View : 1324 Download: 0

Full metadata record

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.advisor조기숙-
dc.contributor.author김화정-
dc.creator김화정-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-26T04:08:03Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-26T04:08:03Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.otherOAK-000000128441-
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.ewha.ac.kr/handle/2015.oak/213617-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dcollection.ewha.ac.kr/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000128441-
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation aims to develop a practical and applicable framework and models to improve the effectiveness of cultural diplomacy. Despite the fact that culture affects a society, constructs national identity and national power as well as playing a significant role in foreign affairs, cultural diplomacy does not receive sufficient scholarly attention in the field of International Relations due to the pejorative connotations that became associated with it throughout the Cold War, and its longstanding but loose definition as a subset of public diplomacy. Meanwhile, difficulties lie in practices of cultural diplomacy; for example, many culture related private sector businesses maintained by public funds and grants have been put at risk because of government culture funding budget cuts, cultural actors associated with public diplomacy’s request for the privatization of public diplomacy, partnerships between public and private actors generate difficulties in terms of transparency, accountability and legitimacy. This study raises investigates how cultural diplomacy can be defined from an International Relations perspective and what determines the effectiveness of cultural diplomacy partnerships. This study firstly delves into the theoretical discourse on public diplomacy, soft power, and public-private partnerships. It reveals the gap between the broader Western European concept of international cultural relations and the US perspective of cultural diplomacy as a subset of public diplomacy, and bridges this gap by defining new cultural diplomacy as a concept intercepting international cultural relations and new public diplomacy. Also, the study contributes to building up the theory of cultural diplomacy in international relations by taking neoliberal complex interdependence theory and soft power theory, 2which can successfully form the linkage of power-interdependence-cooperation. Resource dependence theory has enabled the study to link public-private partnerships and public diplomacy (PPP-PD). By taking this as a theoretical background, the study took a first attempt to develop analytical frameworks for PPP-PD and created three models of PPP-PD: (1) Contracting Model, (2) Combination Model, and (3) Partnering Model, on a continuum between centralized governance and decentralized governance. By taking different systems design, the study conducted a comparative case study between Germany, featuring a decentralized governance model, and South Korea, operating under a centralized governance model, in order to test 17 propositions drawn from three factors of public-private partnerships in cultural diplomacy (PPP-CD): (1) feasibility of partnerships in CD, (2) Success of CD, and (3) Effectiveness of PPP-CD. Two survey phases revealed six synthesized indexes for PPP-CD: (1) goal alignment, (2) resources, (3) incentives, (4) collaboration, (5) ownership, and (6) benefits and risks. Finally, the study defined four determinants of successful partnerships in CD: (1) goal alignment, (2) collaboration, (3) trust in the collaborative culture, and (4) innovation by taking risks. Since effective partnerships can lead to success in cultural diplomacy and given that public actors play a pivotal role in cultural diplomacy, the findings of this study, the six synthesized indexes and the four determinants, can serve as criteria for the life cycle of partnerships and a critical apparatus for the evaluation of PPP-CD. Therefore, this study makes suggestions that public actors can reflect in a comprehensive review of cultural policy and evaluation to justify expenditures on cultural diplomacy through collaborative leadership.;본 논문은 목적은 실용적이고 적용 가능한 문화외교의 프레임워크를 만들고 효과성을 이끌어낼 수 있는 모델을 제시하는 것이다. 문화가 사회에 영향을 미치고 국가의 정체성, 국가의 권력을 만들고, 외교에서 있어 중요한 역할을 함에도 불구하고, 냉전으로 인한 부정적 의미 때문에 문화외교가 국제관계학자들의 많은 관심을 받지 못하고 있으며 공공외교의 하위개념으로 경시되어왔다. 한편 현실에서의 문화외교는 복잡성을 띈다. 국가로부터 받는 보조금으로 유지되어오던 민간 영역의 문화관련사업들이 국가예산 절감으로 어려움에 처하고, 공공외교로 연계된 문화행위자들은 공공외교를 민간에 맡길 것을 요구하기도하며, 민관협력의 어려움이 투명성, 신뢰, 합법성의 관점에서 어려움이 도출되고 있다. 이에 따라 본 눈문은 국제관계학에서 바라보는 문화외교를 어떻게 정의하며 무엇이 문화외교 파트너십의 효과성을 결정짓는지에 대해 살펴보았다. 우선 공공외교, 연성권력 그리고 민관협력의 이론적 담론들에서 서유럽국가들의 넓은 의미의 국제문화관계(international cultural relations)와 미국의 관점에서 굳혀진 공공외교 하위 개념의 문화외교(cultural diplomacy)에서 차이점과 공통점을 발견하고 국제문화관계와 신공공외교가 공통적으로 주장하는 교차영역의 개념을 신문화외교라고 정의하였다. 본 논문은 신자유주의의 복합적상호의존 이론과 연성파워가 권력-상호의존-협력을 연결지어 문화외교를 뒷받침할 수 있는 이론임을 밝혀내어 국제관계학에서 규정짓는 문화외교 이론 정립에 기여하였다. 또한 자원의존이론를 바탕으로 민관협력과 공공외교를 연결지었다. 이것을 이론적 배경으로 하여, 본 연구는 민관협력-공공외교(PPP-PD)의 분석틀을 개발하고 PPP-PD의 세가지 모델, (1) 계약관계모델(contracting model), (2) 복합모델(combination model), (3) 파트너 모델(partnering model)을 고안했다. 이 세 모델은 집중적 거버넌스와 탈집중적 거버넌스의 스펙트럼 위에 놓여있다. 상이체계디자인(different systems design)으로 본 연구는 독일을 탈집중적 거버넌스 그리고 한국을 집중적 거버넌스 사례로 비교연구를 하였다. 민관협력-문화외교(PPP-CD)에 미치는 세가지 요인인 파트너십의 타당성, 문화외교 성공요인, 민관협력-문화외교 효과성을 밝혀냈다. 이로부터 유추해낸 17가지 명제들을 테스트하기 위해 두 단계에 걸친 설문조사를 실시했으며 조사결과를 바탕으로 민관협력-문화외교에 대한 6가지 합성지수를 도출해냈다. (1)목표 합일화(goal alignment), (2)자원 (resources), (3)유인책(incentive), (4)협력(collaboration), (5)주인의식(ownership), (6)이익과 위험부담(benefits and risks). 이를 바탕으로 성공적 파트너십에 영향을 미치는 네가지 요인을 다음과 같이 밝혀냈다. (1)목표 합일화(goal alignment), (2)협력(collaboration), (3)협력적 문화 내에 형성된 신뢰(trust in the collaborative culture), (4)위험부담을 감수한 혁신(innovation by taking risks). 효과적인 파트너십이 문화외교를 성공적으로 이끌고 공공부문의 행위자들이 문화외교에서 중추가 되는 역할을 하기 때문에, 본 연구를 통해 밝혀진 여섯가지 지수와 네가지 성공 결정요인들이 파트너십과 민관협력-문화외교의 효과성 평가에 측정도구로 활용될 수 있다. 그러므로 본 연구는 공공부문 행위자들이 본 연구의 결과물을 문화 정책을 평가하고 문화외교의 지출을 정당화할 수 있는 평가방법으로 쓰여질 것과 공공행위자들에게 협력적리더십을 제안한다.-
dc.description.tableofcontents1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATUR REVIEW: Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy 5 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. A Historical Path towards Public Diplomacy 5 2.3. Paradigm Shift in Public Diplomacy 10 2.3.1. The Emergence of New Public Diplomacy 11 2.3.2. Theoretical Development in Public Diplomacy Field 17 2.4. Soft Power and New Public Diplomacy 22 2.5. Uncovering the Missing Holes of Cultural Diplomacy as a Subset of (New) Public Diplomacy 33 2.6. What Complicates the Definition of Cultural Diplomacy 42 2.6.1. Cultural Diplomacy Rooted in Western European Countries 42 2.6.2. The United States Cultural Diplomacy 44 2.6.3. Cultural Diplomacy Labeled as a Means of New Public Diplomacy 45 2.7. Conclusion 53 3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF (NEW) PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND (NEW) CULTURAL DIPLOMACY 56 3.1. Introduction 56 3.2. Neoliberals Perspectives on Soft Power and Public Diplomacy 57 3.2.1. Cooperation from the Neoliberalism Perspective 57 3.2.2. Conflict from the Neorealist Perspective 60 3.2.3. Structural/Cultural Changes from the Constructivism Perspective 63 3.2.4. Power and Diplomacy or Diplomacy for Cooperation 65 3.2.5. Soft Power Embedded in Public Diplomacy 70 3.2.6. Whether Public Diplomacy Can Bring About Structural/Cultural Changes 72 3.3. Complex Interdependence and Soft Power in Cultural Diplomacy 74 3.4. Conclusion 76 4. PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERHIPS APPROACHE TO NEW PUBLIC DIPLOAMCY (NEW CULTURAL DIPLOMACY) 80 4.1. Introduction 80 4.2. Conflicting Interests of Multi-stakeholders in Public and Cultural Diplomacy 80 4.3. Extending Trajectory of New Public Diplomacy 84 4.4. Literature Review on Public-Private Partnerships 87 4.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study 96 4.5.1. Multi-stakeholders in Cultural Diplomacy 96 4.5.2. Activity Types and Partnership Models in Public Diplomacy 103 4.5.3. Effectiveness of Public-Private Partnerships in Public/Cultural Diplomacy 112 4.6. Conclusion 114 5. CASE STUDY: GERMANYS CULTURAL DIPLOMACY versus SOUTH KOREAS CULTURALDIPLOMACY 118 5.1. Introduction 118 5.2. Comparison between Germanys Cultural Diplomacy and South Koreas Cultural Diplomacy 122 5.2.1. Germanys Cultural Diplomacy 122 5.2.2. South Koreas Cultural Diplomacy 131 5.3. Propositions, Methodology and Research Design 142 5.3.1. Propositions 142 5.3.2. Methodology and Operational Research Design 147 5.4. Findings of the Case Study 159 5.4.1. Phase I Findings: Results of Unstructured Interview 159 5.4.2. Phase II Findings: Results of Structured Interview 166 5.5. Conclusion 183 6. CONCLUSION 192 6.1. The Findings of the Study and Their Implications 192 6.2. Recommendations: the Significance of Conducting Public Leadership 200 6.3. Suggestions for Future Research 203-
dc.formatapplication/pdf-
dc.format.extent2450416 bytes-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisher이화여자대학교 국제대학원-
dc.subject.ddc300-
dc.titleEffective Public-Private Partnerships in Cultural Diplomacy-
dc.typeDoctoral Thesis-
dc.title.subtitleA case study of Germany and South Korea-
dc.format.pagex, 269 p.-
dc.contributor.examinerHeather Willoughby-
dc.contributor.examiner신현상-
dc.contributor.examiner신호창-
dc.contributor.examinerStefan Dreyer-
dc.identifier.thesisdegreeDoctor-
dc.identifier.major국제대학원 국제학과-
dc.date.awarded2016. 8-
Appears in Collections:
국제대학원 > 국제학과 > Theses_Ph.D
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

BROWSE