• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.113-139
• /
• 2016

This article tries to compare exchange relations between welfare and dictatorship in the East Germany and the North Korea. Unlike capitalist welfare aiming at correcting market results socialist welfare has been proposed to satisfy people's basic needs, but it had operated as instrument of dictatorship. Relation between welfare and dictatorship could be distinguished as hard exchange and soft one in line with social construction of welfare. Welfare-dictatorship relation in East Germany had developed from its formation(1949-1970s), crisis(1980s) and dissolution(1989-1990). There had established hard exchange relation in which the legitimacy of dominance had debted to welfare as social rights. While crisis of the exchange relation had been modest in a form of insufficient supply of consumption goods, it was one of the elements of collapse of dictatorship, leading to the unification with West Germany. The journey of the exchange relation in North Korea can be characterized by its formation(1948-1980), crisis(1990s-2000s), and transformation(2010s). Unlike East Germany, welfare was socially constructed as gift form the ruler to the ruled, which made the combination of welfare and dictatorship loosely coupled. Although economic crisis was severe compared to East German one the rulers have succeeded maintaining dictatorial dominance by creating dual exchange relation. They separated core group and subordinated one supporting the former at the expense of the latter. They blocked out most of the people from soft exchange relation making bad use of muddling-through life style dependent on market activities. This strategy led to a 'dictatorship neutral welfare extinction'. Taking the high degree of institutionalization of newly establishing welfare-dictatorship relation into account, lives of most people are hardly expected to be improved by gift by their rulers even if North Korean economy will recover in the future.

• Korean Association of Arts Management
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.135-156
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to derive more practical and concrete policy implications for the successful implementation of the Cultural City Designation Project, which is emerging as a main topic of cultural policy. To this end, the background and implementation system of the European Capitals of Culture(ECOC), which is the subject of benchmarking in various aspects, were examined. As a result, it was confirmed that there is a possibility that the Cultural City Designation Project can reveal its limitations in the background and process, and the improvement is as follows. First, rather than creating an ideal cultural city model to achieve its goals in a short period of time, efforts should be made to secure diversity and expand insufficient infrastructure in accordance with local autonomous decisions. Second, in order to secure the continuity of the business, it is necessary to secure and educate professional manpower for organizational operation in the form of independent or direct agency of each local government. Finally, careful policy consideration should be made at the national level to balance regional interests. Therefore, there is a need for an organized 'government-level organization' that can take on the role of the city selection process, support system, and ex post evaluation. In short, successful cultural city projects require critical acceptance and efforts to remedy fundamental problems rather than benchmarking unconditional overseas cases in terms of cultural policy.