首页> 外文学位 >National policy and community cultural democracy: Centralization and decentralization of the Houses of Culture in Korea.
【24h】

National policy and community cultural democracy: Centralization and decentralization of the Houses of Culture in Korea.

机译:国家政策与社区文化民主:韩国文化院的集权与分权。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The Houses of Culture in Korea were established by the national government in 1996 as the first multi-functional cultural centers to foster culture at the community level. An authoritarian central government had been transformed to a democratic system, and local autonomy had been initiated just a few years before. Thus, civil society and the private sector had not yet developed their capacity to support community cultural activities. Rather, the central government made the rapid establishment of Houses of Culture possible by supporting their construction and operation. By fostering cultural activities that encourage diversity, identity, and creative expression, the Houses of Culture contributed to enhancing "cultural democracy" in the community. This is distinctive from previous national policies for "democratizing culture.";Subsequently, when the central government adopted a policy of decentralization in Korea, the Houses of Culture confronted challenges to their viability. Since Korea's central government devolved many public programs, including Houses of Culture, to the local governments in 2005, there have been few Houses of Culture established and most of the existing ones have confronted unstable financial resources. Several were closed or integrated into other facilities. Ironically, decentralization has jeopardized the viability of Houses of Culture in Korea.;In an effort to deal with the challenges facing the House of Culture, this research focuses on the analysis of cultural governance around the Houses of Culture in Korea, which have been influenced by national policy changes from centralization to decentralization. The devolution of Houses of Culture signified reduced central government support, which in turn affected the decision making of local governments as well as other public intermediaries. During this process, Houses of Culture also failed to make an influence on cultural politics at the national and local levels to maintain public support. The rise of other competing local cultural initiatives increasingly questioned the role and identity of Houses of Culture.;As a whole, the change of cultural governance surrounding Houses of Culture since their decentralization has negatively affected their viability and community cultural democracy in Korea. The overall conditions that Houses of Culture must face have become more severe since decentralization. A few Houses of Culture, including those in Gwang-ju, showed the potential for development to sustain community cultural democracy. However, factors that support local Houses of Culture, such as relatively strong local cultural infrastructure and cultural politics, as well as support from national and local cultural initiatives, are not yet duplicable to many other cities.;The centrally-driven decentralization of the Participatory Government in Korea (2003 to 2008) did not produce democratizing political reform, which prevented the development of local society. As a result, local cultural politics were constrained by under-developed political power and were unable to press local policymakers to make efficient and democratic decisions. In this situation, the decentralized local cultural policy process was dominated by the local administration, where local economic development was a priority over enhancing community cultural democracy. Downward fiscal transfer to the lowest level of local governments with the least resources aggravated the situation. Fiscal decentralization without internal development of local politics rather became a threat to community cultural democracy in Korea.
机译:韩国文化院由国民政府于1996年建立,是首个在社区一级培育文化的多功能文化中心。一个专制的中央政府已经转变为民主制度,而地方自治在几年前就已经开始了。因此,民间社会和私营部门尚未发展其支持社区文化活动的能力。相反,中央政府通过支持文化之家的建设和运营,迅速建立了文化之家。通过开展鼓励多样性,个性和创造力表达的文化活动,文化众议院为增强社区的“文化民主”做出了贡献。这与以前的“民主文化”国家政策不同。随后,当中央政府在韩国采取权力下放政策时,文化院面临着生存能力方面的挑战。自2005年韩国中央政府将包括文化之家的许多公共计划下放到地方政府以来,文化之家的建立很少,而且大多数现有文化之家都面临着不稳定的财政资源。一些被关闭或整合到其他设施中。具有讽刺意味的是,权力下放已经损害了韩国文化院的生存能力。为了应对文化院面临的挑战,本研究着重分析了韩国文化院周围的文化治理问题。国家政策从集中到下放的转变。文化之家的转移标志着中央政府的支持减少了,这反过来又影响了地方政府以及其他公共中介的决策。在此过程中,“文化之家”也未能在国家和地方层面上影响文化政治,以保持公众支持。其他竞争性地方文化倡议的兴起,日益使人们对文化之家的作用和身份提出质疑。总体而言,由于文化之家权力下放以来,围绕文化之家的文化治理变化对韩国的生存能力和社区文化民主产生了负面影响。自权力下放以来,文化之家必须面对的总体条件变得更加严峻。一些文化院,包括光州的那些文化院,显示出发展潜力来维持社区文化民主。但是,支持地方文化众议院的因素,例如相对强大的地方文化基础设施和文化政治,以及国家和地方文化倡议的支持,还不适用于许多其他城市。;中央推动的参与式权力下放韩国政府(2003年至2008年)没有进行民主化的政治改革,这阻碍了当地社会的发展。结果,当地文化政治受到政治力量发展的束缚,无法敦促地方决策者做出有效和民主的决定。在这种情况下,权力下放的地方文化政策过程由地方行政机构主导,地方经济发展是加强社区文化民主的优先事项。向下的财政转移到资源最少的地方政府的最低水平加剧了这种情况。没有地方政治内部发展的财政分权,反而成为对韩国社区文化民主的威胁。

著录项

  • 作者

    Choi, Sunghee.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Delaware.;

  • 授予单位 University of Delaware.;
  • 学科 Sociology Public and Social Welfare.;Political Science General.;Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 331 p.
  • 总页数 331
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:45:28

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号