갈등적 상황에서 담론적 정책분석의 유용성에 관한 연구 : 의약분업정책사례분석을 중심으로

국문 초록 (Abstract)

현재의 정책분석론은 효율적 정책대안의 탐색에는 어느정도 타당성을 인정받고 있으나, 갈등적 상황에서 갈등해결을 통한 바람직한 사회변화와 정의실현을 위한 규범적,가치적 문제를 다루는데에는 다소 한계를 가지고 있다. 따라서 정책분석의 도구적 성격과 규범적,의사소통적 성격을 포괄하기 위해서는 사실과 가치간의 관계에 대한 인식론적 문제가 제기된다. 이러한 문제의식에서 출발하여 이 논문은 갈등적 상황에서 담론이 실증주의 방법론이 밝혀내지 못하는 갈등의 원인을 발견하고 또 치유할 수 있는 유력한 공간임을 밝힌다. 그 이유는 하버마스와 푸코의 담론이론에 의하면 담론이 상이한 가치를 형성시킴과 동시에 담론의 주체를 변화시키는 힘이 있기 때문이라는 것이다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 하버마스와 푸코의 담론이론을 가지고 담론적 정책분석의 방법론을 정립하고 그 유용성에 관하여 논증하고자 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to establish a discourse methodology of policy analysis and discuss its usability based on the discourse theories of Habermas and Foucault. In the process of policymaking, policies eventually express political and social relationships as they are developed by several people with different viewpoints and motivations. Therefore, the process of policy analysis and policymaking is not simply selecting the best policy measures in neutral positions, but involves communication and ethical relativity based on value prospect and situational cognition of issues.
Although current methodologies of policy analysis are thought to be valid when searching for effective policy alternatives, they have limited capacities when handling rules and values solve conflicts to achieve desirable social changes and justice. In order to have both the functionality of policy analysis and the communication with society, we must find answer to the relationship between fact and value. The question would be, "How do we integrate fact and value in methodologies of policy analysis?"
Understanding this issue, this study proves that discourse is an effective measure to discover causes of conflict, which positivist methodologies of policy analysis cannot discover, and solve them. According to Habermas and Foucault's discourse theories, discourse forms different values and has the power to change whoever is leading the discourse.
Chapter 2 discusses the background of Habermas and Foucault's discourse theories and describes the relationship between conflict and discourse to assert that discourse can reduce conflicts. Foucault's discourse theory and Habermas' discourse theory are also examined in terms of analysis of power and communication between subjects of conflicts. In this part, this study asserts that Foucault and Habermas' discourse theories can be a useful tool to discover and solve causes of conflicts when they are used to supplement each other.
Chapter 3 examines the characters of policy analysis into the character of a tool and the character of communication and proves that the positivist methodology of policy analysis emphasizes the character of tool and is limited when it is required to discover and solve problems concerning rules and values. Then, policy analysis based on post-positivist methodologies is discussed as an alternative to positivist methodologies. The limitation of positivist and post-positivist methodologies would be explaining the necessity of discourse.
The last part of Chapter 3 offers a multi-perspective analytical methodology to use discourse in conflicts. This methodology is based on Foucault's discourse regulation strategies, altered unofficial evaluation logic of Taylor, and altered discourse structure of Toulmin.
Chapter 4 examines the usability of discoursive policy analysis in regards to the case study of the division of medical and pharmaceutical sectors.
In policy analysis, discourse attempts to justify reasoning and stipulates truth and justice for arguments that cause problems even when there is no distortion caused by intervention of powers. Discourse stresses compromise based on common beliefs of community members, enables critical reflection of social conditions, and prevents domination of functionality in policy analysis with effective communication to harmonize science and ethics in a near-ideal way. Therefore, multi-perspective discourse methodology in policymaking can be effective in the following ways:
1) Discoursive policy analysis enables policy analysis that involves the character of functionality and communication and tolerates both factual determination and value determination.
2) Discoursive policy analysis establishes ethics of communication in analysis and improves the quality of policy by uplifting responsiveness and responsibility toward people.
3) Discoursive policy analysis can listen to beneficiaries' values and requirements and expands the possibility and reliability of participatory democracy in the process of policymaking.
4) Practical discourse in discoursive policy analysis contributes for solving crisis of political systems by re-politicalizing the public.
Discoursive policy analysis is required in conflict situaions and is useful because it can contribute for solving conflicts by showing the structure of discourse in policymaking.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장. 서론 = 8
• 제1절. 연구목적 = 8
• 제2절. 연구의 범위 및 방법 = 11
• 제2장. 담론에 관한 이론적 고찰 = 13
• 제1절. 하버마스와 푸코의 담론적 논의 배경 = 13
• 1. 하버마스와 비판이론 = 13
• 2. 푸코와 해체주의 = 18
• 제2절. 담론의 인식론적 기초 = 23
• 1. 갈등과 담론 = 26
• 2. 하버마스의 담론 = 34
• 3. 푸코의 담론 = 48
• 4. 정태적 담론과 동태적 담론 = 56
• 제3장. 정책분석의 담론적 접근 = 58
• 제1절. 정책분석의 성격 및 방법론 = 58
• 1. 정책분석의 도구적 성격 = 59
• 2. 정책분석의 규범적.의사소통적 성격 = 62
• 3. 실증주의적 정책분석의 인식론과 방법론 = 66
• 4. 실증주의적 정책분석의 비판과 탈실증주의적 접근방법 = 69
• 제2절. 갈등적 상황에서 담론의 개념과 필요성 = 87
• 1. 이상적 담론상황의 의의 = 91
• 2. 담론적 정책분석의 이상적 상황 기준과 유형 = 93
• 3. 갈등적 상황에서 담론적 정책분석의 필요성 = 97
• 제3절. 분석틀의 구성 = 106
• 1. 분석의 틀 = 106
• 2. 담론구조의 평가 = 108
• 3. 담론적 정책분석의 방법 = 110
• 4. 정책분석의 담론구성 = 111
• 제4장. 담론적 접근법에 의한 정책사례분석 = 115
• 제1절. 의약분업정책의 배경과 내용 = 115
• 1. 의약분업정책의 배경 = 115
• 2. 의약분업정책의 내용 = 119
• 제2절. 의약분업정책의 담론구조분석 = 133
• 1. 배제규칙 = 133
• 2. 담론결핍 = 135
• 3. 담론입문통제 = 139
• 제3절. 의약분업정책의 담론적 방법론 분석 = 140
• 1. 실증화차원의 담론 = 141
• 2. 타당화차원의 담론 = 149
• 제4절. 의약분업정책의 담론구성분석 = 152
• 1. 의약분업실시에 따른 이해관계자들의 담론 = 153
• 2. 의약분업정책의 담론구성분석 = 154
• 제5절. 담론적 접근의 유용성 논의 = 159
• 제5장. 결론 = 163
• 참고문헌 = 168
• ABSTRACT = 180
• 부록 = 184