농촌지도와개발 (Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development)

  • 제21권3호
  • /
  • Pages.271-305
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1976-3107(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-3705(eISSN)
한국농촌지도학회 (Korean Society of Agricultural Extension)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

EU의 농촌개발사업 평가체계와 시사점 -농촌마을사업 선정·평가를 중심으로-

EU Rural Development Evaluation System and Implication for Rural Development in Korea

  • 투고 : 2014.07.10
  • 심사 : 2014.09.16
  • 발행 : 2014.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

경제 침체로 인한 예산부족으로 공공정책이 증거(evidence)에 기반해야 한다는 요구는 점점 증대되고 있다. 선진국 특히 EU의 경우 농촌개발사업의 석명성(accountability)을 확보하기 위해 1980년대부터 체계적인 평가체계를 구축하여 왔다. 그러나 국내 농촌개발사업 평가체계는 대부분 전문가의 의견을 중심으로 한 평가에 의존하는 초보적인 수준에 머물고 있다. 이에 따라 농촌개발 정책들에 대해 회의적인 시각을 가지고 있는 예산결정기구(의회, 정부부처 등) 담당자들에게 해당 정책사업의 수행실적이나 성과에 대한 객관적인 정량적 지표를 제시하지 못하고 있어 사업이 자주 축소 혹은 변경되는 문제가 발생하고 있다. 농촌개발분야 공공예산 집행에 대한 석명성과 사업수행과정에서의 시행착오를 통한 학습효과를 극대화하기 위해서는 체계적인 사업계획의 수립과 함께, 사실과 증거에 근거한 사업수행 및 수정을 위한 신뢰성있는 모니터링 및 평가체계구축이 필요하다. 첫째, 경제개발과 함께 사회개발을 주요 목표로 설정하고 평가지표를 구성할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 평가의 사후 목적이 상벌보다는 교육적 목적이 우선되도록 설계될 필요가 있다. 이를 위해서는 농촌마을사업이 '선택과 집중 모델'에서 '확산 모델'로 정책방향을 변경해야 한다. 셋째, 사업선정과 평가에 지역주민 참여를 통한 민주성을 강화할 필요성이 있다. 넸째, EU의 공통모니터링 및 평가틀(CMEF)와 같은 농촌개발 모니터링 및 평가시스템 구축이 필요하다.

There is an inescapable requirement in public policy to provide evidence. For the evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy, the European Commission has designed a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework(CMEF). The principal objectives of evaluations are to improve decision-making, resource allocation and accountability. In Korea, howerver, the opinion-based policy by expert is still rural development evaluation system. It does not provide the objective quantitative indicators for impact of rural development project. According to this, the budget-making body (parliament, government, etc.) have questioned the effectiveness of rural development projects, rural development projects often reduced or changed. To improve the accountability of rural development policy, it is necessary to build a reliable monitoring and evaluation system based on the evidence. First, rural development evaluation indicators should be considered the multipul goal of rural development, namely economic development, social development. Second, the purpose of the evaluation is necessary to be designed for the learning rather than reward. Third, the participation by local residents should be strengthened in evaluation process. Finally, it is necessary to establish rural development monitoring and evaluation system, such as CMEF of the EU (CMEF).

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김정섭. (2009). 농촌개발사업 실행 과정에 관한 사례연구. 한국지역개발학회지, 21(3), 103-121.
  2. 박덕병, & 이민수. (2009). EU의 농촌개발정책의 동향과 시사점. 한국지역개발학회지, 21(3), 123-162.
  3. Farrell, G. & Thirion, S. (2005). Social capital and rural development: From win-lose to win-win with the LEADER initiative, in Schmied D. (ed.) Winning and Losing: The Changing Geography of Europe's Rural Areas. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 281-298.
  4. GAO (US Government Accountability Office). (2005). Performance Measurement and Evaluation. GAO-05-739SP, May, Washington, DC.
  5. Bergschmidt, A. (2009). Powerless evaluation. Eurochoices, 8(3), 41-46.
  6. Blandford, D., Boisvert, R., & Hill, B. (2010). Improving the Evaluation of Rural Development Policy. EuroChoice, 9(1), 4-9.
  7. Bradley, D. Dwyer, J., & Hill, B. (2010). The Evaluation of Rural Development Policy in the EU. EuroChoices, 9(1), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2010.00148.x
  8. Cavazzani, A, & Moseley, M. (2001). The Practice of Rural Development Partnerships in Europe: 24 Case Studies in Six European Countries. PRIDE Research Report
  9. CEC(Commission of the European Communities). (2000). The Communication on Evaluation (SEC(2000) 1051), EC, Brussels.
  10. CEC(Commission of the European Communities). (2004). Evaluating EU Activities - A Practical Guide for the Commission Services. July 2004, DG Budget Evaluation Unit, EC, Brussels.
  11. CEC(Commission of the European Communities). (2006). Rural Development 2007-2013: Handbook on Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Draft guidance document. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, EC, Brussels.
  12. CEC(Commission of the European Communities). (2007). Responding to Strategic Needs:Reinforcing the use of evaluation. Communication to the Commission from Ms Grybauskaite in agreement with the President. SEC(2007)213, EC, Brussels.
  13. Dargan, L. and Shucksmith, M. (2008). LEADER and innovation. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00463.x
  14. Davies, H.T.O., Nutley, S.M. & Smith, P.C. (eds) (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press
  15. Dietz, M-A. (2002). Evaluating new regional policies: Reviewing the theory and practice. Evaluation, 8(3), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638902401462439
  16. Dwyer, J., & Findeis, J. (2008). Human and social capital in rural development - EU and US perspectives. EuroChoices, 7(1), 38-45.
  17. Dwyer, J., & Hill, B. (2009). Rural development policies in the EU and their evaluation. Paper presented at the Aiding the process of agricultural policy reform: evaluation of public policies for rural development, Paris.
  18. Dwyer, J., Bradley, D., & Hill, B. (2008). Towards an enhanced evaluation of European rural development policy - Reflections on United Kingdom experience. Economie Rurale, 307, 53-79.
  19. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., & Woods, M. (2000). Partnership working in rural regeneration: Governance and empowerment?. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  20. Hill, B. (2008). The power of evaluation. EuroChoices, 7(3), 4-5.
  21. Midmore, P., Langstaff, L., Lowman, S., and Vaughan, A. (2008). 'Qualitative Evaluation of European Rural Development Policy: Evidence from comparative case studies. Paper presented at the 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, August 26-29, Ghent, Belgium.
  22. OECD. (2009). Coverning regional development Policy; The use of performance indicators. Paris.

피인용 문헌

  1. Sam Sang Rural Community Development Model of Lao PDR in Approach to Successful Implementation - Lessons from Korea's Saemual Undong - vol.24, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12653/jecd.2017.24.2.0143
  2. 정책목표 및 지원요소별 사업비 분석을 통한 농촌개발정책 변화 고찰 (1997~2015) vol.60, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5389/ksae.2018.60.2.111