Suchergebnisse

The book contains a thorough analysis of the European Union institutional system as a specific, sui generis international organisation, in the context of its legitimization (its validity and legitimacy). The book is mainly theoretical. Primarily, the author aims at presenting a reliable depiction of the EU institutional system legitimization through the prism of the theoretical output concerning legitimization of the political power, including and accentuating the indicated specificity of the EU as a distinct international organisation. Secondly, he took into consideration the changes introduced into the legal foundations of the EU functioning, pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty – the latest treaty reforming the structures of the Union. In the context of the main theme of the present study, these changes are important not only in terms of the EU institutions themselves, i.e. their competences and reciprocal relations, but also with regard to the fundamental change of the legal character of the EU, and the alterations introduced into the individual Union politics. Thirdly, the author attempts to present the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization in the special circumstances, i.e. in the situation of the most profound economic crisis that the EU members have faced since the beginning of the integration process. The EU is regarded as a specific structure, being neither a state nor a typical international organisation. Such an approach was the starting point for the main premise of the present book – the idea that the thesis about the deficiency of democracy in the EU, formulated in the literature on the subject and in the public debate, is a certain simplification, and the characteristic features of the EU and its institutions, which provoked the formulation of such a thesis, should be considered in a broader context, such as the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization and, alternatively, the deficiency of that legitimization. For the direct democratic legitimization is only one of many sources of legitimacy of the EU institutional system and of the Union as a specific international organisation in general – an extremely important source, perhaps the most important, yet not the only one. Thus, the legitimization of the EU and its institutions should be analysed in a broader perspective, which also includes other sources of legitimization – as it is done in case of every political power which, striving for its legitimization to be as strong as possible, attempts to derive it from the largest number of sources. According to the author of the book, to base the EU institutional system legitimization only on the grounds of the direct democratic legitimization characteristic of a democratic state, would be tantamount to a certain disruption of the right order. It would rather be a symptom of too advanced an integration on the "institutional" level in comparison to the extent of the "material" integration. Until the EU is a structure sui generis, in which case it is a combination of features characteristic of an intergovernmental, international organisation, a supranational organisation or a state, the nature of legitimization of this structure should also be specific. The most important role should be played by the democratic legitimization, which should be completed with other sources, owing to which the functioning of the EU institutional system, and the whole EU, could be recognised as legally valid. Apart from the main thesis also other theses and hypotheses are posed in the book. The first chapter is a certain theoretical introduction and a basis to the deliberations presented in the further parts of this study. In the first subsection, with reference to the literature on the subject, the problem of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, i.e. the concept, classifications and sources of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, have been synthetically depicted. In another part of chapter one, the author attempts to relate the problem of legitimization to the EU as a specific international organisation and to formulate his own definition of legitimization deficiency with regard to EU institutional system. Bearing in mind that the problem of legitimization deficiency in the EU (EC) has not been discussed on a larger scale until certain stage of development of integration process was reached, in 1.3. subsection, the author raises some questions concerning: the sufficiency of legitimization of the integration process during the first few decades after the Second World War, the grounds for that legitimization and the reasons why, at a certain stage of the EU (EC) development the legitimization of the Union's institutional system started to be considered insufficient, which was manifested in the opinions acknowledging the democracy and legitimization deficiency. The first chapter ends with a passage devoted to the importance of the EU institutional system legitimization, whereas the significance of legitimization to the political power and political institutions in general, consitutes its reference point. The second chapter (subsections 2.3.–2.8.) presents a synthesis of the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization, from the moment of the EC founding treaties ratification, till the time the changes pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty were introduced. The author focused here mainly on the competences of the particular EC (EU) institutions and their reciprocal relations, which should make it possible to observe two main tendencies in the dynamics of changes taking place in this field, and present its specificity and distinctiveness in comparison to the systems of democratic states. At the beginning of this chapter, a thesis has been formulated (simultaneously, becoming an extension of the attempt to determine why, at a certain stage of the integration process, the issue of democracy/legitimization deficiency started to be discussed – a question that was raised in the first chapter), which states that the legitimization of the EU institutional system will be sufficient, if the law regulations and political practice of their functioning are convergent with the level of advancement of the integration process in various spheres of social life; in other words, the "institutional" integration should correspond with the "material" integration (that is the Union politics). To that end, the author made an attempt to present, in a synthetized form, the development of the "material" integration (subsection 2.1.), which he completed with an analogical endeavour to illustrate the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization (subsection 2.9). For in accordance with the increasingly common approach, the EU institutions are treated as a system, the concept and principles of which have been presented in 2.2. subsection. In the third chapter, the author presents the EU institutional system in its current form, that is with the changes introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. Here, the selected aspects regarding competences and functioning of the particular EU institutions have been depicted, as well as the relations between them in the context of legitimization. Additionally, three selected problems regarding the EU institutional system have been raised, which are especially important in the context of its legitimization (the relation between the EU institutional system and the institutions of the EU member states, the question of transparency in the functioning of the EU institutions, as well as the Union budgets in the consecutive years). In the last subsection (3.9.) the specific features of the EU institutional system, significant in the context of its legitimization, have been identified. The fourth chapter is devoted to the functioning of the EU institutional system in the perspective of four basic sources of its legitimization, i.e. indirect and technocratic, direct and democratic, utilitarian, and one consisting of "values". The chapter ends with a conclusion outlining the specificity of the EU and its institutional system with regard to the sources of its legitimization, which is especially important in the context of the book's main thesis. The fifth chapter concerns the problem of legitimization of the EU institutions in the context of the economic crisis, which the EU member states struggle with since around the year 2008. The sixth chapter, in turn, regards the so called subjective (empirical, social) dimension of the EU institutions' legitimization, that is, the way this problem is perceived by the citizens of the EU member states. It has been based on the results of opinion polls conducted for the use of Eurobarometer, from among which these questions and answers were selected, which could be applied to illustrate the way the EU citizens perceive the Union institutions in the context of their legitimization. The closing remarks include the most important conclusions drawn from the conducted analyses and the potential reforms and modifications of the EU institutional system, which may allow for the reinforcement of its legitimization, primarily in its democratic aspect. The bibliography contains a list of sources which were cited and referred to in the book.

학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 행정학과(행정학전공), 2012. 2. 정광호. ; 국문 초록 본 연구에서는 고구려연구재단과 동북아역사재단의 설립과정을 역사적 사회 환경적 관점, Allison의 정부정치 모형적 관점, 그리고 Kingdon의 정책흐름 모형적 관점에서 비교 분석하여 두 기관의 설립, 두 기관의 제도적 성취 및 역할 범위의 차이를 가져온 요인이 무엇인가를 밝혀보고자 하였다. 일반적으로 조직설립을 다루는 이론으로서 역사적 사회 환경적 관점에서는 조직 환경론, 특히 구조적 상황이론과 조직생태이론이 유용한 분석도구로 활용되어져 왔다. 이러한 이론들은 조직설립이 그것을 둘러싼 맥락 또는 상황에 의존한다는 결정주의적 입장을 취하고 있기 때문에 특정 상황적 요인의 존재 또는 발생으로 조직이 설립되었다는 것을 설명하는 데는 유용한 관점인 것으로 인식되어져 왔다. 하지만, 본 연구에서는 조직 환경론적 관점만으로는 왜 특정 공공조직은 특정 상황 또는 맥락의 존재에도 불구하고 설립 또는 사멸되지 않으며, 왜 유사한 공공조직간 제도적 성취의 차이가 발생하는 가를 설명하는 데는 한계가 있다고 보고 조직설립과 관련된 조직 환경론적 관점의 한계를 적시함과 동시에 준 정부조직 설립과정의 특수성을 감안하여 정부정치모형과 정책흐름 모형을 추가로 적용함으로써 고구려연구재단 및 동북아역사재단 설립과정에 대한 비교분석을 시도하였다. 먼저, 역사적 사회 환경적 관점에서는 구조적 상황이론과 조직 생태이론을 적용하여 두 기관의 설립을 가져온 역사적 배경이 무엇이며, 동북아역사재단 설립과 더불어 이에 흡수 통합된 고구려연구재단의 사멸 요인이 무엇인지를 밝혀보고자 하였다. 동 연구 결과에 의하면, 고구려연구재단의 사멸은 낮은 신뢰성 및 예측가능성, 신생조직의 불리, 작은 조직 규모 및 예산, 핵심적 조직 변화의 시도 및 동북아역사재단의 설립에 기인한 것으로 나타났다. 두 번째로, Allison의 정부정치 모형을 통하여 두 기관 설립을 둘러싸고 벌어진 참여자들의 흥정과 타협을 분석하여 이들의 입장·선호·인식·기대이익 등의 차이가 두 기관의 설립 및 제도적 성취에 어떠한 영향을 주었는가를 설명하였다. 그 결과 두 기관의 설립 및 제도적 성취의 차이 발생은 핵심참여자로서의 대통령과 행정기관의 인식 및 선호의 차이에 의해 크게 영향을 받은 것으로 나타났다. 다시 말해, 고구려연구재단 설립과 관련된 대통령 및 행정기관의 인식 및 입장은 한·중 양국의 외교관계 등을 의식해서 상당히 유화적이었던 반면, 일본의 역사교과서 왜곡 및 독도 영유권 도발로 시작된 동북아역사재단 설립과 관련하여서는 대통령과 행정기관의 인식이 매우 단호하였던 것으로 밝혀졌다. 세 번째로, Kingdon의 정책 흐름 모형을 적용하여, 두 기관 설립을 둘러싼 문제 및 정책의 흐름의 차이가 어떠하였는지를 비교 분석하였다. 먼저, 문제 흐름의 측면에서 고구려 역사 왜곡 문제에 대한 정책 당국자 또는 학계의 인식은 약했으며, 정책의 흐름도 시민단체 주도로 이루어져 일관성 및 강도가 약했다는 것을 확인하였다. 반면, 일본의 역사 교과서 왜곡 및 독도 영유권 도발로 촉발된 동북아역사재단 설립을 둘러싼 문제의 흐름은 강하고 일관성이 있었으며, 정책 흐름 역시 대통령과 행정기관의 주도하에 하향식으로 이루어져 일관되고 강하게 진행되었다. 이러한 두 가지 흐름상의 차이가 두 조직간 제도적 성취의 차이를 가져온 또 다른 설명 요인이었다고 할 수 있다. 본 연구의 결과, 발견된 시사점은 다음과 같다. 먼저, 역사적 사회 환경적 관점만으로는 공공조직 설립과정을 명확히 이해하는 데는 한계가 있다는 것을 확인하였다. 다시 말해, 역사적 사회 환경적 관점은 조직의 구조나 기능을 결정하는 요인으로 특정 환경 혹은 맥락을 강조해왔지만, 동 관점만으로는 왜 특정 환경의 존재에도 불구하고 왜 특정시점에는 조직 설립 또는 사멸이 이루어지지 않다가 다른 시점에 와서야 이루어지는가에 대해서는 명쾌한 해답을 제공하지 못하는 한계가 있다는 것이다. 두 번째, 준 정부조직은 민간조직과는 달리 법적·행정적·제도적 제약 조건하에서 설립되는 경우가 많기 때문에 준 정부 조직의 설립과정을 보다 명확히 이해하기 위해서는 보다 다양한 관점 즉, 정부 정치적 관점 및 정책 흐름적 관점 등을 통한 기존 이론의 보완 또는 대체가 필요하다는 것이다. 특히 우리사회가 다원화된 사회로 진행되어감에 따라 공공조직 설립과정을 이해하기 위해서는 참여자의 정치적 흥정과 타협을 다루는 정부정치적 관점에 대한 고려가 필요할 것으로 본다. 주요어: 역사적 사회 환경적 관점, 구조적 상황이론, 조직 생태이론, Allison의 정부정치 모형, Kingdon의 정책흐름 모형, 준 정부조직 ; ABSTRACT A Comparative Analysis of the Establishment Processes of Two Quasi-Governmental Organizations: The Cases of the Koguryo Research Foundation and the Northeast Asian History Foundation Si Yung Jung Department of Public Administration Graduate School of Public Administration Seoul National University The purpose of this study is to analyze through a comparative approach the establishment processes of the Koguryo Research Foundation and the Northeast Asian History Foundation from the perspectives of historical-social environment, Graham Allison's Governmental Politics Model, and John W. Kingdon's Policy Streams Model in order to clarify the establishment processes of these two organizations and to identify which factors determined their institutional achievements. Generally, both contingency theory and organizational ecology theory have been widely used as tools for analysis of organizational establishment. These theories have strengths for explaining the contingencies and contexts which determine the establishment of organizations. However, these theories have weaknesses in explaining the reasons why an organization fails to be established in the presence of a certain contingency or why there are differences of institutional achievements between certain similar organizations. To further the understanding of organizational establishment and the incidence of differences of institutional achievement between the two organizations, this study adopted the Governmental Politics Model and the Policy Streams Model. In the perspective of the historical-social environment, both contingency theory and organizational ecology theory were adopted as tools for analysis. Contingency theory assumes that the structure or management style of an organization depends on the environment which surrounds the organization. In the perspective of contingency theory, the creation of the Koguryo Research Foundation was initiated by the Chinese distortion of Koguryo history, while the Northeast Asian History Foundation was created by the Japanese distortion of history and sovereignty provocation over Dokdo. The perspective of organizational ecology theory was adopted to explain the reasons why the Koguryo Research Foundation was closed and then merged into the Northeast Asian History Foundation after two and one-half years of activity. Through this perspective, this study found that the closure of the Koguryo Research Foundation resulted from such factors as lower reliability and accountability, the liability of newness, the small size of its organization and budget, the attempt of essential organizational change, and the creation of a new organization, the Northeast Asian History Foundation. In the perspective of the Governmental Politics Model, this study examined how the political resultants, the Koguryo Research Foundation and the Northeast Asian History Foundation, were drawn through bargaining and negotiation by the players involved in the game. This study revealed that the differences in the institutional achievements between the two quasi-governmental organizations resulted from the differences of the players' perceptions, preferences, and stands on the issue. In terms of perception, the perception of key players such as the president of the Republic of Korea and his administration on the issue of the Chinese distortion of Koguryo history was pacificatory, while the perception of the president and the administration on the issue of the Japanese distortion of history and the issue of Dokdo was quite determined. Through this lens, this study also found that the players perceived the issue not only on the basis of national interests, but also on the basis of their organizational interests and personal concerns. Finally, through the viewpoint of the Policy Streams Model, this study examined how the streams of problems and policy alternatives proceeded along the processes of the founding of the two quasi-governmental organizations. According to the analysis, the streams of problems surrounding the founding of the Koguryo Research Foundation were weaker than the streams of problems concerning the Northeast Asian History Foundation. In the perspective of policy streams, those concerning the founding of the Northeast Asian History Foundation were consistent and strong due to the determined stand of the president on the issue, while the policy streams regarding the Koguryo Research Foundation were incremental, inconsistent, and mutated due to the lack of presidential support and the passive attitude of the administration toward the issue. The first implication of the study is that a variety of aspects of organizational establishment should be reviewed to understand the process of organizational founding more clearly. Though organizational environment theories have assumed that environment or context determines the structure or function of the organization, the theories can not clearly explain why the birth or closure of an organization occurred in a specific time in spite of the presence of previous contingencies. The second implication is that policy makers or researchers should consider such factors as politics, administration, and the legality of the issues regarding the establishment of a quasi-governmental organization, because quasi-governmental organizations are governed by legal, administrative, and other institutional constraints unlike private organizations. The third implication is that, as Korea society is growing more pluralistic, the relevance of the Governmental Politics Model is likely to become higher in explaining the establishment processes of quasi-governmental institutions in the Republic of Korea. Keywords: Historical-social Environment, Contingency Theory, Organizational Ecology Theory, Graham Allison's Governmental Politics Model, John W. Kingdon's Policy Streams Model, Quasi-Governmental Organization ; Master

In 2015 we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first free local elections to self-governing bodies. Those elections activated local citizens initiatives and greatly contributed to the transformation in our social awareness, leading to real change in Poland's political regime. The underlying rationale of free local elections, however, was the package of laws adopted on 8 March 1990 which created real self-government, enabled the elections to commune and municipality councils of 27 May 1990 and introduced a new dynamic to the process of the decentralisation of the state.Changes are always the result of dreams and our ability to realise them. It is possible to make them if there exist organisational structures and institutions which allow such changes to be made. The need for political transformation had long been felt and deliberated on by those involved in spatial development or and for whom the state monopoly status quo was unacceptable. To quote the late and much missed Professor Jerzy Regulski, the implementation of self-governance was departure from the monopoly of central government, which in turn meant an actual change in the political regime. The reform of 1990 broke up five monopolies of an authoritarian state which had existed in Poland since the end of the World War II: the political monopoly of one party, of centralised power, of uniform state ownership, of public finances and the state budget, and of the uniform public administration of the state.However, it must always be remembered that the possibility of realising dreams of a change in the nature of the state was shaped in the first triumphant stage of the Solidarity period in 1989, and later became a stable basis for the future in the resolution of the First National Congress of Solidarity Delegates and in the 'Samorządna Rzeczpospolita' (A Self-governing Republic) document. The success of the real change of 1990 was rooted in the long term determination and persistence of those whose personal experiences were involved in the quest for rationality in land management. Both Professor Jerzy Regulski and Professor Michał Kulesza drew their inspiration to change the political regime from the need to ensure that society worked in a way that would allow the local needs and initiatives be articulated, and inhabitants having the ability to take concrete decisions about the surrounding environment. In this way, the existing possibility of active involvement in local initiatives, incapable of being realised in the former political system, would become a reality and the citizens would be able to make collective decisions about their local area. This would also give a chance to oppose formally the investment logic resulting from the central planning of those times.The analytic work aimed at the transformation of the political regime that Professor Regulski started in the 1970s during his employment at the University of Lodz were subsequently continued at the Economic Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences and led to the formation of a group of individuals for whom self-governance became a core value of the new regime and a way of looking at the modern state. The change that took place in 1990 was the beginning of the building of a de-centralised, modern state, the status of which was subsequently confirmed when Poland adopted the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Self-government is never an institution whose constitution is ever finished. This was shown during the reform carried out by Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek's government, which continued the break-up of the monopoly of power and implemented subsidiarity principles at the regional level enabling them to exercise powers locally, in newly created districts (powiat), as well as in the later legislative changes pertaining to the regulations governing the election of mayors (wójt or burmistrz) or the work of the Komisja Wspólna Rządu i Samorządu (Joint Committee of the Government and Self-Government). Today, after 25 years of our experience with self-government, we are much more aware of the changes needed in the self-governing system. They include the strengthening of actual independence of self-government achieved through the ensured free choice of the manner in which self-government bodies will carry out their tasks, guaranteed revenues and the possibility given to commune and municipality authorities of exercising real influence on their size, improved cooperation between communes and municipalities (gmina) and districts (powiat), and, fore and foremost, by ensuring all citizens a chance of co-decision on matters which directly affect them. Changes in the regime of self-governance are a consequence of its assessment by external, independent experts but are also motivated by the natural dynamics of the changes resulting from the very essence of self-governance and its institutions, communes and municipalities (gmina), districts (powiat) and regions (voivodships).In 2010 associations of self-governing units realised the need for change and amendments to the law on self-governance. Thus, they formulated a number of proposals which were included in a document called 'Requests to the President of the Republic of Poland to commence work on the white book of territorial self-government in the year of the 20th anniversary.' This document initiated work on a draft law which in 2013 became the subject of a legislative initiative put forward by President Bronisław Komorowski. The purpose of the new law on the collaboration of self-governing bodies in local and regional development is to strengthen the role of the citizen as well as the community in the work of self-government in Poland. The effort that Professors Jerzy Regulski and Michał Kulesza in their capacity as Advisors to President Komorowski put into the legislative work remains invaluable. It is believed that the involvement of individual citizens constitutes the strength of self-government and is a guarantee of its role at the service and in the interest of communities, individual inhabitants and businesses. Hence the need for enhanced collaboration and the partnership of different bodies of self-government and the increased involvement of citizens. There is draft law that contains regulations supporting these activities.Under the draft law, a local referendum is seen as an important tool to ensure the participation of citizens in decision-making processes, including those concerning local development plans. Local referenda should constitute a mechanism used to solve local issues of material importance to residents. Their result should be binding regardless of the turnout.Self-governance helps to create and strengthen the natural inclination of individuals to act together in areas where because of their social, business or cultural ties, a local community spirit develops. In today's world of global challenges and competition, we are looking for a space for the individual which provides a feeling of security. Another important value of self-governance is the possibility of creating affiliations with a community as well as individual entrepreneurship, social activity and a regard for the collective memory of the symbols of a place. The ability to participate in community life is inseparable from the functioning of democracy at a local level, with the consultation process, election of public officers, or participation in referenda.Self-governance is a special value which gives each of us a chance to exercise a real influence on local matters. It therefore occupies a very special place where politics has a personal dimension. The variety of self-governance means at the same time a variety of development policies since there are different communities, with different emotions, different experiences or ability to participate in democratic management. This variety is a special asset in the process of the stabilisation of the state as a whole. The diversity of opinions and experiences, appointments to public office of citizens not affiliated to or necessarily recommended by any party creates the solid foundations of a democratic state. This feeling of freedom within self-governing communities must be continued and promoted.The authors of many of the texts published in this issue of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny devoted to self-governance are, at the same time, authors of the transformation of Polish law and Poland's administration in the last 25 years. Contributions submitted by, among others, Prof. dr hab. Irena Lipowicz, Prof. Jerzy Stępień, Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Buzek, Prof. dr hab. Leon Kieres or Prof. dr hab. Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz are the best proof of the capital importance that self-governance plays in a democratic state. I thank Professor Teresa Rabska and the editorial staff of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny for their active involvement in questions of self-government from the very beginning. This issue is entirely devoted to a range of legal, economic and sociological aspects of new challenges facing self-government and its regime. Once again I thank them for such active involvement and participation in the jubilee celebrations of Self-Government and this special issue of the journal.We need self-governance not only to feel that we can influence decisions being made about local issues but also to be continually able to renew our confidence in institutions at a local level, and through their collaboration at the national level.