The Four Major Rivers Project, initiated by the former president Lee Myung-bak administration, has led to political and social conflicts over various issues including environmental problems and waste of taxpayers’ money, which persist to this day. To address this issue, Korean environmental movement...
The Four Major Rivers Project, initiated by the former president Lee Myung-bak administration, has led to political and social conflicts over various issues including environmental problems and waste of taxpayers’ money, which persist to this day. To address this issue, Korean environmental movements have mobilized lots of resources. However, with all these efforts, the movements have failed to prevent the detrimental effect of the project on the environment as well as the economy.This article aims to answer the following questions: why did the environmental movements, that have been successful in resolving environmental problems in the past, fail to abolish the Four Major Rivers Project that had taken a huge toll on the environment of the Korean Peninsula? Furthermore, why did the movement fail to achieve the goal of the campaign “re-naturalization of the four major rivers” under the former president Moon Jae-in’s administration which has been known to advocate democratic and environmentally friendly policies? This article discusses the three major environmental movements: 1) the movements against the Grand Canal on the Korean Peninsula, 2) the movement against Four Rivers Project, and 3) the movement to re-naturalize the Four Rivers. Specifically, the analysis was focused on the groups that were at the center of the movement, mobilization of the resources, and the political opportunity structure.The research results can be summarized as follows, First, the Conservation Alliance was successful in stopping the Grand Canal on the Korean Peninsula project, when the anti-Lee Administration demonstrations were powerful. However, it failed to achieve the goal of abolishing the Four Rivers Project as Lee’s administration mobilized oppressive state apparatus and legitimized the project as a “green growth policy” that can solve environmental problems driven by climate change and severe pollution. Second, environmental movement organizations against the government succeeded in maintaining public opinion against the Four Rivers Project, thereby securing the possibility of re-naturalization during the Moon Jae-in administration. However, when the political opportunity structure was opened in the Moon administration, the Conservation Alliance could not create a practical case of re-naturalization. Though the movements have built ecological and democratic solidarity, the study shows how challenging it is for these organizations to overcome the dominant structure of anthropocentrism, industrialism, capitalism, and statism in Korea.
The Four Major Rivers Project, initiated by the former president Lee Myung-bak administration, has led to political and social conflicts over various issues including environmental problems and waste of taxpayers’ money, which persist to this day. To address this issue, Korean environmental movements have mobilized lots of resources. However, with all these efforts, the movements have failed to prevent the detrimental effect of the project on the environment as well as the economy.This article aims to answer the following questions: why did the environmental movements, that have been successful in resolving environmental problems in the past, fail to abolish the Four Major Rivers Project that had taken a huge toll on the environment of the Korean Peninsula? Furthermore, why did the movement fail to achieve the goal of the campaign “re-naturalization of the four major rivers” under the former president Moon Jae-in’s administration which has been known to advocate democratic and environmentally friendly policies? This article discusses the three major environmental movements: 1) the movements against the Grand Canal on the Korean Peninsula, 2) the movement against Four Rivers Project, and 3) the movement to re-naturalize the Four Rivers. Specifically, the analysis was focused on the groups that were at the center of the movement, mobilization of the resources, and the political opportunity structure.The research results can be summarized as follows, First, the Conservation Alliance was successful in stopping the Grand Canal on the Korean Peninsula project, when the anti-Lee Administration demonstrations were powerful. However, it failed to achieve the goal of abolishing the Four Rivers Project as Lee’s administration mobilized oppressive state apparatus and legitimized the project as a “green growth policy” that can solve environmental problems driven by climate change and severe pollution. Second, environmental movement organizations against the government succeeded in maintaining public opinion against the Four Rivers Project, thereby securing the possibility of re-naturalization during the Moon Jae-in administration. However, when the political opportunity structure was opened in the Moon administration, the Conservation Alliance could not create a practical case of re-naturalization. Though the movements have built ecological and democratic solidarity, the study shows how challenging it is for these organizations to overcome the dominant structure of anthropocentrism, industrialism, capitalism, and statism in Korea.
Abstract
이명박 정부의 한반도 대운하 공약에서 시작한 4대강사업은 한강, 낙동강, 금강, 영산강에 16개 대형 보를 설치해 강의 흐름을 단절시킨 국가 주도 대형 개발 사업이다. 1980년대 이후 꾸준히 발전한 한국 환경운동 세력은 4대강에 거대한 보를 건설하여 환경을 파괴하는 대형 개발 사업을 백지화하는 데 왜 실패했을까? 그리고 정치적기회구조가 개선된 문재인 정부에서 환경운동 세력은 ‘4대강 재자연화’라는 운동 목표에 왜 이르지 못했을까? 이 글은 이명박, 박근혜, 문재인 정부 시기에 진행된 한반도 대운하 반대운동, 4대강사업 반대운동, 4대강 재자연화 운동을 대상으로 주된 운동 주체, 자원동원 방법과정치적 기회구조, 운동의 결과와 사회적 영향 등을 분석한다. 정치적 기회구조가 폐쇄된 시기에 보전동맹은 자원동원 능력을 집중시켜 한반도 대운하 백지화에 이르게했다. 보전동맹은 4대강사업 백지화 목표 달성에는 실패했지만, 4대강사업 반대 여론을 유지시켜 정치 의제화에 성공했고 문재인 정부 시기 재자연화의 가능성을 확보했다. 그러나 정치적 기회구조가 개방된 시기에 보전동맹은 연대 운동 범위가 축소하면서 실질적인 재자연화 사례를 만들어내지 못했다. 정치적 기회구조와 자원동원 능력의 동학에 따라 한반도 대운하 반대는 형식적으로 이루어졌지만, 4대강 사업 중단과 재자연화가 이루어지지 않은 것은 인류-산업-자본-국가 중심의 지배구조가 한국사회에서 강력하게 유지, 재생산되고 있기 때문이라고 볼 수 있다.
이명박 정부의 한반도 대운하 공약에서 시작한 4대강사업은 한강, 낙동강, 금강, 영산강에 16개 대형 보를 설치해 강의 흐름을 단절시킨 국가 주도 대형 개발 사업이다. 1980년대 이후 꾸준히 발전한 한국 환경운동 세력은 4대강에 거대한 보를 건설하여 환경을 파괴하는 대형 개발 사업을 백지화하는 데 왜 실패했을까? 그리고 정치적기회구조가 개선된 문재인 정부에서 환경운동 세력은 ‘4대강 재자연화’라는 운동 목표에 왜 이르지 못했을까? 이 글은 이명박, 박근혜, 문재인 정부 시기에 진행된 한반도 대운하 반대운동, 4대강사업 반대운동, 4대강 재자연화 운동을 대상으로 주된 운동 주체, 자원동원 방법과정치적 기회구조, 운동의 결과와 사회적 영향 등을 분석한다. 정치적 기회구조가 폐쇄된 시기에 보전동맹은 자원동원 능력을 집중시켜 한반도 대운하 백지화에 이르게했다. 보전동맹은 4대강사업 백지화 목표 달성에는 실패했지만, 4대강사업 반대 여론을 유지시켜 정치 의제화에 성공했고 문재인 정부 시기 재자연화의 가능성을 확보했다. 그러나 정치적 기회구조가 개방된 시기에 보전동맹은 연대 운동 범위가 축소하면서 실질적인 재자연화 사례를 만들어내지 못했다. 정치적 기회구조와 자원동원 능력의 동학에 따라 한반도 대운하 반대는 형식적으로 이루어졌지만, 4대강 사업 중단과 재자연화가 이루어지지 않은 것은 인류-산업-자본-국가 중심의 지배구조가 한국사회에서 강력하게 유지, 재생산되고 있기 때문이라고 볼 수 있다.
주제어
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.