Earticle

초록

한국어

공공지출관리는 정책성과를 얻기 위해 실체법 규범, 효율성, 다양한 법제도의 정비관리 의 합
의를 통한 예산결정 등과 관련하여 새로운 접근방식이 필요하게 되었다. 1998년 발생한 금융위기 이후 한국과 인도네시아는 경제회복을 위해 재정개혁을 시도하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국과 인도네시아의 재정개혁을 면밀히 검토하고 공통점과 차이점을 밝혀내는데 있다. 10년간 두 나라의 재정개혁은 체계 등 유사점이 있는 반면 법적 체계, 재정적 기능개발, 리더십과 의회와 회계감사 이사회에 미치는 영향력에 있어서는 차이점을 보인다. 또한 이 연구는 과거 개혁의 다음 단계로써 인도네시아의 더 나은 예산개혁을 위한 함의를 제안하고 있다.

영어

Public Expenditure Management (PEM) in regards to procedural rules, substantive norms, efficiency, and a broad range of institutional and management arrangements while achieving desired policy outcomes brings about a new approach while budget decisions are being made regularly. After the financial crisis that occurred in 1998 hit Korea and Indonesia, both countries attempted to bring about national economy recovery by promoting multiple reform agendas including a public financial management reform. The aim of this study is to examine the reform agenda on the public finance sector both in Korea and Indonesia and to investigate their similarities and difference. Vulnerability as an impact of the 1998’s financial crisis in Korea requires a series of major reform initiatives encompassing the labor, corporation, finances, and the public sectors. The public financial management reform plays a major role in the financial and public sector reform agenda. By considering the setting background and identified weaknesses area, the public finance management reform in Indonesia is aimed to realize good governance and clean government, particularly on the managing public finance as a starting point to conduct a public sector reform. On their public financial management reform that was performed in the same decade, both countries have similarities on major driven, reform framework, major agenda, and major actors. However, their differences appear on legal arrangements, treasury function developments, leadership roles, and the reforms impact to the parliament and the board of supreme audit. Finally, the study suggests the implication for further budget reforms in Indonesia as a next work to perfecting previous reform results.

목차

Abstract
 Ⅰ. Introduction
 Ⅱ. Korean Budget Reforms
  2.1 Korea Reform Initiatives
  2.2. National Fiscal Management Plan (NFMP)
  2.3 Top-down budgeting
  2.4 Performance Management System (PMS)
  2.5 Introduction of the program budgeting system
 Ⅲ. Indonesian Budget Reforms
  3.1 Particular background of public finance management reformin Indonesia
  3.2 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
  3.3 Performance Budgeting
  3.4 Unified Budget
 Ⅳ. Comparison between Korean and IndonesianExperience
  4.1 Similarities
  4.2 Difference
 Ⅴ. Implication for further Budget Reform in Indonesia
  5.1 Find out proper level of Budgetary power of the Legislature
  5.2 Linkage between Performance Information system andAllocative Budgeting and Aggregate Fiscal Discipline.
  5.3 Concentrated disbursement on the end of year andUndisbursed Budget
  5.4 Lack of governance to deal with Globalization influence
 [References]
 국문요약

저자

• Saiful Islam [ Doctoral Student, Department of Global Public Administration, Yonsei University ]

참고문헌