<\/p>\n
\n
\ubaa9\ucc28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \uc694\uc57d <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Abstract<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In this study, our aim was to critique the hidden negative aspects of the public health system, drawing from the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to build a \u201cPeople-centered public health system\u201d in the post-COVID-19 era. To this end, it is first important to understand the being of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the introduction, we suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic can be defined as \u201cthe social\u201d and a multi-dimensional event containing complex and heterogeneous elements, and that it needs to be understood in relation to the framework of the \u201cNeoliberal Regime,\u201d \u201cRisk Society,\u201d and the climate crisis (Anthropocene).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Chapter 2, we opposed the functionalist approach that overlook the political nature of public health and tried to critically re-examine the public health system from the perspective of Governance and Power. In particular, Foucault\u2019s concepts of biopolitics, biopower, and governmentality were used as theoretical frameworks to uncover the nature of the public health system as a technique of governance. However, the public health system can be understood as a product that is constantly shaped and operated through the interaction of three powers, \u201cstate power-economic power-social power,\u201d rather than operating only with the unilateral will of the state. As a result of examining the response to the pandemic, it has been confirmed that the current public health system is under the dominant influence of state power and economic power. However, at the same time, the possibility of change was also found through various cases of resistance movements of social power to intervene in the public health system in order to respond to people’s suffering and needs.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Chapter 3, we proposed analysis modeling at the level of \u201cNetworking,\u201d \u201cCo-production,\u201d and \u201cGovernance\u201d to analyze citizen-led participation in enhancing democratic publicness and health equity from a people-centered perspective. As examples of citizen-led public health movements, \u201cthe civil movement to expand public health in Western Gyeongnam\u201d, \u201cthe movement to demand political agenda of Care\u201d, and \u201cthe COVID-19 human rights response network activities\u201d were selected, and the analysis modeling presented above was applied. As a result of the case analysis, the activities of citizens who participated in the co-production venue unexpectedly opened by COVID-19 were not government planning, but urgent, voluntary, and self-rescue efforts, but failed to correct some of the imbalance in existing power relations. Rather, there was an aspect used to strengthen the formal governance that state power was addressing the immediate needs of citizens by monopolizing the agenda.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Chapter 4, we examined the possibility and alternative principles of a decentralized public health system that enables a higher level of civil participation while avoiding the risks associated with neoliberal decentralization. As a result of analyzing regional COVID-19 response white papers, it was confirmed that the region best understood local field problems that were difficult to solve with state-centered policies and quickly responded when necessary. However, the limitations of the lack of authority of regional governments, the need to establish a mechanism to ensure accountability, and the need to align policy direction between the central and regional governments were also confirmed. Subsequently, through the analysis of the decentralization of the health care system and the COVID-19 response in other countries, the mechanism to be considered for the decentralization of the Korean public health system was derived. We propose an alternative principle of democratic and equal decentralization, not neoliberal decentralization.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Chapter 5, we tried to find an answer by applying the WPR approach to the question of why the \u201cSocial Determinants of Health (SDoH)\u201d couldn\u2019t reduce health inequality. To this end, through the case of collective infection at call centers and the establishment of an essential worker protection system during the COVID-19 period, we examined how knowledge of health inequality problematizes and represents it. As a result of reviewing researches on health inequality, this knowledge conceptualizes the health of call center workers and essential workers as \u201chuman capital\u201d or \u201clabor force.\u201d By labeling them as high-risk groups or essential personnel, the researchers paid attention to the sufferings they experience, but did not pay attention to the underlying structural conditions and contexts in which the suffering occurs. Based on this result, we argue that research on health inequality should be reborn as a field that critiques the current system, away from research questions that are aimed at listing inequality phenomena or focus solely on improving microscopic levels.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The task given to us to make a citizen-led, decentralized public health system that solves the problem of health inequality is to develop a \u201cpractical\u201d theory on how to strengthen social power in order to change unequal structures, systems, and neoliberal regime.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n1. \uc11c\ub860: \ucf54\ub85c\ub098 \ud32c\ub370\ubbf9\uc744 \uc5b4\ub5bb\uac8c \uc774\ud574\ud560 \uac83\uc778\uac00
\n2. \ud1b5\uce58\uc640 \uad8c\ub825 \uad00\uc810\uc5d0\uc11c \uacf5\uc911\ubcf4\uac74\uccb4\uacc4 \ube44\ud310
\n3. \uc2dc\ubbfc\uc8fc\ub3c4\ud615 \uacf5\uc911\ubcf4\uac74\uccb4\uacc4
\n4. \uc9c0\uc5ed\ubd84\uad8c\ud615 \uacf5\uc911\ubcf4\uac74\uccb4\uacc4
\n5. \uacf5\uc911\ubcf4\uac74\uccb4\uacc4\uc640 \uac74\uac15\ubd88\ud3c9\ub4f1
\n6. \uacb0\ub860
\n\ucc38\uace0\ubb38\ud5cc<\/p>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/health.re.kr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/20230831_021330-724x1024.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n