수도권과 비수도권의 상생발전전략에 관한 연구

A Study on Symbiotic Development Strategies of the Capital Region and the Rest of the Country: The Application of Region-wide Economic Unit

This paper is aimed at both investigating the concept and ne5cessity of the so-called region-wide economic unit emerged as a new paradigm for regional development in the era of glocalization, and applying this concept for Korea to promote more balanced regional development between the Capital Region and the rest of the country, and, at the same time, to strengthen the national competitiveness. Another attempt is also made to recommend development strategies for designated region-wide economic spatial units(RESUs) in Korea. Many argued that new promising and potential-possessed regions across the national territorial boundary are needed to be merged and integrated as economic agglomeration hubs to enhance their international competitiveness. For example, the concept of region-states, city-regions, super-regions and even mega-regions has been raised since the early 1990s by some experts. Based on such suggestions, Great Britain divided England into 9 region-wide spatial units and established their corresponding Regional Development Agencies(RDAs) as the implementing bodies. France also divided its territory into 6 super-regions, while Japan fixed 8 region-wide local development zones regardless of existing administrative boundary for the purpose of establishing the national territorial plan in 2006. The Korean government also announced that the country would be divided into 5+2 region-wide economic spatial units in order to create competitive region in corresponding to the era of globalization in July 2008. The 5 RESUs include the Capital Region, the Chungcheong Region, the Honam Region, the Daegyeong Region and the Dongnam Region, while the 2 special RESUs are the Gangwon Region and the Jeju Region. Each RESU is thus required to promote leading growth centers, propulsive industries, region-wide industrial clusters and infrastructure facilities, and pioneering projects based on RESU's inherent characteristics, endowed resources and development potential in accomplishing such strategy. Furthermore, it is essential that region-wide governance system should be set up to overcome conflicts and troubles among relevant local governments within each RESU, and thereby bring about mutual cooperation and compromise in its development plan. Second, financial resources should be secured to carry out successfully the proposed development projects. They may include the increase of the Special Account on Balanced National Development, the expansion of central government's block grant, the reform of local taxation system, and so on. In particular, the investment contracts between central government and each RESU is likely to be applied for implementing the large-scale and long-term pioneering projects in a consistent way. Third, it is strongly recommended that central government's differentiated financial assistance depending upon the level of regional development is needed to converge regional disparities between the Capital Region and the rest of the country, and even among RESUs. Fourth, relatively depressed urban and rural areas in each RESU are required a special attention to accelerate their self-reliant development. The so-called new-vitalizing projects undertaken in 70 cities and counties since 2005 should be thus continued to strengthen their development potentials by furnishing more financial grant and administrative assistance based on the monitoring and evaluation of projects.