교육분야에서의 NGO-정부 간 관계 변화에 관한 연구: BRAC과 PRONADE학교 사례분석

학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 국제대학원 : 국제학과(국제협력전공), 2015. 8. 김종섭.본 연구는 Education for All (EFA) 패러다임의 변화에 따른 방글라데시와 과테말라의 교육 분야 내 NGO-정부 간 관계의 변화를 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 위해, 본 연구는 NGO-정부 간 관계를 세 가지 유형(보완적, 협력형, 억압형/소멸형) 으로 나누고 Vivien Schmidt의 담론제도주의에 입각한 분석틀을 고안하였다. 분석 결과, 방글라데시의 BRAC 학교와 과테말라의 PRONADE 학교 사례 모두 보완적 성격을 띠고 시작하였으나, BRAC은 정부와 협력적 관계로 성장하였고, PRONADE 프로그램에 참여한 NGO들은 결국 정부에 흡수되어 억압형/소멸형 관계로 쇠퇴하였음을 발견할 수 있었다. 이와 같은 상반된 관계변화의 원인은 정부와 NGO들의 정책이전(policy translation) 과정에서 찾아볼 수 있었다. 방글라데시의 경우, BRAC과 정부가 모두 적극적으로 EFA 패러다임을 국내 정책으로 이전하여 EFA 패러다임에서 제시한 교육의 접근성 향상과 양질의 교육 제공이라는 두 가지 아이디어를 모두 충족 시킨 반면, 과테말라의 PRONADE는 오직 정부만이 정책이전과 의사결정(decision making) 과정에 참여하여 NGO들의 역할과 입지를 보장하지 못하였고 결국 정부가 NGO의 역할을 흡수하여 교육의 접근성만을 확대시키는데 그쳤다.This study examines the ways in which the evolving ideas/paradigms of education have affected the non-governmental organization-government (NGO-GO) relationships in Bangladesh and Guatemala in particular. The study identifies three types of NGO-GO relationship: complementarity, cooperation, and co-optation/cessation. This analysis focuses on accounting for the two possible routes of change in NGO-GO relationships: changes from complementarity to cooperation and from complementarity to co-optation/cessation. In doing so, Vivien Schmidts version of discursive institutionalism serves as the foundation for the analytical lens of the two case studies: BRAC and PRONADE schools. The NGO-GO relationships forged in these two countries were complementary to the governments education system at first. However, BRAC and the government of Bangladesh (GoB) advanced to cooperation whereas the NGO-GO relationship under PRONADE schools waned into co-optation/cessation. The study attributes this difference to the policy translation process of these two countries. In Bangladesh, both BRAC and GoB actively translated Education for All (EFA) paradigms into their national policy contextsthus, they have satisfied the idea of both ensuring access and quality of education proposed by the EFA. On the other hand, in Guatemala, it appears that only the government could actively translate the EFA paradigm into their national policy context. Though NGOs were integral part of PRONADE schools, they could not secure their positions and roles in the program. Consequently, the GoG absorbed the roles of NGOs, leading the NGO-GO relationship to co-optation/cessation.Abstract .................................................................... i Abbreviations ......................................................... vi List of Tables and Figures ................................... viii I. Introduction .................................................. 1 II. NGO-Government Relationship ................. 9 2.1. NGOs and Development ............................................ 9 2.1.1. Role of NGOs: Implementers, Catalysts and Partners ........ 9 2.1.2. NGOs Participation in Development Activities ............... 10 2.1.3. NGOs in Education Sector ................................................ 12 2.2. Previous Understandings on the NGO-Government Relationship .............................................................. 15 2.3. Types of NGO-Government Relationship ............... 17 III. Analytical Framework ............................... 22 3.1. Types of NGO-Government Relationship ............... 22 3.2. Theoretical Basis: Discursive Institutionalism ........ 25 3.3. Proposed Analytical Framework .............................. 28 IV. Case Studies .................................................. 30 4.1. Complementarity to Cooperation : Bangladesh ....... 30 4.1.1. Background ....................................................................... 30 4.1.2. BRAC Schools in Bangladesh ........................................... 32 4.1.3. Government of Bangladesh: Education Policy ................. 34 4.1.4. BRACs Response to Education Policy Ideas ................... 38 4.1.5. Findings ............................................................................. 41 4.2. Complementarity to Co-optation/cessation : Guatemala .................................................................................... 42 4.2.1. Background ....................................................................... 42 4.2.2. PRONADE Schools in Guatemala .................................... 44 4.2.3. Government of Guatemala: Education Policy ................... 49 4.2.4. COEDUCAs and ISEs Responses to Education Policy Ideas ................................................................................. 53 4.2.5. Findings ............................................................................. 54 V. Conclusion .................................................. 57 5.1. Summary .................................................................... 57 5.2. Implications ................................................................ 61 Bibliography ........................................................... 64 Appendix ................................................................ 71 Abstract in Korean .................................................. 73 Acknowledgement .................................................. 75Maste