한국경제지리학회지 (Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea)

  • 제25권2호
  • /
  • Pages.237-253
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1226-8968(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-9115(eISSN)
한국경제지리학회 (The Economic Geographical Society of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

자본의 문화적 순환과 한국 지역발전 정책의 진화: 새로운 관리주의 거버넌스 형태의 등장?

The Cultural Circuit of Capital and the Evolution of Regional Development Policy in Korea: A New Form of Managerialist Governance in Action?

  • 이재열 (충북대학교 지리교육과)
  • Lee, Jae-Youl (Department of Geography Education, Chungbuk National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.06.05
  • 심사 : 2022.06.20
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 논문의 목적은 한국 지역발전 정책의 진화에서 자본의 문화적 순환에 관계된 행위자-네트워크의 영향력을 검토하여 설명하는 것이다. 이를 위해, 2000년대 초반부터 2010년대 초반까지 벌어진 사건을 중심으로 글로벌 컨설팅 기업과 국내 경제언론 간에 맺어진 초국적 행위자-네트워크의 역할에 주목한다. 이 시기 동안 우리나라의 지역발전 정책은 지역 간 균형을 추구하는 공간적 케인스주의가 쇠퇴하며 지역 경쟁력에 집중하는 방향으로 선회했는데, 이는 국토종합(개발)계획, 수도권정비계획, 국가균형발전특별법의 변화를 통해서 확인했다. 이때 등장했던 혁신성 및 창의성 주도형 지역발전 정책의 형성 과정에서 자본의 문화적 순환에 관여하는 행위자-네트워크, 구체적으로 매일경제와 글로벌 컨설팅 기업이 공동 생산하여 확산시키는 처방적 경영지식과 마이클 포터나 리처드 플로리다와 같은 지역정책 구루의 역할이 중요했다. 이러한 경험적 발견은 구조주의에 기반한 지배적인 설명 양식의 한계를 드러내고, 지역발전 정책 연구에서 행위자 중심적 접근의 적합성과 타당성을 적시한다. 아울러, 관리주의 거버넌스와 기업가주의 거버넌스 간 이분법적 개념화의 현실적 문제도 발견했다. 문화적 순환의 행위자들은 관리주의적 담론과 실천의 지식을 생산해 유포하는 경향이 현저했기 때문이다. 따라서 기업가주의 거버넌스가 관리주의의 새로운 형태는 아닌지에 대하여 보다 면밀히 점검할 필요가 있다고 판단된다.

This article offers an account of how regional development policy in Korea has evolved under the influence of actor-networks comprising the cultural circuit of soft capitalism. In so doing, the roles played by transnational actor-networks forged between global consulting firms and national business media are emphasized. For this discussion, the waning of spatial Keynesianism in the country is contextualized in the first place, with particular attention to changing planning goals of key regional development policies including consultancies, influential policy gurus (e.g., Michael Porter and Richard Florida), and local business media outlet Maekyong are found to be key movers and shakers in the transition. These empirical findings call for striking a balance between dominant structuralist accounts and emerging actor-oriented approaches, and also help shed a new light on the dualistic conceptualization of managerialist and entrepreneurial governance in a way that the latter may be a new form of the former.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Allen, J., 2004, "The whereabouts of power: Politics, government and space," Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 86(1), pp.19-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00151.x
  2. Amsden, A. H., 1989, Asia's Next Giant : South Korea and Late Industrialization, New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Barnett, C., 2005, The consolations of "neoliberalism", Geoforum 36(1), pp.7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.08.006
  4. Brenner, N., 2004a, New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Brenner, N., 2004b, "Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960-2000," Review of International Political Economy 11(3), pp.447-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969229042000282864
  6. Brenner, N., 2009, "Open questions on state rescaling," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2(1), pp.123-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp002
  7. Catungal, J. P., Leslie, D., and Hii, Y., 2009, "Geographies of displacement in the creative city: The case of Liberty Village," Toronto, Urban Studies 46(5-6), pp.1095-1114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009103856
  8. Chang, H.-J., 1993, "The political economy of industrial policy in Korea," Cambridge Journal of Economics 17(2), pp.131-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035227
  9. Evans, P. B., 1995, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  10. Florida, R., 2008, Who's Your City?, New York: Basic Books.
  11. Fritz, V. and Menocal, A. R., 2007, "Developmental states in the New Millennium: Concepts and challenges for a new aid agenda," Development Policy Review 25(5), pp.531-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00384.x
  12. Harvey, D., 1989, The Condition of Postmodernity : An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, New York: Blackwell.
  13. Hill, R. and Kim, J. W., 2000, "Global cities and developmental states: New York, Tokyo and Seoul," Urban Studies 37(12), pp.2167-2195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980020002760
  14. Jessop, B., 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Blackwell.
  15. Johnson, C., 1982, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  16. Kim, G. H. and Lim, S. J., 2005, Rethinking Restrictive Measures for the Capital Region, Korea Economic Research Institute. (in Korean)
  17. Kim, H. M. and Han, S. S., 2012, "City profiles: Seoul," Cities 29(2), pp.142-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.02.003
  18. Kim, K. H., 2008, Redefining the goal and strategy of regional development in Korea, in Korea Development Institute (ed.), International Experiences of Regional Policy and Policy Implications for Korea, pp.233-260.
  19. Kong, L., Gibson, C., Khoo, L. M., and Semple, A. L., 2006, "Knowledges of the creative economy: Towards a relational geography of diffusion and adaptation in Asia," Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47(2), pp.173-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00313.x
  20. Lee, Y. S., 2009, "Balanced development in globalizing regional development? Unpacking the new regional policy of South Korea," Regional Studies 43(3), pp.353-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802171981
  21. Lipietz, A., 1987, Mirages and Miracles: The Crisis in Global Fordism, New York: Verso.
  22. Maeyoung, 2013, Vision Korea National Conference Highlights, http://www.wkforum.org/VK/visionkorea_highlight23.pdf (Retrieved on June 4, 2022).
  23. Martin, R. and Sunley, P., 1996, "Paul Krugman's geographical economics and its implications for regional development theory: A critical assessment," Economic Geography 72(3), pp.259-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/144401
  24. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport), 2013, 2012 Economic Development Module Project: National Territory and Regional Development, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (in Korean)
  25. MOSIFP (Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning), 2014, Creative Economy Innovation Centers, the Engine of Regional Economy, Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning. (in Korean)
  26. Park, B. G., 2003, "Territorialized party politics and the politics of local economic development: State-led industrialization and political regionalism in South Korea," Political Geography 22(8), pp.811-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(03)00102-1
  27. Park, B. G., 2008, "Uneven development, inter-scalar tensions, and the politics of decentralization in South Korea," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(1), pp.40-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00765.x
  28. Park, J. H., 2015, 21th National Report, Maekyoung, March 19. (in Korean)
  29. Park, Y. A., 2011, Create, and then develop, Weekly Gonggam, pp.13-15. (in Korean)
  30. PCRD (Presidential Committee on Regional Development), 2010, Creative Region Guidebook, Presidential Committee on Regional Development. (in Korean)
  31. PCRD (Presidential Committee on Regional Development), 2014, New Creative Region Projects in 2014, Presidential Committee on Regional Development. (in Korean)
  32. Peck, J. and Tickell, A., 1994, Searching for a new institutional fix: The after-fordist crisis and the global-local disorder, in Amin, A. (ed.), Post-Fordism, Cambridge: Blackwell, pp.280-315.
  33. Peck, J., 2005, "Struggling with the rise of the creative class," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(4), pp.740-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00620.x
  34. Routley, L., 2012, Developmental States: A Review of the Literature, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2141837 (Retrieved on June 4, 2022)
  35. Sheller, M. and Urry, J., 2006, "The new mobilities paradigm," Environment and Planning A 38(2), pp.207-226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268
  36. SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government), 2006, Vision 2015, Cultural City Seoul, Seoul Metropolitan Government. (in Korean)
  37. Smith, N., 2004, Scale bending and the fate of the national, in Sheppard, E. and McMaster, R. (eds.), Scale and Geographic Inquiry, Cambridge: Blackwell, pp.192-212.
  38. Sohn, H. D., 1997, Vision Korea: Action for the 21st century, Maekyoung, November 1. (in Korean)
  39. Swyngedouw, E., 1997, Neither global nor local: "glocalization" and the politics of scale, in Cox, K. (ed.), Spaces of Globalization, New York: Guilford, pp.137-166.
  40. Thrift, N. J., 2005, Knowing Capitalism. London: SAGE.
  41. Wade, R., 1990, Governing the Market : Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  42. Woo, G. I., 2014, Local governments' fiscal independence about 50%, Donga Daily, October 21. (in Korean)
  43. Woo-Cumings, M., 1999, The Developmental State, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  44. World Bank, 1994, The East Asian Miracle, Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  45. Yoon, Y. G., 2006, Interview: Seoul Mayor Se-Hoon Oh, Maekyoung, July 12. (in Korean)