본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Generalist Bureaucrats with Expertise - Multiple Accountabilities and Government Action -

김향미|박나라
인문사회과학연구소 (Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Pukyong National University)|2023.02|인문사회과학연구 (The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences)|제66권 제1호|pp. 37-58|DOI 10.17939/hushss.2023.66.1.003

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

법제처법령해석제도professional accountabilitybureaucratic accountabilitybureaucratic expertiseStatutory Interpretation System (SIS)전문가적 책무성관료적 책무성관료적 전문성
주제분류학제간연구

초록

Traditional bureaucratic accountability within an administrative hierarchy tends to limit the discretion or autonomy that is needed to ensure professional accountability. However, when a government organization is expected to demonstrate both forms of accountability at the same time, discretion based on professional norms and standards becomes vital. On the basis of empirical evidence, this study examined the effect of professional accountability factors, derived from the expectation of neutral competence on requesters, and bureaucratic accountability factors, derived from the expectation that the President is responsive, on the response time of the Statutory Interpretation System (SIS) of the Ministry of Government Legislation of South Korea (MGLK). We find that the MGLK has been successful at maintaining both forms of accountability at varying degrees with regard to the SIS because its institutional design guarantees widespread discretion—rather than control—while also clearly referencing the primary goal of the system.

Abstract

Traditional bureaucratic accountability within an administrative hierarchy tends to limit the discretion or autonomy that is needed to ensure professional accountability. However, when a government organization is expected to demonstrate both forms of accountability at the same time, discretion based on professional norms and standards becomes vital. On the basis of empirical evidence, this study examined the effect of professional accountability factors, derived from the expectation of neutral competence on requesters, and bureaucratic accountability factors, derived from the expectation that the President is responsive, on the response time of the Statutory Interpretation System (SIS) of the Ministry of Government Legislation of South Korea (MGLK). We find that the MGLK has been successful at maintaining both forms of accountability at varying degrees with regard to the SIS because its institutional design guarantees widespread discretion—rather than control—while also clearly referencing the primary goal of the system.

참고문헌 (58)

  1. Aleksovska, M., "Dissecting Multiple Accountabilities: A Problem of Multiple Forums or of Conflicting Demands?", Public Administration, 100(3), pp.711~736 (2022)
  2. Allison, P. D., "Logistic Regression using SAS: Theory and Application" (2012), SAS Institute
  3. Beck Jørgensen, T., "Public Values: An Inventory", Administration & Society, 39(3), pp.354~381 (2007)
  4. Behn, R. D., "Rethinking Democratic Accountability" (2001), Brookings Institution Press
  5. Benish, A, "The Logics of Hybrid Accountability: When the State, the Market, and Professionalism Interact", The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 691(1), pp.295~310 (2020)
  6. Benish, A., "Accountability and Hybridity in Welfare Governance", Public Administration, 98(2), pp.281~290 (2020)
  7. Bovens, M, "Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework", European Law Journal, 13(4), pp.447~468 (2007)
  8. Bovens, M, "Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism", West European Politics, 33(5), pp.946~967 (2010)
  9. Bovens, M., "Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool", Public Administration, 86(1), pp.225~242 (2008)
  10. Brandsma, G. J, "The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability" (2014), Oxford University Press
  11. Brandsma, G. J., "The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), pp.953~975 (2013)
  12. Campbell, C., "The End of Whitehall: A Comparative Perspective" (1995), Blackwell
  13. Christensen, J. G., "Bureaucratic Dilemmas: Civil Servants between Political Responsiveness and Normative Constraints", Governance, 31(3), pp.481~498 (2018)
  14. Collings, B. J., "Testing Goodness of Fit for the Poisson Assumption When Observations Are Not Identically Distributed", Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80(390), pp.411~418 (1985)
  15. Cox, D. R, "Some Remarks on Over-dispersion", Biometrika, 70(1), pp.269~274 (1983)
  16. Dickinson, M. J., "Presidents, Responsiveness, and Competence: Revisiting the “Golden Age” at the Bureau of the Budget", Political Science Quarterly, 119(4), pp.633~654 (2004)
  17. Dubnick, M. J., "Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms", Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), pp.376~417 (2005)
  18. "Public Accountability: Performance Measurement, the Extended State, and the Search for Trust" (2011)[URL]
  19. Dubnick, M. J., "Research in Public Administration" (1993), JAI Press
  20. Ewert, B, "Focusing on Quality Care Rather than ‘Checking Boxes’: How to Exit the Labyrinth of Multiple Accountabilities in Hybrid Healthcare Arrangements", Public Administration, 98(2), pp.308~324 (2020)
  21. Gailmard, S., "Slackers and Zealots: Civil Service, Policy Discretion, and Bureaucratic Expertise", American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), pp.873~889 (2007)
  22. Goetz, A. M., "Hybrid Forms of Accountability: Citizen Engagement in Institutions of Public-Sector Oversight in India", Public Management Review, 3(3), pp.363~383 (2001)
  23. Gore, O., "Discretion Drift in Primary Care Commissioning in England: Towards a Conceptualization of Hybrid Accountability Obligations", Public Administration, 98(2), pp.291~307 (2020)
  24. Halachmi, A, "The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability" (2014), Oxford University Press
  25. Hammond, T. H., "Who Controls the Bureaucracy?: Presidential Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of MultiInstitutional Policy-Making", Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 12(1), pp.119~166 (1996)
  26. Heclo, H, "OMB and the Presidency-the Problem of Neutral Competence", The Public Interest, 38, pp.80~98 (1975)
  27. 허창환, "위헌적인 행정적 유권해석의 통제방안에 관한 연구", 일감법학, (44), pp.265~293 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  28. Hwang, K, "Public Caseworkers’ Strategies Coping With Accountability Demands", Journal of Public Affairs, 17(4), pp.e1669~ (2017)
  29. Johnsen, D. E, "Guidelines for the President’s Legal Advisors", Indiana Law Journal, 81(4), pp.1345~1354 (2006)
  30. Kaufman, H, "Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration", American Political Science Review, 50(4), pp.1057~1073 (1956)
  31. "A Strange Logic is Evident in the Interpretation of the Ministry of Justice...A Voice of Opposition: Despite the MGLK’s Finding of Unconstitutionality, The Plenary Session on the 26th... Awaiting the Response of the Government" (2008)[URL]
  32. Koppell, J. G, "Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of ‘Multiple Accountabilities Disorder’", Public Administration Review, 65(1), pp.94~108 (2005)
  33. Kraft, M. E, "Public Policy: Politics, Analysis and Alternative" (2004), CQ Press
  34. Lawless, J. F, "Negative Binomial and Mixed Poisson Regression", The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 1987, pp.15(3), 209~225
  35. Lee, S, "When Tensions Become Opportunities: Managing Accountability Demands in Collaborative Governance", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(4), pp.641~655 (2021)
  36. Lee, S. W., "Characteristics of Participation in Policy Interest Groups and Time to Make Policy", Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 21(3), pp.179~206 (2011)
  37. LeRoux, K., "Informal Accountability in Children’s Service Networks: The Role of Frontline Workers", Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 43(3), pp.188~204 (2019)
  38. Accountability and Institutional Design: Some Thoughts on the Grammar of Governance, "Mashaw, J. L.", 115~156, pp.Public Law Working Paper 116 (2006)
  39. McGivern, G., "Hybrid Manager-Professionals’ Identity Work: The Maintenance and Hybridization of Medical Professionalism in Medical Contexts", Public Administration, 93(2), pp.412~432 (2015)
  40. Moe, T. M., "The New Direction in American Politics" (1985), Brookings Institution
  41. Moe, T. M., "Presidents and the Politics of Structure", Law & Contemporary Problems, 57(2), pp.1~44 (1994)
  42. Mulgan, R, "‘Accountability’: An Ever‐Expanding Concept?", Public Administration, 78(3), pp.555~573 (2000)
  43. 박나라, "University Social Responsibility and Educational Performance: Evidence from South Korea", 인문사회과학연구, 63(4), pp.5~30 (2020), 인문사회과학연구소[DOI]
  44. Peters, B. G, "The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability" (2014), Oxford University Press
  45. Pollock, K., "Juggling Multiple Accountability Systems: How Three Principals Manage These Tensions in Ontario, Canada", Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28, pp.323~345 (2015)
  46. Reddick, C. G., "Horizontal, Vertical, and Hybrid: An Empirical Look at the Forms of Accountability", Administration & Society, 52(9), pp.1410~1438 (2020)
  47. Romzek, B. S, "Dynamics of Public Sector Accountability in an Era of Reform", International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), pp.21~44 (2000)
  48. Romzek, B. S., "Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy", Public Administration Review, 47(3), pp.227~238 (1987)
  49. Romzek, B. S., "A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors", Public Administration Review, 72(3), pp.442~453 (2012)
  50. Rosenbloom, D. H, "Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers", Public Administration Review, 43(3), pp.219~227 (1983)
  51. Ryu, S., "A Study on the Development of the Statutory Interpretation System of the Ministry of Government Legislation" (2015), The Ministry of Government Legislation
  52. Schillemans, T., "Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift", Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), pp.191~215 (2015)
  53. Schwabenland, C., "Hybrid Accountabilities and Managerial Agency in the Third Sector", Public Administration, 98(2), pp.325~339 (2020)
  54. Sinclair, A., "The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), pp.219~237 (1995)
  55. West, W. F, "Neutral Competence and Political Responsiveness: An Uneasy Relationship", Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), pp.147~160 (2005)
  56. West, W. F, "The Institutionalization of Regulatory Review: Organizational Stability and Responsive Competence at OIRA", Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(1), pp.76~93 (2005)
  57. "The Ministry of Government Legislation of South Korea"[URL]
  58. "The Korean Law Information Center"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

Blacklists and bureaucracy: navigating accountability in South Korean public administration배관표, 이윤수서울대학교행정대학원 · Journal of Policy Studies2025 · 제40권 제3호독립행정기관에 대한 연구: 독립성과 절차적 공정성, 전문성을 중심으로심동철정부학연구소 · 정부학연구2023 · 제29권 제1호Bureaucratic Responses to the Cross Pressures of Political Neutrality in Relation to Cultural Orientation and Role Perception: The Case of Korean Civil Servants박천오, 한승주서울대학교행정대학원 · Journal of Policy Studies2018 · 제33권 제3호정부관료제 책무성의 다양성: 분석모형 개발과 활용방안한유성정부학연구소 · 정부학연구2023 · 제29권 제1호The Role of Trust in Public Management: Accountability and Discretion황광선한국비교정부학회 · 한국비교정부학보2017 · 제21권 제1호공무원의 전문가적 정체성과 책임: 일반채용과 경력채용 공무원의 인식 탐색한승주한국조직학회 · 한국조직학회보2017 · 제13권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)

Profit Rates, Capital Accumulation, Business Cycles - Korean Economy -김덕민pp. 5-20On the meaning of the slaves’ shapes in Yadam of the Joseon Dynasty김신정pp. 21-36성인 독서모임 구성원의 자기치유 경험에 관한 질적연구윤수진, 김영순pp. 59-88지방선거에서의 자산투표 - 6-7회 지방선거를 중심으로 -박양우, 안효종, 박명호pp. 89-140테일러 준칙과 그 적용에 관한 소고정지영pp. 141-174
원문 보기