earticle

영어

The purpose of this paper is to find the patterns in the order of resolving issues, the way of altering negotiation position, and the method of exchanging positions for resolution in interparty policy coordination and to explain why those patterns emerge in strategic, political and administrative aspects. Firstly, the political parties agreed on low- and then high-conflict issues. They did in this way because they must make an achievement in every negotiation enough to avoid public criticisms and show the willingness to cooperate. Also, they settled interim agreements in the final negotiation. They did so to induce the opponent's concession on important issues. Secondly, the political parties had modified their positions in increment, reversing sporadically their modified positions on important issues. The former was due to the negotiation strategy, the willingness to carry out its original positions, the effort to escape from public criticism, while the latter was due to unnegligible rationale for those issues, the failure to induce concession they wanted, and the lack of discretion on the negotiation. Finally, political parties used combination dominantly, convergence secondarily, and condition complementarily. The reason for this was that they could reduce the risk of defeat in the negotiation game.

한국어

이글은 2013년 정부조직법개정안 협상을 근거로 하여 우리나라 여야 정당들이 갈등해결을 위해쟁점처리순서, 입장수정, 입장교환등을어떻게하는지그패턴과그러한패턴을활용하 는원인을분석했다. 먼저, 쟁점처리순서는선경후중과일괄타결이었다. 전자를따른이유는 매협상마다성과를내여론의비난을피하고서로가핵심쟁점에서양보를유도하기위해상대 에게협조하는모습을 보이려했기 때문이다. 후자를 따른이유는각자 중시하는핵심쟁점에 대한 양보를 얻어내기 위해서였다. 다음, 입장수정 패턴은 거시적으로 점증적 수정 패턴이지 만주요쟁점에서수정·번복의패턴을보였다. 점증적수정이유는여당협상팀의원안관철의 도, 야당협상팀의 발목잡기오해 방지및 상응양보유도에있었고, 수정·번복이유는 정책적 명분, 상응양보유도 실패, 방송공정성학습, 협상재량권부족에있었다. 마지막, 입장교환패 턴으로 조합방식을 적극 활용했고, 수렴방식을 부차적으로, 조건방식을 보완적으로 활용했다. 이유는 협상무대 위의 게임에서 위험부담을 줄이려는 여야 협상팀의 전략 때문이었다.