17개 시·도 라이즈(RISE)사업의 비교 분석 연구 -거버넌스 구조와 프로그램 유형의 비교분석- = A Comparative Analysis of RISE Programs across 17Metropolitan Cities and Provinces: Comparative Analysis ofGovernance Structure and Program Types

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study conducted a comparative analysis of the implementation strategies of the Regional Innovation System & Education (RISE) program across 17 metropolitan cities and provinces in South Korea, which was launched nationwide in 2025. The RISE program represents a significant policy shift in higher education support, transferring authority from the central government to local governments to promote co-development of regions and universities amid the challenges of declining school-age population and regional extinction.
The analysis revealed that while all 17 regions share the common vision of establishing a 'talent development-employment/entrepreneurship-settlement' ecosystem, they exhibit distinct differences in implementation strategies based on regional industrial structures, university ecosystems, and fiscal independence. Metropolitan areas such as Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon focus on global industry-academia collaboration and talent development in advanced industries, while non-metropolitan regions prioritize employment-guaranteed programs linked to regional strategic industries and improvement of settlement conditions.
In terms of governance structure, metropolitan cities adopted network-centered metropolitan governance, while provincial-level regions implemented governance systems linked with basic local governments. The study found that the expertise and operational capacity of RISE centers vary by region, which may lead to qualitative differences in program outcomes. Program types were categorized into three models: industry-focused (Ulsan, Gyeongnam), talent-retention focused (Jeonnam, Jeonbuk), and innovation ecosystem-focused (Daejeon, Gyeonggi).
The study proposes that successful implementation of the RISE program requires strengthening local government expertise, developing customized performance indicators, easing regulations in the Higher Education Act, and establishing continuous monitoring and feedback systems. It emphasizes the importance of developing differentiated support strategies that reflect regional characteristics, rather than simple budget allocation.