시민단체의 개입이 공공갈등에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 사회자본론적 관점에서

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This thesis starts from the needs of an alternative public conflict management mechanism because a public conflict management mechanism does not handle heavily increasing public conflicts efficiently in Korea even though it is fervently needed.
If the government has not managed public conflicts successfully, then it is a kind of a government failure and if raising civil society and the extension of CSO's roles results from 'government's failure', then public conflict management by CSO can be considered as the third alternative to the government failure. In addition, many Korean people expect the role of CSO's public conflict management. However, empirical evidences about the effectiveness of CSO's public conflict management mechanism are mixed because CSO's interventions in a public conflict have resulted in either a conflict's escalation or de-escalation.
The question on what brings about the difference has become the research question of the thesis. The research, through in-depth literature review, has theoretically inferred that the difference of CSO's social capital forms would give a heavy influence on the competence of CSO's public conflicts management mechanism. That is, whether group-level social capital form of CSO is bridging or bonding is an important factor to decide the effectiveness of CSO's public conflict management mechanism. Therefore, the thesis develops such research proposition as follows.

〈Proposition 1〉If CSO having bridging social capital intervene in a public conflict, then the conflict would be de-escalated or solved.
〈Proposition 2〉If CSO having bonding social capital intervene in a public conflict, then the conflict would be escalated or entrapped.

To verify the research propositions, comparative case studies analyzing and comparing the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice(CCEJ)'s intervention case of "Milyang-Si power cable conflict" and the Korean Alliance of Progressive Movement(KAPM)'s intervention of "Ssangyong Motor conflict" has been conducted. Analysis methods comprehend both qualitative analysis on the basis of social capital theory and quantitative analysis on the basis of conflict process analysis.
First, in detail, qualitative analysis on the basis of social capital theory has been conducted by in-depth observation of both CSO's attitudes and behaviors after their interventions in the conflict cases, which is a process of group-level social capital's spillover and CSO's promoting process of social capital during the public conflict process. Second, quantitative analysis on the basis of conflict process analysis analyzing the change of conflict severity index has been conducted.
Both of the analysis results explain the fact that CCEJ's social capital form is a kind of bridging social capital and KAPM's social capital form is a kind of bonding social capital, and the fact that CCEJ's intervention in the public conflict contributes the conflict's de-escalation but KAPM's intervention in the public conflict results in the escalation and entrapment of the conflict. Therefore, one can answer the research questions which raised in the beginning of the thesis as follows.
First research question is "if the interventions of CCEJ and KAPM produced different impacts on the public conflicts, then what is the reason?" Analysis results reveal the facts that CCEJ's intervention in the conflict de-escalates the conflict but KAPM's intervention in the conflict escalates and entraps the conflict. And, the factor that cause the difference is revealed as the different forms of CSO's social capital forms. That is, CCEJ's social capital is bridging social capital and KAPM's social capital is bonding social capital. Bridging social capital characterized as open networks and generalized reciprocity and trust bridges the groups of different socio-economic background and ideology, which de-escalate and solve a conflict. Bonding social capital characterized as close networks and particularized trust and reciprocity, however, strengthens the in-group bonds but exclusive and hostile attitudes against other groups in a wider society which results in conflict escalation.
The second research question is "how are CCEJ's bridging social capital and KAPM's bonding social capital revealed and proliferated?" Analysis results reveal the facts that two CSO has different forms of social networks, which results in different kinds of trust and reciprocity. Two CSO's trust and reciprocity, that is, has been proliferated differently against different contexts of social networks. In the concrete ways, CCEJ's bridging social capital develops open social networks embracing both Milyang-Si residents and Korea Electronic Power Corporation(KEPCO)'s members, which results in generalized trust and reciprocity including stakeholder having antagonistic relationship. On the other hand, KAPM's bonding social capital develops close social networks only with Ssangyong Motor labor union and progressive groups, which results in particularized trust and reciprocity within the narrow scope of progressive groups and the union.
The third research question is "What kinds of social capital form should CSOs accumulate to function effectively as an alternative public conflict management mechanism and how should the government endeavor to support CSO's formating such forms of social capital. Analysis result reveals that the form of social capital needed for CSO to function efficiently as an alternative public conflict management mechanism is 'bridging social capital'. And, the government need to endeavor in two tracks of short-term and long-term strategy.
As a long-term strategy, the government should build up the basic foundation which enables CSOs to develop bridging social capital. Such long-term strategies include developing democracy, enhancing the quality of national jurisdiction agencies and fulfill a welfare state. As a short-term strategy, the government should persuade more CSOs to develop bridging social capital and devise polices to exploit CSOs of bridging social capital as an alternative public conflict management mechanism. In detail, the government should offer enough opportunity of social interchange with groups having different socio-economic and ideological background, which promote the accumulation of bridging social capital.
In addition, it is revealed that the CSO having bridging social capital could not function effectively as an alternative public conflict management mechanism without legal and institutional authority in the case of Milyang power cable conflict. That is, the fact that CCEJ's bridging social capital de-escalated the conflict but prolonged the conflict reveals the limit of CSO's conflict resolving capability. Therefore, to utilize the CSO of bridging social capital form as an alternative public conflict management mechanism fully, the policy to provide legal authority needs to be considered on the basis of stakeholder's consensus.
This thesis is expected to contribute theoretically as follows.
First, This research expands the scope of social capital theory and strengthens its explanation power by verifying the research proposition through a comparative case research. In detail, the research reveals meso-level utility of social capital to accelerate cooperation between various groups and resolve social conflicts. it also strengthen the social capital theory by linking between micro, meso, and macro-level social capital through adding analysis of group-level social capital.
Second, this research develops typical Korean-style conflict process pattern through literature review and discussions between field specialists and scholars. it is a kind of quantified theoretical tool to analyze public conflict progress pattern by the index of conflict intensity which is expected to be used by follow researches.
Third, this research works out new method to measure group-level social capital forms. Preceeding researches have used to measure social capital forms by proxy measures such as an association’s goal and activity, heterogeneity of members’ socio-economic background or degree of out-group interconnection. This research tries new method to measure an association’s social capital form as an attempt to overcome the preceeding researches’ limitations. That is, it measures an association’s social capital form by qualitative analyses of an association’s behaviors and attitudes observed during the public conflict process.



Keyword: social capital, public conflict, civil society organization

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론
• 제1절 연구목적 1
• 제2절 연구범위 7
• 제3절 연구방법 9
• 제2장 공공갈등과 갈등관리기제로서의 시민단체
• 제1절 공공갈등 개관 14
• 1. 공공갈등의 개념과 특성 14
• 2. 공공갈등의 전개과정 19
• 1) 선행연구 검토 19
• 2) 공공갈등전개과정 및 단계별 징표 22
• 제2절 공공갈등관리 25
• 1. 공공갈등관리의 개념적 함의 25
• 2. 공공갈등관리기제 26
• 3. 공적 갈등관리기제의 한계와 제3의 대안 28
• 제3절 대안적 공공갈등관리기제로서의 시민단체 30
• 1. 한국 시민단체의 역사와 특성 30
• 2. 시민단체의 역할 33
• 1) 시민단체의 일반적 역할 33
• 2) 시민단체의 공공갈등관리 역할 37
• 제4절 시민단체의 갈등관리역량 결정요인 40
• 1. 선행연구 검토 40
• 2. 시민단체의 갈등관리역량 결정요인: 사회자본 42
• 제3장 사회자본론
• 제1절 사회자본의 의의와 쟁점 45
• 제2절 사회자본의 개념 48
• 1. 개념적 구성요소 48
• 1) 네트워크 51
• 2) 규범 52
• 3) 신뢰 52
• 2. 사회자본의 세 구성요소간 상호관계 55
• 제3절 사회자본의 근원과 효과 58
• 1. 사회자본의 근원 58
• 1) 사회중심적 접근법 58
• 2) 국가중심적 접근법 59
• 3) 소결 62
• 2. 사회자본의 효과 64
• 제4절 사회자본 유형론 68
• 1. 문제 제기 68
• 2. 사회자본의 다차원성 74
• 1) 분석맥락과 분석수준의 다차원성 74
• 2) 분석맥락과 분석수준의 명확화 78
• 3. 가교적․결속적 사회자본 80
• 4. 결사체의 사회자본 유형론 84
• 1)의의 84
• 2) 선행연구 검토 86
• 3) 선행연구의 한계와 보완 91
• 5. 한국 시민단체의 사회자본 유형 93
• 1) 의의 93
• 2) 선행연구 검토 94
• 3) 소결 96
• 제4장 연구설계
• 제1절 연구범위 98
• 제2절 연구명제 106
• 1.이론적 논의 106
• 1) 결사체의 목적과 활동 108
• 2) 구성원의 사회경제적 배경의 이질성 111
• 3) 결사체 네트워크의 개방성 113
• 2. 연구명제 정립 113
• 제3절 분석모형 115
• 제5장 공공갈등사례 비교분석
• 제1절 밀양 765kv 송전선로 갈등사례 121
• 1. 사례의 개요와 특징 121
• 1) 사례의 개요 121
• 2) 사례의 특징 124
• 2. 공공갈등의 전개과정 131
• 1) 갈등의 시작 131
• 2) 갈등의 증폭과 교착 133
• 3) 갈등의 완화 137
• 4) 갈등의 재증폭과 교착 139
• 3. 사회자본론적 분석틀의 적용 141
• 1) 갈등의 시작과 증폭 141
• 2) 경실련의 사회자본을 매개로 한 갈등의 완화 143
• (1) 사회자본의 구조적 측면 145
• (2) 사회자본의 인지적․문화적 측면 147
• 4. 갈등과정분석틀의 적용 150
• 제2절 평택 쌍용자동차 갈등사례 153
• 1. 사례의 개요와 특징 153
• 1) 사례의 개요 154
• 2) 사례의 특징 157
• 2. 공공갈등의 전개과정 161
• 1) 갈등의 시작 161
• 2) 갈등의 증폭 163
• 3) 갈등의 일시적 완화 166
• 4) 갈등의 재증폭․교착 167
• 5) 정부의 개입과 갈등의 종결 170
• 3. 사회자본론적 분석틀의 적용 173
• 1) 갈등의 시작 174
• 2) 진보연대의 사회자본을 매개로 한 갈등의 증폭․교착 176
• (1) 사회자본의 구조적 측면 177
• (2) 사회자본의 인지적․문화적 측면 180
• 4. 갈등과정분석틀의 적용 183
• 제3절 사례 비교분석 187
• 1. 사회자본론적 분석 187
• 1) 갈등의 시작과 시민단체의 개입 187
• 2) 사회자본의 발현과 확산 현상 188
• (1) 사회자본의 구조적 측면 188
• (2) 사회자본의 인지적․문화적 측면 190
• 2. 갈등과정분석 190
• 3. 종합적 논의 192
• 제6장 결론
• 제1절 연구의 발견 195
• 제2절 연구의 함의 200
• 1. 이론적 함의 200
• 2. 정책적 함의 202
• 제3절 연구의 한계와 향후 연구과제 205
• 〈참고문헌〉 207
• 〈부록 1〉 ‘밀양 765kv 송전선로 갈등’ 전개과정 229
• 〈부록 2〉 ‘평택 쌍용자동차 갈등’ 전개과정 232
• Abstract 237