국가균형발전을 위한 정부간 정책적 역할재정립

윤광재 한국정부학회 2008 하계학술대회 Vol.2008 No.-

사르코지 정부와 이명박 정부의 행정개혁에 관한 비교연구

윤광재 한국행정학회 2009 한국행정학보 Vol.43 No.2

본 연구는 다른 국가에 비해 비교적 유사한 정치·행정적 특징을 가지고 있는 프랑스와 한국의 행정개혁에 관한 비교연구이다. 구체적으로 단일국가체제하의 대통령중심제, 중앙집권적 행정, 수상 및 국무총리제 등에 기초한 사르코지 정부와 이명박 정부의 행정개혁상의 우선순위, 접근방법, 대상에 대해 체계적으로 비교분석한다. 이러한 비교분석은 사르코지 정부의 경험이 이명박 정부에게 추진상의 내용을 공유할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 정책적 시사점을 제공해줄 수 있기 때문이다. 양 정부의 경우, 유사한 정치·행정체제보다는 경기침체라는 대내·외적 변수가 행정개혁에 실질적 영향을 주고 있다. 사르코지 정부는 우선순위와 접근방법에 있어서 공공정책의 검토와 연속적인 방법을 사용하고 있다. 반면에 이명박 정부는 공공기관의 선진화와 단기적 방법에 초점이 맞추어져 있다. 사르코지 정부와 이명박 정부는 조직개편에서 부처수를 감소시키고 인사제도에서는 성과주의를 지향하고 있다. 행정운영에 있어서 전자는 새로운 행정가치를 논의하고 있으며 후자는 성과 및 투명성을 지향하고 있다. 결국, 사르코지 정부는 우선순위에 따른 최종목표 설정, 개혁상의 연속성 추구, 행정가치의 재정립, 자발적 참여환경 조성, 이해관계자의 합의도출을 중시하고 있다.

제3회의 / 제3분과 재무행정의 과제와 전망 : 프랑스 지방자치단체의 지방세 세율결정권한

윤광재 한국행정학회 1998 한국행정학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.1998 No.-

N/A

행정서비스헌장제도의 효과적 이행요인

윤광재,김용동,주재현,최창수 한국행정연구원 2002 기본연구과제 Vol.2002 No.-

주요제국의 행정 동향조사 : 미국의 연방정부조직

윤광재,박태형,차용진,최창수 한국행정연구원 2004 기본연구과제 Vol.2004 No.-

The United States is a representative country of the Federal System. As Federal and State governments are substantially granted sovereign power according to the constitutional law, National power is divided. As State government is not an affiliated organization of Federal government but the completely separated government,it is in the equal position excluding the exception provided by the law as well. In addition the United States is a country to be effectively operated based on mutual check by division of powers. Division of power divides national power into legislation, administration and judicature and let independent organization control each power so that it establishes the relationship of check and balance between each organization.In the separation system of Three Powers Congress has the legislation right, Presidenthas enforcement right of the law and the court has the construction right of the law and the mutual restraint system is that none of organization is able to exercise absolute power. Also a Senator, a Representative, the President and a Federal judge are elected by different ways. As the circumstance of times has been changed, the functional overlapping among organizations however has appeared. For example the prohibition of legislation mandate is eased into Independent Regulatory Commission or enactment right for regulation of governmental organization. Moreover, the power overlapping frequently occurred as many legislative bills are drawn up by Administration Department or judgmentfor violation of constitution by Federal Supreme Court which means Judicature department is in charge of enactment of the law in result.Federal Government is traditionally divided into Executive Office of the President, Departments and Independent Establishments and Government Corporations.Executive Office of the President includes Council of Economics Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, National Security Council, Office of Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Policy Development, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of the United States Trade Representative centering around the White House Office and Office of the Vice President of the United States. Besides there are other departments and commissions which are not mentioned on U.S Government Manual and the lists areOffice of National AIDA Policy, Office of Global Communications, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, White House Military Office and President`s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The Departments of the US include Department of Agriculture which is to improve an income of a farmhouse and to develop an international market for selling agricultural products, the Department of Commerce which is to enforce the competitiveness of the US in an international market, the Department of Defense which is to provide the Military power and to protect the US, the Department of Education which is to secure the national equal education right and to stimulate educational prominence in an entire country, the Department of Energy which is to adjust and execute Energy related functions, the Department of Health and Human Service which is to control the alcohol, a drug, a mental disease, a disease control, food and medicines, the Department of Housing and Urban Development which is to be in charge of provision of dwelling opportunity and a housing construction project, the Ministry of Home Affairs which is to protect natural resources and cultural remains of a country, the Department of Justice which is to enforce the law and to prevent a crime, the Department of Labor which is to promote welfare of a wage worker and to improve working condition, the Department of State which is to advise the President in regards to establishment and execution of international policy, the Department of Transportation which is to establish and to control all kinds of transportation policy of a country and the Department of the Treasury which is to establish economic, financial, taxation and budgetary policies and to perform affairs as the financial department in charge. Alsothe Department of Homeland Security is added to 14 departments of Department of Veterans Affairs which is to operate various supporting programs for veteran soldiers and their families. The Department of Homeland Security has been established due to 9.11 Terror of 2001 and is performing the functions related to National security.The independent organizations and the public corporations of the US include 55 of the independent organizations and the public corporations such as the Central Intelligence Agency which is to collect, to evaluate and to convey important information in regards to the national security in entire fields of a country, Export Import Bank of the US which to maintain, to stimulate the business in the US through financial support in regards to export for exports and services of the US and to support private field, the Federal Reserve System which is to take an important role as the central bank of the US, Merit System Protection Board which is to protect completion of the merit system and to secure the right of a government employee and Office of Personnel Management which is to be in charge of personnel and the merit system of the federal government employee and to control Human Resources Management.

지역균형발전 전략: 재정인센티브를 중심으로

윤광재,장지원,김태영,이용환 한국행정연구원 2004 기본연구과제 Vol.2004 No.-

Each government has presented various balanced regional development policies, and mostly adopted negative strategies suppressing the development or advancement of metropolitan areas. Despite of such efforts, regional gap, that exists between metropolitan and non-metropolitan area in particular, remains unresolved.Currently, other advanced countries are introducing the concept of regional innovation to regional development. In other words, they are shifting from the passive concept of regional development to a positive strategy where each region becomes the principal force of regional development. There are increasing interests in the Regional Innovation System, as its importance is continually emphasized.The actual `Participatory Government` is also seeking a paradigm shift of Balanced National Development. Balanced National Development Laws obligate each local government to devise regional innovative development plans and to establish regional innovation systems. Also Balanced National Development Special Accounting was established to financially support the execution of the Balanced National Development Plan and to promote efficiency in regional development and regional innovation projects according to regional characteristics and priorities.Therefore, for balanced regional development, there is a necessity to evaluate regional innovative development plans and innovation system establishment of local governments, and to operate a financial incentive system that reflects the evaluation results on the regional developmental project account and regional innovative project account.Regional innovative development plans include: first of all, regional innovative development objectives, secondly, regional current status and development potentials analysis, thirdly, conditional improvement foundation building for regional innovative development, fourthly, policy and project executions for regional innovation, lastly, raising investment funds for regional innovation. Overall proportions should be: evaluations of objective, policy and project executions, which is the most important factor related to regional innovative development (30% each), foundation building assessment (20%), regional evaluation and investment funds evaluation (10% each).Regional innovation system establishment includes: first of all, regional innovation system type development, secondly, promotion of industrial-educational-research cooperation, thirdly, training of professionals for regional innovation, fourthly, expansion of support organizations for technology and business management, fifth of all, cooperation and interaction of universities, corporations, research institutions, non-profit organizations, regional governments etc, lastly, restructuring and cooperative operations of regional innovation projects. Overall proportions should be: regional innovation system type development (30%), restructuring and cooperative operations of regional innovation projects in terms of regional innovation system establishment (20%) and promotion of industrial-educational-research cooperation and training of professionals for regional innovation (15% each). In addition, 10% each can be assigned to improved support organizations for technology and business management and cooperation and to interaction of universities, corporations, research institutions, non-profit organizations, regional governments etc.In the view of balanced regional development, resources should be allocated separately for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas according to evaluation results. It is purposed to enhance the capability of non-metropolitan areas and to relieve the gap between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas under the frame of regional innovation.

영국과 프랑스의 행정개혁에 관한 비교연구

윤광재 한국행정학회 2006 한국행정학보 Vol.40 No.2

This study is to analyze the differences in the administrative reform between the United Kingdom and France, which have different administration based on the bureaucracy, to gather information for and form a political suggestion for Korea. This study will analyze the background, extent of the subjects and level for both and analyze the characteristics of the administrative reform process by comparing the executive agencies(centre de responsabilit). In addition, it will take a look at the fact that the two styles of government appeared as a result of reform. The United Kingdom promoted the administrative reform on the base of New Public Management with the republican party, however, France promoted the administrative reform based on their own administrative characteristics and partially adopted the New Public Management towards the end of the 1980s. The subject of the administrative reform in the United Kingdom broader than that of France. France only promoted it partially. The executive agency performed its role in the middle, but it was managed partially in France. In the result of the administrative reform, the government size was reduced in The United Kingdom but there were administrative improvements in France, Korea has promoted the United Kingdom model, however, these days, it has changed to the practical reform which enforces the public function for the nation's convenience in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we need to closely analyze the background and process of the administrative reform of France, which has a similar administration base, also we need to review our reforming direction and process from the examples of these two countries. 본 연구는 영국과 프랑스에 있어 관료제를 둘러싼 행정기반이 동일하지 않음으로써 행정개혁에 있어서도 어느 정도의 차이성이 존재하는지를 분석하고자 하며 우리나라에 필요한 정책적 시사점을 도출하고자 한다. 두 국가에 있어 행정개혁을 배경, 대상범위 및 수준에 따라 분석하고 행정개혁의 구체적 과정으로 책임운영기관(센터)을 비교하여 그 특징을 살펴보고자 한다. 또한, 이와 같은 행정개혁의 결과가 어떠한 형태로 나타나고 있는지를 알아보고자 한다. 영국은 보수당 정권의 출범과 함께 신공공관리에 기초한 행정개혁을 추진하였지만 프랑스는 자국의 행정특성에 기초한 행정개혁을 추진하다 1980년대 후반 신공공관리를 부분적으로 도입하였다. 영국은 행정개혁의 대상에 있어 프랑스보다 광범위하지만 프랑스는 행정운영의 부분적인 측면만을 대상으로 하고 있다. 행정개혁 과정의 구체적인 사례로 영국의 책임운영기관은 중앙차원에서 적극적으로 그 역할을 수행하고 있지만 프랑스의 책임운영센터는 지방차원에서 제한적으로 운영되고 있다. 행정개혁의 결과, 영국은 정부규모의 감축, 프랑스는 자체적인 행정의 개선으로 나타나고 있다. 우리나라는 영국을 행정개혁의 모델로 추구하였으나 최근 영국은 국민의 편익을 위해 공공기능을 강화하는 실용주의 개혁으로 전환되었다. 따라서 영국의 경험뿐만 아니라 행정기반이 유사한 프랑스의 행정개혁 배경과 과정에 보다 많은 관심을 갖는 것이 필요하며 두 국가의 사례를 통해 우리나라 행정개혁의 방향과 과정을 재검토하는 것이 필요하다.

부패방지를 위한 민관협력체계 구축방안

윤광재,김용동,권용수,김정수,라영재,한승준 한국행정연구원 2003 기본연구과제 Vol.2003 No.-

Diverse level of anti-corruption drives are going on both discharged by the central Government and local Governments in Korea. In the level of legislation, anti-corruption law was enacted, and the related institutions were also put in operation. In the field of organization, various kinds of irregularities & corruption reporting offices were established. Among all these kinds of things, the KICAC(Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption) and the `Anti-Corruption Act` that passed the National Assembly on June 28, 2001, are regarded as a significant switching point of corruption-preventing policy in Korea. However, regardless of all these efforts, the corruption level of Korea is still considered quite high.Korea has been rated lower than the other competitors in the `Corruption Perceptions Index` or `Bribery Payers Index` published by the Transparency International every year. In the surveys of public opinion, Koreans say that there are still much corruption-related problems to fix in the public sector. And the evaluation of anti-corruption policies carried out by public institutions still shows that it`s not satisfactory yet for us.The solution must be to break from the Government-centered drive and to introduce a brand new style of anti-corruption policy. That is, we need to introduce corruption-preventing policies through the public sector`s cooperation with private sector. According to the `New Public Management` that is mainly preferred by the English and American nations, the main role of Government as a administrator is to cope with the demands of the citizenry, the customer of Government, and to satisfy them. Though the future relationship of Government and the civil society should call upon the Government to be a companion or a dominated one. Likewise, the citizen`s role would be expected to change into that of a companion or a dominator.The need of cooperation between public and private sector is under discussion in a very positive way all around the world. But the aspect of the cooperation is still restricted to a passive level, like the joint crackdown in Korea. In the other countries, we can also see the ombudsman or the anti-corruption organization`s cooperation with NGOs.Now among all the measures against the corruption, we must pick up the more positive cooperation of the Government and the citizenry as the very alternative for us. The fundamental condition for building a effective cooperation would be the mutual endeavor to see each other in a new light, and the financial support for NGOs is also needed. Moreover, the citizenry also should take up a positive attitude against corruption, that means not only the report for misconduct but also includes the efforts not to contribute to corruption.Accordingly, the Government should enforce the cooperation with NGOs in the every single steps of `deciding`, `executing` and `evaluating` the anti-corruption policies. And to this progress, `Integration`, `Allotment` and `Checking` model could be applied. That is, when deciding a policy, they must cooperate with each other, and then they can go shares in the execution stage. Appling the checking model, The NGOs are also expected to propose alternative plans through the evaluation.

지방자치단체가 행사하는 지방세의 세율결정권한에 관한 연구 : 프랑스의 지방자치단체를 중심으로

윤광재 한국행정학회 1999 한국행정학보 Vol.33 No.2

본 연구는 다른 유럽국가에 비해서 중앙집권적 성격을 강하게 가지고 있는 프랑스에 있어서 제도적 자치에 비해서 재정적 자치가 늦게 등장한 배경을 역사적으로 고찰하고 재정자치의 일부라 할 수 있는 지방세의 세율결정권한에 대해서 실제적으로 검토하는데 목적이 있다. 그러므로 지방자치의 발전단계와 이에 비해서 늦게 시작된 재정자치를 구체적으로 설명하고 세율결정권한의 원칙과 원칙에 속하는 세율의 법정상한선과 세율간의 관계규칙을 정확하게 살펴본다. 또한 지방자치단체가 행사하는 세율결정권한을 주거세, 미건축물토지세 그리고 사업세를 중심으로 고찰하고 프랑스의 경험이 한국의 상황에 제시하는 사항을 검토한다.

특별·광역시 재원조정교부금의 제도 및 형평성에 관한 실증분석 연구

윤광재,김윤수 한국지방자치학회 2009 한국지방자치학회보 Vol.21 No.1

The purpose of local finance equalization scheme of metropolitan cities is to retrieve financial resources of autonomous districts that have been insufficient budgets and to ease off financial disparity between districts. This is a legal matter, which is similar to the assessment process for financial resources and metropolitan city revenue sharing. However, the number of grants, assessment items and assessment units vary between cities. It is because the local finance equalization scheme is first introduced in 1988 and the scheme has been developed ever since to fit into socioeconomic environment of each and every city for over 20 years. In the local finance equalization scheme, it is a common problem that the rate of increase in grants given differs every year for all the districts and it gives financial difficulties to them. That is, the problem is even happening in Seoul that gets the highest amount of grant and also in Ulsan who gets the least. This phenomenon is not ideal for the districts to manage their budget properly in the future. And also, analysis of the equilibrium on local finance equalization scheme in autonomous cities showed that Daejeon has the lowest point of 16.75, which is not a good score considering others’ average point of 10. It can be said that the local finance equalization scheme is running well because score 10 is a fair number. In financial expenditure of autonomous cities, because they tend to put much larger percentage of budgets in fixed expenses such as personnel expenses and mandatory expenses, it is more likely for them to use the grant as running expenses. As it is shown in our regression analysis of the local finance equalization scheme, the relationship between administrative expenditure and ordinary expenditure is presented.