고등교육기관에 대한 성과주의 예산의 적용 가능성과 한계 - 미국에서의 성과주의 예산 시행경험을 바탕으로 = The applicability and limitations of performance-based funding for higher education

국문 초록 (Abstract)

  본 연구의 목적은 성과주의 예산이 기반하고 있는 이론적 배경의 음미와, 1990년대 중반이후 본격적으로 도입된 미국에서의 성과주의 예산 시행경험 분석을 통하여 고등교육기관에 대한 성과주의 예산 적용의 가능성과 한계를 모색하는데 있다. 새로운 정책의 시행에 있어 흔히 그렇듯이, 성과주의 예산도 쉽게 해결되기 어려운 많은 이론적ㆍ실천적 쟁점들을 본질적으로 내포하고 있으며, 그 도입의 가장 핵심적 논거인 기관의 성과향상에 대한 실증적 증거도 아직까지 명확히 제시되지 않고 있다. 하지만, 1990년대 중반이후 미국에서의 성과주의 예산의 시행경험은 향후 각 국가에서 성과주의 예산모형의 설계 및 시행과 관련하여 반드시 고려되어야 할 사항에 대한 몇 가지 유용한 시사점을 제공해 주고 있다. 성과주의 예산제도만을 가지고 정부가 원하는 방향으로 고등교육기관의 행태를 변화시킬 수 없다는 것은 명확해 보이지만, 미국에서의 시행경험이 보여주듯이 잘 설계된 성과주의 예산모형이 고등교육기관의 성과향상에 일정부분 기여를 할 수 있다는 점도 부인하기 어렵다. 이러한 측면에서 우리나라에서 성과주의 예산을 성공적으로 운영하기 위해서는 이것이 제대로 작동하기 위한 선행여건의 구축과 함께, 우리나라 고등교육 시스템 특성에 적합한 모형 개발을 위한 보다 심층적 연구가 무엇보다도 시급하다고 할 수 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

  The purpose of this study is to investigate the applicability and limitations of performance-based funding for higher education (1) by critically examining its theoretical premises based on the principal-agent theory and (2) by analyzing previous experiences of implementing performance-based funding in the U. S. mainly since the mid-1990s. As is the case with many other newly introduced policy initiatives, the concept of performance-based funding brought about many theoretical and practical issues which often can not lead to easy compromise among stake-holders (i.e. institutional administrators, professors, policy-makers).<BR>  Based on the analyses of the study, it seems there have so far been no clear empirical evidences with regard to the impact of performance-based funding on improving institutional quality and performance unlike the expectation by ardent advocates of performance-based funding. However, more than 10 years" experiences of implementing performance-based funding in a number of the U. S. states seem to provide some useful lessons for other countries in designing & implementing a performance-based funding program.<BR>  Performance-based funding is not a panacea, but just one of the attractive policy options which would have high potential to "influence," not "determine" institutional performance. To maximize its potential, but at the same time to minimize the unexpected consequences of implementing performance-based funding, it would be highly recommended that more thorough evaluations of and more in-depth research on the characteristics & capability of an individual higher education system should be conducted before introducing such a sophisticated policy tool as a performance-based funding.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 〈요약〉
  Ⅰ. 서론 : 연구의 필요성과 목적
  Ⅱ. 성과주의 예산의 개념과 이론적 배경
  Ⅲ. 미국의 성과주의 예산 시행경험과 성과분석
  Ⅳ. 우리나라 성과주의 예산모형 설계를 위한 정책적 시사점
  Ⅴ. 결어
  참고문헌
  〈Abstract〉
  

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 권순만, "행정의 조직경제학적 접근:대리인 이론의 행정학적 함의를 중심으로" 29 (29): 77-95, 1995
• 2 신현석, "한국의 고등교육 개혁정책(교육개혁정책 연구총서 2)" 학지사 2005
• 3 윤성식, "최근 선진국 예산개혁의 교훈:대리인이론의 관점" 31 (31): 111-123, 1997
• 4 유현숙, "정부부처의 고등교육기관에 대한 재정지원 분석 및 효율화 방안" 한국교육개발원 2001
• 5 전택승, "우리나라와 외국의 성과주의 예산제도" 한국조세연구원 2004
• 6 백성준, "영국의 성과주의 교육예산제도:직업교육훈련 예산을 중심으로" 13 (13): 205-234, 2004
• 7 나민주, "영국의 대학교육활동에 대한 수식형 재정지원제도 고찰" 17 (17): 29-57, 2007
• 8 박부권, "대학평가에 의한 재정지원제도 개선연구" 교육부 1998
• 9 송기창, "대학재정지원정책의 과제와 개선방향" 9 (9): 1-25, 2000
• 10 나민주, "대학재정지원정책에서 시장모형의 적용과 재정적 영향에 관한 분석" 7 (7): 145-182, 1998
• 11 장수명, "고등교육재정지원 성과분석 및 효율화 방안 연구" 한국교육개발원 2004
• 12 송기창, "고등교육재정사업 재구조화 방안 연구" 교육인적자원부 2007
• 13 Folger, J, "Using fiscal policy to achieve state education goals"
• 14 Bogue,E.G., "Twenty years of performance funding in Tennessee: A case study of policy intent and effectiveness"
• 15 Albright,B.N., "The transition from business as usual to funding for results: State efforts to integrate performance measures in the higher education" State Higher Education Executives Officers 1998
• 16 Carter,K., "The performance budget revisited: A report on state budget reform. Legislative finance paper #91. National Conference of State Legislatures"
• 17 Harbour, C. P, "The incremental marketization and centralization of state control of public higher education: a Hermeneutic interpretation of legislative and administrative texts" 5 (5): 2006
• 18 Kivist? J., "The government-higher education institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory" 11 : 1-17, 2005
• 19 Shin, J-C, "The effects of performance budgeting and funding programs on graduation rate in public four-year colleges and universities" 12 (12): 2004
• 20 Potter,W., "State lawmakers again cut higher-education spending" 49 (49): A22-, 2003
• 21 Michelau,D.K., "Sharpening the dialogue: engaging policy makers in the alignment of appropriations, tuition, and financial aid policy. Western policy exchange, Dec. 2006"
• 22 Wright,D.L., "Ready, fire, aim: performance funding policies for public postsecondary education in Florida, 137-168"
• 23 Burke,J.C., "Performance funding: assessing program stability, 243-264"
• 24 Tennessee Higher Education Commission., "Performance funding: 2005~10 Cycle"
• 25 South Carolina Commission on Higher Education(SCCHE)., "Performance funding workbook: A guide to South Carolina's performance funding system for public higher education"
• 26 Burke,J.C., "Performance funding in South" from fringe to mainstream 195-218, 2002
• 27 Banta,T.W., "Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee" 67 (67): 23-45, 1996
• 28 Burke,J.C., "Performance funding and budgeting: old differences and new similarities, 19-38"
• 29 Burke, J. C, "Performance funding and budgeting for public higher education: Current status and future prospects" The Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government 1997
• 30 Burke,C.J., "Performance Reporting:The Preferred"No Cost"Accountability Program"
• 31 Burke, C. J., "Performance Reporting: "Real" Accountability or Accountability "Lite." Seventh Annual Survey 2003, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government"
• 32 Burke,C.J., "Performance Funding Opinion Survey of Campus Groups (1999 ?2000). The fourth Annual Survey"
• 33 Moden,G.O., "Ohio's challenge: a clash of performance funding and base budgeting, 169-194"
• 34 Albright,B.N., "Of carrots and sticks and state budgets" Trusteeship 18-23, 1997
• 35 Layzell,D.T., "Linking performance to funding outcomes for public institutions of higher education: the US experience" 33 (33): 103-111, 1998
• 36 Burke,C.J., "Linking State Resources to Campus Results: From Fad to Trend. The Fifth Annual Survey"
• 37 Stein,R., "Integrating budget, assessment and accountability policies: Missouri's experiment with performance funding, 107-136"
• 38 Salmi, J, "Innovations in tertiary education financing: a comparative evaluation of allocation mechanisms" The World Bank 2006
• 39 Mingle, J.R., "Improve performance? Yes! Link it to funding? No"
• 40 Oregon University System(OUS), "History of OUS performance indicators"
• 41 Burke,J.C., "Funding public colleges and universities: popularity, problems, and prospects" The Rockefeller Institute Press 2002
• 42 Epper,R.M., "Focus on the Budget: Rethinking Current Practice" State 1994
• 43 "Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (FOPPAGA). (1997). Performance-based program budgeting in Florida"
• 44 OECD, "Education Policy Analysis" OECD 2003
• 45 Noland,B.E., "Changing perceptions and outcomes: The Tennessee performance funding experience. Paper presented to the 44th annual AIR Conference, May 31, 2004, Boston(MA)"
• 46 Schmidtlein,F.A., "Assumptions underlying performance-based budgeting" 5 (5): 157-172, 1998
• 47 Schmidtlein,F.A, "Assumptions commonly underlying government quality assessment practices" 10 : 263-285, 2004
• 48 Thorn, K., "Approaches to results-based funding in tertiary education: Identifying finance reform options for Chile"