경제자유구역 성과의 영향 요인에 관한 연구 : 인천경제자유구역(IFEZ) 공무원 및 투자기업 직원들의 인식조사를 중심으로 = A study on the factors influencing outcomes of free economic zone : focusing on the perceptions of public officials and employees of investing companies in IFEZ

국문 초록 (Abstract)

한국의 경제자유구역은 출범 당시 외환위기 속에서 외자 유치의 중요한 정책적 수단으로 국민적 기대를 모으고 출발하였으나 국민적 기대를 충족시키지 못하고 지지부진하다가 최근에는 일부 성과를 내고 있다. 그러나 한국의 경제자유구역이 직접적인 모델로 삼았던 중국의 경제특구가 중국 경제발전의 원동력이 된 사실에 비추어 보면 여전히 초라한 성적이라는 인식이 많다.
2013년 동해안과 충북 경제자유구역이 지정되면서 전국에 8개 경제자유구역이 개발ㆍ운영되고 있지만, 정치적 무관심, 규제완화 미흡, 재원부족, 인프라 부족 등 여건은 크게 개선되지 않고 있다. 이와 같은 현실에 대해서는 중국의 경제특구가 국가 최고지도자의 리더십, 중앙정부의 강력한 지원, 지방정부의 폭넓은 재량에 의해 추진된 것과 비교되기도 한다. 당초 ‘동북아 비즈니스 중심지’라는 청사진으로 시작된 한국의 경제자유구역이 개발 10년이 지났음에도 성과부진이 계속 거론되는 이유이기도 하다.
이 가운데 인천경제자유구역은 인천공항과 인천항을 활용한 물류 인프라와, 송도 지구의 간척사업을 통하여 값싼 택지를 제공할 수 있어 다른 경제자유구역에 비해 최소한의 경쟁력을 갖출 수 있었다. 총 170㎢에 달하는 면적에 송도․청라․영종 등 3개 지구로 구분된 인천경제자유구역은 최근녹색기후기금(Green Climate Fund : GCF) 사무국을 유치하는 성과를 거두기도 했다. 그러나 뉴스에 보도될 만한 몇몇 성과에도 불구하고, 경제자유구역의 성과는 여전히 저조한 실정이다.
당초 규제개혁, 외국인 정주여건 조성, 인센티브 등을 통해 외국인투자유치 활성화를 꾀했던 경제자유구역은 저조한 투자유치 실적 등으로 실효성에 대해 많은 비판을 받고 있다. 특히 복잡한 지배구조나 저조한 규제 개혁 등은 경제자유구역 본연의 목적을 상실케 하고 있다.
본 연구에서는 한국 경제자유구역의 성공에 영향을 미치는 요인을 검토한 뒤, 연구모형을 작성하여 영향요인 간 구조를 밝히고 요인의 중요성이나 함의에 대해서 논의하였다. 이를 위해 중국ㆍ인도ㆍ싱가포르ㆍ폴란드의 경제특구 사례를 살펴보고, 관련 이론으로서 산업입지ㆍ리더십ㆍ차등적 분권ㆍPR 이론 등을 검토하였다.
경제자유구역 성과의 영향요인은 무수히 많을 수 있지만, 본 연구에서는 총 5가지의 요인을 도출하였다. 구체적으로, ‘입지ㆍ인프라’, ‘지자체장ㆍ청장 리더십’, ‘규제완화 및 분권’, ‘PR 및 행정지원서비스’, ‘주거환경 및 정주편의성’ 등이다. 연구대상은 인천경제자유구역으로 한정하였으며, 설문지를 통한 실증분석과 공무원 및 투자기업 관계자의 인터뷰를 실시하였다.
요인 간 구조방정식 모형에서 경제자유구역 성과에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 것은 지자체장ㆍ청장 리더십으로 나타났으며, 다음으로 ‘입지ㆍ인프라’ 요인이 높은 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 공무원 집단과 투자기업 집단을 구분하여, 두 집단의 인식 차이를 비교하였다. 공무원 집단은 규제완화 및 분권이 성과에 부(-)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 지자체장ㆍ청장 리더십이 가장 큰 영향관계가 있었다. 반면 투자기업 집단은 PR 및 행정지원서비스가 성과에 가장 높은 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다.
본 연구는 선행연구에서 잘 다루지 않았던 경제자유구역의 성과 요인들간 인과관계에 대해 실증적인 분석을 실시한 점에 연구의 의의가 있다. 특히 공무원과 투자기업의 입장을 비교하여 분석결과의 함의를 풍부히 하였다. 또한 계량적 분석의 한계나 분석결과에 대한 자의적 해석의 한계를 보완하기 위해 수차례에 걸친 인터뷰를 통해 분석을 보완하였다.
앞서 지정된 6개의 경제자유구역은 오는 2020년 개발이 종료되는 지역이 대다수이다. 그러나 FDI 실적 등의 성과지표는 여전히 답보 수준이다. 경제자유구역이 앞으로 한국 경제를 견인하는데 일조하기 위해서는 본 연구에서 검증한 요인들에 대한 정책적 고려가 필요한 시점이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Incheon Free Economic Zone(IFEZ) was designated August, 2008 by central government to vitalize business foreign direct investment(FDI) by providing optimal environments for the international companies and by
strengthening foreigner-friendly living environments.
However, many experts have criticized the government policy for FEZ, such as IFEZ because of the poor FDI performance. So, this study is to review foreign policy cases in China, India, Singapore and Poland investigating factors of success. And, this study developed the research
model including factors influencing FEZ performance based on the theory : industrial location theory, leadership theory, asymmetrical decentralization theory and PR in FEZ.
This study is to investigate factors influencing FEZ performance. Therefore, surveys and in-depth interviews have been conducted to collect perceptual data toward FEZ performance with local government officials and
IFEZA employees.
Based on the structural equation model analysis, leadership, PR, and supporting serviced have relating stronger positing effects on the performance of FEZ.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 서 론 ·····································································1
• 제 1 절 연구의 배경 및 목적·····················································1
• 제 2 절 연구의 대상, 범위 및 방법··········································4
• 제 2 장 이론적 논의 ························································6
• 제 1 절 경제자유구역의 개념 및 현황·····································6
• 1. 개념, 유형 및 추진배경 ········································································6
• 2. 경제자유구역의 현황·············································································18
• 제 2 절 해외 사례 및 시사점···················································38
• 1. 해외 사례·································································································38
• 1) 중국······································································································39
• 2) 인도······································································································45
• 3) 폴란드··································································································50
• 4) 싱가포르······························································································53
• 2. 해외 사례 성공요인에 관한 선행연구···············································57
• 3. 해외 사례 종합 및 시사점···································································63
• 제 3 절 성공요인에 관한 이론 논의·······································67
• 1. 성공요인···································································································67
• 1) 입지ㆍ인프라······················································································67
• 2) 지자체장ㆍ청장의 리더십································································70
• 3) 규제완화 및 분권··············································································72
• 4) PR 및 행정지원서비스·····································································77
• 5) 주거환경 및 정주편의성··································································80
• 6) 기타······································································································82
• 2. 관련 이론·································································································85
• 1) 산업 입지 이론 ··················································································85
• 2) 리더십 이론························································································96
• 3) 차등적 분권 이론············································································101
• 4) PR 이론·····························································································107
• 3. 요인들의 이론 관련성 정리·······························································109
• 제 3 장 연구모형 및 조사설계 ·································111
• 제 1 절 분석모형 및 가설의 설정·········································111
• 제 2 절 조사설계·······································································118
• 제 4 장 분석 및 논의 ··················································121
• 제 1 절 집단 간 평균값 비교(T-test) ·································121
• 1. 공무원 집단과 투자기업 집단 비교 ······························