
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
-
25
-
26
-
27
-
28
-
29
-
30
-
31
-
32
-
33
-
34
-
35
-
36
-
37
-
38
-
39
-
40
-
41
-
42
-
43
-
44
-
45
-
46
-
47
-
48
-
49
-
50
-
51
-
52
-
53
-
54
-
55
-
56
-
57
-
58
-
59
-
60
-
61
-
62
-
63
-
64
-
65
-
66
-
67
-
68
-
69
-
70
-
71
-
72
-
73
-
74
-
75
-
76
-
77
-
78
-
79
-
80
-
81
-
82
-
83
-
84
-
85
-
86
-
87
-
88
-
89
-
90
-
91


목차
1. 서론
2. 주요 집권정책의 비교
3. 집권정책의 문제점과 수정ㆍ보완책 비교
4. 집권정책의 딜레마 비교
5. 결론
2. 주요 집권정책의 비교
3. 집권정책의 문제점과 수정ㆍ보완책 비교
4. 집권정책의 딜레마 비교
5. 결론
본문내용
' 방법으로 역사의 원인을 충분히 분석해 낼 수 있었기 때문에 역사 ― 특히 영국사 ― 연구방법으로의 가능성도 확실히 입증되었다.
한편, 본론에서 증명된 '설명가설'의 과정을 보고, 혹자는 "대두되는 문제점들에 대한 대응이 두 내각에서 유사하였다는 상황증명만으로 논지의 깊이가 부족하다"라는 지적도 할 수 있을 것이다. 이와 관련하여 필자는 '설명가설'의 증명을 통해 얻게 된 실질적 결실은 "다른 시간적 차원에서 두 정부의 상황이 왜 그렇게 흡사하게 반복되었는가?"란 '질문' 그 자체라는 점을 말하고자한다. 다시 말해서, 위의 '질문'이 나오게 된 이유는 그동안의 역사연구가 실용성과 괴리되고 있었기 때문이며 이런 이유를 알게 된 것이 실질적 결실이란 것이다. 좀더 이해를 돕기 위해 가정(假定)을 설정해보자. 만약 애틀리가 자신의 정책결정 상황과 흡사한 과거 역사시기들을 찾아내어 그들의 문제점들을 '비교에 의한 접근' 방법을 통해 파악하고 있다고 하자. 그러면 애틀리가 이미 파악된 역사적 문제점들이 되풀이되게 자신의 정책을 결정했을까? 이런 설정된 가정은 '비교에 의한 접근' 방법과 '역사연구의 실용성' 관계에 충분한 의미를 전해준다고 본다.
결국, 이 글을 통해서 A라는 어떤 상황과 시ㆍ공을 달리하는 역사 속의 B라는 사례간의 '비교에 의한 접근'이 한층 원활해짐으로써 역사적 방법과 시각이 한층 넓어지고, 역사연구 그 자체도 '현실과 접목'이란 실용화를 향해 일보전진 하리라 생각된다.
/Abstract/
A Dilemma of the British Policy:
A Comparative Approach between the Policy
of the Second Gladstone Cabinet and Attlee Cabinet
Kim, Hyun-Soo
A comparative approach put to practical use for historical study as follows: First, it is a means to verify a reason and correlation in history. Second, it is also a means to inspect the explanatory hypothesis for a historical proposition. Third, it presents a new historical investigation or research methods.
With the meaning of the comparative approach, I studied the policy's dilemma of the Second Gladstone Cabinet(1880-85) and Attlee Cabinet (1945-51). Their policies are already being studied in many fields. The study is usually focused as to the Gladstone cabinet's Ireland policy, Attlee cabinet's Social Security policy. However, in spite of existing studies, I found a possibility for a new study through a comparative approach of both cabinets.
By my analysis, both of them have several things in common for the application of the comparative approach. First, both looked likely lose the election campaign to the Conservative party. But they both won in the final result. Second, Gladstone and Attlee both proposed a specific issue to the people during the campaign; there was 'Moralism' for Gladstone and 'Social Security' for Attlee. Third, after entering the cabinet, they found some problems, They were the Irish land problem (Gladstone) and the financial difficulties caused by a failure of United States loan (Attlee) which obstructed their specific issues. Fourth, they revised their plans for carrying forward their existing issues. There were the Land Bill for Gladstone, the Nationalization program for Attlee. However, they had a dilemma between the revised and the existing policies because the revised policies had passed over an international issue, and left the cabinet.
In my thesis, first of all, using the comparative approach of both the Gladstone and Attlee Cabinets, I stated the above-mentioned analysis in detail. Next, I inspected and verified the policy's dilemma of both Gladstone and Attlee was caused by it's passing over an international issue. Finally, I presented the comparative approach in the historical study as a new historical investigation or research methods.
한편, 본론에서 증명된 '설명가설'의 과정을 보고, 혹자는 "대두되는 문제점들에 대한 대응이 두 내각에서 유사하였다는 상황증명만으로 논지의 깊이가 부족하다"라는 지적도 할 수 있을 것이다. 이와 관련하여 필자는 '설명가설'의 증명을 통해 얻게 된 실질적 결실은 "다른 시간적 차원에서 두 정부의 상황이 왜 그렇게 흡사하게 반복되었는가?"란 '질문' 그 자체라는 점을 말하고자한다. 다시 말해서, 위의 '질문'이 나오게 된 이유는 그동안의 역사연구가 실용성과 괴리되고 있었기 때문이며 이런 이유를 알게 된 것이 실질적 결실이란 것이다. 좀더 이해를 돕기 위해 가정(假定)을 설정해보자. 만약 애틀리가 자신의 정책결정 상황과 흡사한 과거 역사시기들을 찾아내어 그들의 문제점들을 '비교에 의한 접근' 방법을 통해 파악하고 있다고 하자. 그러면 애틀리가 이미 파악된 역사적 문제점들이 되풀이되게 자신의 정책을 결정했을까? 이런 설정된 가정은 '비교에 의한 접근' 방법과 '역사연구의 실용성' 관계에 충분한 의미를 전해준다고 본다.
결국, 이 글을 통해서 A라는 어떤 상황과 시ㆍ공을 달리하는 역사 속의 B라는 사례간의 '비교에 의한 접근'이 한층 원활해짐으로써 역사적 방법과 시각이 한층 넓어지고, 역사연구 그 자체도 '현실과 접목'이란 실용화를 향해 일보전진 하리라 생각된다.
/Abstract/
A Dilemma of the British Policy:
A Comparative Approach between the Policy
of the Second Gladstone Cabinet and Attlee Cabinet
Kim, Hyun-Soo
A comparative approach put to practical use for historical study as follows: First, it is a means to verify a reason and correlation in history. Second, it is also a means to inspect the explanatory hypothesis for a historical proposition. Third, it presents a new historical investigation or research methods.
With the meaning of the comparative approach, I studied the policy's dilemma of the Second Gladstone Cabinet(1880-85) and Attlee Cabinet (1945-51). Their policies are already being studied in many fields. The study is usually focused as to the Gladstone cabinet's Ireland policy, Attlee cabinet's Social Security policy. However, in spite of existing studies, I found a possibility for a new study through a comparative approach of both cabinets.
By my analysis, both of them have several things in common for the application of the comparative approach. First, both looked likely lose the election campaign to the Conservative party. But they both won in the final result. Second, Gladstone and Attlee both proposed a specific issue to the people during the campaign; there was 'Moralism' for Gladstone and 'Social Security' for Attlee. Third, after entering the cabinet, they found some problems, They were the Irish land problem (Gladstone) and the financial difficulties caused by a failure of United States loan (Attlee) which obstructed their specific issues. Fourth, they revised their plans for carrying forward their existing issues. There were the Land Bill for Gladstone, the Nationalization program for Attlee. However, they had a dilemma between the revised and the existing policies because the revised policies had passed over an international issue, and left the cabinet.
In my thesis, first of all, using the comparative approach of both the Gladstone and Attlee Cabinets, I stated the above-mentioned analysis in detail. Next, I inspected and verified the policy's dilemma of both Gladstone and Attlee was caused by it's passing over an international issue. Finally, I presented the comparative approach in the historical study as a new historical investigation or research methods.