윌다브스키의 정책학 (Aaron Wildavsky’s Policy Science)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 한국행정연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 행정논총 / 53권 / 4호 / 47 ~ 104페이지
· 저자명 : 최병선

초록

윌다브스키는 정치학자로만 알려져 있으나, 정통 행정학자(정책학자)이다. 그것도 걸출한 학자이다. 허나 국내에서의 영향력은 제한적이다. 이는 우리 학계가 “합리성” 패러다임에 경도된 탓이리라. 윌다브스키는 철두철미 점진주의자이다. 이 글은 Speaking Truth to Power를 중심으로 “윌다브스키의 정책학”을 소개하는 데 목적이 있다. 그의 관점에서 본 정책분석의 요체는 (정책)오차의 발견과 시정이다. 높은 이상과 목표에 집착하는 “합리성” 패러다임은 과학적 탐구를 통한 정책지식의 축적을 방해하고, 정책실패의 반복, 무모한 정책실험의 조장 등 폐해가 크다고 지적한다. 정책분석의 목적에 관해서도 “합리성” 패러다임은 시민들이 원하는 것이면 무엇이든 실현해 주어야 한다는 듯 혼동에 빠져 있지만, 정책분석은 시민들이 “실현가능한 것만이 바람직한 것이고 또 그것이 최선”임을 인식할 수 있도록 학습을 촉진하는 데 목적을 두어야 한다고 주장한다.

영어초록

If not well recognized, Aaron Wildavsky, a distinguished political scientist, is also a genuine student of public administration. Notwithstanding, it is sad that he is almost wholly ignored in this country, probably because the local academic community is so steeped in what Wildavsky calls the “rationalist” paradigm. He is a “thorough” incrementalist, and it is thus no surprise that he indicts the paradigm as total nonsense. This article aims at introducing “Wildavsky’s policy science,” the main arguments of which are well provided in Speaking Truth to Power. The essence of policy analysis in his policy science consists in error recognition and correction. Error detection and correction ought to take the center stage if increasing our knowledge about public policies through scientific research is what policy study is all about. Here, the “rationalist” paradigm is seen to be committing a serious mistake, perversely leading people to ask wrong questions whose answers are obvious and unworthy of receiving serious analysis, as he aptly puts it: “This paradigm conveys the wrong-headed impression that all one has to do to answer a question is to ask it. Just how thoroughly available answers determine the kinds of questions asked remains unrecognized.” Pointing out that the paradigm is in confusion about the purpose of policy analysis, he contends that the main task of policy analysis is to help people perfect their preferences, that is, to learn whether what they once thought they wanted was what they now ought to have, or to learn what we ought to want in relation to what is available for obtaining it. These arguments are of the sort that never occur in the minds of students of public policy in this country in particular.

참고자료

· 없음