공공투자의사결정이 가지고 있는 정치적 측면의 복잡성을 경제적 순편익의 극대화라는 단순한 평가기준으로 대체하는 경향은 규범적으로나 현실적으로 바람직하지 않다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 어떻게 다차원 평가요소를 가지고 있는 공공투자사업들을 분석할 것인가? 하는 방법론에 대한 논의에 비해서 의사결정자들이 “어떤 기준을 가지고 의사결정을 하는가?”라는 의사결정측면에 대한 논의는 부족한 것이 현실이다. 본 연구는 과연 정책분석가들이 각종 투자분석평가기준에 대해 상대적 가중치를 어떻게 부여하는지를 살펴보았다. 분석결과 기존의 비판들과 달리 정책분석가들은 경제적 측면 뿐 만 아니라 정책적 측면들을 중시하고 있으며 지역낙후도 보다는 관련계획과의 연관성을 더 중시하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 구체적이고 미시적인 평가요소에서 연구자간 판단편차가 커지고 있으며 이러한 편차는 사업부문, 연구자의 소속, 그리고 연구책임자 여부 등의 변수에 영향을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 가중치 부여시 연구자 집단별로 차이가 나타나고 있으며 특히 사업의 타당성이 낮을수록 이 차이가 커지고 있음을 보여주었다.

Both from the normative and practical perspectives, the political complexity of public investment decision can not be replaced with a simple rule of maximization of economic net benefits. If we try to fully embrace the multi-dimensionality of public investment decision, how to integrate and interpret analytical information becomes as much critical as how to do analysis. Author analyzes how policy analysts give weight on different criteria in actual public investment decisions based on 148 pre-feasibility studies performed by KDI(Korea Development Institute). The results suggest that policy analysts consider other non-economic policy factors seriously as they do to economic efficiency. Among policy factors, they emphasize the relevancy of projects to other laws and plans. The judgment is pretty different to that of politicians who place the underdevelopment of regions as a major decision criterion. Finally, the different weighting behaviors among analysts within the same project still exist. Such factors as project fields, affiliation and the role of analysts in analysis explain the degree of weighting. At the same time, when a project is less desirable, the variation of weighting increases.

Both from the normative and practical perspectives, the political complexity of public investment decision can not be replaced with a simple rule of maximization of economic net benefits. If we try to fully embrace the multi-dimensionality of public investment decision, how to integrate and interpret analytical information becomes as much critical as how to do analysis. Author analyzes how policy analysts give weight on different criteria in actual public investment decisions based on 148 pre-feasibility studies performed by KDI(Korea Development Institute). The results suggest that policy analysts consider other non-economic policy factors seriously as they do to economic efficiency. Among policy factors, they emphasize the relevancy of projects to other laws and plans. The judgment is pretty different to that of politicians who place the underdevelopment of regions as a major decision criterion. Finally, the different weighting behaviors among analysts within the same project still exist. Such factors as project fields, affiliation and the role of analysts in analysis explain the degree of weighting. At the same time, when a project is less desirable, the variation of weighting increases.

Public Investment, Decision Making, Policy Analysts