SUMMARY
A Study on the Institutional Promotion of Interregional Cooperation in Territorial Development
Won-Sup Lee, Ha-Baek Yang, Ok-Ju Jeong, In-Kwon Park
This is the last year study of a three years long research project on the collaborative regional development strategy for an integrated national territory. The first year study focused on the cooperation between the Seoul capital region and the non-capital region, while the second year study focused on the detailed examination of the mechanism of nine interregional cooperation projects. The objective of this year research is to propose institutional foundation that can promote interregional as well as interlocal cooperation in regional development.
Inter-governmental cooperation is defined intentional activities seeking mutual benefits among regions (or governments) by sharing responsibilities among actors to make a plan or implement a specific project for regional development. There is no doubt that interregional cooperation will be good to all participants due to the cost savings as well as such intangible benefits as mutual understanding. This is especially true for Korea, where almost all of regional development projects are carried on only within administrative boundary regardless of the scope of spatial impact of the projects. Interregional cooperation is a good way to reduce redundancy and to save money and time that
are spent for regional development. In the long run, interregional cooperation will contribute to social cohesion and territorial integration, which are important policy agenda in Korea. The authors believe that interregional cooperation can be promoted by establishing systematic institutional foundation. The central government with strong influence on regional governments should play a significant role to lead provincial, city and county governments to collaborative development.
The study consists of seven chapters. The first chapter describes the background, objectives, scope and methods of the study. The second chapter summarizes the results of the first and second year research.
The third chapter examines previous studies and presents conceptual basis of interregional cooperation in the area of regional development.
The fourth chapter is a detailed examination on the present conditions of institutional arrangement and presents tasks that need improvement for intergovernmental cooperation in regional development. The fifth chapter introduces foreign cases of interregional cooperation and draws implication for Korea. Countries that are chosen for the case study are the European Union, the Unites States, France and Japan. The sixth chapter presents policy measures of institutional promotion for interregional cooperation, with emphasis on legal, financial, and administrative measures. The last chapter presents a summary and limitation of this study and suggests future areas of research.
Theoretical background of interregional cooperation in regional development varies widely, ranging from biological co-evolution theories through regional development theories to management and intergovernmental theories. Each theories place emphasis on cooperation among actors for mutual benefits, whether they are plants, regions, businesses or governments. The final result of cooperation will be a win-win situation in which all participants obtain benefits. Co-opetition, a coinage that represents cooperation and competition, summarizes the typical characteristics of cooperation projects.
An important concept established from the discussion of theories
of interregional cooperation is the interregional innovation system. The concept is the extension of regional innovation system (RIS) to much wider scale, from individual local region to area wide scale. The concept is useful because individual regions can specialize in certain areas and also take advantage of other regions through cooperation. It can contribute to establish the regional innovation system in Korea while resolving structural problems of local governments.
Institutional foundation that is necessary for interregional cooperation is very weak in Korea. This research examines institutional bases of interregional cooperation from three aspects: legal bases for territorial development, financial and administrative assistance measures.
Laws of spatial development that are related to interregional cooperation lack details of procedures and implementation measures. In general, only few basic directions are laid down without detailed specifications including financial assistance to participants.
It is hard to find regional development projects that are carried out with the support of the central government. Because there is no incentive for interregional cooperation, regional and local governments do not need to find counterparts for regional development projects. The special act for balanced national development introduced the system of intergovernmental agreement for regional development. In addition, the act stipulates that the special account for the balanced national development can be assigned with higher priority to interregional cooperation projects. However, there are no clauses that specify the detailed procedures of the assignment of the budget of the special account for interregional cooperation.
A law that needs attention with regard to intergovernmental cooperation is the local autonomy act. The act employs several measures that are useful for interregional cooperation, not only for regional development project but also much administrative work. A good example is the administrative consultation council, which has been
exchange opinions and make discussions. The major problem of the council is that it cannot arbitrate different opinions effectively. There is no regulation on the process of consensus building and there is no rule on the penalties or incentives to bad or good participants.
The research employs case studies of foreign countries for benchmarking of interregional cooperation. Countries chosen for the case study are The European Union, The Unites States, France and Japan.
The European Union operates the Interreg program within the scheme of spatial policy. The Interreg program has three types: A, B, and C.
The A strand is for transborder cooperation and the B strand is for transnational cooperation, and the C strand is for interregional cooperation. Basic operation unit of the Interreg program is partnership in which central and local governments, public institutions, universities and private organizations participate for a cooperation project. A monitoring system is established to evaluate the outcomes as well as to inspect progress and audit payments.
The US and France cases offers good examples of voluntary agreement signed by local governments. Areas of mutual agreement vary widely from regional development planning through the construction of facilities and to service provision contract. In France, the central government provides local government with grant as financial incentive for interregional cooperation. In the US, intergovernmental agreement is the typical pattern of interregional cooperation, which is based on the interlocal cooperation act. The state government supports interlocal cooperation by providing standardized form of agreement. Japan does not have specific program or law for interregional cooperation project.
However, there are several policies that promote interlocal cooperation, including support for the amalgamation of local administrative bodies, joint planning for regional development, and financial assistance for collaborative regional development projects.
The research suggests three areas of institutional arrangement to promote interregional cooperation, in addition to three levels of spatial
scale as territorial base of cooperation. Three types of symbiotic development of regions are proposed at macro, meso and micro level of region. The macro level symbiosis can be accomplished through the national scale of cooperation including that for the Seoul capital region and the non-capital regions. The meso level symbiosis can be made by regional level cooperation from the provincial or metropolitan governments. The micro level symbiosis can be created by city and county governments. Interregional cooperation should be encouraged to all of the levels to make the nation with dense network of interregional cooperation.
The research proposes measures of institutional promotion for interregional cooperation in legal, financial and administrative areas.
Regarding legal bases, the research proposes enactment of a few new laws as well as restructuring of existing laws. First of all, there are strong needs to introduce an inter-regional cooperation act or inter-governmental cooperation act as the legal basis for collaborative regional development at regional and local level. For the national level, the research proposes the restructuring of the special act for balanced national development and the act for reorganization and planning of the capital region, establishing strong legal base that includes both the capital region and other regions within the single law. The local autonomy act needs to be revised to specify detailed procedures and financial support to intergovernmental cooperation in administrative works.
Regulations that assign the budget of the central government to interregional cooperation also should be arranged. The research proposes to establish the sub-account within the special account for balanced national development to support regional development projects implemented by interregional cooperation. An alternative to the sub-account is to introduce a fund to promote interregional cooperation, which is operated by the central government. Financial sources of the fund include the contribution of the central government, transferred
national development.
Suggestions from the research need to be implemented in step-by-step manner, with higher priorities on areas that can save money and manpower significantly through cooperation. Some measures such as the revision of the special act for balanced national development can be completed relatively in short terms (within 2-3 years), while the enactment of the interregional cooperation requires more time (5 years or so), and the integration of the special act for balanced national development and the act for reorganization and planning of the capital region needs more debates and consensus of people, which might be feasible in about 10 years depending on the results of the decentralization policies.
A ․ P ․ P ․ E ․ N ․ D ․ I ․ X
부 록 : 지역간 협력사업 추진 현황
23)1. 행정협의회 현황(2004년)
1) 행정협의회 구성 현황(2004년 말 현재)
(1) 광역행정협의회
권 역 참여 자치단체 구성연월일
6개 권역 19개 자치단체
수 도 권 서울특별시, 인천광역시, 경기도, 강원도, 충청북도 ’88.11.16 부 산 권 부산광역시, 경상남도 ’71. 9.22
대구대도시권 대구광역시, 경상북도 ’89. 4.19
광주․전남권 광주광역시, 전라남도 ’89. 3.21
대전‧충청권 대전광역시, 충청북도, 충청남도 ’95. 3. 3 황 해 권 인천광역시, 경기도, 충청남도, 전라북도, 전라남도 ’03. 2. 21
(2) 기초행정협의회
시‧도 권 역 참여 자치단체 구성연월일
합 계 54개 225개 자치단체
경 기
8개 권역 48개 자치단체
수 원 권 수원시, 의왕시, 화성군, 용인군 ’81. 4.21 성 남 권 성남시, 하남시, 광주군, 용인군 ’81. 4.28 의정부권 의정부, 고양시, 구리시, 남양주시, 양주군,
포천군, 가평군 ’81. 4.10
중 부 권 안양시, 광명시, 안산시, 과천시, 시흥시, 군
포시, 의왕시 ’81. 8.28
평 택 권 평택시, 오산시, 화성군, 안성군 ’88.10.19 동두천권 동두천시, 양주군, 파주군, 연천군, 포천군 ’81. 9. 4 서부수도권 서울 강서구, 부천시, 광명시, 시흥시, 김포
시, 인천광역시(부평구, 계양구) ’93.10.20 동 부 권 성남, 구리, 남양주, 하남, 용인, 이천,
여주, 광주, 가평, 양평 ’95.10.18
강 원
7개권역 24개 자치단체
춘 천 권 춘천시, 철원군, 화천군, 양구군,
인제군, 홍천군 ’95. 9.16
치 악 권 원주시, 횡성군 ’00. 4. 10
강 릉 권 강릉시, 평창군 ’81. 3.10
동 해 권 동해시, 삼척시 ’95. 1. 1
태 백 권 태백시, 삼척시, 영월군, 정선군, 봉화군 ’95. 9. 6 설 악 권 속초시, 고성군, 양양군, 인제군 ’94. 9.26 영평정권 영월군, 평창군, 정선군 ’96. 1. 1
충 북
4개권역 12개 자치단체
청 주 권 청주시, 청원군 ’87.11.10
북 부 권 충주시, 음성군, 단양군, 제천시 ’96. 5.10 중 부 권 진천군, 괴산군, 음성군 ’90.11. 2 남 부 권 보은군, 옥천군, 영동군 ’90. 9.17
충 남
5개권역 18개 자치단체
천 안 권 천안시, 아산시, 연기군 ’89. 1. 1
보 령 권 보령시, 서천군 ’93. 6.19
서북해안권 서산시, 태안군, 당진군 ’89. 3.10 중 부 권 홍성군, 예산군, 청양군 ’95. 2. 7 백제‧금강권 공주시, 논산시, 금산군, 연기군,
부여군,서천군, 청양군 ’97.10.23
전 북
5개 권역 16개 자치단체
전 주 권 전주시, 김제시, 익산시, 완주군, 임실군 ’95. 5. 8 군 산 권 군산시, 익산시, 김제시 ’96. 5.15 무진장권 무주군, 진안군, 장수군 ’97. 1.15 남 원 권 남원시, 임실군, 순창군 ’97. 4.15 군산․서천권 군산시, 서천군(충남) ’97. 8. 1
시‧도 권 역 참여 자치단체 비 고
전 남
8개 권역 41개 자치단체
서남해안권 목포시, 해남군, 영암군, 무안군, 신안군, 진도군 ’96. 7.16 순 천 권 순천시, 광양시, 곡성군, 구례군 ’86. 5.13 여순‧순천․
광양권 여수시, 순천시, 여천시, 광양시, 여천군 ’98.11. 6 북 부 권 나주시, 담양군, 화순군, 함평군, 영암군, 장성군 ’95. 6. 7 남 해 권 장흥군, 강진군, 보성군, 고흥군, 완도군 ’95.12.22
영산강
유역권 목포시, 나주군, 담양군, 화순군, 영암군, 무안
군, 함평군, 장성군 ’99. 3. 1
21세기 뉴리더
행정협의회 나주시, 무안군, 함평군 ’02. 8. 27 장수벨트 담양군, 곡성군, 구례군, 전북(순창군) ’03. 6. 3
경 북
8개권역 32개 자치단체
동 해 권 포항시, 경주시, 영덕군, 울진군, 울릉군 ’95. 4. 7 북 부 권 안동시, 영주시, 의성군, 청송군, 영양군, 예천
군, 봉화군 ’96. 3.21
경 산 권 경산시, 영천시, 청도군 ’95. 4.18
고령‧성주권 성주군, 고령군 ’95. 5.26
구 미 권 김천시, 구미시, 군위군, 칠곡군 ’95. 12.29
상주‧문경권 상주시, 문경시 ’95. 12.30
원전소재
자치단체 경주시, 기장군, 울주군, 영광군, 울진군 ’04. 5.25 지역발전혁신 고령군, 성주군, 달성군, 합천군 ’04. 6.16
경 남
8개권역 30개 자치단체
마창연담권 창원시, 마산시, 진해시, 김해시, 함안군, 창녕군 ’93.12.10 진삼연담권 진주시, 사천시, 고성군 ’83. 3.11
울산도시권 울산시, 양산시 ’69. 5. 5
한려수도권 통영시, 거제시, 고성군, 사천군, 남해군, 하동군 ’96.10.11
밀 창 권 밀양시, 창녕군 ’95. 4.17
거 창 권 산청, 함양, 거창, 합천군 '90. 5.30 서낙동강권 부산 강서구, 경남 김해시 ’96.10.10
서부권
행정협의회 진주, 사천시, 고성군, 하동군, 산청군 '98. 5. 4 제 주 1개권역 4개 자치단체
제 주 권 제주시, 서귀포시, 북제주군, 남제주군 ’81. 4.14
2) 행정협의회 개최 결과(2004년)
(1) 권역별 협의회
협 의 회 명 (개최일시)
협의결과(건)
안건제목 및 주요내용 협의 계 합 결과
의 계속 검토
미 합의 총 계 111 96 11 4 서부수도권
행정협의회 (2004. 2. 24)
3 3 -
과림하수종말처리장 조기건설 요망 합의
연담도시와의 전략적 제휴 합의
도로 안내표지판 정비 협조 합의 서부수도권
행정협의회(2회) (2004. 5. 6)
3 3 -
고강∼방화간 연결도로 개설공사 추진 합의 광명시 분뇨 한시적 위탁처리협의 합의 민선3기 2기 회장단 선출 합의
서부수도권 행정협의회 (2004. 9. 20,
11.16)
8 7 - 1
- 고강∼방화간 연결도로 개설공사 추진 합의
- 인천시립화장장 공동사용 합의
- 부평역사박물관 건립에 따른 협조 합의 - 고강∼방화간 연결도로 광역도로 지정 추진 합의
- 행정구역 경계조정 합의
- 목감천 상류 수질정화대책 조기 추진 합의
- 광역도로 조기개설 협조 합의
- GB내 자동차 LPG충전소 배치관련 현안사항 합의
광주전남광역 행정협의회 (2004. 8. 7)
9 9 -
-- 수도권소재공공기관유치 공동노력 합의
- 광주전남관광활성화 공동노력 합의
- 호남고속철도 조기개설 공동건의 합의 - 영상산업진흥을 위한 공동협력 합의 - 광주에 전남시군의 날 운영 합의
- 2004년광주비엔날레 협력 합의
- 광주문화수도조성에 공동협력 합의
- 민주화운동기념관광주유치공동건의 합의 - 광양항목포신외항 활성화 지원 합의 충청권행정
협의회 (2004. 2. 4)
4 4 -
-- ｢신행정수도 건설｣ 충청권 공조 강화 합의 - 수도권 규제완화 점진적 시행건의 합의 - 충청권 광역교통망 조기추진 건의 합의 - 청주공항을 활용한 충청권관광 활성화 합의