RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI우수등재

    정책신념 변화는 시간의 전유물인가: ACF 정책신념의 변화에 대한 한국적 검토 = Is policy belief change the exclusive property of time?: A look at change in ACF policy beliefs in the context of Korea

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101963145

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    With the starting point that hypotheses about the belief coalition and the belief changes presented by Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can differ in the context of Korea, this research attempted restrictively to confirm this fact through analysis of the policy beliefs held by progressive people and by conservative people. To do this, after examining the political and policy contexts of the United States and presenting the hypotheses, I attempted to verify the mean difference using Korea general survey materials by year. The analysis resulted in the following implications. First, as hypothesized, the differences between progressives and conservatives were not great. In each of the measurement questions, which were divided into gender role, environment, and growth, there were few collective differences and the differences were minimal. Independent of the respondents’ own political inclinations, the policy means and the approaches that support them were not cognitively composed. Second, it can be seen that such differences can be influenced more by social context and atmosphere than by political party. In 2003, 2006, and 2010gender role, environment, and growth showed characteristics that, respectively, crossed the borders of important (less than 3 points), average (3 points), and not important (greater than 3 points). These results show that the support of the two groups for particular policies can be more strongly influenced by the focusing events of the applicable period than by an emphasis on the understanding of continuous policy beliefs.
    번역하기

    With the starting point that hypotheses about the belief coalition and the belief changes presented by Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can differ in the context of Korea, this research attempted restrictively to confirm this fact through analysis o...

    With the starting point that hypotheses about the belief coalition and the belief changes presented by Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) can differ in the context of Korea, this research attempted restrictively to confirm this fact through analysis of the policy beliefs held by progressive people and by conservative people. To do this, after examining the political and policy contexts of the United States and presenting the hypotheses, I attempted to verify the mean difference using Korea general survey materials by year. The analysis resulted in the following implications. First, as hypothesized, the differences between progressives and conservatives were not great. In each of the measurement questions, which were divided into gender role, environment, and growth, there were few collective differences and the differences were minimal. Independent of the respondents’ own political inclinations, the policy means and the approaches that support them were not cognitively composed. Second, it can be seen that such differences can be influenced more by social context and atmosphere than by political party. In 2003, 2006, and 2010gender role, environment, and growth showed characteristics that, respectively, crossed the borders of important (less than 3 points), average (3 points), and not important (greater than 3 points). These results show that the support of the two groups for particular policies can be more strongly influenced by the focusing events of the applicable period than by an emphasis on the understanding of continuous policy beliefs.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 서인석, "한국의 정책중개자는 누구인가:ACF 정책변동을 중심으로 한 메타분석의 적용" 한국행정학회 48 (48): 227-256, 2014

    2 유훈, "한국의 정책종결" 36 (36): 95-116, 1998

    3 강원택, "한국의 이념 갈등과 진보・보수의 경계" 4 (4): 193-217, 2005

    4 이내영, "한국사회 이념갈등의 원인: 국민들의 양극화인가, 정치엘리트들의 양극화인가?" 한국정당학회 10 (10): 251-287, 2011

    5 서인석, "한국 정책대상집단의 사회적 구성에 대한 탐색적 지형화(mapping) 연구: 사회적 구성주의의 이론적 과제와 확장" 한국지방정부학회 19 (19): 113-139, 2015

    6 이동규, "초점사건 이후 정책변동 연구 : 한국의 대규모 재난 사례를 중심으로" 성균관대학교 국정관리대학원 2011

    7 서인석, "정책유형과 정책대상집단에 따른 정책결정 소요시간: 발의 법률안의 통과기간의 영향요인 탐색연구" 한국행정학회 47 (47): 55-83, 2013

    8 현성수, "성균관대학교 국정관리대학원 정책형성론. 수업자료"

    9 서인석, "사회의 압력이나 제도적 특성은정책결정기간을 변화시키는가- 발의법률안 통과기간의 영향요인을 중심으로 -" 한국정책학회 23 (23): 35-64, 2014

    10 김순양, "보건의료 정책과정에서의 옹호연합(Advocacy Coalitions)의 형성과 작동 - 의약분업 및 의료보험통합 논쟁 사례의 비교・분석 -" 한국정책학회 19 (19): 1-44, 2010

    1 서인석, "한국의 정책중개자는 누구인가:ACF 정책변동을 중심으로 한 메타분석의 적용" 한국행정학회 48 (48): 227-256, 2014

    2 유훈, "한국의 정책종결" 36 (36): 95-116, 1998

    3 강원택, "한국의 이념 갈등과 진보・보수의 경계" 4 (4): 193-217, 2005

    4 이내영, "한국사회 이념갈등의 원인: 국민들의 양극화인가, 정치엘리트들의 양극화인가?" 한국정당학회 10 (10): 251-287, 2011

    5 서인석, "한국 정책대상집단의 사회적 구성에 대한 탐색적 지형화(mapping) 연구: 사회적 구성주의의 이론적 과제와 확장" 한국지방정부학회 19 (19): 113-139, 2015

    6 이동규, "초점사건 이후 정책변동 연구 : 한국의 대규모 재난 사례를 중심으로" 성균관대학교 국정관리대학원 2011

    7 서인석, "정책유형과 정책대상집단에 따른 정책결정 소요시간: 발의 법률안의 통과기간의 영향요인 탐색연구" 한국행정학회 47 (47): 55-83, 2013

    8 현성수, "성균관대학교 국정관리대학원 정책형성론. 수업자료"

    9 서인석, "사회의 압력이나 제도적 특성은정책결정기간을 변화시키는가- 발의법률안 통과기간의 영향요인을 중심으로 -" 한국정책학회 23 (23): 35-64, 2014

    10 김순양, "보건의료 정책과정에서의 옹호연합(Advocacy Coalitions)의 형성과 작동 - 의약분업 및 의료보험통합 논쟁 사례의 비교・분석 -" 한국정책학회 19 (19): 1-44, 2010

    11 전진영, "미국의회의 입법과정과 우리 국회에 대한 시사점" 국회입법조사처 1-51, 2009

    12 서인석, "국회 입법과정에서 정책산출의 영향요인에 관한 연구 : 사회복지법안 및 과학기술법안 분석을 중심으로" 성균관대학교 국정관리대학원 2013

    13 서인석, "국회 및 서울시의회 예산총괄심의과정에서의 의사결정: 질적연구방법을 활용한 예산결산특별위원회 회의록분석" 한국행정학회 43 (43): 47-80, 2009

    14 Sabatier, Paul A., "Theories of the policy process" Westview Press 117-168, 1999

    15 Grace B. Villamor, "The rise of protected area policy in the Philippine forest policy: An analysis from the perspective of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)" Elsevier BV 9 (9): 162-178, 2006

    16 Chris Elliott, "The advocacy coalition framework: application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden" Informa UK Limited 8 (8): 642-661, 2001

    17 Hogl, K., "The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics" 1 : 3-13, 2000

    18 Hajime Sato, "The Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Policy Process Analysis: The Case of Smoking Control in Japan" Wiley-Blackwell 27 (27): 28-44, 1999

    19 Marvin Joseph F. Montefrio, "State versus Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Comparative Analysis of Stable System Parameters, Policy Constraints and the Process of Delegitimation" Informa UK Limited 16 (16): 335-355, 2014

    20 Zafonte, M., "Short-Term Versus Long-Term Coalitions in the Policy Process" 32 (32): 75-107, 2004

    21 Ken Runkle, "Public Health Policy Options for Improving Well-Water Quality in West Point, Liberia" Wiley-Blackwell 5 (5): 304-323, 2013

    22 Jasmin Beverwijk, "Policy change in nascent subsystems: Mozambican higher education policy 1993–2003" Springer Nature 41 (41): 357-377, 2008

    23 Henry, Adam Douglas., "Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America" 16 (16): 299-312, 2014

    24 Emmanuel Marfo, "Negotiating the supply of legal timber to the domestic market in Ghana: Explaining policy change intent using the Advocacy Coalition Framework" Elsevier BV 32 : 23-31, 2013

    25 F.E. Arnold, "Native forest policy in Chile: understanding sectoral process dynamics in a country with an emerging economy" Commonwealth Forestry Association 5 (5): 317-328, 2003

    26 Georgia O. Carvalho, "Metallurgical Development in the Caraja´s Area: A Case Study of the Evolution of Environmental Policy Formation in Brazil" Informa UK Limited 14 (14): 127-143, 2010

    27 Devi Datt Tewari, "Is commercial forestry sustainable in South Africa? The changing institutional and policy needs" Elsevier BV 2 (2): 333-353, 2001

    28 Seoyong Kim, "Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project" Springer Nature 36 (36): 125-149, 2003

    29 Karen Farquharson, "Influencing Policy Transnationally: Pro-and Anti-Tobacco Global Advocacy Networks" Wiley-Blackwell 62 (62): 80-92, 2003

    30 Converse, Philip, "Ideology and Discontent" Free Press 1964

    31 Lahat, L., "How can leaders’ perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance?" 44 (44): 135-155, 2011

    32 Harriet Bulkeley, "Discourse Coalitions and the Australian Climate Change Policy Network" SAGE Publications 18 (18): 727-748, 2000

    33 Ann Njoki Kingiri, "Conflicting advocacy coalitions in an evolving modern biotechnology regulatory subsystem: policy learning and influencing Kenya's regulatory policy process" Oxford University Press (OUP) 38 (38): 199-211, 2011

    34 Weible, C., "Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems" 37 (37): 195-212, 2009

    35 Maria Francesch-Huidobro, "Climate Advocacy Coalitions in Guangdong, China" SAGE Publications 44 (44): 43S-64S, 2012

    36 Weible, Christopher M., "Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition framework approach to policy networks" 58 : 461-475, 2005

    37 Ainuson, K., "An advocacy coalition approach to water policy change in Ghana: A look at belief systems and policy oriented learning" 1 (1): 16-27, 2009

    38 Peter Chen, "Advocating Online Censorship" Wiley-Blackwell 62 (62): 41-64, 2003

    39 Wanxin Li, "Advocating Environmental Interests in China" SAGE Publications 44 (44): 26S-42S, 2012

    40 Shu-Hsiang Hsu, "Advocacy coalitions and policy change on nuclear power utilization in Taiwan" Elsevier BV 42 (42): 215-229, 2005

    41 이숙종, "2014 정치사회 엘리트 이념인식조사" 대통령소속국민대통합위원회 2014

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2020 평가 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
    2015-01-01 등재 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
    2011-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2002-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    1999-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.82 1.82 1.97
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.98 2.13 2.164 0.32
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼