문화체육관광부. 2012. 지역 공공문화기반시설 운영실태 분석 및 평가 연구.
_____________. 2012. 문화향유 실태조사.
_____________. 2013. 전국 문화기반시설 총람.
손정렬. 2011. “새로운 도시성장 모형으로서 네트워크 도시”. 대한지리학회지 제46권 제2호: 181-196.
오병록. 2012. “생활권 이론과 생활권계획 실태 분석 연구: 도시기본계획에서의 생활권계 획을 중심으로”. 서울도시연구 13(4): 1-20.
우양호. 2008. “공공서비스 관리이론의 한국적 적실성에 관한 비교연구: 신공공관리론과 신공공서비스론을 중심으로”. 지방정부연구 제12권 제2호: 249-273.
이석환. 2013. “지방공공서비스 공급상의 규모의 경제와 지방정부의 적정 인구규모”.
한국행정논집 제25권 제3호: 821-846.
이현국ㆍ이민아. 2014. “공공서비스 성과인식과 행복”. 한국행정학보 48(2): 293-315.
임석희. 1998(5). “크리스탈러의 중심지이론”. 국토연구원 국토 통권 199호: 80-85.
지역발전위원회. 2010. 기초생활권 중심지 계층별 적정 서비스 공급방안 연구.
_____________. 2012. 공공자원이 공동경영을 위한 지역파트너십 구축.
_____________. 2014. 생활권 선도사업 실태분석 및 개선방안(중간보고자료).
_____________. 2014. 지역문화융성 활성화 방안 연구(최종보고자료).
한경원. 2009(9). “지역 간 협력이론과 지역개발정책 시사점” 대한지리학회 학술심포지엄 발표자료.
행정안전부. 2008. 지역생활여건 개선 사업추진 기본계획 마련연구.
행정자치부ㆍ한국보건복지인력개발원. 2007. 주민통합서비스실현을 위한 민-관 협력체 계 모형 개발.
황수연. 2011. “지방 행정, 기초단체 존치시켜야”. 자유기업원 2012년 정책제안.
Batten, David F. 1995. “Network Cities: Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21st Century.” Urban Studies. Vol.32 No.2: 313-327.
일본 국토교통성. 2013년도 광역적 지역간 공동 추진사업-사례집.
일본 무라카미ㆍ이와후네, 무라카미(村上)ㆍ이와후네(岩船) 지역진흥에 대하여.
www.pref.niigata.lg.jp.
일본 북부광역 시정촌권 사무조합. 2013년도 얀바루 관광제휴 추진사업 실시보고서.
일본 재단법인 토호쿠 산업활성화센터. 문화유산 광역관광 제휴 프로젝트 조사보고서.
일본 총무성. 전국 정주자립권 추진상황. http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000317173.pdf.
일본 총무성. 정주자립권구상의 앞으로의 올바른 방향에 관한 연구회 최종보고서.
http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000282734.pdf.
일본 총무성. 정주자립권 구상추진요강의 개요. http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000287763.pdf.
일본 쓰야마시. 예술문화교류 도시제휴 사업. http://www.city.tsuyama.lg.jp/.
브리태니커: http://britannica.co.kr/.
위키피디아: http://ko.wikipedia.org/.
지역발전위원회: http://www.region.go.kr/.
통계청 국가통계포털: http://kosis.kr/.
한밭레츠: http://www.tjlets.or.kr/
S U M M A R Y
SUMMARY
Keywords: Regional Development Policy, Hope Area, Cultural services
Since the government announced the new regional development policy, called the HOPE(Happiness, Opportunity, Partnership and Everywhere) Project, on July 18th, 2013, it has tried to gather various opinions from many different people and groups and spread its policy to the regional levels. The HOPE Project includes the government’s message and commitment to strongly push ahead with the policy and to generate tangible achievements that people can recognize and feel in their life. Many local governments signed agreement with their neighbors on the basis of the government’s guideline, and finally 56 HOPE Areas were made all over the country. Now they are about to drive forward with individual plans that has a purpose to improve local residents’ quality of life together.
Focusing on cultural services which are provided by public bodies, the study aims to analyze various aspects of the HOPE Area’s conditions, to survey similar foreign cases that are providing cultural services through interregional cooperation, and to suggest policy directions for effective provision of cultural services at the HOPE Area and some useful policy measures and examples on the basis of the findings. The main methods employed in this study to achieve research purposes
are statistical analysis, survey and case study. The statistical analysis is mainly carried with the latest population data from KOSIS, the comprehensive survey reports and government documents from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. The survey is performed with 118 experts, who are public officials and researchers in charge related to the plans of HOPE Area by email and telephone.
And the case study are conducted with Japanese similar cases.
From the main findings, the study proposes four policy measures with some examples that help the allied local governments to go ahead with their plans of HOPE Area and to provide cultural services effectively: 1) the jointly operation and planning of their existing cultural facilities to overcome the difficulty of local finance and the shortage of professional manpower and to provide cultural services that can meet local residents’ needs; 2) the building of system and network to exchange manpower in culture and art between cities and rural areas in order to allow the whole of society to enjoy its cultural services and the job creation of elders; 3) the development of cultural contents and programs, such as the co-use of libraries, the currency system of cultural talent and resource, the shop to lend expensive musical instruments and teaching materials and to share exhibition and recital skills and experience for a small service fee by which residents can actively participate in various cultural chances; and 4) the organization of regular events and festivals to assist residents and amateur clubs in the HOPE Area to show and exchange their talents with each other. All of these will contribute to the cultural enrichment which is one of national policy orientations.
There are few studies that deal with cultural services in the HOPE Area. It means it is not easy to generalize the findings. This study may have some limits to find out possible policy implications as well. Even so, the attempt may be able to provide useful suggestions to public authorities seeking for the desirable ways to provide various cultural services effectively.
A P P E N D I X
부록
<부록1> 54개 생활권별 문화기반시설 분포도
□ 중추도시생활권 내 개별 생활권의 문화기반시설 분포도
□ 도농연계생활권 내 개별 생활권의 문화기반시설 분포도
□ 농어촌생활권 내 개별 생활권의 문화기반시설 분포도
<부록2>
『지역행복생활권 단위 문화서비스의 효과적 공급방안 』연구를 위한