座談主題：Civilization and the Indigenization of Public Policy & Administration as an Academic Discipline
座談嘉賓：Jung & Paik
鄭用德（Yong Duck Jung）博士，韓國社會科學協會會長，首爾大學行政大學院教授。曾任漢城大學董事會董事，韓國公共行政學會主席，日本政治學研究會執行委員等學術機構成員。鄭教授的教學和研究課題包括公共行政理論和哲學，比較國家機構和政策能力，治理和公共領導，他擔任多個學術期刊編委，也為多個公共組織做政策咨詢。鄭教授撰寫和主編了一系列專著，如現代國家公共行政，韓國和日本的國家機器，美國和韓國的共同治理等。
樸喜映（Hee Young Paik）博士，韓國婦女科技協會聯合會（KOFWST）韓國創意研究中心主任，首爾國立大學名譽教授。樸博士從美國馬薩諸塞州波士頓的哈佛公共衛生學院獲得營養科學博士學位。獲得博士學位后，她曾在Sookmyung婦女大學擔任教職，然后在韓國首爾國立大學工作至2016年2月。她曾在各種組織工作，其中包括擔任2013年韓國家庭經濟協會主席，2015年韓國營養協會主席，以及2014-2016年韓國婦女科技協會聯合會主席。2002年至2005年間，她擔任韓國DRI委員會的主席，新制定韓國飲食參考攝入量標準。2005年至2009年，任IUNS理事會成員，獲得“科學優秀研究獎”（2005），“國家科學高科技榮譽”（2008年），“亞太臨床營養獎”（2009年），“藍色”絲帶國家公共服務獎章（2012）。2009-2011年樸教授擔任了大韓民國兩性平等與家庭部部長。
In this communication with young faculties from SPPA, we would like to discuss about another big question: the issue of the indigenization of PPA as an academic discipline. First, we will present our opinion on the subject, including why and how to indigenize PPA, taking some examples of the Korean case.
Modern theories of PPA began to be introduced and taught at the Korean universities in the late 1940s. It was very late as compared to the European universities, which began to study and teach ‘Kameralismus’ or ‘Polizeiwissenschaft’ as early as 16th C. It was not so much late, however, as compared to the USA where it began in the late 19th C. Since then, PPA has grown rapidly in terms of intellectual human resources and institutions in the field. Regardless of the growth of its intellectual institutions and human resources, the Korean PPA has been challenged in terms of relevancy, and ‘science-ness’. And the challenges have been raised mainly in relations to the issue of ‘too much reliance’ on American PPA theories in Korea. In fact, from the beginning in the late 1940s, Korean PPA scholars have mainly adopted American PPA theories. Relying on the American theories and research methods has been making Korean PPA scholars to analyze effectively the Korean PPA institutions and practices which are similar to those of the USA. On the other hand, it has been keeping Korean PPA scholars from focusing directly on the essence or core characteristics and problems of Korean PPA practices and institutions. This has been making mostly Korean PPA scholars’ descriptive and prescriptive works ‘irrelevant or marginal’ to the important core PPA phenomena in Korea. Korean PPA scholars also have tried to apply the American PPA theories or institutions as normative standards of pluralistic and decentralized state administration to evaluate and reform Korean PPA practices. Without appropriate descriptions and explanations, however, most of the reform proposals or efforts have not been effectively institutionalized, resulted in lots of formalism in Korean PPA. It is in the context that the Korean PPA scholars have been debating the pros and cons of the so-called ‘indigenization’ or ‘Koreanization’ of PPA since the late 1960s.
We will approach to this issue by reviewing the history of transformations of civilizations, especially focusing on the cases of different civilizations encountered. Our presentations will be followed by open discussions with young faculty members at the SPPA.