• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.81-93
• /
• 2009

This study has focused 302 environmental ordinances enacted from 1974 to 2008 by 16 upper-local governments (7 deignated cities and 9 provinces) and the relationships between them and the development of the Korean local autonomy system. The ordinances have been categorized into three types, the voluntary ones without any obligatory stipulations in laws, the optional ones based on laws, and the law based obligatory ones, which have been examined the enactment years and the contents of them. The local ordinances have been enacted in four periods with a few characteristics, which are "the pre-local-autonomy period (1974-1991)", "the introductory-local-autonomy period (1991-1995)", "the local-autonomy-developing period (1995-1999)", and "the mature-local-autonomy period (after 2000)", along the local autonomy development. 57 ordinances were enacted in the first period, 20 enacted in the second period, 46 enacted in the third period and 179 ordinances in the fourth period. The obligatory ordinances were the most in the first period and in the second period, while the voluntary ordinances were enacted most in the third period. 7 designated cities have pretty more ordinances, 160 in all, than 9 provinces, 142. The tendency to enact earlier in the metropolitan area, SeoulCity, IncheonCity and Gyeonggi province, than the others can be seen. It can be said that the establishment of the local autonomy in Korea had accelerated the development of the local environmental management.

• Korean Journal of Organic Agriculture
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.45-61
• /
• 2023

The subject of this study is whether the relevant ordinances of Chungcheongnam-do's five local governments, operating intermediary support organizations for contracted-out community building, comply with the regional innovation and cooperative governance-based perspective. The examination results are summarized as follows. About the normative system: first, village building does not present that it is a participation- and cooperation-based collective activity of various related actors; second, the cooperative governance-based implementation system was not presented as a key term; third, "numerous relevant subjects' participation" and "democratic decision-making and cooperative promotion" are not presented as basic principles; fourth, the subjects are limited to residents and the administration, and only their responsibilities are presented. About the effectiveness system: first, the establishment of a master plan, a primary means, and the establishment of an in-charge department and collaboration system in the administration are presented as optional provisions; second, the nature of the relevant committees and intermediary support organizations is not presented as "public-private cooperation-based system"; third, the area of the function and authority of the relevant committees is limited to review and consultation. Fourth, the related information about the intermediary support organization structure and system, the establishment and operation of the secretariat, and the practical operation of the center is not presented. In sum, to make related ordinances become institutional grounds with stronger effectiveness, reconstructing them by strictly applying the perspectives of regional innovation and cooperative governance is necessary.