http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
RECENT DECENTRALIZATION CHALLENGES IN KOREA: REPERTOIRE, REALITY AND RESHAPING
이시철 한국행정학회 2007 International Review of Public Administration Vol.11 No.2
This article outlines and evaluates the recent strategies and performances of the decentralization campaign in Korea. This paper examines the decentralization effort from the perspective of the localities with a particular reference to a few major programs, such as the New Administrative Capital project, relocation plan of public organizations, and administrative devolution initiatives that have been introduced in the nation over the past few years. At the outset of the study the existing literature and relevant information in combination with previous Korean policies is reviewed. It is argued that although the initial efforts for decentralization by the current administration of Roh Moo Hyun deserve applause, they have not achieved as of yet a great deal of progress. Difficult challenges lie ahead with the reshaping strategy for decentralization in Korea, particularly by way of prioritizing relevant agendas, monitoring various decentralization programs, and focusing on local governance. .
A Tale of Two Greens: European Green Urbanism and Korea’s Green Growth Policies
이시철 한국공공관리학회 2015 한국공공관리학보 Vol.29 No.3
This study attempts to compare Korea’s nation-wide “Green Growth” policies with “green urbanism” in European cities. Despite little consensus on what the concept actually is or how different it is from such similar notions as sustainable development, one can argue that a number of green urbanism campaigns and policies have sprung up and prevailed over the past 20 years on European soil. By contrast, Korea’s Green Growth strategy dates back only to 2008. While we can hardly find continent-wide common standards or unified criteria, there are certain features that distinguish green urbanism from Korea’s Green Growth drive. After briefly reviewing the theoretical, practical, and geographical backgrounds of the two approaches, this paper examines the similarities and differences between the two. The focus is on their conceptual and institutional bases, policy processes, and some policy foci. While the well-publicized Green Growth of Korea appears to be commendable in a sense, its long-term effectiveness is not as clear. Lessons form European green urbanism, particularly its grass-root approach and collaboration with the private sector ought to be applied in the context of Korea. The nation's traditional culture, political and geographical setting, and administrative experiences should be also considered in the process. Last but not least, social sustainability and local dynamism do matter; community voices have to be heard and local needs incorporated into the big picture in Korea.
이시철 한국행정연구원 2020 韓國行政硏究 Vol.29 No.3
이 논문은 2020년 봄 코로나19에 대한 대구 지역사회의 대응을 관찰하면서, 주로 통제-합의 틀에기반을 두어 주요 쟁점을 분석한다. 여전히 팬데믹이 진행 중인 시점에서 섣부른 판단과 예측을할 수 없으며, 어디까지나 초기 또는 1차 평가로 봄이 옳다. 아직 관련 학술연구의 성과가 덜 축적된 점을 고려하여 주로 공공부문과 언론 등의 자료와 논의, 관계자 면담 등을 활용하였다. 2월, 감염의 갑작스러운 폭발-긴급한 대응-상대적인 선방의 과정을 개관하면서, 공공부문의 대응을 4가지주요 논점별로 정리 분석하였다. 즉, 국가-개인, 정부-시장, 집권-분권, 고립-연대의 이슈별로 서로가어울려 있는 모습을 관찰하였는데, 국가와 정부가 2020년 획기적으로 팽창한 가운데 규제 영역에서민간과 현장의 창의성이 발휘됨과 동시에, 중앙 및 지방정부의 지원역할 확대도 두드러졌다. 비상시 필요한 집권의 필요성이 감염병 대응에서도 관찰되었지만, 초기 현장에서 무시되었던 분권의가치가 재확인되기도 했다. 정부의 통제보다는 시민에 의한 자율적 고립과 참여가 관찰되었으며, 위기 속의 연대도 극명하게 드러났다. 마지막으로 이 연구는 감염병 사태에 대한 공공부문의 향후대응방향에 대하여도 일정한 시사점을 제공한다. This study examines and analyses critical issues on, and responses to, COVID-19 in Daegu, South Korea in 2020. Given it is still early for creditable judgment and prediction, this manuscript should be considered a preliminary report. Owing to lack of meaningful research outcome, the paper depends mostly on interviews and open sources, such as government materials and newspaper articles. A brief three-month report on how the public sector responded since the sudden coronavirus outbreak in February is provided at the outset. Then, analytical discussion follows based on four contrasting sets of key points: state-citizen, government-market, centralization-decentralization, and isolation-solidarity. The function of state has expanded drastically in Korea just as around the world, while rigid administrative regulation has often loosened yielding creativity and active role of the private sector. Centralization worked well particularly in the pandemic emergency; decentralization too appeared to matter in the frontline. In Daegu, with no official lock-down, residents’ solidarity and voluntary quarantine in preventive measures against the epidemic contributed significantly to successfully containing the virus. Some policy messages for future outbreaks are also drawn from the study.