- 1. 11-25A Preliminary Study on a Link of the Winter Olympics
and Social Capital Accumulation
2. (CIP) / , -- : , 2012 p. ;, -- ( ; 11-25)ISBN
978-89-5705-364-5 53690 : [--]
[]692.0693-KDC5796.48-DDC21CIP2012000200 3. 2018 . . 80 4.3%, GNP
4% 3%, 2.5%,1 GRDP 15 . , 23% . 10 ? . . . . 3 3 . 3 -- . 7 8 . . ,
. . . . . , . . . 1964 . 4. (legacy) . , . , 2018 . , 2018 . 2011
12 5. . 1 1. 1 2. 3. 7 1. 7 2. 8. 19 1. 19 2. 22 3. 24 4. 33. 37 1.
37 2. 38 - i - 6. . 471. 472. 50 57ABSTRACT 59 - ii - 7. 2018 3
9(2009) 102014/2018 19 20 21 (2009) 21 22 23 24 25 (100 ) 25 26 27
27 28, 29( 1 ) 30 30 31 32 32 33 34- iii - 8. 35 38 39 40 4088 48
49 (2010) 52- iv - 9. 7(Abraham Maslow) 24 51 54- v - 10. , . . . .
, , 10 . 10 . . 45.6% . 31.3% , 48.4% . . . . . , 3 , . , . . , 62%
. ( 34%) - vii - 11. (64%) . 38% . . , . . . , . . . 2018 . . 18 .
. . . 18 . . . . . . , , . . . . . - viii - 12. . . . 2018 . SNS ,
2018 , . . . . . ( ) . . .- ix - 13. . . 1. (socialcapital)
(networks), (norms), (trust) . OECD , , . (World Bank) , , . . , ,
, , . .1) . (,, ) ( ) . , . 1) (2007. 6), , 1 14. 3 3T(Talent,
Technology,Tolerance) . (Talent) (Technology), (Tolerance) .
(2002.8.26 ) , , . . , . . 2018 . 2020 (2011-2020)() 2018 , . . . ,
, , . (Olympic Legacy) . 2 15. . 2. . . 1964 18 . , . . . , , . .
.2018 / / : : : / / / : (2011. 11), (2011-2020)()3 16. . . . 4 17.
. < 1> / , .(2009) , . , (1) (2) (3) , , (2005) (4) (5) , . ,
, , (2010) . , (2004) , . , , (2010) . , , , (2007) . 1 . (2009) ,
, . (2006) , , , . (2010) .5 18. / . . (2011) . , , , , . . . (), ,
(2007) , . ColemanThe conception of social capital as a resource
for action is one way(1988)of introducing social structure into the
rational acton paradigm.Social capital may refer to a variety of
features in the social structure,according to different
scholars(e.g., community norms -Coleman 1990;Lin, Nangroup
solidarity-Hechter 1983, Portes&Senssenbrenner 1993;
participation (1999) in voluntary and civil organizations-Putnam
1995), it has become clearthat social capital refers primarily to
resources accessed in socialnetworks.By "social capital," I mean
features social life-networks, norms, and Putnam(1995) trust-that
enable participants to act together more effectively topursue
shared objectives.Social capital ("community connectedness") refers
to social networksand the norms of reciprocity that arise from
them. A growing body ofhard-nosed literature over the last several
years shows that social Social Capital capital, and the trust,
reciprocity, information, and cooperation Communityassociated with
it, enables many important individual and social Benchmarkgoods.
Communities with higher levels of social capital are likely to
Survey(SCCBS)have higher educational achievement, better performing
governmentalinstitutions, faster economic growth, and less crime
and violence.And the people living in these communities are likely
to be happier,healthier, and to have a longer life
expectancy.Social capital is defined by the OECD as networks
together with OECD shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operationwithin or among groups. 6 19. . . 1. . , . ,
10 .( 2) . . 7 20. 2. 4 13 . , , .9 , 4 4 . , . 7 ,1 . , . , . . ,
, . . . . 6, 4, 6, 11 27 . . . . , , . 8 21. . () / (2009) (2005) ,
(2010) ,(2004) , (2010) , (2007) (2009) (2006)(2010) (2011) (2007)
Putnam(1995) Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey(SCCBS) 9 22.
(2009) (World Values Survey, 1999-2006, WVS) (WVS)GDP (World Bank,
World Development Indicators,(2000-2007), WDI), , , , , , (WVS) , ,
, , (WVS), : (Economic Freedom of the World, 2000-2006) , , , (WVS)
(Transparency International, 2000-2007) ( , , )(World Bank,
Worldwide Governance Indicators,(2000-2007)) =0, =1, =2(1) (2) (3)
(4) (5) (6) (WVS) (WDI, 1990-2000) (Polity Project: Political
Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1991-2007) (Worldwide
Governance Indicators, World Bank, 2000-2007) (+)( +) ((World
Migrant Stock, UN, 2000, 2005) (WDI, 2000-2007), , , (WVS)TV TV
(WDI, 2000-2007) 100 (WDI(2000-2007), (Freedom in the World,
2002-2008) 10 23. . < 2> - : - : - : 2011. 10 - : 1000 - : 20
- : - : - : 20 198(19.8%) 502 30 198(19.8%) (50.2%) 40 203(20.3%)
498 50 203(20.3%) (49.8%) 60 198(19.8%) 250 25.0 250 25.0 250 25.0
250 25.01,000 10011 24. % 848.4 848.4 828.2 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0
505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0 505.0
1,000100 12 25. . < 3> (2009) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , / ,
// , , / , , , , , , , , // , / 13 26. (2010) ( ) ( ) : /// () // ,
, // / (, TV ) 14 27. . (2011), , (, ), (, , , , ), (, , , ), , , (
) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,6 (, , , , , ) , , , , , , () , , 15
28. (2007) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (, , ), (, , ), (, ,
) (, , ), , , 1 , ( , ) , , (, ) , 16 29. . SCCBS(2000) () , , , ,
, , 1 , , 1 , 1 , , 1 , / , , (; , , ) 17 30. . . 1. 2005 2009 .
2009 2018 74% . .2014/2018 ( : %) 2005 52.5 16.413.89.57.40.5 2009
74.2 30.0 44.213.512.310.02.3 : . 2005. . . 2009. . 19 31. 10 . .
45.6% . 31.3% , 48.4% . , , . . . . . . ( : %) 31.3 45.618.54.6
27.2 48.419.25.2 48.4 30.814.46.4 23.5 54.517.54.5 25.7 49.722.02.7
29.3 44.820.95.0 33.3 46.416.14.2 2031.8 40.418.79.1 3031.3
50.517.21.0 4038.4 39.915.85.9 5026.6 48.321.73.4 6028.3
49.019.23.5 : . 2011. 10 20 32. . , , , , . , , . 5 3.759, 3.602,
3.188, 2.977, 2.963. 3 5 . 0.5 4.4 25.558.4 11.33.759 1.0 5.0
32.356.25.53.6024.8 12.443.937.01.93.188 8.1
14.050.926.10.92.9777.2 19.646.425.31.52.963 : . 2011. 10 2009 , .
. (2009)3.43 3.67 3.51 3.50 3.05 : . 2009. . : 1( ) ~ 5( ) 21 33.
2. 2009 (3.50) (3.05) . . 1/3 2/3 . , 7% . ( : %) () 31.2 2.029.2
47.3 21.5 20.60.9 36.8 2.634.2 46.2 16.9 15.71.2 34.0 3.230.8 43.8
22.2 21.50.7 24.2 1.322.9 48.8 27.0 25.11.9 41.1 2.438.7 40.4 18.6
17.80.8 64.8 11.9 52.9 32.3 2.92.8 0.1 70.5 13.6 56.9 27.5 2.12.0
0.1 62.3 10.4 51.9 33.3 4.44.4- 63.9 14.3 49.6 33.9 2.22.1 0.1 57.1
9.547.6 39.0 3.93.7 0.2 : . 2010 10 26% . 37.5% . 0.7% 5.3% . , 22
34. . . . . 40(46.3%) 60 (47.5%) , . . ( : %) 5.3 37.5 31.324.0 1.9
8.4 38.4 35.615.6 2.0 4.0 37.2 26.429.2 3.2 3.0 35.0 37.522.0 2.5
5.3 38.7 27.728.0 0.3 6.0 36.9 29.725.1 2.4 4.6 38.2 32.922.9 1.4
207.1 34.3 36.420.7 1.5 304.5 34.8 33.825.8 1.0 404.4 41.9 28.124.6
1.0 502.5 36.9 28.130.0 2.5 608.1 39.4 30.318.7 3.5 : . 2011. 10 23
35. 3. . , . . . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (Abraham Maslow) 50% . 2005 1995
2009 8% . 2009 2005 1995 9.9% 52.7% 48.5% 40.4% 0.4% 7.6% 41.4%
36.9% 39.4% 6.6% 4.5% 1.7% : , , 24 36. . . 200974.6% 2005 1995 .
2005 1995 . 2009 2005 1995 74.6% 58.6% 54.6% 11.6% 19.8% 17.4%
13.8% 21.6% 13.3%* 30.4%,* 40.7%, 14.6% 60.9%, 51.4%, * 32.3%,
9.4%7.9% 64.9%, 2.9% 10 . 100 74.5, , 40 . (100 ) ( :
%)()74.575.875.9 73.472.9 74.8 74.120 72.030 71.5 40 74.350 76.560
78.0 25 37. 55% 36.8% . , 60 . ( : %) 55.0 36.87.1 0.3 0.8 46.0
45.28.0 0.859.6 31.27.2 0.8 1.263.5 29.56.5 0.553.0 39.36.7 1.0
57.0 36.55.2 0.4 1.0 53.0 37.19.0 0.2 0.6 2055.1 38.46.1 0.5 3047.5
40.49.6 0.5 2.0 4056.2 35.57.4 0.5 0.5 5051.7 39.97.4 0.5 0.5
6064.6 29.85.1 0.5 : . 2011 80% . , . 26 38. . ( : %) 324(32.4)
471(47.1)141(14.1)19(1.9)45(4.5) 54(21.6)140(56.0)41(16.4) 6(2.4)
9(3.6) 92(36.8)111(44.4)31(12.4) 5(2.0) 11(4.4) 88(44.0)
84(42.0)24(12.0) 1(0.5) 3(1.5) 90(30.0)136(45.3)45(15.0) 7(2.3)
22(7.3) 173(34.5) 234(46.6)66(13.1) 8(1.6) 21(4.2)151(30.3)
237(47.6)75(15.1) 11(2.2)24(4.8) 20 55(27.8) 93(47.0)35(17.7)
4(2.0) 11(5.6) 30 41(20.7)100(50.5)37(18.7) 5(2.5) 15(7.6) 40
58(28.6) 94(46.3)35(17.2) 8(3.9) 8(3.9) 50 81(39.9) 96(47.3)
18(8.9) 2(1.0) 6(3.0) 60 89(44.9) 88(44.4) 16(8.1)5(2.5) : . 2011 (
: %) 53.8 4.3 49.533.312.910.7 2.2 : . 2001. . 2001 (53.8%) . 10
37.1% (15.3%), (18.5%), (3.3%). 27 39. . 50 , 60 (35.8%). ( : %)
2.722.2 38.0 15.3 18.53.3 2.424.8 44.0 16.49.62.82.824.8 36.8 13.2
20.42.03.016.5 41.0 16.5 20.52.52.721.7 32.0 15.3 23.05.3 1.619.3
41.6 15.5 17.54.4 3.825.1 34.3 15.1 19.52.2 202.024.2 37.9 16.2
14.15.6 303.024.7 37.4 16.2 16.22.5 403.423.6 40.4 12.3 17.72.5
502.515.8 35.5 17.7 23.64.9 602.522.7 38.9 14.1 20.71.0 : . 2011 10
, . 62% . 23% 15% . , . , 40-50 . 28 40. . , ( : %) 62.420.22.5
12.72.2 66.423.22.0 7.6 0.861.224.42.0 9.6 2.865.514.01.5
16.52.558.018.34.0 17.02.7 57.222.92.8 13.33.9 67.717.52.2 12.00.6
2084.310.60.5 3.5 1.0 3068.218.22.5 10.11.0 4049.826.12.5 19.22.5
5047.326.13.9 18.73.9 6063.119.73.0 11.62.5 : . 2011 2009 58.4% ,
(19.7%), , (12.3%), (6.2%) . . (15.2%), (9.5%) . (54.7%) . 10 . .
27.3% 27.5% . . 29 41. ( 1 )( : %) , 58.419.7 12.3 6.2 1.91.00.3
0.2 49.126.9 13.9 4.8 3.81.30.3 0.1 68.414.1 9.94.6 1.50.80.3 0.4
48.924.2 17.5 5.9 2.01.1- 0.4 55.818.9 11.3 8.0 3.02.30.4 0.3
61.210.9 14.7 9.5 0.91.20.6 1.0 54.718.4 15.2 9.5 1.30.20.5 0.1
68.712.8 9.27.1 0.80.50.5 0.4 67.49.910.510.0 0.90.80.1 0.3 : .
2009 ( : %) 27.3 45.2 23.1 4.4 27.2 40.4 28.8 3.6 32.8 44.4 18.4
4.4 22.5 54.0 20.0 3.5 26.0 44.0 24.3 5.7 25.7 46.4 23.3 4.628.9
44.0 22.9 4.2 20 43.4 41.4 11.6 3.5 30 29.8 46.0 22.2 2.0 40 17.2
51.2 26.1 5.4 50 15.8 45.8 31.5 6.9 60 30.8 41.4 23.7 4.0 : . 2011
30 42. . 24.3% . ( : %, ) 76.6 23.4 2.2 48.6 51.4 2.281.3
18.72.976.0 24.0 2.2 47.6 52.4 2.386.2 13.83.076.1 23.9 2.3 45.4
54.6 2.380.9 19.13.174.4 25.6 2.4 52.7 47.3 2.483.9 16.13.081.4
18.6 2.1 49.5 50.5 2.283.5 16.52.872.2 27.8 2.3 44.9 55.1 2.375.7
24.32.973.2 26.8 2.3 46.3 53.7 2.478.6 21.42.971.1 28.9 2.2 46.7
53.3 2.378.1 21.92.772.6 27.4 2.4 49.8 50.2 2.376.9 23.12.977.4
22.6 2.4 44.0 56.0 2.381.3 18.72.8 : . 2009 . 7.1% 43.7% . , . . 30
50 ,60 . 75% , 40 . 31 43. ( : %) 7.143.739.97.1 2.29.650.433.25.6
1.27.241.638.48.0 4.86.545.541.55.5 1.05.338.745.78.7 1.7
7.444.237.68.2 2.6 6.843.242.26.0 1.8 209.641.440.95.6 2.5
307.649.035.96.1 1.5 408.450.233.55.9 2.0 504.442.939.99.4 3.4
605.634.849.58.8 1.5 : . 2011 ( : %) 1.4 3.9 19.7 58.116.9 1.6 2.8
21.2 58.016.42.0 5.6 20.8 56.814.81.5 5.0 17.0 64.512.00.7 2.7 19.3
55.022.3 1.2 4.6 20.9 46.616.7 1.6 3.2 18.5 59.617.1 201.0 3.5 26.3
52.516.7 301.5 6.1 26.3 54.012.1 402.5 4.9 17.2 61.613.8 501.0 0.5
16.3 62.120.2 601.0 4.5 12.6 60.121.7 : . 2011 32 44. . 4. . 19% 2
. . (dominantfactor) . . ( : %) 2010 () () 100.0 28.8 5.1 6.0
5.615.40.8 7.0 5.7 21.1 4.3 0.2 100.0 32.2 4.8 6.0 4.216.10.9 7.6
4.7 19.3 4.1 0.1 100.0 25.6 4.5 5.7 5.118.71.1 7.1 5.6 20.8 5.4 0.3
100.0 24.1 5.4 6.9 5.516.70.8 6.3 5.5 24.2 4.4 0.2 100.0 31.2 4.0
6.5 4.514.70.6 7.4 5.0 22.0 4.0 0.1 100.0 20.1 4.4 7.7 4.314.51.2
9.8 6.5 22.9 8.3 0.4 100.0 20.5 5.3 7.3 4.915.30.8 6.5 6.5 29.5 3.4
0.1 100.0 26.0 4.3 7.2 5.718.80.9 6.9 4.0 21.7 4.4 0.2 100.0 29.9
3.8 5.3 5.115.40.4 8.2 5.7 21.8 4.3 0.2 100.0 38.2 6.9 5.5
4.310.30.9 5.1 6.3 18.4 4.0 0.2 100.0 27.7 5.4 6.9 6.414.40.5 7.6
5.9 21.1 3.9 0.2 100.0 29.0 4.4 6.6 11.7 11.91.3 3.7 6.2 21.6 3.4
0.4 100.0 19.0 6.0 8.0 6.417.21.9 6.8 9.7 19.6 5.5 0.1 100.0 26.4
4.9 5.9 6.512.31.1 5.9 8.1 23.8 4.9 0.1 100.0 26.8 8.4 5.9
9.914.30.7 6.2 6.5 17.7 3.5 0.1 100.0 32.6 8.4 5.3 5.614.90.8 3.5
5.6 19.7 3.5 0.2 100.0 24.9 7.9 6.0 6.911.50.6 6.8 6.4 23.4 5.4 0.2
: 33 45. 69.3% 79.0% . 95.2% 92.4% . 28% . (3.1%) . , . ( : %) 1.8
21.848.1 19.98.41.4 17.447.6 22.611.0 2.3 34.840.2 16.76.12.1
13.253.5 19.511.73.1 27.643.6 18.96.83.1 25.748.2 17.35.719.373.1
6.4 0.9 0.315.777.1 6.0 1.1 0.1 19.565.513.1 1.6 0.316.973.7 7.6
1.1 0.728.067.2 3.8 0.5 0.421.869.4 7.1 1.0 0.7 : . 2009 10 . 9.2%
. 22% . . (26%) . . 20 34 46. . 38% . ( : %) 0.822.3 18.049.7 9.2
1.216.4 21.250.810.4 0.820.8 18.450.4 9.6 0.526.0 17.050.5 6.0
0.726.0 15.747.710.0 0.818.7 22.748.8 9.0 0.825.9 13.350.6 9.4 20
1.517.7 38.437.9 4.5 30 0.518.2 19.755.1 6.6 40 0.523.2 15.851.2
9.4 50 1.522.7 9.9 54.711.3 60- 29.8 6.6 49.514.4 : . 2011 35 47. .
. 1. . . (2005) . (2009) . , 3 (2010) , . , . (2006) 30% . . . , .
.37 48. , . , () : , , , : , 2. . 10 47.6% , 10% . , 7.2% . 46%,
50%, 47.5%, 47%. . 50 40 . 40 , . . 38 49. . ( : %) 1.58.4 42.543.4
4.2 0.88.8 44.438.8 7.2 1.26.4 42.447.6 2.4 2.07.5 43.045.0 2.5
2.010.340.742.7 4.3 1.29.0 43.242.8 3.81.87.8 41.844.0 4.6 20
2.07.6 43.441.9 5.1 30 1.58.1 43.942.9 3.5 40 2.511.341.441.9 3.0
50 0.56.9 36.949.8 5.9 60 1.08.1 47.040.4 3.5 : . 2011 , . 70%
15.6%. 50-60, 30-40, 20 . 1/3 . . . . 2018 . .39 50. ( : %)
38.131.2 5.70.9 15.67.5 1.036.832.04.0 0.414.4 11.21.240.429.64.4
1.217.6 6.4 0.439.033.03.5 2.015.5 5.5 1.536.730.79.7 0.315.0 6.7
1.0 36.331.75.2 0.617.7 8.2 0.4 40.030.76.2 1.213.5 6.8 1.620 9.6
26.37.6 0.531.8 23.21.030 19.743.910.10.516.7 6.1 3.040 29.140.94.4
1.018.2 5.4 1.050 57.127.14.9 1.5 7.4 2.0-60 74.717.71.5 1.0 4.0
1.0- : . 2011 ( : %) . 10.457.332.3 10.0 58.4 31.6 9.652.0 38.4
15.0 57.0 28.0 8.361.0 30.7 12.2 56.2 31.78.658.4 32.9 207.146.5
46.5309.656.1 34.3408.456.2 35.55016.3 53.7 30.06010.6 74.2 15.2 :
. 2011 40 51. . < 4> / : 2004 2009 . : OECD OECD non-OECD . ,
: 2004 2009 , (2009) . : , ., , : . : . : . , . . , , , , (2005) .
. , , , . , . . 41 52. / , , . , . . . , . . ., 3 , (2010) . . 3 ,
. . . , . . 3 . IMD , , . , , , , NGO, . (WVS) , , . 2005 ( ) 1999
, (40). (2005) , (NGO ) 30 23(2007) . , . , 64% , 28% . . IMD . , .
, , 2005 IMD 36 (22),(28), (29) . 42 53. . / . : . . . . , , : . ,
. , : . . .(2010) : , . , . . , . , . , . . : , . , . . , , . 43
54. / , , , . . , , , , , . . (2011) , , . , . . , . , , . . . . .
. , . , , . . , (2007) . . , . , . , , , . , . , , . . . 44 55. . /
, OECD 29 22 OECD 22 (21) . , . , , , (2009) , , . 8.29(1) 7.60(2)
7.33(9) 9.65(1)7.10(8) 5.70(22) 5.21(24) 5.19(22)6.00(13)
5.77(22)()OECD 6.186.325.99 6.31 : , , , . . ( ) , , , , . . , ( ,
, ) . : 5 , (2006) . 1 0.39 3 1 , , 1 2.19 . , . : 29.5% , 17.7% .
.45 56. . . 1. , . . . ? 2018 . ? . . . 2018 . . . 88 1988 10 87% .
. .47 57. 88 : 34.4% : 52.8% : 7.6% : 5.2% : 40.6% : 47.4% 4.1%23.7
44.6 17.6 7.41.3 21.3% 52.0 58.7 30.0 29.3 7.3 * 100 . , , , , : ,
, (, 1989.3), 59-115 2018 . . 88 (79.1%) . 1998 32,579 , 84% . .
2018 . . - , . 48 58. . ()(%) (%) 10,38831.9 7,769 23.8: 83.6 : 0.2
6,993 21.5 : 0.2 : 11.6 : 1.3 : 2.6 3,628 11.1 : 0.1 : 0.1 3,801
11.7 : 0.1 : 0.2 32,579100.0 : , , ( 123), 118 2018 . . . . 18 . .
. . 18 . . . . . . 49 59. 2. 2.1. . . . .2) < > Great
Gangwon, Great People : Great Gangwon, Good Community : Great
Gangwon, Green Economy : 3 . 1 GREAT PEOPLE . (citizenship)3) . , .
. 2 . GOOD COMMUNITY , , , 2) (2011-2020)(2011. 12) .3) : , , 50
60. . , . . 3 GREEN ECONOMY . . 3 . GREAT PEOPLEGOOD COMMUNITY
GREEN ECONOMY . . . 51 61. 2.2. . . . . . . (2010) 15 () (%)(%)
()()(%) 1,189685 50457.6 56.12.6 580393 18767.8 65.82.9 610292
31847.9 46.92.1 15-1996591 4.84.46.3 20-291479057 61.0 57.5 (6)
30-39198149 49 75.4 73.9 2.4 40-49241186 55 77.2 75.9 (8)
50-59219149 71 67.8 66.3 1.2 60- 288107 18237.0 36.2 (3)
15-64973617 35763.4 61.7 15-241623712522.9 21.6 - 15-292439414938.8
36.51.3 526226 30043.0 42.4 (3) 3.1 397259 13865.2 63.2 (8) 3.0
266200 66 75.2 72.9(6) : KOSIS 52 62. . 2010 685 393, 292. 47.9%(
46.9%) . 30-50 68%- 75% 60 37% . . . . . . . 2018 . SNS , 2018 , .
. . .2.3. . . . . . . . 53 63. ( ) . , . . . . . SNS . . :
(Yoshinori Shiozawa)(Kazuyuki Konagaya) (2007.), , ( : ), p. 30 .
54 64. . . . . . . , , (lifelong, life wide, and life deep) . . .
.4) (personal& societal barriers). . . , (financial barriers).
. . . , (geographic barriers). . (management barriers). . ,
(vision, mission & identitybarriers). , . . (, ) . .4) Judith
Chapman et al ed.(2006), Lifelong Learning, Participation and
equity, (Springer)55 65. 2.4. , . . . . , . , , . . . , .2.5. . . .
. . , . 56 66. . 2011. . 1996. . 2009. . . 2005. . . . 2010. : 3 .
. 2004. . . . 2010. . . . 2007. . . 2009. . . 2006. (). . 2001. . .
2005. . . 2009. . . 2011. . 35 . 1997. . . 2007. . Coleman, James
S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.American
Journal of Sociology 94 Lin, Nan. 1999. Social Networks and Status
Attainment. Annual Review ofSociology 25 Putnam, Robert D. (1995).
Turning in, Turning out : The Strange Disappearance of Social
Capital in America. Political Science and Politics 28 57 67.
Abstract AbstractA Preliminary Study on a Link of the Winter
Olympics and Social Capital AccumulationRyum Don-minThis study
examines public opinions on the formation of the nature of
socialcapital in Gangwon Province for the successful hosting of the
Winter Olympics,and the methods of accumulation of the social
capital after the sports event.This study is not intended to
establish and measure a social capital indexsystem that is suitable
for Gangwon Province, but is merely a preliminary studyfor a future
full-fledged study.According to the survey of employment demand
conducted by RIG in October2011, topping the list of responses at
45.6% is The games will be helpful forregional developments, but
not that much. It appears that their assurancesignificantly
weakened in comparison with that of hosting campaign period. Nexton
the list at 31.3% was the event would be of little helpful. Most
(48.4%) ofthose who lived farthermost from the host city said the
event would be of no use.Previous research studies on the social
capital showed that public confidencein the private sector
outweighs that in the public sector. Particularly in
GangwonProvince, public confidence in the neighborhood and the
private sector is high,whereas public confidence in mass media and
in civil groups and organizationsis lowest. These seem relevant to
the lower participation of the residents in 59 68. issues in the
said region. In a study that compared social capital in
Korea,Japan, and China, social capital in Korea was higher than in
Japan and China interms of a closed network with the neighborhood,
but lower in terms of anopen network. Still in Korea, vertical
participation in bloodline and academic tieswas high, but
horizontal participation in social groups and organizations,
low.The results for Gangwon Province were similar: 62% showed no
interest injoining organizations or associations, and half of those
who joined groupsshowed little activity. In terms of law abidance,
64% of the respondents saidthey observed the law, 34% said others
did, and 38% said people areincreasingly not observing the law.
What is noteworthy is that their level ofnational insecurity is
extremely high due to their geographical characteristics.Moreover,
having less favored areas such as border and mining areas seems
toaffect the overall formation of residents consciousness and
social structure. Theresidents seemed relatively open to foreigners
and people with multinationalbackgrounds.To accumulate social
capital in Gangwon Province, the first priority should bethe
formation of visions and communal values. Social capital may
contribute tothe attainment of communal goals, but it is maximized
when communal goalsare simultaneously sought. To raise social
capital, it is most important to seek avision and values that
everyone is required to help achieve. As theaforementioned survey
on the residents demonstrated, some residents do notconsider the
Winter Olympics useful to the concerned area. At present,
thevisions and communal values of Gangwon Province should concern
its hostingof the 2018 Pyongchang Winter Olympic Games. This should
lead to theprovinces successful hosting of the event, and to its
further communaldevelopment.To formulate the Winter Olympics
communal values and vision, the concertedefforts of the 18 cities
and counties in the province are required. The 60 69.
Abstractestablishment of cooperation such as through administrative
associations andcivil groups and organizations is urgently needed.
Through this, mutualunderstanding and cooperation, as well as
measures for connection, can bepromoted. In the course of the said
process, Gangwon plays a critical role. Thisis because the
concerned 18 cities and counties are in charge of creating
andimplementing specific projects for innovation and development
for the sportsevent. Furthermore, civil groups and the mass media
also play important roles.As shown in the previous survey, these
groups scored lower in terms of publicconfidence. This seems to
have been due to their generally low connection withthe residents.
In forming communal values and visions for the residents, the
roleof the mass media and civil groups is more important than that
of any othergroup. Their pro-activeness will serve as an important
pivot in their building upof the communitys confidence and trust in
them. Specific tasks to promote social capital accumulation include
the formation ofan open network, the promotion of civil
participation and nurturing of talents inthe region, and
invigoration of life-long learning. The Olympic Games serves asa
window to the world. To prepare for it, breaking free from a closed
networkand forming an open network is more necessary than anything
else. This studysuggests the promotion of a win-win spirit in the
governance of the Gangwonresidents through the establishment of the
Great Gangwon Movement. Moreover, it would not be exaggerated to
say that nurturing local talentsshould be the starting point of the
creation of social capital. Renewedknowledge accumulation or
innovation in the era of knowledge and theeconomy has the
characteristics of accumulated creation. This never occurs inareas
that fall behind in the world, where innovation and renewed
knowledgeare desperately lacking. Accordingly, in the era of a
knowledge-based economy,polarization between regions has deepened,
which is a phenomenon called theRegional Innovation Paradox. The
said paradox also accelerates brain drain in 61 70. underdeveloped
countries in favor of relatively developed regions. Given
thesecircumstances, it is more and more challenging to nurture
talents and socialcapital accumulation. Measures to revitalize
life-long learning in communitiesthrough systematic talent
nurturing have significant ramifications in the processof social
capital accumulation. 62 71. A Preliminary Study on a Link of the
Winter Olympics and Social Capital Accumulation
