Earticle

This paper is aiming at deriving the measurement alternatives for the SOC investment effects. Starting from the review of existing methods such as cost-benefit analysis, this paper mainly deals with the development of effect measurement concept. It is our belief that during economic development process social overhead capital has played some important roles. Through this paper, the importance of interdisciplinary study including economics, planning, engineering and policy for effects measurement is emphasized. Besides the traditional effect measurement methods, this paper suggests the another approach including effect concept, effect items, measurement procedures, etc., using road network ex-post evaluation as a sample case. This is the case for ex-post policy program evaluation. Road improvement project program such as enlargement and pavement during 1973-1994 period was used for our evaluation, concept formulation and development for SOC investment effect measurement.

지방자치단체의 자치입법평가는 명칭과 달리 상당 부분 시행 중인 조례의 상위 법 정합성과 집행 가능성을 점검하는 사후적 입법정비 프로그램으로 운영되어 왔 으며, 그 결과 입법이 실제로 초래한 효과·부작용에 대한 학습 기능은 상대적으로 미약한 상태에 머물러 있다. 이 글은 입법정비를 규범의 적합성과 체계 정합성을 점검하는 규범기술적 프로그램으로, 사후입법영향분석을 입법의 실제 영향과 비용· 편익·부작용을 분석하는 경험·분석적 프로그램으로 개념적으로 분리하고, 시점, 기 능, 분석 깊이, 결과 활용, 민주성·책임성이라는 다섯 축을 통해 두 제도의 구조적차이를 이론적으로 정식화한다. 이를 통해 지방조례 단계에서 입법정비와 입법영 향분석을 연계하는 다층적 입법학습 플랫폼의 규범적ㆍ제도적 설계 방향을 제시한 다. 이러한 이론틀을 바탕으로 강원특별자치도의 조례 입법평가(입법정비) 제도를 분석한 결과, 시행 2년 경과 조례의 90% 이상이 정비 필요 대상으로 분류되는 ‘정 비 전제형 평가 구조’ 속에서, 평가–정비–사후관리로 이어지는 사후 입법정비 루 프가 형성되어 있고, 축적된 평가자료가 사후·사전 입법영향분석을 위한 지식 인프 라로는 충분히 활용되지 못하고 있음을 확인한다. 한편, 국회입법조사처의 입법영 향분석은 제도 시행 전후 변화분석과 계량·질적 방법을 결합하여 “입법이 현실에 서 어떻게 작동했는가”를 중심 질문으로 삼는 프로그램으로, 입법효과 분석과 대 안 설계 지원, 분석 결과의 공개와 공론장 형성을 통해 지방조례 단계의 입법평가 를 재구성할 수 있는 준거를 제공한다. 이에 따라 이 글은 강원특별자치도의 조례 입법정비 제도를 단순한 사후 정비 도구가 아니라, 정비 과정에서 축적되는 정비 사유·집행 실태·계획·예산·위원회 운영 정보를 유형화·데이터화하여 사후입법영향 분석 및 장기적으로 사전입법영향분석으로 연계하는 ‘정비 인프라’로 재설계할 것 을 제안하고, 이를 통해 지방조례 단계에서 “정비(규범 점검) – 사후영향분석(효 과 분석) – 사전영향분석(예측·설계)”이 결합된 다층적 입법학습 플랫폼을 구축할 수 있는 규범적·제도적 방향을 제시한다.

Contrary to its name, “local legislative evaluation” in Korean local governments has in practice largely functioned as an ex post ordinance revision program that examines the consistency of enacted ordinances with higher laws and their feasibility of implementation. As a result, institutional mechanisms for learning from the actual effects and side effects of legislation have remained relatively weak. This article conceptually distinguishes legislative revision as a normative-technical program for reviewing the appropriateness and systemic consistency of norms, and ex post legislative impact analysis as an empiricalanalytical program for examining the actual impacts, costs, benefits, and side effects of legislation. It then theorizes the structural differences between the two along five analytical dimensions: timing, function, analytical depth, use of results, and democratic accountability. Building on this framework, the article analyzes Gangwon State’s ordinance legislative evaluation (revision) system and finds that, within a “revision-presuming evaluation structure” in which more than 90 percent of ordinances enforced for at least two years are classified as requiring revision, an ex post “legislative revision loop” has been formed that runs from evaluation through revision to follow-up management. At the same time, the accumulated evaluation data are not being fully utilized as a knowledge infrastructure for ex post and ex ante legislative impact analysis. By contrast, the legislative impact analysis program of the National Assembly Research Service combines pre/post change analysis with both quantitative and qualitative methods and is designed around the central question of how legislation actually works in practice. In doing so, it provides a normative and practical benchmark for restructuring legislative evaluation at the level of local ordinances through effect analysis, support for alternative institutional designs, and the public dissemination of findings in the broader deliberative arena. Against this backdrop, the article proposes reconceptualizing Gangwon’s ordinance legislative revision program not as a mere ex post clean-up tool, but as a “revision infrastructure” that categorizes and converts the information accumulated during the revision process—such as grounds for revision, implementation status, plans, budgets, and committee operations—into data that can be linked to ex post, and in the longer term, ex ante, legislative impact analysis. On this basis, it outlines a normative and institutional direction for building, at the level of local ordinances, a multi-layered legislative learning platform in which revision (normative review) – ex post impact analysis (effect analysis) – ex ante impact analysis (design and prediction) are institutionally interconnected.