국가재난안전관리 정책패러다임에 대한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I. Background and Purpose□Background○National policy paradigms for risk management are based on three policy theories: ① bureaucracy, ② new public management, ③ governance- The command- control paradigm is based on bureaucracy within a hierarchical system- Enterprise risk management (ERM) is based on new public management theories. ERM seeks to establish an internal control system within organizations for risk management- Network governance seeks collaborative networks among public and private organizations○Analyze Korean risk policies from a policy paradigm perspective and then develop new risk policies for Korea- Korean risk policies are mainly influenced by bureaucracy but recently have used various policy tools of ERM and collaborative governance- Lack of in- depth analysis on the hiatus between policy paradigms and policy practices□Purpose○To analyze inter- ministerial relationships in the national disaster management system○To analyze public- private collaborations at the central and local levels○To analyze the disaster management capacity of governmental ministriesII. Results○Comparison of Policy Paradigms for Disaster and Safety Management○Analysis from the command and control perspective- Inter- ministerial, intergovernmental, and public- private relationships in national disaster management are mainly dominated by the command and control of central government- The command and control system of central government gives rise to a lack of autonomous disaster management at the local level- public- private collaborations are led by central government relationships and focus on legally-organized private organizations in the form of public mobilization rather than of public participation- require role coordination between the Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MPAS) and the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)○Analysis from collaborative governance- Collaborative governance is still an ideal for Korean disaster management- public servants seek transformation of national disaster management from a command- control system to collaborative governance but still operate public- private collaborations in a bureaucratic way- Many public servants (especially in local governments) treat private organizations as an object for mobilization rather than as a subject of participation- Public- private collaboration in Korea is still an extension of bureaucracy- Governments should be less a controller than a coordinator and facilitator of collaborative governance○Analysis from enterprise-wide risk management- The Korean government is using various ERM policies such as safety standards and BCP, etc.- However, the “secondary risk management” of audit offices, central to ERM, is not working well- A disaster management standard and quality assurance system without an internal control system in disaster management organization is not ERMㆍA key element of internal control is to separate the department of risk management from the department (generally audit offices) that evaluates the performance of risk management- Due to the absent connection between audit system and risk management system, audit offices within the Korean government do not evaluate the risk management of governmental organizations beyond the assessment of general organizational performance- Even though the Korean government has practical tools from ERM, it operates it in the form of traditional bureaucracy- The Korean government has no systematic risk management process from an ERM perspectiveIII. Policy Recommendations