목 차제 1 장 공동계산의필요성 1. 공동계산이란? 2.유통환경의 변화 3. 공동계산, 왜 필요한가?제 2 장 공동계산, 어떤 이익이있나? 1. 경제적 효과 2..경제외적 효과제 3 장 외국의 협동조합, 어떻게 하고있나? 1. 브레따뉴 청과물경제위원회(CERAFEL) 2. 네덜란드 The Greenery International그룹과 디절꾼 그룹 (DisselkoenGroup) 3. 덴마크 DanEggamba 4. 덴마크 Dansk Kemefrugt과일협동조합 5. 미국 선키스트 협동조합(Sunkist Growers,Inc.) 6. 일본 단노(端野)농협 양파 공동계산제 4 장 공동계산, 어떻게 추진하나?(발전단계별추진전략) 1. 제1단계(미시행 단계)2. 제2단계(작목반단위 단계) 3. 제3단계(농협단위단계) 4. 제4단계(광역단위 단계)제 5 장 공동계산, 어떻게 추진하나?(품목유형별추진전략) 1. 품목유형의 분류 2. 공동계산추진절차 3. 추진절차별 추진방법부록참고문헌 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.