미국의 광역경제권과 생활권 -한국의 광역경제권 및 농촌지역 생활권 구축에 대한 함의-

Implications of the US Metropolitan Economic Zone on the Association of Rural Living Area and Metropolitan Economic Zone in Korea

  • 이성우 (서울대학교 농경제사회학부) ;
  • 김현중 (서울대학교 농경제사회학부)
  • 투고 : 2010.09.27
  • 심사 : 2010.12.10
  • 발행 : 2010.12.30

초록

The purpose of the present study is to provide policy implications for successful development of the metropolitan economic zone in Korea followed by in-depth case studies on the US Metropolitan Economic Region. This study looked into diverse experiences of the US mega regions investigating their key strategies, requirements and standards, etc. Urban areas in the US are designated based on CBSA, a standard for statistical area since 1950. The US has a clear standard to define rural and suburban area and is trying to reflect urban structural changes including suburbanization. The US annexation system is relatively simple to operate. Furthermore, the system helps the growth of rural areas by gradually incorporating rural areas into urban areas. We found that action plans of the US mega regions facilitate strategic growth and development for balanced territorial development, incorporating multi-dimensional and comprehensive approaches. We also found that the US mega regions are designated with regard to the local natures. Couple of policy implications were extracted from the US experiences. First, since the construction of mega regions in Korea concerns less on the inter-regional connections with other regions, we need to incorporate diverse standards to divide the regions with respect to the spatial and local characteristics. Second, local governments should collaborate with each other for successful economic development of the metropolitan economic zones. Administrative districts renovation can be a immediate and effective solution to facilitate the collaboration. We recommended to consider consolidating administrative areas to construct successful metropolitan economic zones.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김광익, 이동우, 박경현, 이원섭, 김창현, & 박양호. (2008). 국토경쟁력 강화를 위한 광역경제권 설정 및 발전구상. 경기: 국토연구원.
  2. 박지형 & 홍준현. (2007). 시.군 통합의 지역경제성장 효과. 한국정책학회보, 16(1), 167∼196.
  3. 안영훈. (2008). 광역경제권의 개념, 유형 및 거버넌스 체제. 한국지방자치학회 학술대회, 659-680.
  4. 우윤석. (2009). 지방정부 간 협력을 위한 거버넌스 모형의 구상-미국의 MPO 사례를 중심으로-. 국토연구, 60, 189-214.
  5. 유병욱. (1994). 지방행정구역 개편의 기초적 논의. 한국행정학회 학술대회, 71∼93.
  6. 이동우. (2006). 초광역권시대의 도시개발-국토의 초광역경제권 구상과 정책과제 -.도시문제, 41(455), 17-25.
  7. 이원섭. (2008). 새정부의 광역경제권 정책 추진방향. 한국행정학회. kapa@포럼, 14-18.
  8. 채원호. (2008). 일본의 광역 과제 대응을 위한 도주제(道州制) 구상. 한국지방자치학회 춘계학술대회, 79-95.
  9. 최영출. (2008). 영국의 광역과제 대응을 위한 행정시스템-지역개발청을 중심으로-. 한국지방자치학회 춘계학술대회, 31-53.
  10. Feiock, R. C., & Jered., B. Carr. (1997). A reassessment of City/Count Consolidation -Economic Development Impacts. State and Local Government Review, 29(3), 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X9702900304
  11. Regional Plan Association. (2006). America 2050: A prospectus. New York: Regional Plan Association.
  12. Regional Plan Association. (2008). America 2050: An infrastructure vision for 21st century America. New York: Regional Plan Association.
  13. Ross, C. L., Barringer, J., Yang, J., Woo, M., Doyle, J., West, H., Amekudzi, A., & Meyer, M. (2008). Megaregions: Literature Review of the Implications for U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Transportation Planning. Washington: Federal Highway Administration.
  14. Swianiewicz, T., (2002). Consolidation or Fragmentation? The Size of Local Governments in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform initiative-Open Society Institute.
  15. e-나라지표(www.index.go.kr)
  16. 미국 센서스(http://www.census.gov).
  17. 샌안토니오 홈페이지(http://www.sanantonio.gov/planning).