지방분권이 국가경쟁력에 미치는 효과 분석 = The Analysis of the Decentralization Effect on National Competitiveness

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the decentralization effect on a national competitiveness based on OECD countries panel data between 1997 and 2008. Variables are: for independent, political, administrative and fiscal decentralization (revenue and expenditure); for dependent, the world competitive index issued by the International Institute for Management Development; for moderating, political and administrative decentralization; and, for control, unemployment rate, economic openness, government size, parliament fragmentation, ruling party’s ideology, graying index, women’s economic activities and birth rate. Parameter is economic growth rate.
The hypothesis 1, “there will be a significant relationship among decentralization, economic growth and national competitiveness”, was tested in terms of direct and indirect effect. And test results showed that decentralization proved its direct effect on a country’ competitiveness with significance but failed to demonstrate its indirect effect on national competitiveness through economic growth in a significant way. Accordingly, the former was accepted, while the latter dismissed. The hypothesis 2, “fiscal decentralization will have a certain level of influence on national competitiveness”, was examined through regression models with multiple control variables.
Research findings uncovered that fiscal revenue decentralization has a positive influence on a country’s competitiveness. However, no significant relationship was identified in fiscal expenditure decentralization. With these outcomes, the hypothesis was partially adopted. The hypothesis that income level will determine the way fiscal decentralization affects a nation’s competitiveness was accepted as was proved significant in both of revenue and expenditure of lower income countries.
And the hypothesis that the influence of fiscal decentralization on a nation’s competitiveness will depend on the degree of decentralization was shown significant in more decentralized countries, but not significant or negative in less ones, when it comes to fiscal revenue. In the meantime, fiscal expenditure decentralization was higher in less decentralized nations than in more, showing
statistical significance. Findings made the hypothesis adopted.
Indications of the study suggest several policy ideas. First, the need for continued interest in administrative decentralization was reaffirmed. Structural equating model was employed to analyze the decentralization impact on national competitiveness, resulting in significant positive effect. Based on the findings, continuous interest in decentralization of administration is needed in a way that
includes human resource transfer. Second, strategic interest is demanded for fiscal decentralization.
In particular, decentralization of fiscal revenue, embodied as tax autonomy, requires policy measures. Regression analysis that included control variables showed a positive effect of revenue decentralization on a national competitiveness, though structural equating model displaying negative.
Based on the outcomes, policies for higher tax autonomy and more sound fiscal footings of local governments would have greater contribution to a national competitiveness than tax expenditure increase, with regard to decentralization. Third, degree of decentralization should factor into nation’s fiscal and income conditions. Test outcomes revealed that fiscal decentralization effect on a national competitiveness varies, according to income and decentralizing level, which was more evident in less income countries. Fourth, given its negative effect, excessive political decentralization should be strategically considered. In an interaction analysis, political decentralization was identified to be contributing to converting positive effect of fiscal decentralization into negative. The result gives an indication that political decentralization has its upsides of national development and competitiveness enhancement as it implements democratic governance based on local people’s autonomy. But it also has some downsides, particularly in fragmented forms of more-than-necessary number of local
governments, including: overlapped facilities and isolated investments; increased conflicts and transaction costs; and, election costs and administrative expenses.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론···················································································1
• 제1절 연구목적········································································1
• 제2절 연구범위와 방법···························································3
• 1. 연구범위············································································3
• 2. 연구방법 ···········································································4
• 제2장 이론적 배경 ····································································5
• 제1절 이론적 논의 ··································································5
• 1. 관계이론·············································································5
• 2. 이론적 쟁점 ····································································13
• 제2절 선행연구 고찰 ····························································15
• 제3절 분석틀 ·········································································24
• 1. 분석을 위한 준거틀························································24
• 2. 변수 및 자료····································································29
• 제3장 OECD 선진국의 지방분권 추진동향 ························35
• 제1절 정치분권 ·····································································35
• 제2절 행정분권 ·····································································42
• 제3절 재정분권 ·····································································49
• 제4장 지방분권이 국가경쟁력에 미치는 효과 분석 ··········54
• 제1절 기술통계 및 T검증·····················································54
• 1. 기술통계분석 ·································································54
• 2. T검증: 지방분권수준에 따른 국가경쟁력 평균 차이분석·62
• 제2절 지방분권이 국가경쟁력에 미치는 효과 분석·········64
• 1. 경제성장을 고려한 지방분권의 효과 분석·················64
• 2. 지방분권이 국가경쟁력에 미치는 효과 분석·············71
• 제5장 결론·················································································85
• 제1절 연구요약 ·····································································85
• 제2절 정책함의 ·····································································87
• 1. 정책제언··········································································87
• 2. 연구의 한계·····································································90
• 참고문헌····················································································91
• Abstract ·················································································100