농촌마을 개발과 주민참여
Development of Rural Villages and Resident Participation
2
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study has investigated how citizen-government partnerships were established for the development of local communities and have intensified the power of citizens, examining the two cases which were activated by citizen participation. These cases are summed up as follows. (1) Community development with residents’ participation is a model in which residents in a particular community reach an agreement on discovering and resolving problems with administrators and experts, establish development plans, participate in the process and take responsibility of the outcomes. In this process, residents’ participation finally enables them: to complement representative politics; to secure policy-making and policy-implementing capacity and legitimacy; mediate and comprise conflicts of interest; to protect the rights of the minorities and increase the understanding; to establish desirable plans and execute administration; and to realize the plans and reinforce the residents’ responsibility in the future management of the community. (2) If we classify the types of citizen-government partnerships in the process of local governments’ administration into the two criteria for financial allotment and service supply, citizen-government partnerships in current local areas are on the way to go from government initiative (Ⅰ) to citizen-government cooperative (Ⅲ). (3) We have compared the campaign of new rural village development programs and projects with prime village businesses as the leading cases of types of rural communities development with residents’ input and participation. Then, both were fitted to suitability of businesses, the former was superior to the latter in the aspect of business efficiency. The latter was relatively superior to the former in the aspect of businesses. Specifically, the latter, prime village businesses, have been reinforcing the capacity of local residents with consulting, education, citizen-government partnerships. (4) If we formulate plans for reinforcing the capacity of residents in the future in those two cases, they are ① to scout and cultivate leaders, ② to develop and generalize residents’ participating programs, ③ to substantially expand education and discipline, ④ to form local agricultural networks and build partnerships, and ⑤ to support administratively and financially.
Abstract
This study has investigated how citizen-government partnerships were established for the development of local communities and have intensified the power of citizens, examining the two cases which were activated by citizen participation. These cases are summed up as follows. (1) Community development with residents’ participation is a model in which residents in a particular community reach an agreement on discovering and resolving problems with administrators and experts, establish development plans, participate in the process and take responsibility of the outcomes. In this process, residents’ participation finally enables them: to complement representative politics; to secure policy-making and policy-implementing capacity and legitimacy; mediate and comprise conflicts of interest; to protect the rights of the minorities and increase the understanding; to establish desirable plans and execute administration; and to realize the plans and reinforce the residents’ responsibility in the future management of the community. (2) If we classify the types of citizen-government partnerships in the process of local governments’ administration into the two criteria for financial allotment and service supply, citizen-government partnerships in current local areas are on the way to go from government initiative (Ⅰ) to citizen-government cooperative (Ⅲ). (3) We have compared the campaign of new rural village development programs and projects with prime village businesses as the leading cases of types of rural communities development with residents’ input and participation. Then, both were fitted to suitability of businesses, the former was superior to the latter in the aspect of business efficiency. The latter was relatively superior to the former in the aspect of businesses. Specifically, the latter, prime village businesses, have been reinforcing the capacity of local residents with consulting, education, citizen-government partnerships. (4) If we formulate plans for reinforcing the capacity of residents in the future in those two cases, they are ① to scout and cultivate leaders, ② to develop and generalize residents’ participating programs, ③ to substantially expand education and discipline, ④ to form local agricultural networks and build partnerships, and ⑤ to support administratively and financially.
참고문헌 (46)
- 강용배, "농촌마을공동체의 역량강화 사례연구", 한국정책과학학회보, 8(4), pp.5~31 (2004), 한국정책과학학회
- 새농어촌건설운동의 사후관리방안, "강종원", 강원발전연구원, ~ (2005)
- 구자인, "진안군청의 마을개발사업과 으뜸마을 팀", 씨오쟁이, 5, pp.34~37 (2006), 전북농업연구원
- "구자인 (2006), 진안군의 으뜸마을가꾸기와 마을간사 제도운영, PPT 발표자료", ~ (2006)
- 김경량, "새농어촌건설운동 우수마을 선정체계 개선에 관한 연구", 농업경영·정책연구, 34(2), pp.219~241 (1998)
- 김경량, "강원도 새농어촌건설운동 활성화 방안", 국제화시대 새농어촌건설운동과 농어촌 발전방안 심포지엄 자료집 (2006), 강원도
- 김경량, "자치농정시대 새농어촌건설운동의 의미와 과제", 농업경제연구, 44(2), pp.133~152 (2003), 한국농업경제학회
- 김경량, "지역농정의 현상과 과제", 농업경제연구, 46(1), pp.61~84 (2005), 한국농업경제학회
- 김경량·강종원, "새농어촌건설운동의 현황과 발전방안", 새농어촌건설운동의 지속화·활성화방안」, 강원농수산포럼 제85차 정기세미나 결과보고서, 강원농수산포럼, pp.9~51 (2008)
- 김진선, "새농어촌 건설운동" (2006), 대희
- 김찬호, "일본의 도시화 과정에서 마을 만들기의 전개와 주민 참여", 도시행정학보, 13(1), pp.95~115 (2000)
- 농촌의 내발적 지역활성화에 관한 한·일간 비교연구, "김태곤·정기환·송미령", 한국농촌경제연구원, ~, pp.연구자료 R526 (2006)
- 김호, "농업개방 확대에 따른 갈등 극복을 위한 농정분야 거버넌스 구현방안 연구" (2004), 정책기획위원회
- 박덕병, "지방분권에 따른 농촌협치와 농촌개발정책의 과제", 농촌사회, 14(2), pp.47~107 (2004), 한국농촌사회학회
- 박덕병, "농정의 거버넌스(민관협치) 현황과 과제", 지역농정 활성화 심포지엄 발표 자료집, pp.1~46 (2006), 전북 지역농업연구원·전북농산업발전포럼·전북농업인단체연합회
- 농촌지역경제의 지속적 발전 전략, "박시현", 한국농촌경제연구원, ~, pp.연구자료 R536 (2006)
- 박우서, "농촌개발과 민관협력형 지역거버넌스의 구축. in: 세계화와 농촌개발" (2001), 한울아카데미
- 박진도, "지역리더 교육프로그램 개발 및 시범시행연구" (2004), 농정연구센터
- 박진도, "지역개발정책의 재구성" (2005), 한울아카데미
- 배응환, "지역거버넌스 네트워크, 사회자본 그리고 지역정책", 정부학연구, 8(2), pp.8~251 (2002), 정부학연구소
- 배응환, "거버넌스의 실험: 네트워크조직의 이론과 실제: 대청호살리기운동본부를 중심으로", 한국행정학보, 37(3), pp.67~93 (2003), 한국행정학회
- 살기종흔 농촌만들기 사례: 진안군의 마을만들기 경험을 중심으로. in: 농업전망 2008(Ⅰ), "성주인", 한국농촌경제연구원, 415~444 (2008)
- 소순열, "지역구조·지역문제·지역개발", 호남사회 연구, 2, pp.51~75 (1995)
- 소순열, "지역농업발전과 지자체 농정", 농민과 사회, 32, pp.94~109 (2002)
- 소순열, "지역농업과 지방농정", 전북대학교 농대논문집, 29, pp.97~107 (1998)
- 소순열, "지역농업의 활성화 조건", 전북대학교 논문집, 42, pp.1~16 (1996)
- 소순열, "지역농업 네트워크의 형성과 기능-벼 직파재배연구회의 사례", 지역사회연구, 12(1), pp.95~114 (2004), 한국지역사회학회
- 소순열, "농산업클러스터의 구축", 지역과 농업, 18(창간), pp.189~212 (2006)
- 송미령, "주민자율적 마을 가꾸기 현황과 성과 분석", 국토계획, 37(1), pp.169~179 (2002), 대한국토·도시계획학회
- 송미령, "마을개발사업의 성과와 주민참여의 관계 분석", 한국지역개발학회지, 17(4), pp.293~320 (2005), 한국지역개발학회
- 농산어촌 지역혁신체계 기반 구축, "송미령", 한국농촌경제연구원, ~, pp.연구자료 R521 (2006)
- 염미경, "농촌개발과 지역거버넌스", 지역사회학, 5(2), pp.5~23 (2004)
- 오수길, "파트너십 거버넌스의 가능성과 한계 - ‘지방의제 21’ 추진 과정의 경험 -", 한국행정논집, 15(2), pp.283~313 (2003), 한국정부학회
- 유정규, "지역농업에 관한 논의동향과 발전과제", 농정연구포럼 (1999)
- 유정규, "지역농정 활성화를 위한 농정기획단의 역할과 과제", 지역농정 활성화 심포지엄 발표 자료집, pp.49~72 (2006), 전북 지역농업연구원·전북농산업발전포럼·전북농업인단체연합회
- 유정규, "‘지역농업’재편과 지자체의 역할에 관한 연구", 농업경영.정책연구, 30(3), pp.461~491 (2003), 한국농업정책학회
- 유정규, "지역리더의 농정참여실태 및 개선방안" (2004), 지역재단
- 이재준, "지속가능한 농촌발전을 위한 주민참여 요인분석에 관한 연구", 국토계획, 38(3), pp.39~55 (2003), 대한국토·도시계획학회
- 임승빈, "한 · 일 지방정부에서의 NGO와의 파트너십에 관한 연구", 한국정책학회보, 9(3), pp.113~133 (2000)
- 농촌지역 사회자본의 존재양태 분석, "정기환", 한국농촌경제연구원, ~, pp.연구자료 R460 (2003)
- 황영모, "지자체의 농촌리더 육성에 관한 연구-전북 진안군 '진안사랑 환경농업대학'의 사례", 지역사회연구, 13(1), pp.209~225 (2005), 한국지역사회학회
- 강원도, "한국농어촌의 희망·제3의 길 새농어촌 건설운동(내부자료" (2006)
- 강원도, "2007년도 도정역점시책" (2007)
- 진안군, "2007년도 주요업무계획" (2007)
- 진안군, "상향식 마을 개발 ‘으뜸마을가꾸기(내부자료)" (2007)
- 진안군 마을간사 연간활동보고회 및 강연회 보고서, "진안군청 기획홍보실 정책개발담당", ~ (2006)