행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ) 정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 * < 目次 > Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 정부위원회에관한이론적논의 Ⅲ. 참여정부의정부위원회에관한실태조사 Ⅳ. 참여정부의정부위원회에관한공무원인식조사 Ⅴ. 정책적함의및결론 < 요약 >,,.,,.,,...,,.,.,.,. :,,, *** 2007. *** (mhchoi@sangji.ac.kr). ***, (joch7k@snu.ac.kr).
26 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ) Ⅰ. 서론 (monocracy).. (polycracy) (, 1996).,,, (Luthans, 1992: 355). 5 (Cohen, 1997: 166; Bybee, 1994).,.. 12 100 (roadmap), (, 2004.7. 13; 2005.5.10.; 2005.6.14.;, 2006.2.14.)...,, (Brown, 1995;, 1972;, 1991;, 1995;, 1996;, 2002;, 2004;, 2006)., (Best, Teske & Mintrom, 1997;, 1998;, 2005)., (, 2002;, 2003)., (Mitchell, 1997; Balla & Wright, 2001; Nixon, 2001; Karty, 2002; Karty, 2005). (, 2003;, 1994).
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 27 (focus).,,,. 1.,,,,.,,.,,.,..,,,,,,.,. Ⅱ. 정부위원회에관한이론적논의 1. 정부위원회의의의 (Luthans, 1992: 331)., (, 1998: 184), (, 1991: 439). (, 1995).
28 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 )., (a source of advice), (a source of support), (the interpretive role), (a listening post), (a means of reaching agreement), (an agency for special studies), (a device for patronage), (activities related to administration) (Brown, 1955: 197-199). (, 1996). 1),..,,, (, 1991: 26-28)..,,. 2. 정부위원회인적구성의원리 : 전문성 vs. 대표성 1) 정부위원회의전문성. Karty(2002; 2005). Balla & Wright(2001). (, 2006).. 1)...
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 29, (Hayes, 2000; Karty, 2005). (specialty),,.,, (, 2000). 2) 2) 정부위원회의대표성, (counter-bureaucracy) (Firstenberg & Malkiel, 1980; Zimmerman, 1986; Karty, 2002;, 1996).., Kingsley(1944) (representative bureaucracy). Kingsley(1944: 282-283) (mirror). (Balla & Wright, 2001). Mosher(1968). 3) Mitchell(1997)Mosher,,,,., ( 受託者代表 : Trustee Representation). (public interest)., ( 象徵的代表 : Symbolic Representation),,,,,,, 2) Hall(1968: 92-104),,,,,. 3) Mosher(1968: 10-14) (active representativeness) (passive representativeness).
30 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ).,,., ( 地位代表 : Status Representation),,,,,.. Mosher, (governance) (diversity)., ( 委任者代表 : Delegate Representation). - (principal-agent). (ideal type).,?. 4),.,.., ( 1~5). 4) (, 2000; MaEachern, 1987; Poole & Romer, 1985),..
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 31 가설 1(H1) : 정부위원회위원의전문성이높을수록정부위원회인적구성의적절성이높아진다. 가설 2(H2) : 정부위원회위원의대표성이높을수록정부위원회인적구성의적절성이높아진다. 가설 3(H3) : 정부위원회위원의전문성이높을수록정부위원회결정의효과성이높아진다. 가설 4(H4) : 정부위원회위원의대표성이높을수록정부위원회결정의효과성이높아진다. 가설 5(H5) : 정부위원회인적구성의적절성이높을수록정부위원회결정의효과성이높아진다. 3. 정부위원회의유형,.. McEachern(1987)(widely diffused), (narrowly concentrated) Wilson(1986: 429-430) 4 (McEachern, 1987: 46-51;, 2000: 58-61). (vs., ) < 1>. < 그림 1> 인적구성의특성에따른정부위원회의유형분류, 1 (research),.,
32 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ),.., 2 (cliental),.,. 1,., 3 (entrepreneurial),., (non-decision making).,,.., 4 (interest-balance), -,.... < 그림 2> 정부위원회유형, 대표성유형, 그리고전문성과대표성의관계
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 33 /, < 2>. 6 7. 가설 6(H6) : 대표성의유형에따라정부위원회위원의대표성정도가커진다. 가설 7(H7) : 대표성의유형에따라정부위원회위원의전문성정도가커진다. Ⅲ. 참여정부의정부위원회인적구성의실태, (, 2003). 1979 (, 1996: 56, 71-167)., 62 ( 37, 25 ) 1,228 962 (, 2004). 5) 1. 참여정부정부위원회의대표성관련실태, 55.8, 50 45.3%, 6028.1%, 4020.4%, 704.9%, 301.4% (<1> ). (Representativeness Ratio) 6), 50 60, 30., 28.9%, 22.6%, 17.6%, 5) 962, 22, 12, 819. 6) (Representativeness Ratio) (Dometrius & Sigelman, 1984).. 1, 1, 1. <1> ; AM:, TM:
34 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ) 10.5%, 2.0%. 1949 (1.40), (<2> ). < 표 1> 정부위원회위원의연령별분포 < 표 2> 정부위원회위원의출신지역별분포, 80.2%772 19.8%190, (<3> ).
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 35 < 표 3> 정부위원회위원의성별분포 2. 참여정부정부위원회의전문성관련실태, 80.1%, 38.4%, 8.0%, 7.3%, 4.8%, 2.9%, 2.1%, 1.8% (<4> ). < 표 4> 정부위원회위원의출신대학별분포,, 20.0%, 8.4%, 7.4% 52.8%13.6%, (<7> ). < 표 5> 정부위원회위원의전공별분포
36 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ),, 37.7%, 10.5%, 10.4%, 9.6%, 8.0%, 7.5% (<6> )., 7) (, 2003). 8) < 표 6> 정부위원회위원의직업별분포 Ⅳ. 참여정부의정부위원회에관한공무원인식조사 1. 설문조사의개요 51.. 2-3. 51 620 33954.7%. (3 ) 1.2%(4 ), (4 ) 7.7%(26 ), (5 )36.0%(122 ), 650.7%(172 ), 4.4%(15 ). 20051151124 7) 1990, 1990 23.0%, 10.0%, 45.0%(, 2003). 8) (GAO)1998 (Karty, 2002). ( ) 45%, / 18%, / 9%, 9%, 7%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 5%.
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 37.,, Cronbach's alpha 0.736. 9) SPSS 14.0 AMOS 6.0,,,,,.. (Q1), (Q2), (Q3), (Q4), (Q5), (Q6). 10) (Q7), (Q8), (Q9), (Q10) 11). (S1).,, (Likert)5. < 그림 3> 정부위원회의조사연구설계모형. (< 3> )., 9) Cronbach's alpha 0.60 (, 1998: 331). 10),,,,. 11) Mitchell(1997),,,.
38 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ),,, 12), 13). 7. 2. 정부위원회에대한공무원의인식,.,,. 71.1%(240 ). 10.5%(37 ), 9.1%(32 )., (14.7%) (33.6%)., 42.7%., (35.7%) (14.7%)., (34.2%) (16.7%)., (<7>, <8> ).,, 21.7%30.1%,.,, 31.1% 19.6%, (3.09)..,, 21.8% 27.7%, 12),,. 13) (effectiveness).., Karty (2005: 419),,,,, 5.
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 39.,. ( )37.0%, ( )33.2%. ()16.8%, ( ) () 10.8%. < 표 7> 정부위원회인적특성에관한공무원의인식 < 표 8> 정부위원회위원들의대표성유형에관한공무원의인식 3. 상관관계분석과교차분석, (Pearson) (<9> )., (S1), (Q1), (Q10).,.,. (-),
40 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ),., (+),,.,,,, (-).,,,. < 표 9> 정부위원회에관한공무원인식에대한주요변수별상관관계
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 41 < 표 10> 각변수와대표성유형과의교차분석결과 χ χ χ (<10> )., ( 40.3%, 14.6%),,.,.,. < 2>. 4. 위원회인적특성에대한가설검증., 5,,.,
42 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ), (<11> ). < 표 11> 인적특성이정부위원회결정의효과성에미치는효과 AMOS (Ver 6.0), (P, GFI, MRM, NFI ) 14) (< 4> ). < 그림 4> 인적특성이정책의효과성에미치는영향 14), (GFI: 0.9).998, (AGFI: 0.85).976, (RMR: 0.05).010, (RMSEA: 0.05).037, (NFI: 0.9).995, P(0.05 ).220, < 4>.
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 43, ( ) ( ) (-). (.054), (.169). (.267) (.362). (.318)..,, (.382), (.318), (.054). < 표 12> 회귀분석과구조방정식에따른가설검증, <12>. (H4) (H6),. (HH2)..
44 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ) (H5).,.,., H4 (Karty, 2002, 2005; Balla & & Wright, 2001),.,., (.054)., H6H7.,, H6(-). 15) H7. < 2> (trade-off relation)..,. Ⅴ. 결론 : 정책적함의,., 15) 0.05 6., (+) (-).
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 45,. Karty(2005) Balla & Wright (2001).,,. (, 2003)., ( ). Balla & Wright(2001). (, ).,,,..,.. (balanced membership) (FACA) (Karty, 2005: 418;, 2002). 1972, (Hayes, 2000: 184). 16), 16). (Section 2.b.4),,,,, (Section 2.b.5),, (Section 5.b),,,,, (Section 9.3),,, (Section 10.a), (Section 10.b),,,,,, (Section 10.c), (Section
46 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 ). (pool)... 17).,,,,. (active recruitment). DB, DB.,. 18),,.,.,,..,.. (counter-bureaucracy) (Karty, 2005). 14.a) (Hayes, 2000: 186-187). 17) 1()15 (5), 10-15, 15 (, 2004). 18). 2006, 38% (2005 36%), 20%, 30% (, 2005).
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 47,.,.. 19),. 참고문헌 19)..,.,,..,.
48 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 )
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 49
50 행정논총 ( 제 46 권 2 호 )
정부위원회인적특성과정책효과성 : 대표성과전문성에대한공무원의인식을중심으로 51 Abstract The Influence of Personal Traits on the Policy Effectiveness of Government Committees: The Perception of Public Officials of Representativeness and Professionalism Moohyun Choi Changhyon Jo The purpose of this study is to investigate the traits of government committee members during the Participatory Government in order to analyze the influence of personal traits on effectiveness in decision-making of government committees, based on the perception of public officials of representativeness and professional- ism, and to derive the policy implications from the results of these perceptions. According to the results of the analysis, professionalism is a variable which is strongly influencing the effectiveness of the committee's decision-makings, but representativeness is relatively weak. This study suggests the following possible options for improving the composition of government committees. First, the government should maintain a balance on the committee with respect to gender, age, region, and major field. Second, it is necessary to keep the balance between representativeness and professionalism. Third, the government should try to make a flexible plan corresponding with the situation of the organization. Fourth, the government should actively introduce the public relations and education plans concerning the composition and operation of government committees. Key words: Government committee, representativeness, professionalism, the participatory government