목차제1 장 서 론1.연구의 필요성2.연구 목적제2장개도국 특별우대 조치에 대한 논의 동향1.GATT의 논의 동향2.DDA의 논의 동향제3장SDT의 정당성 분석1.GATT/WTO 조항 및 기타 발의에 나타난 SDT 논리2.WTO 농업협상에 반영된 SDT3.개도국 또는 최빈 개도국(LDC)의 졸업 사례4.SDT 정당성에 관한 선행연구5.SDT 구분과 그 특성에서 추론할 수 있는 SDT 정당성6.농업부문에서 개도국 SDT의 정당성제4장OECD 국가의 경제 및 농업구조 비교 분석1.국제기구에 의한 선진국의 분류2.경제 성장에 관한 지표3.농업구조에 관한 지표4.농업정책 기조 및 수단에 관한 지표제5장농업부문 지표를 활용한 개도국 분류1.개도국 분류의 배경과 현황2.개도국 분류를 위한 실증 분석제6장개도국 지위 유지의 논리1.자기선언 원칙의 존중2.경제개발의 수준 고려3.개도국 수준의 농업부문 지표4.취약한 농업구조 개선을 위한 전환기간 필요5.농업정책 수단의 신축성 필요6.개도국 지위 유지의 대가 부적절제7장요약 및 결론참고문헌 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.