Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Journal of Public Administration
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Public Administration - Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.277-309
ISSN: 1229-6694 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2025
Received 24 Oct 2025 Revised 04 Dec 2025 Accepted 09 Dec 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24145/KJPA.63.4.9

책임운영기관의 자율성 제약 메커니즘 분석: 제도적 역설과 적응적 자율성 제한을 중심으로

오시영** ; 김윤권*** ; 김대은****
**주저자, 순천대학교 행정학전공 교수 osy2010@scnu.ac.kr
***교신저자, 한국조직진단원 대표 ykys326@gmail.com
****공동저자, 서울대학교 행정대학원 박사수료 wing92wing@snu.ac.kr
Analysis of Autonomy Constraint Mechanisms in Executive Agencies: Focusing on Institutional Paradox and Restriction of Adaptive Autonomy
Siyoung Oh** ; Yunkwon Kim*** ; Dae-Eun Kim****

초록

본 연구는 신공공관리(NPM)의 핵심 기제인 책임운영기관에 부여된 자율성의 본질적 개념을 재조명하고, 그 현실적 제약이 실질적인 성과를 저해하는 구조적 메커니즘을 심층적으로 규명하고자 한다. 책임운영기관은 공공서비스 효율성 증진을 위해 행정 및 재정상의 재량을 부여받았으나, 현행 제도적 틀 내에서 상위 부처의 경직된 통제 관행과 획일적 관리 규정으로 인해 제도적 역설에 직면한다. 본 연구는 자율성을 조직･정원관리, 인사관리, 재정관리의 세 차원으로 유형화하고, Verhoest et al.(2010)의 자율성-통제 모형을 적용하여 제약 요인을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 자율성과 통제가 상호보완적이라는 이론적 전제(Wynen & Verhoest, 2016)와 달리, 획일적 통제는 기관의 적응적 자율성을 제한하는 핵심 기제로 작용하며, 불충분한 성과 연동 보상은 ‘동기부여 역효과’를 낳음을 논증하였다. 이러한 구조적 역설을 해소하고 자율성을 확보하기 위해 본 연구는 ‘성과･운영 성숙도 기반 차등적 자율성 부여’와 ‘재정･인사관리 간 제도적 시너지 창출’을 위한 구체적인 정책 방안을 제시한다. 궁극적으로 본 연구는 책임운영기관 제도의 성공적 정착을 위해 자율성 제약의 구조적 메커니즘을 밝히고 현실적 자율성 확보의 학술적･정책적 함의를 제공한다.

Abstract

This study aims to re-examine the core concept of autonomy granted to Executive Agencies (EAs)—a key mechanism of New Public Management (NPM)—and to deeply investigate the structural mechanism through which real-world constraints impede organizational performance. Although EAs are granted administrative and fiscal discretion to enhance public service efficiency, they face an Institutional Paradox stemming from rigid control practices and uniform regulations imposed by superior ministries within the current institutional framework. This research categorizes autonomy into three dimensions: organizational/staffing, personnel management, and fiscal management. We analyze these constraints by applying the Autonomy-Control Model (Verhoest et al., 2010). The analysis demonstrates that, contrary to the theoretical premise of mutual reinforcement between autonomy and control (Wynen & Verhoest, 2016), uniform control acts as a core mechanism restricting Adaptive Autonomy and insufficient performance-linked compensation generates a ‘Motivation Backfire’ (or ‘Motivation Crowding-out’) effect. To resolve this structural paradox and secure autonomy, the study proposes concrete policy measures centered on ‘Differentiated Autonomy based on Performance and Maturity’ and ‘Institutional Synergy Creation between Fiscal and Personnel Management.’ Ultimately, this research illuminates the structural mechanism of autonomy constraint and offers academic and policy implications for ensuring realistic autonomy, essential for the successful stabilization of the Executive Agency system.

Keywords:

executive agency, autonomy, institutional paradox, adaptive autonomy

키워드:

책임운영기관, 자율성, 제도적 역설, 적응적 자율성

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 2023년 순천대학교 학술연구비(과제번호: 2023-0338) 공모과제로 연구되었음.

References

  • 권기헌･이대웅･김화연. (2019). ｢책임운영기관 제도 운영실태 분석 및 개선방안 연구｣. 국회예산정책처.
  • 권향원･윤건･박현신. (2018). ｢소속기관의 운영체제 비교분석｣. 행정안전부.
  • 김근세. (1999). 비교분석을 통한 한국 책임운영기관 제도의 특성. ｢한국정책학회보｣, 8(3): 233-256.
  • 김대은･김윤권. (2024). 정부조직관리의 기조에 관한 연구: 정부조직관리지침에 대한 LDA 토픽 모델링 분석을 중심으로. ｢한국행정학보｣, 58(2): 95-131.
  • 김병섭･정진우･임보영. (2001). 책임운영기관 제도운영의 평가. ｢행정논총｣, 39(1): 65-82.
  • 김상호. (2006). 현행 책임운영기관의 제도적 특성과 발전 방안. ｢법과 정책연구｣, 6(1): 65-83.
  • 김윤권. (2012). ｢정부 조직관리의 자율성과 책임성에 관한 연구: 정부기관법인화･특별지방행정기관･책임운영기관을 중심으로｣. KIPA 연구보고서 2012-03.
  • 김윤권. (2018). ｢post-NPM 시대의 정부조직진단의 전략 및 활성화 방안에 관한 연구｣. 한국행정연구원 KIPA 연구보고서 2018-14.
  • 김윤권. (2023). Next Normal 시대 정부기능별 조직개편에 관한 연구. ｢정책 & 지식｣ 포럼 제1032회.
  • 김윤권･김민영･탁현우･김유선. (2025). ｢성과관리형 기관 조직관리･운영체계 연구｣. 한국조직진단원/행정안전부.
  • 문명재･이명진. (2010). 책임운영기관의 조직･인사 자율성과 제도적 개선 방향. ｢한국조직학회보｣, 7(1): 39-63.
  • 이경호･박현신. (2016). 정부조직 관리의 자율성과 제약에 관한 연구: 책임운영기관 제도를 중심으로. ｢행정논총｣, 54(1): 31-69.
  • 행정안전부. (2023). ｢2022년도 책임운영기관 종합평가 결과보고서｣. 행정안전부.
  • 행정안전부. (2024). ｢2023년도 책임운영기관 종합평가 결과보고서｣. 행정안전부.
  • 행정안전부. (2025a). ｢2025년도 정부조직관리지침｣. 행정안전부.
  • 행정안전부. (2025b). ｢2024년도 책임운영기관 종합평가 결과보고서｣. 행정안전부.
  • 행정안전부. (2024). ｢책임운영기관 운영지침｣. 행정안전부.
  • Aβländer, M. S. & Roloff, J. (2010). Autonomy as a Prerequisite for Corporate Responsibility. Annual Research Conference of the European Business Ethics Network(EBEN).
  • Bach, T. (2018). “Administrative autonomy of Public Organizations.” In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20928-9_143]
  • Christensen, J. G. (1999). Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. Paper presented on the ECPR Joint Workshops 26-31 March 1999.
  • Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2004). Governmental autonomisation and control: The Norwegian way. Public Administration and Development, 24(2): 129-135. [https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.318]
  • Dan, S. (2014). The effects of agency reform in Europe: A review of the evidence. Public Policy and Administration, 29(3): 221-240. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076713517412]
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11): 1105-1121. [https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E]
  • Elston, T. (2013). Developments in UK executive agencies: Re-examining the “disaggregation-reaggregation” thesis. Public Policy and Administration, 28(1): 66-89. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076711432580]
  • Gregory, R. (2012). “New Zealand.” In Verhoest, K., Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., Lægreid, P. & Van Thiel, S. Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp.51-56). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 161-172. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546]
  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1): 3-19. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x]
  • Hood, C. (1995). The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2-3): 93-109. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W]
  • Hoogerwerf, A. (1978). Overheidsbeleid. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom Uitgeverij.
  • Karataṣ, A. (2019). Post-New Public Management Paradigm And Its Effects On Public Administration. International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, 5(26): 1796-1805. [https://doi.org/10.31576/smryj.392]
  • Kim, N. & Cho, W. (2014). Agencification and performance: The impact of autonomy and result control on the performance of executive agencies in Korea. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(2): 214-233. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.983826]
  • Kuiper G M. (1992). Verzelfstandiging van Overheidsdiensten. Bestuurskunde, 92(1): 33-42.
  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional Effects of Organizational Learning: The Case of the Canadian Cooperative Association. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5): 681-705.
  • Laxmikanth, M. (2006). Public administration, for the UPSC civil services preliminary examination. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited.
  • Musukhal, W. (2021). Autonomy and Contracting: A Case Study on Agencification in Indonesia. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Professional Doctorate in Public Administration University of Canberra.
  • Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Penguin Books USA Inc., New York.
  • Öberg, S. A. & Wockelberg, A. (2020). Agency control or autonomy? Government steering of Swedish government agencies 2003-2017. International Public Management Journal, 24(3): 330-349. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1799889]
  • Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 972-1001. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405]
  • Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A. & Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3(3): 271-290. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980108412663]
  • Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, B. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management. Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Pollitt, C., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A. & Talbot, C. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504868]
  • Ringeling, A. B. (1978). Beleidsvrijheid van ambtenaren: Het spijtoptantenprobleem als illustratie van de activiteiten van ambtenaren bij de uitvoering van beleid. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
  • Roness, P. G., Verhoest, K., Rubecksen, K. & MacCarthaigh, M. (2008). “Autonomy and Regulation of State Agencies: Reinforcement, Indifference or Compensation?” Public Organization Review, 8(2): 155-74. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-008-0057-4]
  • Selsky, J. W. & Bothner, M. S. (2009). A Prolegomenon on Organizational Adaptation to Ecological and Institutional Change. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 481-499.
  • Şimşek, M. Ş. (2002). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Günay Ofset, Konya.
  • Smullen, A. (2010). Translating Agency Reform: Rhetoric and Culture in Comparative Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289703]
  • Talbot, C. (2004). “The Agency Idea: Sometimes Old, Sometimes New, Sometimes Borrowed, Sometimes Untrue.” pp: 3-21 in Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractulisation, edited by C. Pollitt & C. Talbot. London: Routledge.
  • Tavas, B. (2019). Comparison of traditional public administration method with new public Administration method. The Journal of International Social Research, 12(65): 1269-76. [https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3536]
  • Tortop, N., İsbir, E. G., Aykaç, B. et al. (2016). Yönetim bilimi (Vol. 10). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Verhoest, K. (2018). “Agencification in Europe.” In E. Ongaro and S. van Thiel (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. [https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_17]
  • Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G. & Verschuere, B. (2004). The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2): 101-118. [https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.316]
  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K. & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230277274]
  • Verschuere, B. (2006). Autonomy and control in arm's length public agencies: exploring the determinants of policy autonomy. Doctoral dissertation, K. U. Leuven, Faculty of Social Science.
  • Wynen, J. & Verhoest, K. (2016). Internal Performance-Based Steering in Public Sector Organizations: Examining the Effect of Organizational Autonomy and External Result Control. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(3): 535-59. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137769]

<웹자료>

  • 행정안전부 보도자료. (2022.12.6). 정부, 51개 부처 직제 일괄 개정: 정부 조직･인력 효율화 및 국정과제･정책현안 추진 지원. 행정안전부. https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type010/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000008&nttId=97117, (검색일, 2025.9.15).
  • 행정안정부 보도자료. (2024.5.9). 책임운영기관에 자율성 더해, 행정서비스 품질 높인다. Retrieved from https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type010/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000008&nttId=109083, (검색일, 2025.10.15).