제도분석 관점에서 보면 규제개혁은 규제문제 해결을 위해 관련 당사자들이 협력적인 상호작용을 하도록 구조화하고 문제해결의 절차와 방법에 대한 규칙을 정해 반복적으로 사용하는 관계의 틀이라고 볼 수 있다. 본 연구는 제도연구 분석틀을 사용하여 행정쇄신위원회와 규제개혁위원회의 제도적 맥락, 제도적 특성, 개혁과정(상호작용) 그리고 활동실적을 비교분석한다. 이러한 비교분석을 통해 도출된 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 새 정부의 출범과 경제위기의 발생 등 정치경제 환경의 변화에 따라 규제개혁의 제도적 틀과 추구하는 주도적 가치가 다르다. 둘째, 규제개혁의 제도적 구조의 차이에 따라 문제에 대한 접근, 해결방식과 전략의 차이가 있지만 앞서 활동했던 행정쇄신위원회의 제도적 논리와 규칙들이 새로운 규제개혁위원회의 구성과 규칙에 반영되는 제도의 경로의존성이 있다. 셋째, 규제개혁의 성패는 관련대상 집단의 규모보다는 이들의 저항의 정도와 이를 다루는 전략과 상호작용에 좌우된다. 예로 변호사 협회와 같이 대상집단이 조직화되어 있고 정치적 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 이익집단과 관련된 개혁과제를 다룰 때는 이들의 저항을 제압할 수 있는 힘을 동원할 수 있거나 이들의 협력적인 행위를 유도하는 전략이 구사되어야 한다.

[닫기]

Regulatory Reform, in terms of institutional analysis, can be regarded as a framework composed of institutional arrangements, operating rules and strategies in order to deal with regulatory problems. Interactions among concerned parties on regulatory issues would be an important factor in analyzing regulatory reform.
The comparison on the two committees of the Administrative Reform Committee (ARC) and the Regulatory Reform Committee (RRC), based on institutional analysis, illuminates the similarity and difference in attribute of the committees.
First, ARC as an ad hoc advisory body, provided a basis to build an institution for regulatory reform in 1993. However, it had some constraints such as lack of legal authority, work scope and organizational stability. As a result, the Basic Act on Administrative Regulations was enacted in 1997. RRC was established as a central body for regulatory reform based on the Basic Act on Administrative Regulations. RRC's authority and function were much more strengtened than ARC. RRC's work scope was extended to regulatory review which was mandated in the government legislation process.
Second, ARC laid a foundation on operating rules based on non-governmental perspective which focused on civilian participation and agenda setting & collective discussions between concerned parties. RRC adopted most of the operating rules from ARC regarding the process of handling reform agendas. However, RRC showed some different characteristics in agenda setting, arguments & discussions, and implementation management. RRC worked closely with government ministries rather than civilian participants and reinforced rules regarding implementation management and regulatory review based on clear legal authority.
Third, ARC handled regulatory issues raised by civilians and by itself, which was done on a case by case basis and tackled issues in part within the cooperation with stake holders. However, RRC handled all existing regulations by mobilizing all ministries. Drastic reviews were conducted in a top-down way with setting targets to reduce regulations of central ministries. It was effective in increasing public interest and business autonomy with strong support of the President.
RRC has become much more developed than ARC in institutional terms. However, RRC needs to be reinforced in institutional setting, operations and strategies because of limited power in dealing with market competition and vested interest. It is because regulatory reform is affected by political and social influence. It is necessary to secure political support in solving complex issues involving in vested interests and long-standing monopolies.

[닫기]