갈등과 협력은 어떻게 공존하는가? 이동통신정책 네트워크의 다중관계 구조 = How Do Conflict and Collaboration Coexist?: The Multiplex Structure of South Korea’s Mobile Telecommunications Policy Network

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 정책 네트워크에서 구성원들 간의 협력과 갈등이 공존하는 관계적·구조적 조건을 탐색하고자 한다. 본 연구를 위해 이동통신정책 결정과정에 참여한 정부기관, 통신사업자, 전문·자문기관 및 시민단체 등 28개 조직을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였으며, 이에 대해 QAP 상관분석 및 ERGM 분석을 실시하였다. 분석결과, 협력과 갈등 네트워크는 서로 다른 구조를 보이면서도 일부 행위자 쌍에서 중첩되는 현상을 보였다. 이는 갈등이 반드시 관계의 단절로 이어지지 않음을 보여준다. 또한 협력 네트워크에서 상호호혜적이면서도 국지적 위계구조가 발견되어 배태성의 중요성을 시사하였다. 인지된 영향력이 높은 전문·자문기관과 공공부문 행위자는 협력 관계의 파트너로 더 많이 지목되어 정책네트워크에서 협력은 정책적 영향력, 기존 네트워크 구조와 같은 요인에 따라 공존할 수 있는 서로 구분된 관계의 차원으로 이해할 필요가 있음을 시사한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examines how conflict and collaboration coexist in a contentious policy environment and identifies the relational and structural conditions associated with collaborative tie formation. It constructs collaboration, conflict, and policy-discussion networks among 28 organizations involved in South Korea’s mobile telecommunications policy domain during 2015–2016, including government agencies, legislative actors, telecommunications firms, expert and advisory organizations, and civil society organizations. The analysis employs descriptive network analysis, Quadratic Assignment Procedure(QAP) correlations, and Exponential Random Graph Model(ERGM). The results show that collaboration and conflict networks exhibit distinct structural patterns but selectively overlap among some pairs of actors. Both policy-discussion ties and conflict ties are positively associated with collaborative ties, indicating that policy disagreement does not necessarily lead to relational disengagement. The collaboration network also displays strong reciprocity, transitive closure, and a reduced prevalence of cyclic triads, suggesting that collaboration tends to be mutually recognized while exhibiting a locally hierarchical and noncyclic orientation in some triadic configurations. Experts and advisory organizations and public-sector actors with higher perceived political influence are more likely to be selected as collaboration partners. By contrast, civil society organizations occupy relatively peripheral positions in the collaboration network but are more visible in the conflict network. These findings suggest that collaboration and conflict should not be treated as opposite ends of a single continuum. Rather, they constitute distinct relational dimensions that may overlap depending on resource distribution, perceived political influence, policy discussion, and endogenous network structures. By integrating resource dependence theory with a multiplex network perspective, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of collaboration in conflictual policy networks.