지역축제 거버넌스 구조의 특성과 평가에 관한 비교연구 : 안동탈춤과 문경찻사발축제를 사례로 = Characteristics and Evaluations of Governance Structure of Local Festivals: Cases of Andong Masked Dance and Munkyung Tea Bowl Festival

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A number of issues were recently pointed out, due to recent recognition of local festivals as a policy means to enhance local competitiveness, concerning a few local governments competitively opening local festivals. With necessity for research on causes and resolutions of these issues being emphasized, research on governance has come to the spotlight as an alternative analysis tool. Thereupon, this research focuses on two representative local festivals - Andong International Masked Dance Festival and Munkyung Tea Bowl Festival - as the research case for comparative analysis where characteristics of governance is analysed. Policy alternatives based on this analysis is also presented. Majority of data utilized in this research are results from questionnaire studies. For the rest, existing references, statistical data and results from interview investigations were used.

Main contents and results of this research is summarized as follows.
Firstly, existing research trends of characteristics and assessments of local festival governance structure are analysed to present an analysis framework, utilized in this research, to compensate for limitations of these researches. The most noticeable issue of existing researches concerning governance of local festivals was that analysis frameworks including scope and topic of researches were not properly suggested. Therefore, in order to overcome previous issues where ‘related subjects of governance’ were limited to constitution subjects of festival organization (promotion) committee, target of ‘related subjects of governance’ was expanded to include subjects directly involved in promotion of actual festivals. In other words, extended scope for subjects of governance was presented. Moreover, network among subjects of governance was analysed in steps of planning, execution and assessment of festivals. Four components including social legitimacy, reliability, professionalism and transparency were drawn for assessments of governance. Concerning these components, cross-assessments among governance subjects were performed. Lastly, by comparison between Andong and Munkyung, commonness and distinctiveness were analysed as regards regionalities.
Secondly, development process of Andong International Masked Dance Festival and Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival was discussed. Andong International Masked Dance Festival passed through foundation period (1997~1999) and growth period (2000~2005) to develop into current settlement period (past 2006). During its development process, the festival successfully settled itself as a world class local festival concerning overall festival including opening period, location, contents of the festival and furthermore the governance structure. The Andong Masked Dance Festival is now established to be Korean Honored Festival, the most significant level of Korean local festivals which is determined by Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival is developed into one of the best festivals determined by Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which passed through foundation period(1999~2004) and reached growth period(past 2005). During its development process, the festival grew into one of the representative local festivals and was established as an international festival in terms of opening period and location. Especially, as opposed to most local festivals in Korea, by charging admission fee for the whole festival area, a novel model to enhance fiscal self-reliance ratio of local festivals was presented. Nevertheless, a number of issues were yet to be resolved; lack of voluntary participation of local dwellers, international level amenities for switching into residential local festival including lodging, expansion of liaison programs with local tourism attractions and improvements in festival governance structure for invigoration of voluntary and cooperative partnership of festival related subjects.

Thirdly, governance structure is discussed. Organizer of governance structure of Andong International Masked Dance Festival is a private organization, Andong Festival Tourism Organizing Committee, while organizer of Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival is festival promotion committee and the local government. The network between festival organizing committee (or festival promotion committee) and other subjects should be analysed in steps since role of each subject varies with each step. During planning, execution and assessment process of Andong International Masked Dance Festival, professionals’ organizations and civil society organizations form a strong and official network with the festival organizing committee. Other organizations, despite their importance not being relatively great, form cooperative relationships through official network with festival organizing committee and through inofficial network with subjects other than festival organizing committee while the local government maintains the most passive relation. A typical privately led governance structure. On the other hand, in the case of Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival, the local government and the festival promotion committee forms the strongest network. The subject which is related under a rather strong network is the professionals’ organization focused on traditional potters. Other organizations form a rather weak network that they evaluate themselves to be passive. It is a local government oriented, governmental structure. This type of governance structure tends to reflect regionalities of the location where festival is held rather well. In other words, culture of ‘mutual control and cooperation’ is traditionally formed between the local government and the local society in Andong concerning local pending issues whereas in Munkyung local community spirit is low due to influx population of various cultural backgrounds during the industry restructuralization. As a result, local pending issues are closely related with local social and cultural characteristics of ‘management and responses.’

The fourth part deals with governance assessments. Andong International Masked Dance Festival was evaluated to be affirmative in every component except transparency. This affirmative assessment is a result of cooperative partnership among the related subjects which was established by active opinion collection and participation of governance related subjects. The festival organizing committee was determined to be the core subject in this achievement. Relatively passive subjects were local government and local business organizations. In the case of Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival, ratio of affirmative assessments was lower when compared to the case of Andong International Masked Dance Festival for all assessment components. Mutual communication and participation among governance subjects were relatively limited. The local government was determined to be the subject who actively endeavored the most despite the limitations, The causes to this assessment result may be derived from private led and government led governance structures.

The fifth part is about issues and resolutions concerning the governance. Main issues of Andong International Masked Dance Festival are related with complementary issues concerning governance management rather than the governance structure. On the contrary, major issues of Munkyung Traditional Tea Bowl Festival are the fundamental ones arising from the local government led, vertical and exclusive governance structure. Common issues concerning these two festivals are festival decision-making related and transparency issues where information is not shared or not opened. In order to resolve these issues, the most urgent task for the Munkyung case is to reorganize the governance structure from a government led one into a government-private cooperative one. Transparency must be enhanced by expanding participation of governance related subjects. The system where sharing and opening of information related with planning and execution of festivals is done should be improved so that the information will be available not only for the related subject but also for the ordinary people, both for Munkyung and Andong. Moreover, official and inofficial network between leading and not leading subjects should be enhanced to arrange improvement plans for mutual accumulation of social capital for governance subjects and moreover among these subjects plus local dwellers.

From the results of the analysis, if a local festival is to properly function its role and establish itself as a local cultural industry which may contribute to securing local identity, voluntary and active participation of local dwellers is a prerequisite. It is stated that the core component for this achievement is establishment of governance structure where the government and the private are able to cooperative spontaneously. Still, a particular governance structure does not guarantee a successful local festival. It is due to the fact that structure and management of local festival governance are products of local context which are path dependent to the local regionalities where the festival is held. Therefore, benchmark of governance structure of an already successful festival may hindrance identity and competitiveness of local festival if sufficient analysis concerning regionalities is not on the premise.

In conclusion, if a local festival is to be continuously competitive, a more cooperative and open establishment and administration of governance structure through participation of festival related subjects should be guaranteed and the governance itself should be dynamically reformed along with evolution of the festival.

Major significance of this research is that, as presented before in detail, analysis frame of governance research of local festival was presented. Moreover, two festivals which were distinctive in characteristics of local festivals as well as governance structure were comparatively analyzed to reveal relations between characteristics of governance structure and regionalities to present an important direction towards further search of issues and resolutions of local festivals.

Finally, limitations of this research include insufficient argument grounds of generalization of local festival governance by analyzing relationships among the three types of local festival governance – generally government led, government-private cooperative and private led – due to the fact that case analysis on government-private cooperative governance was not performed. It is the limitation of this research and at the same time the next research topic.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 문제제기와 연구목적 1
• 2. 사례지역축제와 연구방법 4
• 1) 사례지역축제의 선정이유 4
• 2) 연구방법과 자료 5
• 3) 논문의 구성 9
• Ⅱ. 이론적 논의 11
• 1. 지역축제의 개념과 연구동향 11
• 1) 지역축제의 개념과 의의 11
• 2) 지역축제의 연구동향 16
• 2. 지역축제 거버넌스의 연구동향과 과제 20
• 1) 거버넌스의 개념과 특성 20
• 2) 거버넌스의 연구동향 23
• 3) 로컬거버넌스의 개념과 연구동향 25
• 4) 지역문화 및 지역문화산업 거버넌스에 관한 연구동향 27
• 5) 지역축제 거버넌스 및 평가에 관한 연구동향과 과제 32
• Ⅲ. 사례지역축제의 지역성과 발달과정 36
• 1. 우리나라 지역축제의 실태와 문제점 36
• 2. 사례지역축제의 지역성 43
• 1) 안동시의 사회문화적 특성 43
• 2) 문경시의 사회문화적 특성 46
• 3. 사례지역축제의 개요 49
• 1) 안동국제탈춤페스티벌의 개요 49
• 2) 문경전통찻사발축제의 개요 54
• 4. 사례지역축제의 발달과정 59
• 1) 안동국제탈춤페스티벌의 발달과정 59
• 2) 문경전통찻사발축제의 발달과정 66
• 5. 사례지역축제의 파급효과와 의의 70
• 1) 설문조사대상자의 속성 70
• 2) 안동국제탈춤페스티벌 74
• 3) 문경전통찻사발축제 83
• Ⅳ. 지역축제 거버넌스 구조의 특성 94
• 1. 안동국제탈춤페스티벌 거버넌스 구조의 특성 94
• 1) 거버넌스 주체의 성격과 역할 94
• 2) 거버넌스의 구조 104
• 3) 주체별 역할과 협력관계 107
• 2. 문경전통찻사발축제 거버넌스 구조의 특성 111
• 1) 거버넌스 주체의 성격과 역할 111
• 2) 거버넌스의 구조 121
• 3) 주체별 역할과 협력관계 123
• Ⅴ. 지역축제 거버넌스 구조에 대한 평가 128
• 1. 거버넌스 평가 주체들의 속성 128
• 2. 안동국제탈춤페스티벌 130
• 1) 사회적 정당성에 대한 평가 131
• 2) 신뢰성에 대한 평가 134
• 3) 전문성에 대한 평가 137
• 4) 투명성에 대한 평가 140
• 3. 문경전통찻사발축제 144
• 1) 사회적 정당성에 대한 평가 145
• 2) 신뢰성에 대한 평가 147
• 3) 전문성에 대한 평가 150
• 4) 투명성에 대한 평가 153
• Ⅵ. 사례축제의 거버넌스 구조의 특성 및 평가에 대한 지역 간 비교 157
• 1. 사례지역축제의 일반적 특성에 대한 차별성 157
• 1) 지역축제 발달과정의 차별성 157
• 2) 지역축제의 파급효과와 의의의 차별성 159
• 2. 거버넌스 구조의 특성 비교 164
• 1) 거버넌스 구조의 비교 165
• 2) 축제 추진 단계별 주체 간 네트워크의 비교 166
• 3. 거버넌스의 구조에 대한 평가 비교 169
• 1) 거버넌스의 사회적 정당성에 대한 평가의 비교 170
• 2) 거버넌스의 신뢰성에 대한 평가의 비교 172
• 3) 거버넌스의 전문성에 대한 평가의 비교 173
• 4) 거버넌스 투명성에 대한 평가의 비교 175
• 4. 사례지역축제의 거버넌스 문제점과 개선방안의 비교 178
• 1) 거버넌스 문제점의 비교 178
• 2) 거버넌스 개선방안의 비교 185
• Ⅶ. 요약 및 결론 195
• 참고 문헌 199
• 설 문 지 209
• 영문초록 245