• 제목/요약/키워드: Promoting Cooperation

검색결과 354건 처리시간 0.025초

한국형 동반성장 정책의 방향과 과제 (The Policy of Win-Win Growth between Large and Small Enterprises : A South Korean Model)

  • 이장우
    • 중소기업연구
    • /
    • 제33권4호
    • /
    • pp.77-93
    • /
    • 2011
  • 본 연구는 최근 사회경제적 이슈가 되고 있는 동반성장의 개념과 실천 방향에 대해 논의하고자 한다. 이를 위해 동반성장의 정책적 개념을 살펴보고 유사한 개념인 상생협력과 공생발전과도 비교 분석하고자 한다. 또한 동반성장을 통해 글로벌 경쟁력을 만들어 낸 선진국 사례들로부터 교훈을 찾아내고 우리의 사회 문화적 특성에 맞는 한국형 모델을 제안하고자 한다. 한국형 동반성장 모델은 미국의 시장중심형, 일본의 문화기반형, 유럽의 정책주도형 등의 장점을 융합할 필요가 있다. 이를 위해 한국형 모델은 공동체적 에너지를 창출해내는 한국인의 잠재력 활용, 통제와 자율의 융합형 제도 개선, 미래지향적 협력관계를 위한 기업들의 행동변화 등 세 가지 요인을 핵심으로 할 필요가 있다. 한국형 모델의 실현을 위해 필요한 정부의 역할과 과제, 그리고 동반성장위원회의 역할에 대해서도 논의하고자 한다.

항공안전을 위한 장애물 제한표면 관리시스템의 법·제도적 개선방향에 관한 소고 (A Study on Legal and Regulatory Improvement Direction of Aeronautical Obstacle Management System for Aviation Safety)

  • 박담용
    • 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
    • /
    • 제31권2호
    • /
    • pp.145-176
    • /
    • 2016
  • 항공안전은 여러 분야의 제도와 정책, 그리고 현장에서의 치밀한 실행에 의해서 확보된다. 최근 우리나라의 항공안전관리는 항공관련 법령의 정비와 함께 제 2차 항공정책기본계획의 수립을 비롯하여 국가 항공안전프로그램을 구축하고 분야별 중점전략과제를 선정하여 계획적으로 추진하면서 항공사고 예방을 위해 노력하고 있다. 이 논문은 항공기의 안전한 이 착륙과 공항 주변에서 선회비행 시의 비행안전을 확보하기 위하여 설정 고시하고 있는 장애물 제한표면위로 건축물 구조물 등이 초과하지 않도록 제한하고 관리하는 현행의 장애물 관리시스템에 관하여 실무적 경험을 토대로 검토해보고 그 간의 운영상 문제점을 분석하여 법적 제도적 측면의 개선 방안을 제시하고자 한 것이다. 특히, 최근에는 공항주변 지역주민들의 요구 등에 따라 항공학적 검토에 대한 연구와 논의도 활발하게 진행되고 있으며, 조만간 이에 관한 하위법령의 제정과 세부절차도 마련될 것이나 이에 대한 논의와는 별도로 현재의 우리나라의 장애물 관리업무 수행에 대한 법규상 제도의 불비 등 일부 미흡한 부분에 관한 개선보완 방안을 제안하는 것이다. 장애물 제한표면의 관리와 신규 건축물 축조 등의 제한은 공항인근 주민들에 대한 재산권 행사의 실질적 제약으로 작용하므로 관련된 민원도 많으며 신중하고도 신속 정확한 검토 판단이 요구되는 등 민감한 사안으로 취급되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 현재 이 업무는 항공법령에 의거 공항운영자가 수행주체가 되며 전국 민간공항이 소재하고 있는 지방자치단체와의 상호 협력관계 하에 이루어지고 있으며 실제 건축물 구조물 등의 설치허가권을 갖고 있는 지방자치단체의 매 사안에 대한 행정 행위가 매우 중요한 요소이다. 항공법령에 따라 공항운영자에게 매 5년마다 방대한 지역에 대한 정밀측량을 실시하고 그 결과의 현황에 대하여 정부에 보고토록 하고 있는데, 이 경우 측량오차로 인한 초과 장애물 현황의 개소 수가 다수 변동되거나, 각 지방자치단체들이 건축허가를 행하기 전에 사전협의 신청절차를 아예 누락하는 등 많은 문제점이 나타날 수 있다. 그러나 이 정밀측량 실시에 대한 허용오차 범위의 기준이나 협의신청 누락 등의 업무적 해태에 대한 사전 예방적 제재수단 또는 적법한 신청절차의 미 이행 등 관계법령 위반 시의 벌칙규정 등이 없는 실정으로서, 이미 문제점이 발생된 이후에야 사후적인 조치를 할 수밖에 없는 경우가 있게 되는데 실제 건축물 구조물 등이 이미 장애물 제한표면을 초과하여 완공되어진 이후에는 현실적으로 그 건축물 등을 제거조치 하거나 하는 등의 어떠한 특별한 행위를 취하기는 사실상 매우 어려운 것이다. 건축물 등의 소유자는 적법한 건축허가를 받아서 건축한 것이기 때문이다. 이미 이러한 사례는 발생되었고 그로 인한 후속대책이 검토되고 있으나, 실제로는 합리적인 해결방안을 찾기 어려울 뿐만이 아니라 또 다른 사회적 문제를 유발할 것이 분명하다고 본다. 이러한 문제점을 근본적으로 해소시키기 위해서는 현행 항공법령을 보완하여 관련된 행정적 행위의 누락이나 적정한 절차위반 시에 부과하는 벌칙조항신설과 함께, 매 5년마다의 정밀측량 결과에 대한 허용오차 범위를 적용할 수 있도록 건축법에서와 같은 별도의 기준을 신설 규정하여야 한다고 판단되므로 보다 실효성 있는 법적 제도적 개선 보완 방안을 제안하는 것이다.

시장개방(市場開放)과 국내기업(國內企業)의 구조조정(構造調整) (Structural Adjustment of Domestic Firms in the Era of Market Liberalization)

  • 성소미
    • KDI Journal of Economic Policy
    • /
    • 제13권4호
    • /
    • pp.91-116
    • /
    • 1991
  • 경제(經濟)의 개방화(開放化) 및 산업구조(塵業構造)의 고도화(高度化)가 진전되면서 국내기업들은 주력사업의 성장이 감퇴하는 구조변화(構造變化)에 직면하게 된다. 극단적인 경우에 도산(倒産)이나 폐업(廢業)을 단행하는 국내 기업들도 있을 것이다. 그러나 보다 우월한 적응능력을 가진 대부분의 대기업이나 중견기업들은 고임금(高賃金)과 현재의 기술여건(技術與件)에서 경쟁우위를 확보할 수 있는 영역(market niches)을 찾아 합리화 및 고부가가치화, 제품 및 시장다각화 등 신축적인 사업조정(事業調整)을 통해 수익성이 낮은 기존사업의 비중을 점차적으로 줄이면서 고수익성(高收益性) 사업(事業)으로 전환(轉換) 할 것이다. 사업구조 조정과정에서 기업(企業)은 단기적으로는 기존의 주력사업 내에서 경영합리화 및 감량경영을 통해 비용(費用)을 절감(節減)하고 제품의 고부가가치화(高附加價値化)를 추구하는 동시에 장기적으로는 사업구조 재편성을 목표로 기존의 우위요소를 최대한 활용하면서 새로운 우위요소(優位要素) 창출(創出)을 위해 기업의 전략구상, 조직 및 기업문화면에서의 구조전환을 시도하게 된다. 그러나 기업의 발상(發想), 조직구조(組織構造), 조직문화(組織文化)는 환경변화만큼 신속히 일어나지 않는다. 동일한 환경, 동일한 산업 내에서도 성공하는 기업이 있고 실패하는 기업이 있는 것처럼 환경변화에 대한 정확한 인식(認識)과 성공적인 전략(戰略)의 수립 및 실행은 기업들의 체계적인 노력여하에 따라 다르게 나타난다. (企業)의 구조전환(構造轉換)은 국가경제의 발전방향, 업종의 실태와 전망에 관한 정보에 기반하여 장기계획하(長期計劃下)에 기업의 축적된 경영자원을 활용하는 방향으로 이루어져야 한다. 기업이란 주주(株主), 경영자(經營者), 근로자(勤勞者) 등 이익집단간의 이해관계(利害關係)가 균형을 이루면서 발전해 나가는 조직이라는 새로운 인식(認識)에 기반하여 기업은 합리적 노사관계의 정착에 노력하고 정부(政府)는 경쟁(競爭)을 통한 기업체질 강화라는 기본방침하(基本方針下)에 재래산업(在來産業)의 전환비용(轉換費用)을 줄이고 신규사업(新規事業)의 창출(創出)을 뒷받침하는 제도개선(制度改善)을 해 나가야 한다.

  • PDF

한국전쟁의 교훈과 대비 -병력수(兵力數) 및 부대수(部隊數)를 중심으로- (The lesson From Korean War)

  • 윤일영
    • 안보군사학연구
    • /
    • 통권8호
    • /
    • pp.49-168
    • /
    • 2010
  • Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.

  • PDF