of a discussion about management of divided government must be the method of management that can form cooperative relation between Legislature and Administration and the improvement of essential structure of politics for it.
In this study, I endeavored in order to look for the way that can strengthen stability and efficiency based on these viewpoints. First of all, it is necessary to change about divided government. We gets out of a negative prejudice about divided government and accept as general phenomenon in a presidential system. The reason is because it can discuss ways of the management method that is a core of divided government if conversion of that kind of recognition becomes.
The Second, methods of management of divided government must be diversification. A management method must be selected with a discriminative way according to types of divided government. Negotiation and compromise with opposition party is indispensable and Concession of rulling party must be accompanied for efficiency and stability of divided government. Also, leadership of the President that can have led a support and cooperation of opposition parties must be strengthened.
The third, an improvement of essential structure of politics must be accompanied so that this management methods efficiently work. In a presidential system, troubles and competition between Legislature and Administration can be held. therefore, a fundamental structure and system of politics to must be prepared to minimize troubles and stalemate between Legislature and Administration. A discussion about improvement of system can approach in the three sides - structure of authority, of Legislature and of political party. Their key issue is improvement of Legislative-Administrative harmony relation, and enhancement of independence of Legislature, the intraparty democracy and a policy-central party.
These improvements cannot be carried out by only any one and only which one is not what can be improved separately. All systemical / structural factors is connected and, it must be improved simultaneously and in order like a domino. That is, we must effort to improve systems and structure which are compounded suitably and newly for efficient management of divided government in Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = ⅰ
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 문제제기 및 연구목적 = 1
• 2. 연구동향 = 1
• 3. 연구범위와 방법 = 10
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 15
• 1. 분점정부의 본질 = 15
• 2. 분점정부와 의회-행정부 관계 = 39
• 3. 분점정부의 운영과 개념적 틀 = 63
• Ⅲ. 한국 분점정부의 출현과 전개 = 77
• 1. 분점정부의 기원과 출현배경 = 77
• 2. 정부유형의 변화와 분점정부의 유형 = 77
• 3. 형성원인 = 108
• 4. 분점정부의 지속성 = 139
• Ⅳ. 한국 분점정부의 운영 실태 = 141
• 1. 분점정부의 운영과 해소 유형 = 142
• 2. 단점정부와 분점정부의 운영결과 비교 = 155
• 3. 분점정부의 유형별 운영과 결과 = 191
• 4. 분점정부 운영의 발전 방안 = 201
• Ⅴ. 요약 및 결론 = 217
• 참고문헌 = 227
• ABSTRACT = 239