최근 학술수요가 팽창하고 있는 각종 정책관련 연구사업 및 자문활동에서 전공학자는 담당관료와 사업시행자와 함께 이른바 3者 연합을 형성하게 된다. 이들 3者는 큰 덩어리 사회문제를 스스로 통제할 수 있는 형태로 분할하고 현장 중심적 분석규준과 나름의 전문해법을 적용하는 관리전략을 구사하게 된다. 그런데 정책대상이 되는 사회문제란 상호의존적이고 원인-결과간의 인과성도 대단히 복합적이라 3자 연합에 속한 전문가들마저도 도저히 예측하거나 이해하기 힘들다. 또한 사업수행과정에서 사회적 비용․편익의 재편현상이 무수히 일어나고, 이로 인해 복잡다단한 이해관계의 충돌현상이 지속된다. 이 같은 상황에서 3자 연합이 채택한 문제해결방식이 사회문제를 오히려 더 그르칠 수도 있다는 것을 몇 가지 정책실패 사례를 통하여 확인하고 있다. 한편 소위 3자 연합의 이론적 젖줄에 해당하는 순수 ‘정책학 분야’의 지식생산 경로와 통칙화 수준도 점검대상으로 삼았다. 분석기법 자체의 동의와 방법론적 연대에 의존한 실증적 계량분석에 열중해 온 정책분야 연구는 지식의 집합체라기보다 지식생산을 위한 연구방법체계로 오인되고 있다. 이는 정책학의 과학화 수준이 정부사업을 제대로 자문하여 사회문제해결을 시도하기에 역부족 상태에 있다는 것을 의미한다. 이에 多규범적 학제연구와 방법상의 다원주의를 수용하여 교호면적을 넓혀가면서 이론적 통칙화와 문제해결역량을 동반 향상시키는 이른바 ‘사회학습 차원의 연구방향’을 제안하고 있다. 연구대상은 ‘정책자체(내용)’가 아니라 ‘정책과정’ 중심적이어야 하고, 당분간만이라도 용역사업과 자문활동을 통한 도구적 지식생산의 비중을 줄여야 한다는 점도 주문하고 있다.

This research seeks to explain how and why academic researchers, public officers, and implementing managers comprise the triangle alliance, as well as how these three parts work together throughout the policy process. The alliance chooses to adopt a business-firm analogy; thereby, agreeing upon the efficiency-oriented prescriptions in the name of better governmental endeavors or outcomes. In reality however, the alliance intends to assure their own reciprocal benefits by incorporating the reductionist microscopic methods and quantitative analyses as major methods in their so-called efficient problem solving process. In this vein, this research calls for the use of a social learning view that would substitute the recent pattern of the efficiency analogy. Some illustrative cases are presented to show how vulnerable the triangle connection is to policy failure. The alliance should be disconnected in order to enhance social engineering and theory developing, two substantial purposes of public policy studies. Researchers must focus their academic concern on the “policy process” rather than on the “policy contents”. Interdisciplinary collaboration across the academic specialities, together with multi-value-judged consultation should also be recommended to overcome the non-scientific and self-defeating triple alliance. Seeking to understand the real world of complex interdependence is an endeavor that we must all undertake. To simply suggest that the assured channel of problem-solving is the solution is misleading.

This research seeks to explain how and why academic researchers, public officers, and implementing managers comprise the triangle alliance, as well as how these three parts work together throughout the policy process. The alliance chooses to adopt a business-firm analogy; thereby, agreeing upon the efficiency-oriented prescriptions in the name of better governmental endeavors or outcomes. In reality however, the alliance intends to assure their own reciprocal benefits by incorporating the reductionist microscopic methods and quantitative analyses as major methods in their so-called efficient problem solving process. In this vein, this research calls for the use of a social learning view that would substitute the recent pattern of the efficiency analogy. Some illustrative cases are presented to show how vulnerable the triangle connection is to policy failure. The alliance should be disconnected in order to enhance social engineering and theory developing, two substantial purposes of public policy studies. Researchers must focus their academic concern on the “policy process” rather than on the “policy contents”. Interdisciplinary collaboration across the academic specialities, together with multi-value-judged consultation should also be recommended to overcome the non-scientific and self-defeating triple alliance. Seeking to understand the real world of complex interdependence is an endeavor that we must all undertake. To simply suggest that the assured channel of problem-solving is the solution is misleading.

, , , , , , ,

Triangle Alliance, Social Learning, Social Engineering, Theory Developing