그 동안 도시계획 수립과정에서는 공청회나 공람 등 주민참여제도가 공식적인 절차 속에서 시행되어 왔다. 이 밖에 조사․분석과정에서도 설문조사나 인터넷 에 의한 주민의견 수렴 제도가 활용되어 왔다. 그러나 도시계획 수립 과정에는 직접적인 당사자 이외에도 보다 다양한 이해당사자가 관계하고 있기 때문에 이 와 같은 제도만으로는 기무사 이전사업에서 보는 바와 같이 올바른 도시계획을 수립할 수가 없다. 따라서 향후 도시계획 수립과정에서는 거버넌스 체계를 구축 하여 각종 이해당사자가 계획수립 과정에 참여하고 대화를 통해 의견을 수렴하 고 궁극적으로 계획안에 대한 합의를 바탕으로 도시계획이 이루어질 수 있도록 제도적인 절차를 개선할 필요가 있다.
한편, 개발제한구역관리계획 변경절차와 관련하여 기무사 과천이전사업에서
보는 바와 같이 과천시라는 기초지방자치단체의 개발제한구역 이용에 관한 사항 을 경기도라는 광역 지방자치단체에서 입안권을 행사함으로써 초기단계에서 주 민이나 시민단체 등의 의견이 수렴되지 못하여 결과적으로 갈등의 확대를 초래 하였다. 따라서 향후 개발제한구역관리계획 변경절차의 입안권 등 근본적인 제 도개선을 검토할 필요가 있다.
2) 거버넌스 운영을 위한 규칙․지침의 수립검토
도시계획 수립과정에서의 발생한 갈등을 원만히 해결하기 위해서는 제도적인 절차의 개선과 함께 이를 주도할 거버넌스 네트워크를 조직하고 운영할 필요가 있다. 기무사 과천이전사업에서도 다자간협의체 구성만큼 실질적으로 운영과정 에서 합의안을 도출하는 것도 더욱 어렵다는 것을 알았다. 따라서 도시계획 수립 과정에서 사전에 갈등을 방지하거나 완화할 수 있도록 다자간협의체와 같은 성 격의 조직을 만들어 대화의 장으로 활용할 필요가 있다. 이러한 거버넌스 체제를 현행 도시계획위원회 안으로 그 역할을 수용할지, 아니면 새로운 형태의 신설조 직으로 할지 등은 추후 검토가 필요할 것이다.
한편, 갈등관리는 제도와 조직만으로는 성공을 하기 어려우며 이를 효율적으 로 운용하기 위한 규칙(Rule)이나 지침(Guideline)이 필요하다. 따라서 갈등관리를 위한 거버넌스 체제의 구축 및 운영을 위한 표준적인 규칙이나 지침을 제정할 필요가 있다.
3. 연구의 한계 및 향후 과제
본 연구의 한계는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 본 연구는 실증사례를 분석한 연구로서, 보다 많은 이해관계자와의 면담이 요구되는데, 짧은 연구기간으로 인하여 충분 하게 의견수렴을 하지 못하였다. 따라서 향후 이해당사자들의 역학관계에 초점 을 맞춘 보다 심층적인 후속연구가 필요하다.
둘째, 본 연구에서 다루는 개발제한구역관리계획 변경이라는 주제가 일반적인 도시계획 절차와는 다른 일종의 특수한 성격을 가지고 있어 이를 통해 일반적인 도시계획에 대한 해법을 제시하기에는 한계가 있었다. 따라서 보다 일반적인 도 시계획체계상의 협력적 거버넌스 체계에 대한 해법을 제시하기 위해서는 향후 일반적인 도시계획 수립과정에서 나타나는 갈등을 사례로 연구할 필요가 있다.
R ․ E ․ F ․ E ․ R ․ E ․ N ․ C ․ E
참 고 문 헌
강황선. 2003. “정부중재형 거버넌스 체제의 운영전략에 관하 연구: 이해관계자들
의 범위와 역할 그리고 거버넌스 역량의 결정요인을 중심으로.” 「한국사회 와 행정연구」14(3) : 201-227.
강창현. 2002. “지역복지공급 거버넌스 연구: 네트워크 접근.” 「한국행정학보」36(2):
313-332.
김석준 외. 2000. 「뉴거버넌스 연구」. 서울: 대영문화사.
김정렬ㆍ김시윤. 2003. “거버넌스와 행정국가.” 「대한정치학회보」 10(3): 23-44.
권원용․서순탁. 2003. 「협력적 계획 : 분절된 사회의 협력과 거버넌스. 한울아카데미.
박경원. 2001. “도시거버넌스와 협력적 계획모형.” 대한국토․도시계획학회지 「국토 계획」 36(5): 195-209.
박경원. 2003. “지역발전을 위한 거버넌스 구축: 협력적 계획모형을 중심으로.” 국토연 구원 「월간국토」통권 265호: 44-53.
박우서. 2002. “지역발전과 민간협력형 거버넌스 운영방안.” 국토연구원 「월간국토」
통권 252호. pp. 28-39.
박홍엽. 2006. “국군기무사령부 과천이전 갈등사례.” 지속가능발전위원회. 「공공갈등 사례분석을 통한 표준 갈등사례분석 모델 개발 연구」. pp. 33-66.
배응환. 2004. “협력적 로컬 거버넌스의 대두 : 천안시 환경기초시설정책을 사례로.”
2004 행정학회 하계학술대회 발표논문집.
서순탁․민보경. 2005. “지역발전을 위한 협력적 거버넌스에 관한 연구 : 분당-죽전 도로
연결을 중심으로.” 「지역사회발전연구」 제30권 제2호 (통권 252호): pp.25-44.
Bryson, J., and Barbara Crosby. 1992. Leadership for The Common Good.
Jossey-Bass.
Innes, Judith E. and David E. Booher. 1999. "Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning."
Journal of American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.
Lasker, Rose, Elisa Weiss, and Rebecca Miller. 2001. "Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage." The Milbank Quarterly 79(2): 179-205.
Kooiman, J. 2000. "Societal Governance: Level, Modes, and Orders of
Social-Political Interaction," in Pierre, J. (ed.), Debating Governance, Oxford University Press.
Peters B.G. and John Perrer. 1998. "Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 23-243.
S ․ U ․ M ․ M ․ A ․ R ․ Y
SU M M A RY
Developing a Collaborative Governance System:
Focusing on the Relocation Project of Defense Security Command
Chai Moon, Kwang-Koo Kim, Hyung-Seo Park
This study pays attentions to the lack of social capital in our society to manage and resolve many public conflicts that might be caused by the bureaucratic and authoritative decision-making process of the Central government in implementing many national projects. The goal of this study is to develop a model of collaborative governance, especially between the Central government and local governments, that could input interests of local residents into the planning process of national projects and be open to the participation of stakeholders involved in them.
The case of this study is the relocation project of Defense Security Command (DSC) from Sogyeok-Dong, Jongno-Gu, Seoul City to Jooam-Dong, Gwacheon City, Gyeonggi-Do that the Ministry of Defense (MOD) made public on January, 2002. This study focuses on the dispute resolution process of the relocation project evolved around mainly MOD and DSC vs. Gwacheon City and its residents.
From the case, this study i) identifies major stakeholders around the conflict and
their behavioral dynamics along its evolution, ii) tracks down the introduction and management of a multi-party forum to discuss and find alternatives to resolve the conflict through dialogue and negotiation, iii) reviews the legal and institutional systems and their limitations relevant to the relocation project, and iv) tries to find practical implications from the case analysis to develop a model of collaborative governance that could make planning process more effective and do planning projects successful.
This study reviews the literature on collaborative planning and governance to build an analytical framework, collects various documents from the media, MOD, Gwacheon city hall and city council, the Appeal Review Sub-committee under the National Defense Committee of the National Assembly, even citizen organizations, and also interviews major stakeholders including MOD officials, Gwachoen city major and council members, and citizens to see through their interests and positions, values, and behavioral attributes around the conflict.
Chapter 2 reviews the concepts, types, limitations, and factors of governance that has been suggested as a governing alternative to make feasible the policy orientation toward "participation and decentralization" of this incumbent administration. This chapter also discusses collaborative planning models and their implications to be a practical and feasible strategy for building governance system.
As an alternative governing paradigm, governance is a system or process of which the bureaucratic organizations are not the single problem-solver for public problems. Rather, governance is a collaborative coordination system and not hierarchical but horizontal networks of various stakeholders who share problems and mobilize their resources and powers to solve the problems collectively. Thus, a collaborative governance may imply the partnership to make possible voluntary collaboration among the Central government, local government, and local residents.
Thus, collaborative governance may require replacing the traditional and rational
planning model with collaborative planning models.
Collaborative planning models may need face-to-face communicative interaction for all stakeholders to build consensus. Collaborative planning is to develop the partnership to achieve a goal and solve a problem that could not be reached individually and to be an approach to enhance welfare of stakeholders by building up multi-dimensional network among them. Here, collaboration includes the cooperation of stakeholders who may have different or conflicting values and interests, beyond the cooperation of stakeholders with the same or similar values and interests, and this competitive collaboration may allow them to produce more creative alternatives.
Chapter 3 develops the analytical framework that is consisted of identification of major stakeholders around the relocation project of DSC, their interaction analysis by the stages of the conflict development, leadership of stakeholder groups, and institutional foundation in order to find factors that may make collaborative governance successful. First, this study identifies major stakeholders: the Central government (MOD, DSC, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation(MOCT), the National Assembly), local governments (Gyeonggi-Do, Gwachoen City and Council), residents and civic Organizations of Gwacheon City.
Then, this study divides the conflict development into four stages based on the changes of the interaction dynamics (confrontation or association) among the identified stakeholders. It should be noted that this periodization is not a continuum without breaks because most public disputes may have the latent periods when contacts or conflicts between stakeholders may submerge.
The followings are brief descriptions of each stage:
- The fist stage (2002.4.4-2002.5.29): had no specific conflict or association of stakehodlers because of the unilateral and secret land purchase of DSC.
- The second stage (2002.7.1-2004.12.17): broke up the confrontation between stakeholders, especially DSC and Gwacheon City-Council-Citizens.
- The third stage (2005.4.2-2005.6.28): begun the efforts of the stakeholders to search for ways or methods to resolve the conflict, including the appeal to the National Assembly and the introduction of a multi-party talk.
- The fourth stage (2005.7.8-2005.12.30): reached the agreement of the stakeholders through the multi-party forum within which they had discussed and negotiated alternatives.
The followings are the analysis of leadership by stakeholder groups:
- Gwacheon City Major: played significant roles to block effectively the prerogative administrative power of DSC and MOD and to mobilize the opposition of Gwancheon residents and civi organizations. And held aggressive negotiation power by suggesting resonable site alternatives to DSC.
- National Assembly (the Appeal Review Sub-committee of the National Defense Committee): stepped up to resolve the dispute by recommending the introduction of a multi-party forum and evaluated the appeal with rational and balanced point of view.
- MOD: played the initiative to form the multi-party forum, mediated between DSC and Gwacheon stakeholders throughtout the process of the multi-party forum, and suggested the critical alternative of cutting down the DSC site size.
- DSC: played active role in the negotiation process, especially after the recommendation from the National Assembly and discussed progressively the alternatives.
- Gwacheon City Council: took the head to block the relocation project of DSC and appled the relocation project to the National Assembly as the last resort, associated with the Representative of Gwacheon.
- Gwacheon Civic Organizations: took joint steps with Gwacheon city council and city mayor, formed Gwacheon Trust Fund, played the role as one of the members of the multi-party forum.
- MOCT and Gyeonggi-Do: did not played effective role to mediate the stakeholders and not participate actively in the multi-party forum.
This study also finds the characteristics of the multi-party forum as a governance organization that is created upon the agreement of stakeholders with the leverage of the recommendation from the National Assembly and then, analyzes the institutional limitation of legal regulations related to the relocation project of DSC. First, although the National Assembly recommended the introduction of a multi-party forum to the stakeholders, especially to MOD and DSC, the multi-party forum become a critical arena as a governance organization that allows participations and discussions of stakeholders. The multi-party forum is consisted of the representatives of stakeholder groups involved around the relocation project of DSC. Although the multi-party forum does not have legal status and is an ad-hoc entity, it is the creative product of the stakeholders around the DSC relocation project and plays significant role to make the project successful. Finally, the stakeholders reach to the agreement within the multi-party forum.
Second, the DSC relocation project requires amending the Green-belt Management Plan (GMP) Amendment. But the GMP Amendment does not have the procedure to inform the project to Gwacheon residents and to input their interests into the project at the early planning stage. Thus, the DSC does not have to make efforts to inform the relocation project to Gwacheon residents. Gyeonggi-Do and MOCT also do not allow opportunities for Gwachoen residents to suggest their interests to the relocation project.
From the case analysis of the relocation project of DSC, this study finds several practical factors that make the project successful by developing the governance system to resolve the dispute between the Central government and Gwacheon City around the projet: i) dialogue and negotiation on rational justification and to avoid the
not-in-my-backyard approach to the project, ii) persuasive and democratic leadership, especially by Gwacheon city mayor and MOD, and iii) the development of open and official negotiation institution, like the multi-party forum.
Chapter 4 provides policy implications and research limitation. This study suggests the development of a governance system to be recognized as an important investment, not a cost. National or local public managers may make sure of the procedural validity of projects as much as their legal validity. This study also finds the necessity of rational leadership
in the process of building agreement or consensus. This study recommends the institutionalization of collaborative governance system that allows the participation of stakeholders involved in planning process.
The existing planning processes do allow citizen participation through public
The existing planning processes do allow citizen participation through public