佛獨 行政의 特異性과 유럽 聯合 = The general characteristics of the French, German, and EU public administration

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

French public administration has recently been involved with the concepts of efficiency, user involvement, accountability, speedy decisions, responsiveness and so on. Surrounded with a number of conflicting demands, bureaucrats feel uneasy. How can better quality be achieved when scare human resources or political pressures hinder the recruitment of qualified personnel? How can efficiency be improved when legal rules or the veto from labor unions prevent the giving of rewards to hardworking employees? Civil servant are now paying the price of sweeping change affecting the relationship between state and civil society. Sectoral and local demands are invading field services whose technical expertise is now challenged by private business or by local authority staffs. Traditional sources of administrative legitimacy, such as public service or general interest, are still strong, but civil servants have lost their privileged social status.
These trends could be analyzed as a democratization process, a standardizing mechanism adjusting French public administration to EU integration and the pluralistic political market. From another perspective, social structures in the higher civil service ranks remain untouched and that elites' networks are more closely linked than ever. It is hard to predict whether the traditional separation-confusion cycle between polities and public administration will give way to another statist interpretation of political life or to a real policy-centered model implying some kind of politicized managerialism.
Change dynamics can be found in building administrative rationales that articulate professional perspectives and social understanding of what a good civil service is supposed to be. This means that public administration change is triggered by external and internal pressures. French administrative modernization policy was triggered by a clear political will from 1988. Nevertheless, this reform would be inoperative without structural changes that allowed civil servants to change their career strategies and professional values. Micro changes produced by pressures from private business, politicans or voluntary associations, cannot involve macro structural changes without translation features. This process is operated through channels allowing specific information to circulate between policy-markers and civil servants.
The implicit function of public administration in social and political arenas are important. As long as French public administration offered a promotional way for the middle class and a counterweight to political instability, civil servants were highly motivated to defend themselves against competing social groups and demands through administrative law and professional rules. When there was governmental stability during the Fifth Republic, they could heighten their expertise in policy-making, devoting less attention to legal safeguards. When political stability and social consideration disappeared in the 1980s. they realized that they were supposed to behave as common wage-earners do.
Most of significant traits of the German administrative system can be found in other countries, too. In all western democracies, administration is bound by law. Nevertheless, peculiar German trait is the legalistic approach of the administrative culture. When political control breaks down, role understanding and decision-making behavior might be different in Germany than in the US or the UK. The existence of administrative courts and the predominantly juridical training are also leaving their imprint.
Probably more distinctive is the historical development of the relationship between politics and administration in Germany. In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon heritage, German bureaucracy preceded democracy. This has had a lasting impact on the importance attributed to expertise and the low degree of lateral mobility between politics and administration. Also, only the public offices at the top are elective or staffed with appointed political executives. Aspects of parliament-executive relationships display the "strong state tradition", i.e., the tradition of a strong civil and military bureaucracy ; for instance, the lack of comprehensive access of parliamentary investigation committees to government records. Similarly, the absence of a freedom of information act could be perceived from the perspective.
There is subtle resistance to the public sector reform. Germans settled for middled-range fiscal planning instead of PPBS and the bureaucracy never experienced a shake-up in recent years. Privatization did not become so important as it had in other countries. Closely connected with and resulting from these elements of the administrative culture is the absence of bureaucrat-bashing by politicians. On the contrary, leading politicians of all parties have repeatedly appreciated the excellent work of the federal bureaucracy in drafting the unification treaty with East Germany ad the service that 25,000 Western bureaucrats are doing in the East. This does not, of course, exclude the criticism of "the state apparatus" and "bureaucracy" among the intelligentsia in the universities.
Party-politicizing the personnel policy in administration is not a new phenomenon in Germany, but the extent to which it has been done during the last two decades and its candid admission is new. On the one hand, the blame for this is put on the politicians ; on the other hand, it might be asked if this tendency, together with the academization and professionalization of politicians, their predominant legal training and civil service background, does not contribute to a further bureaucratization of politics.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次
• Ⅰ. 꺼냄
• Ⅱ. 불독 행정의 특이성과 근대화 역정
• Ⅲ. 정책결정자와 관료제의 관계
• Ⅳ. 관료조직의 역동성
• Ⅴ. 행정과 시민사회의 관계
• Ⅵ. 맺음