지방자치단체의 재정자립도 개선방안 실증연구 -전국 228개 기초자치단체를 중심으로-

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 우리나라 기초자치단체의 재정자립도 개선을 위한 방안을 수립하고자 재
정자립도를 종속변수로 하고 재정자립도에 영향을 미치는 다양한 요인을 독립변수로
설정하여 실증분석 하였다. 기초자치단체의 특성을 반영하고 정확한 분석을 하기 위
하여 전국 기초자치단체를 전체(228개), 광역시(75개), 광역도(153개) 3가지로 구분하
여 분석하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다.
첫째, 3개의 집단에서 모두 유의한 정의 영향을 미치는 변수는 지방세, 인구, 제조
기업 수, 인당 GRDP, 재정자주도로 나타났는데 이 변수의 증가는 재정자립도 증가를
가져온다.
둘째, 3개의 집단에서 모두 유의한 부의 영향을 미치는 변수는 ‘기초자치단체 예산’
으로 나타났다. 기초자치단체의 재정 규모의 증가가 자주재원의 증가에 의한 것이 아
니라 중앙정부 또는 광역자치단체로부터 지원받는 ‘이전재원’의 증가에 기인한 결과로
판단된다.
셋째, 기초자치단체 인구를 광역시와 광역도로 구분하여 분석한 결과 광역시의 재
정자립도에는 관계가 없으며, 광역도에서는 유의한 정의 관계가 있는 것으로 나타났
다. 지역 내 인구증가는 경제활동의 증가로 지역생산과 소비를 촉진하여 재정자립도
에 영향을 미치는 것으로 볼 수 있다.
실증분석 결과를 근거로 기초자치단체의 재정자립도 향상을 위한 정책적 함의를 제
시하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 모든 기초자치단체 재정자립도 증가에 긍정적 영향을 주는 지방세 세입 확대
와 인구 유입정책, 지역총소득을 증대를 위한 제조기업 유치와 지원 등의 정책을 이
용하면 기초자치단체의 재정자립도 향상에 이바지할 수 있다.
둘째, 기초자치단체 예산에서 이전재원 기능을 재검토하고 이전재원에 따른 기초자
치단체의 재정부담을 최소화해야 한다. 이전재원에 대하여 현실성 있는 관리방안과- x -
기초자치단체의 재정 항목에서 제외하는 방안 등이 필요하다.
셋째, 지역 경제활동의 주축인 기업은 단순한 사업체 수의 증가는 기초자치단체의
재정자립도에 영향을 미치지 못하므로 제조기업 위주로 적극적으로 유치하는 정책이
필요하다. 제조기업 유치로 생산활동을 통한 지역 내 소득 증가는 물론 인구의 유입
과 연동하여 지역소비 활성화 등 경제의 선순환 구조를 위해 필요한 부분이다.
마지막으로 실증분석 결과에서 기초자치단체의 재정자립도에 영향이 있는 변수들은
대부분이 광역시 기초자치단체보다 광역도 기초자치단체에서 더 큰 영향력을 나타내
고 있으므로 광역도 기초자치단체들의 적극적인 정책추진이 필요하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this study, in order to establish a plan to improve the financial independence
of local governments in Korea, the degree of FIR(financial independence rate) is
used as a dependent variable and various factors affecting the degree of financial
independence rate are set as independent variables for empirical analysis.
In order to reflect the characteristics of local governments and to analyze them
accurately, the total number of local governments nationwide(228), metropolitan
cities(75), and metropolitan areas(153) are analyzed and divided into three
categories. The study results are as follows.
First, the variables that had a significant positive effect in all three groups are
local tax, population, number of manufacturing companies, GRDP per capita, and
financial autonomy rate. An increase in these variables leads to an increase in
financial independence rate.
Second, the variable that had a significant impact on wealth in all three groups
is the 'budget of basic local government'. It is judged that the increase in the
financial scale of the local government is not due to an increase in independent
financial resources, but is a result of the increase in 'intergovernmental transfers'
supported by the central government or metropolitan governments.
Third, as a result of analyzing the population of local governments by dividing- viii -
them into metropolitan cities and metropolitan provinces, it is found that there is
no relation to the financial independence rate of metropolitan cities, and there is a
significant positive relationship in metropolitan provinces.
An increase in the local population can be seen to affect the financial
independence rate by promoting local production and consumption through an
increase in economic activity.
Based on the empirical analysis results, the policy implications for improving the
financial independence rate of local governments are presented as follows.
First, policies such as expansion of local tax revenue and population inflow
policies, which are positively affecting the increase in the degree of financial
independence rate of all local governments, and policies to attract and support
manufacturing companies to increase regional gross income are necessary.
Through this, it can contribute to improving the financial independence rate of
local governments.
Second, it is necessary to review the function of transfer revenue in the budget
of the local government and minimize the financial burden on the local government
due to the transfer revenue. A realistic management plan for the transfer revenue
and a plan to exclude it from the financial items of the local government are
necessary.
Third, in the case of enterprises, which are the main pillars of local economic
activity, a simple increase in the number of businesses does not affect the
financial independence rate of the local governments, so a policy to actively foster
manufacturing enterprises is necessary. It is a necessary part for the structure of
a virtuous cycle of the economy, such as increasing local income through
production activities by attracting manufacturing companies, as well as activating
local consumption in conjunction with the inflow of the population.
Lastly, in the empirical analysis results, most of the variables affecting the
financial independence of local governments show greater influence in metropolitan
local governments than in metropolitan local governments.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론 ····················································································································1
• 1. 연구배경 및 목적 ·································································································1
• 2. 연구 방법 ·················································································································4
• 3. 논문 구성 ·················································································································5
• Ⅱ.이론적 배경 및 선행연구 ································································· 6
• 1. 지방분권과 재정분권 ·····························································································6
• (1) 지방분권의 개념 ·································································································6
• (2) 지방분권의 3요소 ·······························································································8
• (3) 재정분권의 역기능 이론 및 균형발전 ·························································15
• (4) 우리나라의 재정분권 추진 경과 ···································································18
• (5) 주요국의 재정분권 추진 경과 ·······································································22
• 2. 대한민국 재정 분권 ·····························································································27
• (1) 대한민국 재정 ···································································································28
• (2) 대한민국 지방재정 ···························································································32
• (3) 지방재정조정 ·····································································································35
• (4) 재정의 이양 ·······································································································41
• 3. 재정분권 측정 지표 ·····························································································42
• (1) 재정자립도 ·········································································································42
• 2) 재정자주도 ·········································································································45
• (3) 국세 및 지방세 ·································································································46
• 4. 선행연구 ···············································································································48
• Ⅲ. 연구방법론 ········································································································52
• 1. 변수의 선정과 정의 ·····························································································52
• (1) 변수 선정 ···········································································································52
• (2) 변수의 조작적 정의 ·························································································58
• 2. 연구모형 ·················································································································59
• 3. 연구가설 ·················································································································60
• 4. 연구방법 ·················································································································61
• (1) 분석자료의 수집 ·······························································································61
• (2) 연구 방법 및 순서 ···························································································71
• Ⅳ. 실증분석 결과 ·································································································72
• 1. 기술통계량 ·············································································································72
• 2. 상관관계 분석 ·······································································································74
• (1) 전체 기초자치단체 ···························································································74
• (2) 광역시 기초자치단체 ·······················································································75
• (3) 광역도 기초자치단체 ·······················································································77
• 3. 차이 분석(독립 T-검정) ····················································································78
• (1) 가설 H1의 검증 ································································································78
• 4. 재정자립도 회귀분석 ···························································································79
• (1) 가설 H2의 검증 ································································································79
• (2) 가설 H3의 검증 ································································································81
• (3) 가설 H4의 검증 ································································································83
• 5. 가설검증 결과정리 ·······························································································84
• 6. 추가분석 ···············································································································87
• (1) 일원배치분산분석(ANOVA) ··········································································88
• (2) 분산분석_종합결과 ···························································································91
• Ⅴ.결 론 ·····················································································································92
• 1. 연구요약 및 결론 ·································································································92
• 2. 연구의 시사점 ·····································································································94
• 3. 연구 한계점 및 과제 ·························································································96
• <참고문헌> ····················································································································97
• * 부록 : 228개 기초자치단체 재정자립도 현황

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 새지방재정론, 윤영진, 대영문화사, 서울, , 2016

2. 재정의 지방분권화, 안종석, 한국조세연구원, 서울, , 2002

3. An Essay on Fiscal Federalism, Oates, Wallace E., 37(3), 1120-1149, , 1999

4. The dangers of decentralization, Prud'homme, Rémy, 10, 201-220, , 1995

5. 한국 지방자치의 당면 과제, 조성호, 이슈 & 진단, 1, 1-20, , 2011

6. 재정분권과 지방소비 소득세, 김대영, 이영희, 한국지방행정연구원, 원주, , 2009

7. 분권화를 위한 지방세제 개혁, 이재은, 한국지방재정논집, 7(1), 177-200, , 2002

8. 정치분권의 수준과 향후 과제, 라휘문, 금창호, 한국정책연구, 16(1), 35-51, , 2016

9. 지방재정조정제도의 개선방안, 서정섭, 조기현, 한국지방행정연구원, 원주, , 2007

10. 우리나라 재정분권현황과 과제, 조임곤, 한국지방재정학회 동계학술대회 논문 집, 214, 131-144, , 2017

11. New Modes of Control in the Public Service, Hoggett, P., 74(1), 9-32, , 1996

12. 지방분권 추진성과와 향후 과제, 김성배, 국토, 279, 18-25, , 2005

13. 지방자치 30년 회고와 향후 과제, 배준구, 한국지방정부학회 춘계학술대회, 2021, 409-435, , 2021

14. 재정분권에 대한 평가와 추진방향, 라휘문, 한국정책연구, 19(3), 1-23, , 2019

15. 문재인 정부의 재정분권 효과 분석, 이상훈, 김경민, 한국지방세연구원, 서울, , 2021

16. 지방의 희생을 강요하는 재정 현실, 이현우, 송상훈, 경기개발연구원, 경기, , 2011

17. 우리나라 지역경제성장과 지방재정, 김성태, 한국지방세연구원, 서울, , 2012

18. Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Development, Oates, Wallace E., 46, 237-243, , 1993

19. The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study., Treisman, Daniel., 76, 399-457, , 2000

20. 재정분권화와 지방채정책의 발전방안, 조기현, 한국지방행정연구원, 서울, , 2003

21. 주요국의 재정분권 추진현황과 시사점, 류재린, 이상호, 최은주, 이남형, 송원근, 국회예산정책처, 서울, , 2018

22. 중앙권한 이양정책의 평가에 관한 연구, 조성호, 경기개발연구원, 경기, , 2009

23. 지방재정의 자율성과 책임성 확보 방안, 이현우, 국회입법조사처, 서울, , 2018

24. 사회복지재정 분권화의 의의와 정책과제, 윤영진, 사회과학총론, 26(1), 63-85, , 2007

25. 재정분권을 위한 지방재정제도 개편방안, 안종석, 재정포럼, 10(280), 34-62, , 2019

26. 재정분권의 이론과 지방재정의 적정구조, 최병호, 한국지방재정학회, 서울, , 2006

27. 역대 정부의 지방자치의 성과와 향후 과제, 배준구, 지방공기업, 15(35), 70-73, , 2021

28. 우리나라의 재정분권 상태 측정에 관한 연구, 임성일, 한국지방세연구원, 서울, , 2017

29. Designing tax policies in federalis t economies: An Overview, Inman, Robert P. and Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 60, 307-334, , 1996

30. 재정분권 수준의 평가와 정책적 시사점, 서울, 하능식, 이선영, 한국지방세연구원, , 2016

31. 재정분권에 대한 소고: 헌법 개정을 중심으로, 이상범, 지방행정연구, 32(2), 63-90, , 2018

32. 지방분권 국정과제의 평가와 성공적 추진전략, 금창호, 박기관, 한국정책연구, 14(1), 1-23, , 2014

33. 지방재정의 실태와 정부간 재정관계 개선방안, 박상우, 국회예산결산특별 위원회, 서울, , 2013

34. 정부 간 수직적 재정불균형과 지방정부 책임성, 오영균, 사회적경제와 정책연 구, 11(3), 133-155, , 2021

35. On the evolution of fiscal federalism: theory and instituti ons, Oates, Wallace E., 61(2), 313-334, , 2008

36. 신정부의 재정분권 과제와 추진방안에 대한 소고, 배인명, 지방행정연구, 31(3), 21-49, , 2017

37. 재정분권의 이론과 적정한 지방재정의 구조 모색, 최병호, 지방재정논집, 12( 1), 129-160, , 2007

38. 선도적 자치분권 실현을 위한 분권촉진 방안 연구, 고경훈, 이병기, 한국지 방행정연구원, 원주, , 2017

39. 우리나라의 지방재정과 지역경제에 대한 실증분석, 지은초, 중앙대 박사학위 논 문, , 2017

40. 재정분권화가 도시정부 재정력격차에 미치는 영향., 권오성, 한국지방자치학회 보, 16(2), 83-101, , 2004

41. 재정분권 추진에 따른 지방재정조정제도의 개선방안, 윤태섭, 김성주, 한국 지방행정연구원, 원주, , 2019

42. 지방분권제도 확립을 위한 중앙행정권한의 지방이양, 김성화, 법제, 2017(4), 10-31, , 2017

43. 한국 지방자치단체의 지방재정자립도 결정요인 분석, 김성태, 한국동서경제연 구, 16(1), 1-18, , 2004

44. 미래변화에 대응하는 중앙-지방간 재정관계 정립방향, 손희준, 지방재정, 2015(2), 38-71, , 2015

45. 지방자치단체 재정자율성 측정 지표 활용에 대한 연구, 박병희, 지방행정연구, 20(1), 165-190, , 2006

46. 지역내총생산에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인에 관한 연구, 안영균, 지역연구, 35(1), 47-57, , 2019

47. 서울시 자치구 간 재정력 격차에 미치는 영향요인 분석, 금재덕, 하 현, 박종철, 지방행정연구, 30(3), 123-154, , 2016

48. 지방자치단체 재정 여건의 군집 양상과 영향 요인 분석, 안형석, 우해봉, 장인수, 응용경제, 20(3), 67-107, , 2018

49. 지방자치단체의 재정건전성 평가모델 개발에 관한 연구, 이희재, 이효, 한국지 방재정논집, 26(1), 85-115, , 2021

50. 재정분권 확대에 따른 지방자치단체 재정격차 해 소방안, 박근후, 신명주, 양창훈, 권명화, 국회예산정책처, 서울, , 2019

51. 재정분권 확대에 따른 지방자치단체 재정책임성 제고방안, 김성찬, 홍근석, 한국지방행정연구원, 원주, , 2018

52. 재정분권과 지역 간 경제력 격차 및 인구이동에 관한 연구, 조임곤, 김현아, 한국조세재정연구원, 세종, , 2020

53. 지방자치단체 사회복지지출 수준의 결정요인 분석: 1995-2005, 이재완, 김교성, 사회복지정책, 31, 105-124, , 2007

54. 국고보조금에 있어서 지방비 부담제도의 문제점과 개선과제, 홍인기, 국회 예산정책처, 서울, , 2013

55. 우리나라 광역자치단체의 재정자립도 격차는 줄어들고 있는가, 지은초, 박완규, 지역연구, 32(3), 45-62, , 2016

56. 지방분권 수준과 영향요인 관계 분석: 재정적 분권을 중심으로, 최영출, 지방정 부연구, 17(2), 369-389, , 2013

57. 지방자치단체의 과세자주권 수준의 판단기준 정립에 관한 연구, 김태호, 지방 자치법연구, 17(2). 133-158, , 2017

58. 보통교부세의 재정조정기능 분서과 재정분권정책에 주는 시사점, 허등용, 이선영, 한국지방세연구원, 서울, , 2019

59. 지방자치단체의 재정특성이 지방채무에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구, 편도창, 오영호, 경영교육연구, 27(3), 485-515, , 2012

60. 지방정부의 재정건전성에 영향을 미치는 정치적 요인에 관한 연구, 윤성원, 한 국비교정부학보, 23(4), 215-233, , 2019

61. 지방자치단체 재정 자립을 위한 세제 개선방안에 관한 탐색적 연구, 박승식, 정길채, 국제회계연구, 89, 187–208, , 2020

62. 시군 재정자립도의 내생적 결정요인 분석 : 인구규모별 횡단면 분석, 이순배, 한국지방재정논집, 13(2), 27-51, , 2008

63. 지방재정분석지표와 재정위험판단지표의 상관관계 및 영향요인 분석, 박완규, 예산정책연구, 1(1), 135-171, , 2012

64. 외국의 지방재정제도: 미국의 포괄제도금(block grant) 제도 경험과 시 사점, 임성일, 지방재정과 지방세, 18, 150-178, , 2009

65. 지방정부의 재정력격차와 재정력연전 분석: 재정자립도와 재정자주도 활용, 주만수, 경제학연구, 62(3), 119-145, , 2014

66. 문재인 정부 재정분권의 성공적 추진전략에 관한 연구: 세입분권 을 중심으로, 전성만, 조기현, 한국지방행정연구원, 원주, , 2019

67. 문재인 정부의 재정분권방안: 역대 정부의 국정과제에 대한 평가를 중 심으로, 손희준, 2018년 지방재정 세미나 발표논문집, 433-465, , 2018

68. 재정분권과 갈등 그리고 지방재정의 수평적 재정조정제도 활성화를 위 한 조건, 이재원, 한국지방재정논집, 25(3), 33-61, , 2020

69. 건강도시는 지방정부의 자원을 확 장하는가?: 환경, 사회복지, 보건, 교통 예산을 중심으로, 고광욱 , 강은정, 김유림, 김건엽 , 함영은 , 손창우, 보건사회연구, 41(1), 99-122, , 2021

70. 재정분권의 원리와 우리나라 지방재정제도 평가: 문재인정부의 재정분권개혁을 위한 기초, 주만수, 지방행정연구, 32(1), 61-94, , 2018

71. 선진국의 지방자치 체계와 재정고권의 보장 –지방 정부의 재정고권보장에 관한 개헌안 제안-, 김수연, 전학선 , 임 현, 방동희, 한국지방세연구원, 서울, , 2017