살기 좋은 농촌 만들기를 위한 정책재편 방안(2/2)

Abstract

살기 좋은 농촌 만들기의 중요성이나 필요성에 동의하지 않는 이는 거의 없을 것이라 믿는다. 중앙정부가 본격적인 정책 의제로서 살기 좋은 농촌 만들기를 주창하면서 짧은 시간 동안 사회적 공론화가 진행되고 공감대도 형성되었다. 그러나 살기 좋은 농촌이 무엇인지, 농촌이 살기 좋은 곳인지, 미래의 농촌은 어떻게 될 것인지 등을 진단하거나 전망함으로써 정책이 어떻게 변화되어야 하는지를 종합적으로 제시한 적은 거의 없었다. 이 연구의 목적은 농촌 현실 진단 및 미래 모습 전망을 토대로 농촌개발정책의 과제와 수요를 도출하고, ‘살기 좋은 농촌’ 만들기를 위한 현행 농촌개발정책의 재편 방안을 구상하는 것이다. 연구 목적 달성을 위한 연구의 주요 내용을 몇 가지 질문으로 구성하여 살펴보았다. 첫째, “현재 우리 농촌은 살기 좋은 곳인가”에 답하고자 하였다. 도시와 비교하여, 선진국과 비교하여, 그리고 주민의 주관적 만족도에 기초하여 우리 농촌이 살기 좋은 곳이라고 할 수 있는지를 점검하였다. 둘째, “미래 농촌에서의 정책 수요는 무엇인가”를 파악하고자 하였다. 주민의 눈으로 농촌의 미래 모습을 전망함으로써 바람직한 농촌의 미래 모습을 구현하는데 요구되는 농촌개발정책의 수요를 도출할 수 있다고 보았기 때문이다. 이를 위해 Q-방법(Q-methodology)을 활용하였다. 셋째, “농촌개발정책이 살기 좋은 농촌 만들기에 기여하는가”를 분석하였다. 정책 목적?내용?방식 등의 측면에서 정책 과제와 수요에 비추어 보았을 때 무엇이 문제인지를 선행연구의 문제 지적, 지방자치단체 공무원의 의견 조사 및 분석, 사건구조분석(event structure analysis) 방법에 의한 사례지역 관찰조사 등에 기초해 파악하였다. 넷째, “살기 좋은 농촌 만들기를 위해 정책은 어떻게 재편되어야 하는가”에 대하여 제안하고자 하였다. 특히 이에는 관련되는 국내외 사례들을 참고로 하였다.

This is the second year report of the two-year collaborative research entitled ‘Rural Policy Reorientation Scheme for Making Livable Rural Area’, which is led by the Korea Council of Economic and Social Research Institute. The ultimate purpose of this study is to draw a number of policy tasks for rural development based on an analysis of rural conditions and a projection of rural future and in turn, to suggest a number of ways to redirect and reorient rural development policies in order to make rural areas a good places to live. Rural development policy programs and projects can be rearranged and reoriented in three areas, that is, policy objectives, contents and implementation. Policy objectives must be redefined. While rural developments policies can still be aimed at making rural areas good places to live, concrete valuation and allocation criteria must be drawn up in detail so that limited policy resources can be utilized efficiently and effectively to make rural areas good places for living, working, resting, and ‘community sharing.’ In addition, policy contents must be thought out carefully. First, in order for rural villages to become a good place to live, policies must be targeted at establishing a service network better suited to the settlement hierarchy of households, villages, central towns, and neighboring cities rather than the village-centered improvement of physical infrastructure. Secondly, in order for rural villages to become a good place to work, local specialty products and intangible resources must be cultivated as to constitute a local industrial cluster, and at the same time, local service needs and demand must be translated into community business opportunities so as to generate extra employment and income. Third, in order for rural villages to become a good place to rest, rural amenity resources must be carefully documented, cultivated and developed into marketable products. Finally, in order for rural areas to become good places for ‘community sharing,’ education and learning programs for local residents must be improved and strengthened and also, rural in-migration must be encouraged. However, policy objectives and contents must be adapted to diverse local conditions. A classification of rural areas into four different types reveals this possibility of various adaptation of policy objectives and contents. In rearranging and reorienting rural development policies, changes in policy implementation are decisively important. First, perspectives and interests of local governments should take precedence over those of the central government in policy implementation. Secondly, some small-scale rural policy programs and projects must be abolished and others must be merged. Together with this abolishment and merger, a package of blanket financial assistance and policy guidelines must be extended and furnished, to local governments. Only this will prevent local governments from blindly scrambling for budget allocation and from recklessly pursuing central government directives without paying too much attention to policy outcomes. Third, a system of incentives and penalties, in conjunction with a measure for the evaluation of policy outputs and outcomes, must be in place. Finally, all relevant legal codes and regulations must be reviewed and if necessary, re-written. The Special Act on Improvement in Quality of Life, in particular, together with the Agriculture, Rural Areas and Food Industry Act and the Rural and Fishing Village Improvement Act must be overhauled.Researchers: Mi-Ryung Song, Jeong-Seop Kim, Kwang-Seon Kim and Ju-Young ParkResearch Period: 2008.1～2008.11E-mail Address: mrsong@krei.re.kr