공공 조직의 자율과 책무: 책임운영기관과 일반행정기관의 차이 분석
Autonomy and Accountability in Public Organizations: Comparing between Autonomous Agencies and General Public Organizations
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 조직 내 자율과 책무를 분리하여 이해하고 실증적으로 관계를 고찰한 연구가 학계에 미흡하다는 점에서, 탐색적으로나마 자율과 책무에 대한 이해를 시도한다. 높은 수준의 자율과 책무가 주어진 것으로 알려진 책임운영기관이 실제로 그러한지를 일반행정기관과 비교하여 분석하였다. 분석은 자율과 책무의 수준의 비교, 자율이 책무에 미치는 영향의 비교이다. 책임운영기관과 일반행정기관에 근무하는 공공 근로자를 대상으로 한 설문을 대상으로 T검정과 회귀분석을 실시한 결과에 따르면, 책임운영기관과 일반행정기관의 자율성과 책무성 수준에는 차이가 거의 없는 것으로 분석되었다. 단, “사무의 위임・위탁・이관 관련 책무성”에서 책임운영기관과 일반행정기관이 차이를 보이고 있음을 발견하였다. 전체적으로 책임운영기관은 일반행정기관보다 자율성과 책무성의 수준이 높다는 예측을 뒷받침할 근거는 없었다. 또한 책임운영기관과 일반행정기관의 자율성이 책무성에 미치는 영향 차이는 적어도 본 연구에서는 발견할 수 없었다. 단, 자율의 책무에 대한 영향을 부분적으로 발견할 수 있었다. “기능재조정・기구재설계・기구명칭변경” 관련 자율성은 책무성에 양(+)의 영향을 주고 있다. 이러한 결과를 토대로 몇 가지 정책적 제언을 하였다.
Abstract
There has been little studies on the empirical test of autonomy and accountability. In Korea, autonomous agencies in public sector have been developed in the last decades and it is uncertain if they are given more autonomy and accountability as their goal of establishment. This study examines autonomy and accountability in public organizations. In particular, it compares autonomous agencies and general public agencies(organizations) in terms of the level of autonomy and accountability as well as the extent to which autonomy impacts accountability. With the survey data from public organization employees, this study used T-test and regression analysis. The results show that autonomous agencies and general public organizations have no differences in the level of autonomy and accountability. Accountability in task empowerment was the only one that appeared to be different from each other. Overall, this study did not find any evidence that shows autonomous agencies have gotten more autonomy and accountability compared to general public agencies(organizations). Also, the gap between autonomous agencies and general public agencies in terms of the extent to which autonomy impacts accountability had no statistical differences. At least, there found a partial impact of autonomy on accountability. Autonomy in function rearrangement had positive effects on accountability. Implications are discussed.
참고문헌 (61)
- 김근세, "한국 책임운영기관의 성격과 범위: 변화관리를 중심으로", 한국조직학회보, 7(1), pp.1~37 (2010), 한국조직학회
- 김근세, "책임운영기관의 조직문화와 효과성에 관한 연구: 운전면허시험관리단을 중심으로", 한국행정학보, 39(3), pp.179~203 (2005), 한국행정학회
- 김병섭, "책임운영기관 제도운영의 평가", 행정논총, 39(1), pp.65~82 (2001)
- 김상호, "신공공관리와 책임운영기관: 한국의 책임운영기관제도를 중심으로", 한국정책연구, 3(1), pp.21~39 (2003)
- 정부 조직관리의 자율성과 책임성에 관한 연구: 정부기관법인화・특별지방행정기관・책임운영기관을 중심으로, "김윤권", 한국행정연구원, ~ (2012)
- 문명재, "책임운영기관의 조직・인사 자율성과 제도적 개선 방향", 한국조직학회보, 7(1), pp.39~63 (2010), 한국조직학회
- 밀, 존 스튜어트, "자유론" (2005), 책세상
- 오재록, "관료제의 자율성: 개념, 측정 그리고 타당화", 현대사회와 행정, 22(2), pp.113~138 (2012), 한국국정관리학회
- 오재록, "관료적 자율성의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 45개 중앙행정기관을 중심으로", 한국행정연구, 18(4), pp.3~29 (2010), 한국행정연구원
- 오재록, "관료적 자율성의 두 얼굴: 한국 중앙행정기관 실증분석*", 행정논총, 50(3), pp.153~174 (2012), 한국행정연구소
- 이경호, "정부조직 관리의 자율성과 제약에 관한 연구: 책임운영기관 제도를 중심으로", 행정논총, 54(1), pp.31~69 (2016), 한국행정연구소
- 이재원, "지방재정의 자율성과 책임성에 대한 지방공무원의 인식과 정책과제 : 군 자치단체를 중심으로", 한국지방재정논집, 19(1), pp.77~108 (2014), 한국지방재정학회
- 임도빈, "공무원의 탈관료적 규정변용(rule bending)행태에 관한 연구", 한국정책연구, 12(4), pp.453~475 (2012), 경인행정학회
- 주재현, "공무원의 책임성 딜레마 인지와 대응: 지방자치단체 공무원을 중심으로", 정부학연구, 21(3), pp.1~33 (2015), 정부학연구소[DOI]
- 최승범, "한국의지방관료제: 자율, 통제와책임성", 한국행정학보, 36(1), pp.173~192 (2002), 한국행정학회
- 피터 드러커, "프로페셔널의 조건" (2012), 청림출판
- 2016년도 책임운영기관 종합평가, "행정자치부 책임운영기관운영위원회", ~ (2016)
- 황광선, "과학기술 국가연구개발(R&D)의 책임성과 딜레마", 한국행정학보, 50(2), pp.189~213 (2016), 한국행정학회[DOI]
- 황광선, "The Role of Trust in Public Management: Accountability and Discretion", 한국비교정부학보, 21(1), pp.1~18 (2017), 한국비교정부학회
- 황광선, "책무성(Accountability)과 성과(Performance)의 호혜성과 차별성에 대한 이론적・실증적 고찰", 정부학연구, 22(2), pp.169~194 (2016), 정부학연구소
- Aucoin, P., "The Dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management Reform", International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), pp.45~55 (2000)
- Bach, T., "The Autonomy of Government Agencies in Germany and Norway: Explaining Variation in Management Autonomy across Countries and Agencies", International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), pp.341~361 (2014)
- Breaugh, J. A., "Future Examination of the Work Autonomy Scales: Three Studies", Human Relations, 40(6), pp.381~400 (1987)
- Carpenter, D., "The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928" (2001), Princeton University Press
- Caughey, D., "Defining, Measuring, and Modeling Bureaucratic Autonomy", Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midewest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference (2009)
- Christensen, T., "Accountability and Power: The Effects of “Autonomization” of Governmental Bodies", Paper Presented at the 19th IPSA World Congress (2003)
- Deci, E. L., "Characteristics of the Rewarder and Intrinsic Motivation of the Rewards", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, pp.1~10 (1981)
- DeHaven-Smith, L., "Management by Inquiry: A Discursive Accountability System for Large Organizations", Public Administration Review, 66(1), pp.64~76 (2006)
- Finer, H., "Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government", Public Administration Review, 1(4), pp.335~350 (1941)
- Friedrich, C. J., "Public Policy: A Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration (Vol. 1)", pp.3~24 (1940), Harvard University Press
- Greer, P., "Transforming central government" (1994), Open University Press
- Hackman, J. R., "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey", Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), pp.161~172 (1975)
- Hair, J., "Multivariate Data Analysis" (2010), Prentice Hall
- Jensen, M. C., "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure", Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp.305~360 (1976)
- Kant, I., "Basic Writings of Kant", pp.143~222 (2001), Modern Library
- Kearns, K. P., "The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations: An Analytical Framework", Public Administration Review, pp.185~192 (1994)
- Kickert, W. J. M., "Governance of autonomised agencies" (1998), Samsom
- Kim, N., "Agencification and Performance: The Impact of Autonomy and Result Control on the Performance of Executive Agencies in Korea", Public Performance & Management Review, 38, pp.214~233 (2014)
- March, J.G., "Democratic Governance" (1995), Free Press
- Meiksins, P.F., "Professional Autonomy and Organizational Constraint: The Case of Engineers", Sociological Quarterly, 30(1989), pp.561~585 (1989)
- Morrison, J. B., "Governance for Broadened Accountability: Blending Deliberate and Emergent Strategizing", Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), pp.195~217 (2007)
- Moynihan D. P., "Creating Desirable Organizational Characteristics", Public Management Review, 8(1), pp.119~140 (2006)
- Norman, R., "Letting and Making Managers Manage. The Effect of Control Systems of Management Action in New Zealand’s Central Government", International Public Management Journal, 4, pp.65~89 (2001)
- Norton, S.D., "Contrast and Foundation of the Public Oversight Roles of the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.K. National Audit Office", Public Administration Review, 68(5), pp.921~931 (2008)
- Olsen, J.P., "Democratic Order, Autonomy, and Accountability", Governance, 28(4), pp.425~440 (2015)
- Osborne, D., "Reinventing Government : How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector" (1992), New American Library
- Overman, S., "Agencification and Public Sector Performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries", Public Management Review, 18(4), pp.611~635 (2016)
- Painter G. D., "Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Autonomy, Control and Performance" (2010), PalgraveMacmillan
- Pendlebury M., "Resource Accounting and Executive Agencies", Public Money & Management, 18(2), pp.29~33 (1998)
- Pollitt, C., "Unbundled government", pp.319~343 (2004), Routledge
- Roberts, N. C., "Keeping Public Officials Accountable through Dialogue: Resolving the Accountability Paradox", Public Administration Review, 62(6), pp.658~669 (2002)
- Spreitzer, G. M., "A Dimensional Analysis of the Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness Satisfaction, and Strain", Journal of Management, 23(5), pp.679~704 (1997)
- Talbot C., "Executive Agencies: Have They Improved Management in Government?", Public Money and Management, 24(2), pp.104~112 (2004)
- Valkama, P., "Organizational Innovation in Public Services. Forms and Governance" (2013), Palgrave Macmillan
- Verhoest K, "The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Overview", Public Administration and Development, 24(2), pp.101~118 (2004)
- Verhoest K., "Effects of Autonomy, Performance Contracting, and Competition on the Performance of a Public Agency: A Case Study", Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), pp.235~258 (2005)
- Verhoest, K., "Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries" (2012), Palgrave Macmillan
- Verschuere B., "The Autonomy-Control Balance in Flemish Arm’s Length Public Agencies", Public Management Review, 9(1), pp.107~133 (2007)
- Vining, A.R., "The longer-run Performance Effects of Agencification: Theory and Evidence from Québec Agencies", Journal of Public Policy, 35(2), pp.193~222 (2015)
- Whitaker, G. P., "Mutual Accountability Between Governments and Nonprofits", The American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), pp.115~133 (2004)
- Zimmerman, J. F., "State-Local Relations: A Partnership Approach" (1983), Praeger
