|
| |
|
|
정부성과 측정과 활용: 개념틀을 중심으로
파일 
정부성과 측정과 활용 개념틀을 중심으로.hwp
[Size :
70 Kbyte
]
정부성과 측정과 활용 개념틀을 중심으로.hwp
[Size :
70 Kbyte
]
분량 22 Page
가격 3,000 원
×
링크주소가 복사 되었습니다.
원하는 곳에 붙혀넣기 하세요
원하는 곳에 붙혀넣기 하세요
카트
|
다운받기
|
 네이버 ID로 다운 받기  카카오 ID로 다운 받기  구글 ID로 다운 받기  페이스북 ID로 다운 받기 |
뒤로
|
자료설명
정부성과 측정에 관한 공무원의 인식, 정부성과 측정 현황과 가능성 및 문제점, 측정결과의 활용방안 등을 파악하기 위해 1996.12.26.부터 ...
본문/내용
정부성과 측정에 관한 공무원의 인식, 정부성과 측정 현황과 가능성 및 문제점, 측정결과의 활용방안 등을 파악하기 위해 1996.12.26.부터 1997.1.12.까지 재정경제원 예산실의 협조를 얻어 설문조사를 실시하였다. 조사대상자는 국가공무원 650명으로 이 중 623명(95.8%)이 응답하여 회수율이 이례적으로 높았는데 예산실의 독려에 기인한 것으로 추정된다. 설문은: (1) 성과에 대한 인식(5개 항목); (2) 성과측정 현황(3개 항목); (3) 성과측정의 가능성 및 한계(5개 항목); (4) 측정결과의 활용방안(2개 항목), 계 15개 항목으로 구성하였다.
1) 응답자의 직급별 분포는 이사관 2명(.3%), 부이사관 11명(1.8%), 서기관 70명(11.2%), 사무관 152명(24.4%), 주사 225명(36.1%), 주사보 132명(21.2%)으로 실무자가 주류를 이루었다. 연령별로는 30대(290명, 46.5%)와 40대(246명, 39.5%)가 대다수를 차지하였다. 공무원 재직기간은 5년 이하(111명, 17.8%)부터 20년 이상(140명, 22.5%)까지 고르게 분포되어 있었으며 평균 재직기간은 14.3년이었다.
압도적 다수인 618명(99.2%)이 본부 근무자임에도 불구하고, 상위 기능인 정책·사업의 수립과 기획업무 담당자가 183명(29.4%), 정책·사업의 조정·통제·협조업무 담당자는 108명(17.3%)에 불과하였다. 하위 기능에 속하는 정책·사업·제도의 집행과 운영업무 담당자는 202명(32.4%)이나 되었다. 업무분야별로는 기획·예산편성 217명(34.8%), 경리·회계·조달·자산관리 92명(14.8%)으로 재무행정분야가 1/2에 달하였으며, 법령규칙의 제정·개폐·해석과 총괄·서무가 각각 64명(10.3%), 조직·인사 38명(6.1%), 감사·심사평가·품질관리 32명(5.1%), 정보처리·전산화가 21명(3.4%)으로 그 뒤를 이었다.
2) 업무성과에 대한 인식은 Liker…
2…
2…
참고문헌
옥동석(1995), “정부부문과 한국의 재정통계,” 제일경제연구, 제일경제연구소: 42~71.
재정경제원(1995), “한국 통합재정수지”
Arnberg, M.(1996), `Informing Clients: Statements of Service Information and Service Statements,` Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD.: 245~264.
Audit Commission(1995a), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 1, Educational Services, Social Services and Total Expenditure, London, U.K.
---------------(1995b), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 2, Council Housing, Housing Benefit, Recycling, Planning, Council Tax Collection and Total Expenditure, London, U.K.
---------------(1995c), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 3, Police and Fire Services, London, U.K.
---------------(1995d), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Appendix to Volumes 1 & 2, London, U.K.
Baker, W.V.(1994), `Performance Measurement in Taxation: The Revenue Canada Experience,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD, Paris, France: 41~50.
Bouckaert, G.(1995), Using Performance Measurement in Government, PUMA, OECD.
Davis, D.(1992), `Do You Want a Performance Audit or a Program Evaluation?` Pub;ic Administration Review, Vol 50, No 1: 35~41.
Gore, A.(1993), `Creating A government that Works Better and Costs Less,` Report of the National Performance review, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Johnson, R.W. and A.Y. Lewin(1984), `Management and Accountability Models of Public Sector Performance,` in Public Sector Performance: A Conceptual Turning Point, edited by T.C. Miller, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A: 224~250.
Lee, R.(1991), `Developments in State Budgeting: Trends of Two Decades,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 51, No. 3: 254~262.
Light P. C.(1993), Monitoring Government: Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Mercer, J.(1994), `The Performance Management and Budget System of the City of Sunnyvale, California,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Occasional Papers, No. 5, PUMA, OECD: 51~61.
OECD(1987), `Administration as Service: the Public as Client,` PUMA, OECD.
-----(1994a), Performance Management in Government: Performance Measurement and Results-oriented Management, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 3, OECD.
-----(1994b), Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD.
-----(1995a), Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1995b), Budgeting for Results: Perspectives on Public Expenditure Management, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1995c), Using Performance Measurement in Government: Performance Management in 8 OECD Member Countries, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1996), Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD.
Pollitt. C., M. Cave, and R. Joss(1994), `International Benchmarking as a Tool to Improve Public Sector Performance: A Critical Overview,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD: 9~22.
Schick, A.(1990), `Budgeting for Results: Recent Developments in five Industrialized Countries,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 50, No. 1: 26~34.
Trosa, S.(1996), `Quality Strategies in Three Countries: France, The United Kingdom and Austrailia,` Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD: 265~297.
Wholey, J. and H. Hatry(1992), `The Case for Performance Monitoring,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 52, No. 6: 604~610.
재정경제원(1995), “한국 통합재정수지”
Arnberg, M.(1996), `Informing Clients: Statements of Service Information and Service Statements,` Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD.: 245~264.
Audit Commission(1995a), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 1, Educational Services, Social Services and Total Expenditure, London, U.K.
---------------(1995b), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 2, Council Housing, Housing Benefit, Recycling, Planning, Council Tax Collection and Total Expenditure, London, U.K.
---------------(1995c), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Vol. 3, Police and Fire Services, London, U.K.
---------------(1995d), `Local Authority Performance Indicators,` Appendix to Volumes 1 & 2, London, U.K.
Baker, W.V.(1994), `Performance Measurement in Taxation: The Revenue Canada Experience,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD, Paris, France: 41~50.
Bouckaert, G.(1995), Using Performance Measurement in Government, PUMA, OECD.
Davis, D.(1992), `Do You Want a Performance Audit or a Program Evaluation?` Pub;ic Administration Review, Vol 50, No 1: 35~41.
Gore, A.(1993), `Creating A government that Works Better and Costs Less,` Report of the National Performance review, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Johnson, R.W. and A.Y. Lewin(1984), `Management and Accountability Models of Public Sector Performance,` in Public Sector Performance: A Conceptual Turning Point, edited by T.C. Miller, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A: 224~250.
Lee, R.(1991), `Developments in State Budgeting: Trends of Two Decades,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 51, No. 3: 254~262.
Light P. C.(1993), Monitoring Government: Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Mercer, J.(1994), `The Performance Management and Budget System of the City of Sunnyvale, California,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Occasional Papers, No. 5, PUMA, OECD: 51~61.
OECD(1987), `Administration as Service: the Public as Client,` PUMA, OECD.
-----(1994a), Performance Management in Government: Performance Measurement and Results-oriented Management, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 3, OECD.
-----(1994b), Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD.
-----(1995a), Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1995b), Budgeting for Results: Perspectives on Public Expenditure Management, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1995c), Using Performance Measurement in Government: Performance Management in 8 OECD Member Countries, PUMA, OECD.
-----(1996), Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD.
Pollitt. C., M. Cave, and R. Joss(1994), `International Benchmarking as a Tool to Improve Public Sector Performance: A Critical Overview,` Performance Measurement in Government: Issues and Illustrations, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 5, OECD: 9~22.
Schick, A.(1990), `Budgeting for Results: Recent Developments in five Industrialized Countries,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 50, No. 1: 26~34.
Trosa, S.(1996), `Quality Strategies in Three Countries: France, The United Kingdom and Austrailia,` Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, PUMA, OECD: 265~297.
Wholey, J. and H. Hatry(1992), `The Case for Performance Monitoring,` Public Administration Review, Vol. 52, No. 6: 604~610.
| 📝 Regist Info |
|
I D : ksap****** Date : 2015-09-14 FileNo : 16058103 |
Cart  | |
| |