정부성과관리제도의 개선방안 - 한국과 미국의 비교를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Currently 3 major Korean governments who are in charge of controlling and evaluating the performance of Korean governments department agencies are (i) Office of Prime Minister under the Framework Act on Public Service Evaluation(FAPSE), (ii) Ministry of Strategy and Finance(National Fiscal Law), (iii) Board of Audit and Inspection of Lorea(BAI: National Fiscal Law and National Accountjng Law). Major weaknesses of current Korean government performance management are summarized as follows; (i) performance management is performaned in a fragmented way rather than in an integrated manner, (ii) focus too much on the evaluation score rather than using performance measurement as a feedback and learning tool, (iii) performance informations are not adequate and useful which results in ineffective use of those information for the improvement of government performances, (iv) strategic planning and performance reporting is far from being satisfactory. As for the USA, since 1993 GPRA enactment, they have evolved and showed the sign of positive Currently 3 major Korean governments who are in charge of controlling and evaluating the performance of Korean governments department agencies are (i) Office of Prime Minister under the Framework Act on Public Service Evaluation(FAPSE), (ii) Ministry of Strategy and Finance(National Fiscal Law), (iii) Board of Audit and Inspection of Lorea(BAI: National Fiscal Law and National Accountjng Law). Major weaknesses of current Korean government performance management are summarized as follows; (i) performance management is performaned in a fragmented way rather than in an integrated manner, (ii) focus too much on the evaluation score rather than using performance measurement as a feedback and learning tool, (iii) performance informations are not adequate and useful which results in ineffective use of those information for the improvement of government performances, (iv) strategic planning and performance reporting is far from being satisfactory. As for the USA, since 1993 GPRA enactment, they have evolved and showed the sign of positive results from diverse aspects. Especially, they emphasize performance management as a tool for the fiscal efficiency improvement mechanism rather than as a score management. Also they have pursued performance enhancement in long term perspective and emphasized employees learning and traning so that the organizational culture can be transformed following the philosophy of GPRA. With these advantages of USA’s experience under the GPRA, it's time to suggest the necessary directions for the change in Korean government’s performance management. Key alternatives can be 3 ways. (i) refiguration of existing 3 key performance management regulating organizations, (ii) enactment of new performance management laws like GPRA and GPRAMA which will replace existing FAPSE, (iii) establishment of new governmental agency who will be in charge of government-wide performance management(including evaluation and coordination among different departments and agencies). With current limitations which reduce the potential usefulness of performance management in general by Korean government in mind and based on the review of USA’s best practices since 1993 GPRA, this paper compared possible major alternative directions for the necessary changes including legislative measures and organizational restructuring.