국제협력을 통한 거버넌스 증진은 가능한가? : 유럽연합의 유럽근린정책이 ‘동방 파트너십(Eastern Partnership)’ 국가의 거버넌스 증진에 미치는 효과

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Is it possible to promote governance through international cooperation? This study started from this question. Until now, the issues of ‘international cooperation’ and ‘governance promotion’ have been interesting buzzwords among researchers in the fields of politics, public administration, international relations, regional studies, and international development studies. However, despite such a popular research topic, it is difficult to find a study on the correlation between international cooperation and governance promotion. Accordingly, this study tried to explore the issue of ‘governance promotion through international cooperation’ by taking the EU’s ‘European Neighbourhood Policy(ENP)’ as a research sample.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy on the governance promotion of ‘Eastern Partnership(EaP)’ countries from the perspective of international cooperation. Above all, the focus of this study is to analyze at an empirical level the effects of the EU’s financial assistance, a key means of European Neighbourhood Policy, on the governance promotion of these partner countries, and to illuminate the dynamics of the governance promotion of these partner countries through European Neighbourhood Policy.
The results of this study are summarized as follows.
First of all, this study analyzed the effects of EU’s financial assistance on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries through quantitative panel analysis, a variable-oriented research method. After setting hypotheses according to the panel analysis model, this study examined the causal relationship between the financial assistance and governance promotion of these partner countries actually implemented by the EU from 2007 to 2018 for the six partner countries, namely Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Belarus, and Azerbaijan. This study basically made the assumption that “the larger the EU’s financial assistance, the higher the level of governance in Eastern Partnership countries”.
The independent variable ‘EU financial assistance’ was set through the ‘EU Aid Explorer’ statistical system provided by the European Commission, and the dependent variable ‘Governance’ was set through the ‘Worldwide Governance Indicators(WGI)’ provided by the World Bank. In particular, causal estimation was performed using EU’s financial assistance as an independent variable and six WGI composite indicators as dependent variables in terms of political, administrative, and judicial governance.
Based on the panel data for each variable, the hypothesis was tested by estimating the ‘fixed effects model’, ‘random effects model’, and ‘Hausman-Taylor model’. As a result of hypothesis testing, all hypotheses except for the level of ‘Political Stability’ among the six hypotheses showed a significant positive correlation. In short, the assumption was confirmed that “the larger the EU’s financial assistance, the higher the level of governance in Eastern Partnership countries”. The increased financial assistance from the EU has improved the levels of ‘Voice and Accountability’, ‘Government Effectiveness’, ‘Regulatory Quality’, ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Corruption Control’ respectively. This led to the expectation that the financial assistance program of the European Neighbourhood Policy would have a significant policy ripple effect on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries.
However, the causal estimation coefficient between EU’s financial assistance and the governance of Eastern Partnership countries derived in this study assumes ‘ceteris paribus(all other things being equal)’, and at the same time implies ‘the mean causal effect’ of the six partner countries. Moreover, besides EU’s financial assistance, there are many factors that influence the improvement of governance in partner countries. Therefore, it is necessary to have an in-depth understanding of the specificity of each partner country that was omitted from the ‘quantitative panel analysis’.
Therefore, in this study, the ‘case-oriented’ research method was designed in parallel as a complementary research strategy to the ‘variable-oriented’ research method in terms of methodology, and qualitative case analysis was additionally conducted to capture the specific dynamics surrounding the governance promotion of individual partner countries. In this study, ‘causal process tracing’ based on ‘historical institutionalism’ was set as an alternative case analysis model. And through this model, this study focused on analyzing how the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy(cause) affected the governance promotion(result) of Eastern Partnership countries.
The basic assumption of this study is that “the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy contributes to the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries through the ‘Europeanization’ mechanism”. In this case, the ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ unique to each case constrain or facilitate the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries. The ‘causal mechanism’ refers to Europeanization through the financial assistance program, which is a key means of European Neighbourhood Policy, that is, Europeanization through the ‘European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument(ENPI)’ and Europeanization through the ‘European Neighbourhood Instrument(ENI)’. The contextual conditions are set as the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, respectively. In particular, this study selected three countries, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, as the ‘most likely case’ to promote governance through the European Neighbourhood Policy among Eastern Partnership countries, and traced their unique causal mechanism and contextual conditions.
This study focused on the ‘case-oriented’ research method instead of the ‘theory-oriented’ research method in order to in-depth analysis of the governance promotion dynamics of Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy. Through the ‘analytic induction’ of ‘explaining outcome process-tracing’, the causal mechanism and contextual conditions surrounding the governance promotion dynamics were examined in detail.
As a result of case analysis through causal process tracing, it was confirmed that the dynamics of promoting governance in Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy depended on the unique ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ of each case. The contextual conditions unique to each case, namely the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, acted in layers on the Europeanization mechanism. As a result, the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy has had different effects on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries.
Above all, the effect of promoting ‘democratic governance’ through ‘values-based Europeanization’ was rejected without being empirically proven. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the EU’s ‘interests-based Europeanization’ would promote the ‘effective governance’ of Eastern Partnership countries was supported in all cases. When faced with the ‘value-interest dilemma’ surrounding European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU preferred interests-based Europeanization to values-based Europeanization. In addition, when faced with the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the partner country level or the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, partner countries also consistently preferred interests-based Europeanization to values-based Europeanization. In particular, it was found that the promotion of ‘effective governance’ through ‘interests-based Europeanization’ produced unintended consequences that contributed to the regime stability rather than the regime reform of Eastern Partnership countries.
As a result of the case analysis, the promotion of ‘effective governance’ through ‘interests-based Europeanization’ of the EU produced a synergistic effect by combining with the expected interests of partner countries. The ruling coalitions of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova each sought political association and economic cooperation with the EU within the contextual conditions surrounding themselves. In this way, they decided that the expected ‘common interest’ with the EU would help them maintain their power and stabilize their regime. At the same time, the asymmetric interdependence with Russia in the post-Soviet space had the paradoxical effect of promoting the ‘interests-based Europeanization’ of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
In the end, the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy had a ‘double effect’ on the governance promotion of Eastern Partnership countries. Values-based Europeanization did not contribute to promoting democratic governance in Eastern Partnership countries. The EU’s ‘transformative power’ to promote democratic governance by transferring and disseminating universal values ​​such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law to partner countries, was nothing more than a rhetorical policy discourse. On the other hand, interests-based Europeanization was found to have contributed to promoting effective governance in Eastern Partnership countries.
In fact, since the early days of European Neighbourhood Policy, interests-based policy cooperation programs have maintained an overwhelming level among the EU and its partners. This was consistent with the interests of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. For example, in the process of negotiating ‘Association Agreement(AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area(DCFTA)’, the EU proposed a non-political and functional ‘sector-specific conditionality’ instead of ‘political conditionality’. Accordingly, these partner countries have chosen the ‘Association Agreement(AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area(DCFTA)’ as institutional alternatives to realizing political association and economic cooperation with the EU.
As the mutual strategic interests between the EU and the partner countries were aligned, interests-based Europeanization had the effects of enhancing the administrative governance of the partner countries. After all, the governance promotion in ‘Government Effectiveness’ and ‘Regulatory Quality’ level produced ‘unintended consequences’ in favor of regime stability rather than regime reform of the partner countries.
This study was attempted to explore the problem of correlation between international cooperation and governance promotion, which has been relatively under-researched. The academic significance of this study is as follows.
The theoretical agendas implied by the issue of promoting governance through international cooperation are diverse. Among them, the epistemological agendas that this study particularly focused on were ‘value’ and ‘interest’. This study focused on tracing how the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy oriented toward ‘shared values’ was transformed into ‘shared interests’ in the process of policy cooperation with Eastern Partnership countries.
The goal of the European Neighbourhood Policy at the beginning of its inception was to build a ‘value community’ by transferring and disseminating universal values ​​such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law to partner countries. Through the ‘ring of friends’ formed in the post-Soviet space, the EU and partner countries pursued mutual common values ​​to achieve stability, security, and prosperity in neighbouring regions. Accordingly, the EU envisioned the democratic governance of partner countries through values-based Europeanization from a policy ideological level.
However, in the process of actual policy cooperation, this concept was diluted. The specific policy cooperation program between the EU and partner countries was led by the logic of interests-based Europeanization instead of values-based Europeanization. As the contextual conditions surrounding the Europeanization mechanism, namely the ‘value-interest dilemma’ at the EU level, the ‘reform-stability dilemma’ at the Eastern Partnership countries level, and the ‘common neighbourhood dilemma’ at the post-Soviet region level, acted in layers, the Europeanization that guaranteed mutual strategic interests between the EU and its partners prevailed. The EU and its partners pursued ‘common interests’ in politics, economy and security rather than ‘common values’ such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
So far, the problem of ‘value’ and ‘interest’ in epistemology has been a key theoretical agenda surrounding the explanation of social phenomena. This agenda was also no exception in the debate between ‘rationalism’ and ‘constructivism’ over European Neighbourhood Policy. Regarding EU’s external policy, including European Neighbourhood Policy, rationalism adopts the ‘logic of consequence’ based on the rational interests of the actors, whereas constructivism adopts the ‘logic of appropriateness’ based on the normative values of the actors.
However, as confirmed through this study, it is difficult to explain European Neighbourhood Policy with only one logic, either rationalism or constructivism. The dynamics of promoting governance in Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy showed that values-based Europeanization and interests-based Europeanization coexisted and competed with each other according to the contextual conditions of each case. As a result of tracing the causal process, the rationalist ‘interest’ and constructivist ‘value’ elements were not dichotomized in the causal mechanism surrounding the European Neighbourhood Policy, but acted in a complex way, causing a chain effect. This constitutes a multi-layered point of contact between rationalism and constructivism, which looks at international cooperation from a theoretical point of view.
In this regard, the ‘causal process tracing’ model applied in this study shows the possibility to build a theoretical ‘middle ground’ that alleviates and integrates the conflict between rationalism and constructivism over the governance promotion through international cooperation.
In addition, this study adopted a ‘variable-oriented’ research method and a ‘case-oriented’ research method as a complementary research strategies to improve the validity and robustness of hypothesis testing in terms of methodology. First, in order to empirically verify the effects of EU’s financial assistance on the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries, a variable-oriented research method called ‘quantitative panel analysis’ was conducted. Through this, the causal regularity between European Neighbourhood Policy and the improvement of governance in Eastern Partnership countries was estimated from an empirical level.
Then, this study conducted ‘causal process tracing’ as a case-oriented research method to identify the governance promotion dynamics of Eastern Partnership countries through European Neighbourhood Policy. This allowed us to capture the unique peculiarities of each partner country. Particularly this study has contributed to exploring the causal complexity between cause and result by paying attention to the ‘causal mechanism’ and ‘contextual conditions’ unique to each case, and opening the previously closed ‘black box of causality’. In short, the combination of the ‘variable-oriented’ research method and the ‘case-oriented’ research method adopted in this study provides methodological usefulness in understanding the causal complexity of specific social phenomena and simultaneously grasping the causal homogeneity and heterogeneity.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경과 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 대상과 방법 11
• 제3절 논문의 구성 20
• 제2장 개념 및 이론적 배경 24
• 제1절 주요 개념: ‘국제협력을 통한 거버넌스 증진’ 문제 24
• 1. ‘국제협력’과 ‘거버넌스’에 대한 개념 정의 24
• 2. 국제협력과 ‘바람직한 거버넌스’ 문제 30
• 3. EU의 대외정책과 ‘거버넌스 증진’ 문제 36
• 제2절 이론적 배경: 유럽근린정책을 바라보는 관점 검토 44
• 1. 국제관계론: 합리주의와 구성주의 45
• 2. EU 대외관계론: 대외 거버넌스 이전과 유럽화 48
• 3. EU 민주주의 증진론: 기능적 협력과 민주적 거버넌스 증진 54
• 제3장 유럽근린정책: ‘국제협력을 통한 거버넌스 증진’ 표본 61
• 제1절 유럽근린정책의 성립과 전개과정 61
• 제2절 유럽근린정책의 실행 수단: ‘재정 지원’ 프로그램 67
• 1. 유럽근린동반자관계기금 68
• 2. 유럽근린기금 73
• 제4장 연구의 분석틀 77
• 제1절 정량적 패널 분석: EU의 ‘재정 지원’이 동방 파트너십 국가의 거버넌스 증진에 미치는 효과 77
• 1. 가설 설정 77
• 2. 패널 분석 모형: 고정효과, 확률효과, 하우스만-테일러 추정 83
• 제2절 정성적 사례 분석: ‘유럽근린정책’을 통한 동방 파트너십 국가의 거버넌스 증진 동학 90
• 1. 가설 설정 90
• 2. 사례 분석 모형: 인과적 과정추적 100
• 제5장 정량적 패널 분석 결과: EU의 ‘재정 지원’이 동방 파트너십 국가의 ‘거버넌스 증진’에 미치는 효과 109
• 제1절 기술통계 및 상관관계 분석 110
• 1. 기술통계 110
• 2. 상관관계 분석 111
• 제2절 인과관계 분석 114
• 1. 가설 1-① 추정 결과: ‘참여와 책임성’ 증진 효과 115
• 2. 가설 1-② 추정 결과: ‘정치적 안정’ 증진 효과 118
• 3. 가설 2-① 추정 결과: ‘정부의 효과성’ 증진 효과 120
• 4. 가설 2-② 추정 결과: ‘규제의 질’ 증진 효과 123
• 5. 가설 3-① 추정 결과: ‘법의 지배’ 증진 효과 125
• 6. 가설 3-② 추정 결과: ‘부패의 통제’ 증진 효과 128
• 제3절 소결: 분석 결과의 종합 및 해석 130
• 1. 분석 결과 종합 130
• 2. 분석 결과 해석 133
• 제6장 정성적 사례 분석 결과: ‘유럽근린정책’을 통한 동방 파트너십 국가의 ‘거버넌스 증진’ 동학 135
• 제1절 우크라이나 136
• 1. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린동반자관계기금’을 통한 유럽화 136
• 2. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린기금’을 통한 유럽화 150
• 3. 과정추적 결과: ‘민주적 거버넌스’보다 ‘효과적 거버넌스’ 증진 162
• 제2절 조지아 175
• 1. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린동반자관계기금’을 통한 유럽화 175
• 2. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린기금’을 통한 유럽화 189
• 3. 과정추적 결과: ‘효과적 거버넌스’ 증진의 본보기 198
• 제3절 몰도바 211
• 1. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린동반자관계기금’을 통한 유럽화 211
• 2. 인과적 메커니즘: ‘유럽근린기금’을 통한 유럽화 227
• 3. 과정추적 결과: ‘효과적 거버넌스’ 증진의 교착과 지체 240
• 제4절 소결: 분석 결과의 종합 및 해석 257
• 1. 분석 결과 종합 257
• 2. 분석 결과 해석 268
• 제7장 결론 280
• 제1절 연구의 결과와 의의 280
• 제2절 연구의 정책적 함의 287
• 제3절 연구의 한계와 과제 293
• 참고문헌 295
• 부록 325
• ABSTRACT 346

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. “EU Vs EEU.”, 윤성욱, 「아태연구」, 22(2), , 2015

2. STATA 패널데이터 분석, 최필선, 민인식, 서울: 지필미디어, , 2012

3. 『제도선택: 이론과 쟁점』, 하연섭, 서울: 다산출판사, , 2011

4. “코로나 19와 글로벌 협력.”, 강선주, 『코로나 19 이후 국제정세』. 서울: 국립 외교원 외교안보연구소, , 2020

5. 『STATA 기초통계와 회귀분석』, 민인식, 최필선, 서울: 지필미디어, , 2012

6. “몰도바 정체성과 민족주의.”, 김성진, 「슬라브학보」, 29(3), , 2014

7. 『국제정치경제: 시각과 쟁점』, 이상환, 서울: 박영사, , 2021

8. “조지아의 체제전환과 경제발전.”, 이상준, 「슬라브학보」, 26(3), , 2011

9. “벨라루스의 경제개방과 경제성장.”, 윤성학, 제성훈, 「동유럽발칸학」, 13(2), , 2011

10. “사르코지의 EU정책: 그 3년의 평가.”, 김응운, 「EU연구」, 제28호, , 2011

11. 『EEU 출범과 유라시아 국제관계 변화』, 박정호, 윤성욱, 한홍열, 조혜경, 세종: 대외경제정책연구원, , 2014

12. “EU의 동방파트너십과 러시아의 대응.”, 변현섭, 「슬라브학보」, 31(2), , 2016

13. “러시아-EU 에너지 외교와 협력의 전망.”, 장덕준, 「중소연구」, 36(3), , 2012

14. “벨라루스 민족 정체성의 이상과 현실.”, 박혜경, 「중소연구」, 43(3), , 2019

15. “유라시아경제연합(EEU)의 성과와 한계.”, 성원용, 「아태연구」, 21(4), , 2014

16. “동유럽을 향한 NATO 동진 정책과 러시아.”, 김철민, 「동유럽발칸연구」, 40(5), , 2016

17. “탈냉전기 유럽연합의 우크라이나 정책.”, 조홍식, 「통합유럽연구」, 6(1), , 2015

18. “아제르바이잔 체제전환 전략과 경제발전.”, 김상원, 「동유럽발칸연구」, 26(1), , 2011

19. “러시아의 우크라이나정책과 유라시아주의.”, 김성진, 「중소연구」, 39(4), , 2016

20. “유라시아의 지역화와 유라시아경제연합(EEU).”, 김영진, 「e-Eurasia」, 53, , 2015

21. “우크라이나의 EU 가입 추진 과정 분석과 평가.”, 허승철, 「러시아어문학연구 논집」, 제55집, , 2016

22. “유라시아 경제연합 구축과 러시아 에너지전략.”, 김상원, 「슬라브학보」, 30(4), , 2015

23. “국제정치의 인과성과 메커니즘: 방법론적 고찰.”, 민병원, 「한국정치연구」, 24(2), , 2015

24. “탈냉전기 미 러 관계의 변화와 우크라이나 위기.”, 제성훈, 「국제지역연구」, 20(1), , 2016

25. “한국의 대 아르메니아 외교, 새로운 협력의 모색.”, 홍완석, 「중소연구」, 40(4), , 2017

26. "코로나 19와 미중관계.” 『코로나 19 이후 국제정세』, 최우선, 서울: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소, , 2020

27. “바이든 행정부 인권외교 전망과 정책적 고려사항.”, 김상걸, 김원식, 「INSS 전략 보고」, April 2021, No. 117, , 2021

28. “지정학적 중간국 우크라이나의 대외전략적 딜레마.”, 신범식, 「국제지역연구」, 29(1), , 2020

29. “질적 양적 방법 논쟁: 최선의 사회과학적 추론이란?”, 이상환, 「사회과학연구」, 제5집, , 1999

30. 『신한반도체제 실현을 위한 미 중 러의 세계전략 연구』, 김재관, 제성훈, 이혜정, 세종: 대외경제정책연구원, , 2019

31. 유라시아의 체제전환과 국가건설: 이론적 논의와 평가지수, 고상두, 「국방연구」, 54(2), , 2011

32. “코로나 위기 이후 국제질서의 변화와 다자주의의 모색.”, 성기영, 국가안보전략 연구원 「이슈브리프」, 통권 제191호, , 2020

33. “유라시아경제연합(EEU)과 EU: 정체성 대립의 새로운 전선.”, 강봉구, 「슬라브 연구」, 30(4), , 2014

34. “코로나19 이후 국제질서 변화와 다자주의 국제협력 전망.”, 성기영, 이수형, 「INSS 전략보고」, October 2020, No. 89, , 2020

35. “아제르바이잔 민족 정체성 형성과정과 소비에트의 대외정책.”, 오종진, 「중동연구」, 27(3), , 2009

36. “비세그라드(V4) 협력을 통한 동유럽 파트너십(EaP) 아젠다 설정.”, 김신규, 「동유럽 발칸연구」, 43(2), , 2019

37. “에너지 안보 공간의 갈등: 러시아와 벨라루스의 가스 갈등과 EU.”, 황성우, 「EU연구」, 제34호, , 2013

38. “우크라이나 야누코비치 정권 붕괴의 국내 정치 경제 요인 분석.”, 허승철, 「러시아 어문학연구논집」, 제46집, , 2014

39. 인과적 과정추적(Causal Process Tracing)을 활용한 정책 학 연구방법 고찰, 김선희, 「정책분석평가학회보」, 27(4), , 2017

40. “몰도바의 국가정체성과 자기이해: 소비에트 이후 시기를 중심으로.”, 엄태현, 포파, 미하엘라, 「동유럽발칸연구」, 40(6), , 2016

41. 『동북아 지정학과 한국 외교전략: 강중국과 중추국 정체성을 중심으로』, 전봉근, 서울: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소, , 2020

42. “우크라이나 유로마이단의 문화적 해석: 소통과 축제, 그리고 창작의 공간.”, 홍석우, 「동유럽 발칸연구」, 39(1), , 2015

43. “Post COVID-19 시대의 국제정치: 탈세계화, 디지털화 그리고 신냉전 질서의 도래.”, 이상환, 「정치정보연구」, 23(3), , 2020

44. “동유럽으로의 EU 확장, 크로아티아의 EU 가입: 장애물과 극복 과정을 중심으로.”, 김철민, 「동유럽발칸연구」, 31, , 2012

45. “《바르셀로나 프로세스: 지중해를 위한 연합》 형성 배경과 과정에 대한 연구.”, 김응운, 「EU연구」, 제25호, , 2009

46. “가치외교의 부상과 가치의 ‘진영화’: 강대국 사례와 한국 공공외교의 방향성.”, 김태환, 「문화와 정치」, 6(1), , 2019

47. “러시아 제국 주변부에서의 혁명: 아르메니아 민족주의와 단명한 아르메 니아공화국.”, 강윤희, 「러시아연구」, 27(2), , 2017

48. “조지아 친(親)서방 정향성의 특성과 함의: 국제관계 및 국내정치적 상황을 중심으로.”, 정세진, 「러시아연구」, 29(1), , 2019

49. “조지아 대외정책의 방향성 : 조지아의 대(對) EU, 러시아 관계 및 나토 가입 이슈를 중심으로.”, 정세진, 「중소연구」, 44(4), , 2021