지역특화발전특구의 활성화에 관한 연구

A Study on the Vitalization of Special Local Development Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;This study is aimed at both investigating current Special Local Development Zone(SLDZ) designated since September 2004 and analyzing the results of evaluation undertaken by the central government. Another attempt is also made to recommend a few guidelines for vitalizing SLDZs. The incumbent government has continued to emphasize more balanced national development since its inception in 2003. One of such policies includes the introduction of SLDZs focusing on various deregulation to be applied in local development. The concept of SLDZ was likely based on the Special Zone for Structural Reform in Japan and, to a less extent, the Enterprise Zone in Great Britain.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;As of July 2007, 87 SLDZs were designated across the country. The SLDZs are classified into 6 types: local embedded resources promotion(43 zones); tourism·resorts(13 zones); education(10 zones); circulation·logistics(9 zones); medical·social welfare(6 zones); and industry·R&amp;D(6 zones). By region, North Gyeongsang Province has the most 17 SLDZs, followed by 12 zones in North Jeolla Province, 10 zones in North Chungcheong Province and South Gyeongsang Province, respectively, 9 zones in South Jeolla Province, and so on. On the contrary, Seoul and Ulsan have only one zone, respectively. It appears that less developed provinces have more SLDZs than more developed provinces and large metropolises.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the evaluation of SLDZs, Sunchang(fermented hot paste industry), Gochang(cherry industry), Busan Haeundae(convention industry), Wonju(high-technology medical health industry), Gokseong(train village), and Geumsan(ginseng health) were well operated, and they contributed to vitalize regional economy including the increase of production capacity, job opportunities and value added. However, a few SLDZs such as Iksan(herbal medical R&amp;D zone) and Jeju(clean natural environmental protection zone) were turned out to be less successful than expected.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;A few recommendations can be made on the basis of their performances. First, it is necessary that not only the SLDZs could be more diversified so that various local endowed tangible resources can be fully utilized, but they have to be also carried out in small scale in the initial stage to minimize the cost in case of failure. Second, the attempt of deregulation should be extended toward nationwide in order to attract robust private investment in regional development, if the side-effects of deregulation are minimal in terms of pursuing sustainable self-reliant localization. In particular, the deregulation in land uses may bring about more positive impact on the vitalization of regional economy. Third, financial resources at the central level must be increased to assist local governments, which are generally lack of investment funds, in promoting the SLDZs. In addition, local governments are required to make more endeavors to attract private enterprises in such zones, which needs a strong administrative and business-minded leadership by the head of local government.