정책모델에서의 합리성 수준에 관한 비교 연구

The main purpose of this study is to rethink different existing models, approaches, or frameworks from the perspective of actors, groups and their interactions in public policymaking process. In particular, this article explores the level of rationality in various policy models and approaches. On a comparative view, this study analyzes characteristics, differences, and similarities of the four different approaches: rational (single-actor) models, revised rational approach including incrementalism, group (Pluralistic) approach, and synthesized (multi-factor) approaches. Policymaking is a simple linear process and is leaded by single or few groups in rational approaches. In synthesized approaches, policymaking process is considered as the outcomes of the interaction among various indivdiual actors and groups. Rationality, participant, reality, and power are important criteria for comparing the four sets of policy models and approaches. This study suggests that we need more realistic frameworks for understanding a variety of actors` and groups` behaviors and interactions in the policymaking process. In addition, a suggested policy process model would be simple, systematic, and broadly applicable.