지역경제발전이라는 목표 하에서 기업의 지방투자 활성화를 고려한다면, 이러 한 정책방안 외에도 산업구조 변화 등 여건변화에 탄력적으로 대응할 수 있는 다양한 정책수단을 마련하고 종합적인 지원체계를 구축하는 것이 중요하다.48) 그리고 중앙정부는 범부처적으로 협력하되, 지방분권화에 맞춰 단계적으로 기업 지원시책을 지자체 중심으로 집행될 수 있도록 함으로써 지역과 지역 소재 기업 의 요구에 맞는 정책을 추진할 수 있게 해야 한다.
셋째, 지자체의 해당 지역 경제발전을 위한 기업투자 지원정책을 보완하는 정 책수단 확보에도 기여할 것이다. 지자체가 한정된 예산 범위 내에서 경제발전을 위해 추진하고 있는 기업투자 활성화 노력(역외기업 유치 및 역내기업 창업․확 장 투자 지원)이 성과를 얻을 수 있게 보완할 수 있는 정책수단을 중앙정부 차원 에서 제공할 수 있을 것이다.
마지막으로, 중앙정부 및 지자체 예산의 효율적 집행에 기여할 것이다. 지역경 제발전이라는 목표 하에서 기업의 지방투자 활성화를 위한 재정․조세 지원의 적절한 방향을 제시함으로써 중앙정부 예산뿐만 아니라 지자체 예산도 효율적으 로 집행하게 할 수 있다.
R ․ E ․ F ․ E ․ R ․ E ․ N ․ C ․ E
참 고 문 헌
김용웅․차미숙․강현수.「지역발전론」. 한울아카데미.
민범식․장철순. 2003년.「수도권 대기업공장 지방이전촉진을 위한 이전적지 활용방안 연구」. 국토연구원.
박재곤․이원빈. 2005년.「기업의 지방투자실태와 활성화방안」. 산업연구원.
변필성. 2009년.「지방기업 육성을 위한 벤처캐피탈 활용방안」(Working Paper).
국토연구원.
산업자원부. 2008년.「지방자치단체의 지방이전기업유치에 대한 국가의 재정자금지원 기준(산업자원부 고시 제2008-6호)」.
산업자원부. 2008년.「2008년도 산업기반자금 기본계획(산업자원부 고시 제2008-18호)」.
산업자원부․한국산업기술평가원. 2007년.「2007년도 지역혁신사업안내」.
양지청. 2001년.「지역발전을 위한 지원실태와 정책과제」. 국토연구원.
중소기업청. 2008년.「중소기업 창업투자보조금사업 운영요령(중소기업청 고시 제 2008-59호)」.
중소기업청. 2008년.「2009년도 중소기업청 소관 중소기업 정책자금 융자 계획(공고번 호 제2008-174호)」.
지식경제부. 2009년.「지방자치단체의 지방이전기업유치에 대한 국가의 재정자금 지원 기준(지식경제부 고시 제2008-239호)」.
최용호․변세일. 2002년. 지방중소기업 육성을 위한 지역혁신체계 구축방안.「지방자 치연구」. 제6집. pp. 89-108. 경북대학교 지방자치연구소.
Almeida Capital. 2005. A Mapping Study of Venture Capital Provision to SMEs
in England. Small Business Service.
Blomström, Magnus, Ari Koko & Steven Globerman. 2001. The determinants of host country spillvoers from foreign direct investment: a review and synthesis of the literature. in Nigel Pain (ed). Inward Investment, Technological Change and Growth: The Impact of Multinational Corporations on the UK Economy. Palgrave: pp. 34-65.
Capello, Roberta. 2008. Space and Theoretical Approaches to Regional Growth, in Roberta Capello, Roberto Camgni, Barbara Chizzolini & Ugo Fratesi.
Modelling Regional Scenarios for the Enlarged Europe: European Competitiveness and Global Strategies. Springer-Verlag: pp. 13-31.
Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform. 2008a. Grant for Business Investment: Application Form.
Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform. 2008b. Grant for Business Investment: Guidelines.
Driffield, Nigel, Max Munday, & Annette Roberts. 2004. Inward investment, trasaction linkages and productivity spillovers. Papers in Regional Science 83: pp. 699-722.
Driffield, Nigel. 2004. Regional Policy and Spillovers from FDI in the UK.
Annals of Regional Science 38: pp. 579-594.
Florida, Richard & Martin Kenney. 1988. Venture Capital, High Technology and Regional Development. Regional Studies 22(1): pp. 33-48.
Fritsch, Michael. 2008. How does new business formation affect regional development? Introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics 30(1): 1-14.
Harrison, Richard T. & Colin M. Mason. 2000. Editorial: the role of the public sector in the development of a regional venture capital industry. Venture Capital 2(4): pp. 243-253.
Heger Diana, Andreas Fier & Gordon Murray. 2005. Review Essay: Regional Venture Capital Policy: UK and Germany Compared. Venture Capital 7(4):
pp. 373-383.
Mason Colin M. & Richard T. Harrison. 2003. Closing the Regional Equity Gap?
A Critique of the Department of Trade and Industry's Regional Venture Capital Funds Initiative. Regional Studies 37(8): pp. 855-868.
Morgan, Kevin. 1997. The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies 31(5): pp. 491-503.
Martin, Ron & Peter Sunley. 1998. Slow Convergence? The New Endogenous Growth Theory and Regional Development. Economic Geography 74(2):
pp. 201-227.
Pain, Nigel. 2001. The growth and impact of inward investment in the UK:
introduction and overview. in Nigel Pain (ed). Inward Investment, Technological Change and Growth: The Impact of Multinational Corporations on the UK Economy. Palgrave: pp. 1-33.
Pike, Andy, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, & John Tomaney. Local and Regional Development. Routledge: pp. 153-252.
Simmie, James & Juliet Carpenter. 2008. Towards an Evolutionary and Endogenous Growth Theory Explanation of Why Regional and Urban Economies in England are Diverging. Planning, Practice & Research 23(1):
pp. 101-124.
Stough, Roger R. 2001. Endogenous Growth Theory and the Role of Institutions in Regional Economic Development, in Börje Johansson, Charlie Karlsson &
Roger R. Stough (eds) Theories of Endogenous Regional Growth: Lessons for Regional Policies. Springer: pp. 17-48.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the First Minister of the First Minister of Scotland, & the First Minister of Wales. 2007. Industrial Development Act 1982: An Annual Report. London: The Stationery Office.
The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the First Minister of Scotland, & the First Minister of Wales. 2008. Industrial Development Act 1982: An Annual Report. London: The Stationery Office.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the First Minister of Scotland, & the First Minister of Wales. 2009. Industrial Development Act 1982: An Annual Report. London: The Stationery Office.
Vázquez-Barquero, Antonio. 1999. Inward investment and endogenous development. The convergence of the strategies of large firms and territories?
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11: pp. 79-93.
Vázquez-Barquero, Antonio. 2002. Endogenous Development: Networking, innovation, institutions and cities. New York: Routledge.
기획재정부 보도자료 2008년 12월 15일(「지역경제활성화 대책」발표).
지식경제부 보도자료 2009년 1월 2일(기업지방이전 보조금 대폭 지원 시행).
지식경제부 보도자료 2008년 12월 31일(새해, 지방기업에 대한 고용보조금 지원 확대).
행정안전부 보도자료 2009년 9월 16일(’10년부터 지방소비세․지방소득세 도입).
중소기업조사통계시스템 홈페이지 http://stat2.smba.go.kr/index.jsp
일본 경제산업성 지역경제산업그룹. 2008.「기업입지를 통한 지역활성화를 향하여(企 業立地を通じた地域活性化に向けて)」.
Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013(Official Journal C54, 04.03.2006, pp. 13-45)
The Assisted Areas Order 2007(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/uksi_20070107_en.pdf 에서 구득 가능)
유럽투자기금(European Investment Fund) 홈페이지 http://www.eif.org
영국 Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform 홈페이지 http://www.berr.gov.uk
영국 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 홈페이지 http://www.bis.gov.uk
일본 시즈오카시 홈페이지 http://www.city.shizuoka.jp 일본 경제산업성 홈페이지 http://www.meti.go.jp http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/nuts.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVQ
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/2007/jjj/doc/pdf/jeremie_mou_signed.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/2007/jjj/doc/pdf/jeremie_info_note.pdf
S ․ U ․ M ․ M ․ A ․ R ․ Y
SUMMARY
Promotion of Firm Investment for the Local/Regional
Economic Development outside the Capital Region of Korea
Pillsung Byun, Sehil Byeon, and Dong-Woo Lee
This study deals with promotion of firm investment for local/regional economic development. Especially, our work focuses on the Korean government's financial supports (e.g. grant, tax exemption or relief) to foster inward investment and business start-up/expansion outside the Capital Region of Korea(henceforth, CRK) given the context of local/regional economic development. Importantly, the work discusses the following two issues: (1) how the Korean government can efficiently and effectively support the inward investment by exogenous firms (including the CRK-based enterprises) which has the high likelihood of contributing to economic development of the localities/regions outside the CRK and; (2) how the national government can intensively support creation/expansion of the innovation-based indigenous enterprises that have high growth potential and likely lead innovation to the economic development of such localities/regions.
Given these two research issues, we conduct (1) theoretical exploration and literature review of local/regional economic development and firm investment, (2) critical examination of the Korean
government's policy measures to elevate firm investment in the localities/regions outside the CRK, (3) review of the related policy tools for business investment in UK, EU, and Japan, and (4) questionnaire surveys of firms and interviews with experts in Korea.
The theoretical exploration and literature review discusses the theories of endogenous growth as well as inward investment, in the context of local/regional economic development and firm investment.
Additionally, the theoretical portion of this research critically explores existing studies on the enterprise investment for the local/regional economic development outside the CRK.
The Korean government's policy measures our study examines include development of industrial infrastructure, organization of local/regional governance for reinforcing innovation capacity, and financial supports for the CRK-based firms moving outward and the indigenous enterprises starting up and expanding their business projects outside the CRK. Particularly, we discuss the limitations of these policy tools, in terms of the firm investment for local/regional economic development.
This research also reviews related policy measures of UK, EU, and Japan: the Grant for Business Investment(GBI) and the Regional Venture Capital Funds(RVCFs) in UK, the Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises Initiatives(JEREMIE) in EU, and the law for promotion of business location the Japanese government implements.
GBI intends to raise inward investment in the Assisted Areas which consist of disadvantaged localities. RVCFs where UK government is involved facilitate the start-up/expansion investment of selected small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs) within individual regions, by making equity investment in and then providing specialized assistances to such region-based SMEs. JEREMIE seeks to financially and institutionally strengthen the financial intermediaries' capacity of supplying various investment resources to SMEs. The Japanese law for promoting business location is a policy measure to foster firm investment
in localities/regions in the financial and institutional terms.
The questionnaire surveys of this study target the firms that have started up their businesses in Gwangju Metropolitan City and Gyeongbuk Province since 3 to 10 years ago. The surveys also encompass the enterprises that have relocated to or made new investment in the Provinces of Gangwon, Chungbuk, Chungnam, and Jeonbuk. Moreover, we conduct the interviews with such experts as local/regional government officials and specialists affiliated with business support organizations, who are involved in the firm investment in localities/regions outside the CRK. The interviews as well as the surveys are undertaken, primarily in accordance with the two research issues of this study.
On the basis of the literature and policy reviews, surveys, and interviews, our work suggests the following shifts in the Korean government's policy measures in order to efficiently and effectively promote the inward investment and indigenous firms' start-up/expansion in the localities/regions outside the CRK. More significantly, these suggestions concern the research issues presented earlier in this research.
First, the national government should concentrate grants and tax incentives on the inward investment of exogenous firms which has the high likelihood of contributing to local/regional economic development.
Given this principle, the government should specify criteria of the inward investment that likely improve the concerned local/regional economies outside the CRK, and further make the criteria in the form of a policy guideline. Such a guideline could present the following significant criteria: new/subsequently expanded investment by an exogenous firm, net employment creation, relocation investment by a large enterprise and related contracting firms, simultaneous/successive installation of production and R&D facilities, and linkage of an exogenous firm to a host local/regional economy. Using the guideline, the national government likely heighten efficiency and effectiveness of such policy
tools as grants and tax incentives.
However, the Korean government's related ongoing financial measures do not consider contribution of exogenous firms to concerned local/regional economies. The government currently provide grants and tax incentives to CRK-based enterprises moving to the localities/regions beyond the CRK, mainly for the purpose of spatially dispersing such firms outward across the national territory.
Second, the national government should concentrate financial resources on the innovation-based indigenous firms with high growth potential, in order to facilitate the start-up/expansion of such firms which likely expand and enhance the local/regional economies outside the CRK. This suggestion encompasses rise in the total sum and duration of the government's grants and tax incentives for the promising indigenous enterprises which are at the stages of growth as well as of start-up, considering that the current financial measures do not take such growth-stage firms into sufficient account. Simultaneously, the suggestion should be involved in reorganization of the existing local/regional governance for business support or operation of the government-backed venture capital fund with a regional focus, for the purpose of efficiently and effectively using the government's financial resources for local/regional economic development.
The reorganization of the local/regional governance for business support should pursue coordination and allocation of specialized roles among the business support organizations (e.g. Techno-parks, RICs) which are mostly financed by the national government. In case the coordination and allocation is completed, each organization can intensively assist growth of promising firms belonging to its own allocated field by providing more specialized services to the firms.
However, the business support organizations, which are mostly government-financed and run at the local/regional level, currently tend to increase the number of assisted firms across multiple fields, using limited financial resources.
As shown in RVCFs, such region-based venture capital funds can efficiently and effectively facilitate start-up/expansion investment of indigenous enterprises favourable to relevant local/regional economies.
The national government undertakes equity investment in such funds and a selected private venture capital firm operates the funds' investment capital at discretion for the maximum profit. Since such venture capital funds retrieve capital invested in the firms whose growth potential is high in order to realistically secure profits, it can recycle the government's financial resources invested in the funds' equities.
Moreover, the venture capital firm as a fund manger usually possesses the specialized capacity of searching the firms with sufficient growth potential to invest in and intensively assisting growth of invested firms under the principle of profit maximization.
￭ Key Words _ Inward Investment, Business Start-Up/Expansion, Local/Regional Economic Development, Financial Support
A ․ P ․ P ․ E ․ N ․ D ․ I ․ X
부록
<부록 1> 기업의 지방투자와 지방의 경제발전 추이
우리나라 기업의 지방투자와 지방의 경제발전 관련 지표와 관련하여 비수도권 (지방)의 사업체수 추이와 비중(1994년～2006년)을 살펴본 결과, 수도권과 지방 각각의 사업체수는 증가추세를 보였다. 그러나 수도권의 전국 비중이 매년 증가 하여 2006년에는 46.7%에 이르고 있다. 이것은 수도권과 지방간에 기업투자격차 가 심화되었을 가능성을 제시한다.
(단위: 개사, %)
연도 사업체수 비중
전국 수도권 비수도권 수도권 비수도권
1994년 2,518,454 1,115,912 1,402,542 44.3 55.7 1995년 2,771,068 1,234,976 1,536,092 44.6 55.4 1996년 2,807,802 1,244,867 1,562,935 44.3 55.7 1997년 2,853,673 1,255,554 1,598,119 44.0 56.0 1998년 2,785,659 1,215,981 1,569,678 43.7 56.3 1999년 2,927,330 1,290,917 1,636,413 44.1 55.9 2000년 3,013,417 1,350,089 1,663,328 44.8 55.2 2001년 3,046,554 1,378,856 1,667,698 45.3 54.7 2002년 3,131,963 1,429,546 1,702,417 45.6 54.4 2003년 3,187,916 1,471,771 1,716,145 46.2 53.8 2004년 3,189,890 1,475,483 1,714,407 46.3 53.7 2005년 3,204,809 1,492,099 1,712,710 46.6 53.4 2006년 3,226,569 1,507,958 1,718,611 46.7 53.3 자료 : 국가통계포털(http://www.kosis.kr)
<부표 1-1> 사업체수 추이와 비중(1994년～2006년)
100 150 200 250 300 350
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 연도
사업체수 (단위: 만개)
전국
수도권 비수도권
<부도 1-1> 사업체수 추이(1994년～2006년)
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 연도
비중
수도권 비수도권
<부도 1-2> 사업체수 비중(1994년～2006년)
창업 관련 자료가 부족해서 신규 부가가치 사업자수의 추이(1995년～2006년) 를 고찰한 결과, 2002년부터 매년 신규 부가가치 사업자수가 비수도권에서 보다 수도권에서 더 많았다. 수도권의 전국비중은 2006년에 53.4%에 도달하였다. 이상 의 결과로부터 수도권과 비수도권 간에 창업격차 심화에 따른 누적적 경제발전 격차의 가능성을 간접적으로 예상할 수 있다.
(단위: 명, %)
연도
사업자수 비중
전국 수도권 비수도권 수도권 비수도권
1995년 509,784 227,695 282,089 44.7 55.3 1996년 486,069 213,387 272,682 43.9 56.1 1997년 706,320 364,972 341,348 51.7 48.3 1998년 580,880 267,702 313,178 46.1 53.9 1999년 990,480 474,787 515,693 47.9 52.1 2000년 1,015,424 493,308 522,116 48.6 51.4 2001년 1,072,489 533,701 538,788 49.8 50.2 2002년 1,239,370 652,879 586,491 52.7 47.3 2003년 1,006,779 512,156 494,623 50.9 49.1 2004년 884,932 458,132 426,800 51.8 48.2 2005년 880,716 465,155 415,561 52.8 47.2
2006년 1,010,360 539,131 471,229 53.4 46.6 자료 : 국세통계연보, 각년도, 중소기업조사통계시스템(http://stat2.smba.go.kr/index.jsp)
<부표 1-2> 신규 부가가치 사업자수와 비중(1995년～2006년)