반부패 정책 성과의 평가: 부패지수를 중심으로

Abstract

이 연구에서는 반부패 정책 성과 평가의 , 향후 에 대하여 논의하였다. 평가 현황에 대한 부패지수 중심적 분석을 바탕으로, 정부의 반부패 성과 평가가 아직 실험단계이고, 목적도 체계적 정책개선 보다는 부패 실태, 유발요인 작용에 관한 정보 수집, 반부패 노력 촉구, 경각심 제고 등에 둔 것으로 부패 심각성 조사이자, 시민평가 형태라는 점을 지적하였다. 평가지표는 타당. 정확성, 정책적 노력과의 연계 등에서 아직 미흡하다. 이 연구는 향후 과제와 대안으로 반부패 정책 법적 책임 기관의 필요, NGO 협력적 평가, 평가단 방식의 실적평가, 평가지표의 정확·타당성 개선, 투명성지수의 추가 등을 제시하였다. 또 평가가 각 부처, 지방정부 반부패 정책적 노력의 방향 제시나 다양한 관련 노력의 반영이 되어야 하며, 자료제출, 방문조사 방법의 도입도 필요하다고 주장하였다. 이 연구의 기여는 정부 반부패 정책 성과 평가 노력에 대한 비판적 검토로 몇 가지 발전 방향을 제시했다는데 있다.

This study critically digs into the practice of performance evaluation of anti-corruption policies, concentrating on the content, desirable roles and limits of corruption indexes as performance indicators. Even though corruption indexes are one of the most prevalently cited performance indicators of anti-corruption policy, some performance evaluations in Korea, relying on corruption indexes have been criticized as invalid and anaccurate. After examining the present efforts evaluating anti-corruption policies, the author argues that the corruption indexes have measured information relating to corruption levels and their causes as well as stimulating competition toward reducing corruption among local governments and government agencies instead of aiming at improving existing anti-corruption programs and efforts which is what they were originally supposed to do. To inform policy makers of what is better or what is needed for curbing corruption, performance indicators should be closely connected with policy efforts and should guide government efforts for preventing corruption while providing an accurate standard for learning, adaptation, and improvements in anti-corruption policy. Unfortunately, corruption indexes have come up short in successfully satisfying theses needs. At present, performance evaluations of corruption indexes are still in experimental stages - they are merely citizen satisfaction surveys. Based on these conclusions, this study suggests policy alternatives for effective performance evaluations: the need for 1) a government organization which has chief control of anti-corruption policies, 2)cooperative evaluations by government and NGO joint efforts, 3) performance evaluation. committees, 4) improving the validity and accuracy of indicators, and 5) adding transparency indexes to the existing anti-corruption performance evaluation system. In addition, field interviews with officers dealing with corruption policy should be introduced while the records relating to their activities, kept by the government agencies, should be independently evaluated.