|dc.description.tableofcontents||목차제1장 서 론1. 연구 배경과필요성12. 연구범위 및 주요 연구내용9제2장 남북한 당국자간 경제협력 관련 회담과 의제1. 남북한 당국자회담 추이132. 남북한 당국자 경제회담의 추이283. 최근 경제협력 관련 회담과추진체계42제3장 경제협력 관련 회담의 주요 의제 분석1. 최초의 경제협력관련 회담 의제 분석(제1차∼4차)452. 대북 물자지원 관련 회담 의제 분석543.정상회담 이후 경제협력 관련 회담 의제 분석634. 남북 경제협력추진위원회 후속 실무협의회 추진현황73제4장 남북한 농업교류협력 수요와 방향1. 농업교류협력 수요①:인도적 물자지원772. 농업교류협력 수요②: 농업복구개발 협력 823. 농업교류협력수요③: 경제특구 배후지 농업개발협력1124. 농업교류협력 수요④: 상업적 농업협력 제도구축120제5장 농업교류협력을 위한 의제 개발과 접근방향1. 남북농업교류협력과 관련된 기존 의제 검토1242. 분야별 의제 개발1373. 농업교류협력관련 협상의 접근 방안147제6장 요약 및 결론152참고 문헌159||-|
|dc.description.tableofcontents||NGO`s activities can be legitimate because they are based on socialphenomena and because NGOs play an important role in responding to socialdysfunction. Also, the appearance of the concept of global governance shows theimportance of NGO`s activities and the necessity of their participation in thepolicy process.The purposes of this study are to analyze how NGOs participate in theagricultural policy process and to depict what the desirable ways of theirpolicy participation are.Research methods for this study are as follows: first, in order toanalyze the real situations of policy participation of agriculture-related NGOs,we analyzed twenty eight agriculture-related NGOs based on the data collected byquestionnaire and interviews and compared them with data gained by analyzingfifty eight general NGOs located in Seoul; second, in order to evaluate theparticipation of agriculture-related NGOs in the policy process, we conductedquestionnaire from interviewing NGOs` staffs and public officials and comparedtwo groups.It is proved that the objective conditions of NGOs are not related tothe positiveness or spontaneity of their activities. The positiveness andspontaneity of their activities are not closely related to the objectiveconditions, but to their intrinsic goals and characteristics.The necessity of NGOs` participation in the policy process isrecognized by NGOs and policy authorities. NGO`s participation can make policymakers agricultural policies based on real fields and establish cooperationrelationship between two groups. Also, they have common opinion about NGO`sparticipation in setting up the fundamental plan like mid- and long-termagricultural and rural development plans. On the other hand, there aredifferences in the disadvantages of NGO`s participation and the obstacles on theactivation of NGO`s participation.There were considerable changes in the ways and modes of NGO`sparticipation. The modes and ways of participation have been diversified such asmovement shifts from illegal riots to legal and formal participation of being apartner of formal committees and commissions. However, in general, theparticipation is still more formal. NGOs think that government policies have notreflected the voices of actual fields. Because government authority thinks thatNGOs have stated their interest rather than the interests of the agriculturalsector as a whole, they could not help having limitations in responding torelated NGOs` voices. That is, public officials understand these phenomena as asort of Nimby. In order to solve these problems, NGOs` participationshould be directed to setting up their substantial participation.It is very meaningful for government authorities to carry outcooperative projects with NGOs. Korean agriculture is not competitive as awhole. Only a few items have competitiveness. Rebuilding agriculturalvitality depends upon the change of paradigm based on the new recognition ofagriculture and rural areas such as multi-functionality. The basic premisein building a new paradigm is that the protection of agriculture and governmentsubsidy should be based on general people's consensus. NGOs are the mostdesirable organizations that try to pursue their goals without their owninterests according to the principles of social justice and public interest inorder to gain people's consensus. Some projects that need public relationscarried out by NGOs having integrity may be better than by governmentagencies.In this aspect, existing policy response of policy authority may not beactive. Although government authorities formalize NGO`s participationaccording to timely needs, their positive will has been positive in establishinga new paradigm for policy participation. They do not recognize the necessity andvalue of NGO`s participation in the policy process in terms of the protection ofagriculture based on the persuasion of people.The desirable way of civilian policy participation is that agriculturalpolicy authority should recognize NGOs as policy partners and carry outagricultural projects substantially. The way of cooperation between NGOs andpolicy authorities should be different from issues and make sure the rolesof NGOs and policy authority. Especially, NGOs carry out projects that need theconsensus of people and public relations.There are some improvements in relationship between NGOs and policyauthorities. First, mutual understanding between them should be expanded. Bothsides should expand relationships and put lots of efforts to understandeach other. Also, existing relationship of the provision of supports and thereception of benefits should be changed to the relationship of mutualcooperation. Second, the way of policy participation of NGOs should bediversified and substantialized such as participating committees havingdecision-making authority and the delegation of agricultural policyimplementation. The objects of privatization of agricultural policy areas areeducation for consumers and general public and commercialized fields enabling torun projects without government supports. For example, the involved are theeducation for environmentally friendly agriculture and retuning to the farming,green tourism and rural amenity, consulting farming, and so on.Foreign cases shed some lights on reforming the mode of policyparticipation of NGOs. French Agricultural Lead Committee can be adopted.However, institutional improvement needs other previous conditions likegovernment organizational reform.||-|
|dc.title||남북한 당국자간 농업협상을 위한 의제 개발 및 대응 방안||-|
|dc.title.alternative||Agendas for inter-Korean agricultural negotiations and the responses||-|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.