This study put its focus on the fact that our process of deciding policies shows a multi-steps, and designed a concrete explanation-model using a few criteria. In making the model, the policy initiative was decided as a core concept, and a matrix was ...
This study put its focus on the fact that our process of deciding policies shows a multi-steps, and designed a concrete explanation-model using a few criteria. In making the model, the policy initiative was decided as a core concept, and a matrix was constructed under an interaction between interdependence and decision-characters. Following results are attained after applying examples to the designed model. First, participating actors, power of influence, rules of game were different by decision-types. In our case, the process of policymaking recently transferred its direction to an open-door policy, but the main stream is keeping the close-door type in deciding policies. Second, the existing models are not competent to explain too various patterns. Particular examples are explained with particular models in the systematization process of making policies, however, limits are found to give a comprehensive explanation. Various selections or decision-types are done according to examples of policy. It would be important to develop theories as explanative resources toward policy phenomena through introducing and applying new theories, but this study's focus was put on patternizing real policy-phenomena. However, when making patterns focusing on actors' acts or decisions' characters in the process of policymaking, many insufficient matters like arbitrary classification, subjective judgment, uneasy model name are found. This study is not an examined model but a suppositional trial, therefore, these insufficient parts should be supplemented in the future studies continually.