EU 경제통합과 중심부-주변부 지역간 갈등구조 = Economic Integration and Core-Periphery Regional Structure in EU

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

EU is now on the brink of historical turning-point: The future of EU depends, to some extent, on the fact how the economic disparities between regions could be reduced. During last 100 years, for example, regional disparities of USA have reduced continuously so that we can regard now USA as one national economy. The neo-classical economic theory argues that economic integration and market liberalization give positive effects on income distribution among regions via factor price equalization. (Convergence Theory) On the other hands, the cumulative causation theories assert that expansion of home market deteriorates distributions by working centripetal forces. (Divergence Theory) This paper is to analyze economic disparities among EU regions. Undoubtedly the expansion of home market stimulated economic growth of EU as a whole. There have been, however, disputes among academic scholars, whether the economic integrations have positive consequence on income distribution among regions.
This study suggests us some findings: There do not exist any clear proofs of economic convergence between regions of EU. It is true that the disparities among member countries decreased. This paper focused, however, the disparities of small regions in terms of NUTS 2 or 3. The analysis Theil coefficients implicates that inequalities within countries increased since 1980s. In case of NUTS 3 (smaller regions level), the empirical results could show more evident divergence of economic powers. This paper reviewed finally a case of peripheral development in North-East, England. The case study of North-East implicates that market liberalization alone can't automatically decrease regional disparities.
To sum up: Regional disparities still remain in form of core-periphery structure, which may legitimate operating the regional policies in EU level.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

EU는 단일통화제 실시, 동유럽 10개국의 가입 등 통합심화 및 확대를 경험하고 있다. EU가 미국과 같은 단일 국민경제를 창출할 수 있는가는 지역간 경제력격차를 여하히 해소하는가에 달려있다. 지난 100년 동안 미국 각 주간 소득격차는 지속적으로 감소되어 왔지만, EU의 경우 어떠한 결과를 가져올 것인가는 아직 확신하기 어렵다. 경제학 이론은 지역통합과 경제력격차에 관하여 일치된 결과를 제시하고 하지 못하고 있다. 전통적 신고전경제학은 자유무역과 자유경쟁은 지역간 경제력격차를 해소할 것이라고 믿고 있으며, 정부의 지역정책은 불필요하다는 입장이다. 그런데 구심력가설 등은 자유경쟁이 격화될수록 지역간 경제력격차는 확대되고 중심부-주변부 패턴이 고착된다는 것이다. 이 양 극단이론 사이에 신경제지리학(NEG)이 있다. 본 연구는 이상과 같은 경제이론이 시사하는 바에 따라, EU 통합심화가 지역격차에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 우선 과거 10년간에 걸친 경험연구를 종합적으로 분석해보면, 그 결과는 수렴과 양극화 반반으로 나타나고 있다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "the Department for Trade and Industry and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom." 2003.

2 Haussermann, H, "konomie und Politik in alten Industrieregionen Europas" 1998.

3 Fugita, M, "The spatial Economy" 1999.

4 Bade, F.-J, "Spatial Structural Change - Evidence and Prospects" 2000.

5 Hesse, J, "Regional Structure Change and Industrial in International Perspectives." 1999.

6 Hallet, "Regional Specialization and Concentration in the EU" Springer 2002.

7 House of Commons, "Regional Development Agencies(RDAs)." 1-50, 2002.Aug

8 One North East, "One North East. A Regional European Action Plan for the North East of England. Newcastle" 2001.

9 "One North East. A Regional European Action Plan for the North East of England" 2001.

10 North East Assembly, "One North East and North East Assembly. State of the Region Profile Report 2001." 2001.

11 "One North East and North East Assembly." 2001

12 "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Cities Regions and Competitiveness. Second Report from the Working Group of Government Departments" 2003.June

13 Arndt, O, "O. Innovative Netzwerke als Determinante betrieblicher Innovationsttigkeit" Universitet Kln 2002

14 Piatkwowski, M, "M. The New Economy' and Economic Growth in Transition Economies. WIDER Discussion Paper. No. 2002/62" 2002.

15 Ottaviano, G, "M. On Economic Geography in Economic Theory Increasing Returns and Pecuniary Externalities." 1 (1): 153-180, 2001

16 Sch？tzl, "L. Wirtschaftsgeographie der Europ？ischen Gemeinschaft. Paderborn UTB" 1995.

17 Schtzl, L, "L. Technological Change and Regional Development in Europe. Hannover" 2002.

18 Martin, "Industry Location in a Model of Endogenous Growth" (43) : 281-302, 1999

19 Capello, R, "Industrial Enterprises and Economic Space: The Network Paradigm" 4 : 485-498, 1996

20 North East Assembly. Bridging the Gap, "How to Raise the North East's Contribution to the UK. Newcastle" 2002.

21 "HM Treasury and the Department for Trade and Industry. Productivity in the UK: 3-The Regional Dimension" 2001.

22 Krieger-Boden, C, "Globalization, Integration and Regional Specialization." (1009) : 2000

23 Ottaviano, "G. Regional Policy in the Global Economy Insight from New Economic Geography. HWWA Discussion Paper. Hamburg" 2002.

24 Ottaviano, "G. Growth and Agglomeration" (42) : 947-968, 2001

25 Armstrong, H. W, "European Union Regional Policy" 231-272, 2002

26 Bolderin, M, "Europe's Regions: Income Disparities and Regional Policies" Income Disparities and Regional Policies. 386-409, 2001

27 Armstrong, H. W, "Economics of the European Community. St. Martin's Press" 349-375, 1995

28 Fugita, M, "Economics of Agglomeration" Cambridge University Press 2000.

29 Baldwin, "Economic geography and public policy" R. et al. Economic geography and public policy. Princeton University Press 2003.

30 Letzner, "Economic Integration and the Core-Periphery Pattern." 11 : 249-267, 1996

31 Your Choice, "Department for Transport" 2002.

32 Puga, "D. European Regional Policies in Lights of Recent Location Theories. London" 2002.

33 Keeble, "D. Core-Periphery Disparities and Reginal Restructuring in the European Community. Dortmund" 1997

34 Barro, "Convergence across states and regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activities. No.1" 107-182, 1991

35 Baldwin, R, "Agglomeration and Endogenous Capital" 43 : 253-280, 1999