혁신창업 및 기업가정신 생태계 모니터링 사업 (10차년도) (제1권) 지역 혁신창업생태계 현황과 과제

국문 초록 (Abstract)

[연구목적]
○ 지역경제에 선도적 역할을 담당하는 혁신창업 및 기업가정신 생태계의 조사․분석과 함께, 딥테크 분야별 스타트업 생태계 진단 모델 구축 및 현황 분석을 통한 맞춤형 생태계 지원 정책을 제시하고자 함

[주요내용]
○ 지역의 혁신창업 및 기업가정신생태계 현황과 과제를 제시하는 ‘기초연구’와 생태계 진단 및 모니터링 과정 등에서 포착된 핵심 연구주제를 실증차원에서 연구하는 ‘심화연구’로 구분하여 수행
○ 제1권 「지역 혁신창업생태계 현황과 과제」에서는 지역 혁신창업생태계 지표 연구를 통해 지역별 혁신창업생태계 비교를 체계화하고 3개 지역(울산, 대구, 청주(오송))에 대한 심층 조사 및 현장 관계자 워크숍을 수행하여 혁신창업생태계의 지역별 과제와 지역 혁신창업생태계의 균형 성장을 위한 종합 과제를 제시함
○ 제2권 「딥테크 스타트업 생태계 현황 분석 및 진단」에서는 혁신창업 지원의 전략성 및 선도성 강화를 위해 5대 딥테크 분야(➊ 시스템반도체, ➋ 바이오·헬스, ➌ 빅데이터·인공지능(AI) ➍ 친환경·에너지, ➎ 로봇) 별 스타트업 생태계 현황을 면밀히 분석하고 경쟁력을 진단하여 분야별 지원정책의 고도화 전략을 제시함

[정책대안]
○ (지역 창업생태계 활성화를 위한 정책과제) ① 혁신창업생태계의 초지역 연계 및 협력 강화: 창업경제권 도입, ② 지역 혁신창업생태계의 지속가능성장을 위한 벤처 투자 역량 강화, ③ 지역 창업 인재 양성 및 창업생태계 모니터링
- 지역별 정책과제는 본문 참고
○ 5대 딥테크 분야별 창업생태계 활성화를 위한 정책과제
① (시스템반도체) BM 혁신성/차별성 강화, 수요기반 실증 및 수요기업 협력 파트너십 등
② (바이오/헬스) 투자 및 상장제도 개선, 병원-기업-정부 간 기술혁신 협력생태계 구축 등
③ (빅데이터/AI) 도메인 특화형 파운데이션 모델 개발, AI오픈소스 생태계 활성화 등
④ (친환경/에너지) 탄소중립 국제 표준 및 규제 대응력 강화, 측정 인프라 보급 등
⑤ (로봇) 인증 및 실증 기획 프로세스 도입 및 해외인증 획득 지원, 핵심 부품 국산화 등

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

[v. 1] Current Status and Challenges of Regional Startup Ecosystems

ㆍProject Leader: Mi-Ae Jung ․ Younghwan Kim
ㆍParticipants: Sunwoo Kim ․ Jieun Seong · Meeryung Mo · Wooseok Jin · Yoonha Hwang

In an era marked by global economic stagnation and population decline, South Korea's regions are seeking new drivers of growth beyond their traditional manufacturing infrastructure. The innovation startup ecosystem plays a crucial role in generating regional dynamism and fostering sustainability. However, the concentration of venture businesses and investments in the Seoul metropolitan area raises concerns about the sustainable development of national competitiveness. To address this, the government has been intensifying its support for balanced growth in regional startup ecosystems.
This study aims to identify the ecosystem factors influencing regional competitiveness in generating innovation startup and to propose tasks for improving regional strartup ecosystems. The various strengths, weaknesses, and interactions among regional stakeholders necessitate a deep understanding of regional contexts to devise more effective policies. Accordingly, this study focuses on comparing regional startup ecosystems using quantitative indicators and conducting in-depth case studies.
The research is structured into two components: a diagnostic study on the current status of regional startup ecosystems using a comprehensive indicators and case studies aimed at the dynamics of ecosystem elements and relationships. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, coupled with participatory workshops involving local stakeholders, the study explores policy tasks.
Chapter 2 focuses on establishing an indicator framework to assess the strengths and weaknesses of regional startup ecosystems. A mixed approach, combining causal analysis with comprehensive and integrated evaluation, was employed for selecting detailed indicators within each domain. A preliminary list of 203 indicators was refined through a secondary review, considering redundancy, data availability, and alignment with theoretical frameworks. Given the high concentration of innovation resources in Seoul and Gyeonggi, indicators were normalized relative to regional population or GDP to provide a balanced comparison. Arithmetic averages of domain-specific indicators were calculated for each region, distinguishing between metropolitan and local government groups. Regional scores were normalized to a 5-point scale, with the highest-performing region serving as the benchmark. Furthermore, dynamic aspects of the entrepreneurial ecosystems were incorporated through time-series indicators, such as changes over the past three years and growth rates, to provide a more comprehensive reflection of regional performance.

<Table 1> Comparative Indicators of Startup Ecosystems Across 17 Provinces and Cities





<Table 2> Comparative Indicators of Startup Ecosystems Across small and medium cities


The current status and challenges of the regional startup ecosystems in Ulsan, Daegu, and Cheongju, as comprehensively summarized through in-depth investigations in Chapter 3 and future workshops with local practitioners in Chapter 4, are as follows.

<Table 3> Current Status and Challenges of the Startup Ecosystems by Case Regions

Region
Category
Contents
Ulsan
Current Status
● A major industrial city with a startup ecosystem grounded in specialized industries such as shipbuilding and offshore engineering.
● Significant collaboration between key innovation support institutions and large corporations to support technology commercialization.
● Strong potential for innovation leveraging industrial expertise, but lacks advanced technology and human capital.
Key Challenges
● Diversify the industrial base beyond manufacturing to include cultural, environmental, and safety-oriented growth sectors.
● Revise governance structures and strengthen collaboration to resolve overlapping programs and promote problem-focused initiatives.
● Enhance youth retention through improved education, training, and startup-friendly environments.
● Accelerate the integration of advanced technologies, such as AI and big data, to create new industries.
● Leverage cross-regional initiatives, such as the Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam megacity, to enhance competitiveness.
Daegu
Current Status
● Transitioning toward five emerging industries (ABB, robotics, UAM, healthcare, semiconductors), supported by proactive local government efforts.
● Plays a pivotal role in the value chain of emerging industries, leveraging its existing industrial base for upstream and downstream collaboration.
● Demonstrates agility and effectiveness in addressing startup challenges through its support ecosystem.
Key Challenges
● Foster collaboration between traditional manufacturing and emerging industries by establishing supply-demand matching policies.
● Attract private startup experts by showcasing the region's startup ecosystem and infrastructure.
● Develop strategies for global expansion through open innovation between mid-to-large-sized corporations and startups.
● Establish the Daegu-Gyeongbuk Innovation Startup Cluster, leveraging resources and expertise to nurture advanced startups.
Cheong-ju (Osong)
Current Status
● A small-scale municipality with a population of 30,000, hosting a biotech-focused startup ecosystem with strong links to national clusters and research institutes.
● Home to Korea’s largest bio-cluster, facilitating R&D, clinical trials, and commercialization processes for startups.
Key Challenges
● Expand multifunctional startup spaces, co-working offices, and networking infrastructure.
● Strengthen the training of biotech professionals and attract global talent.
● Enhance support for global market entry, including marketing, legal, and networking assistance.
● Establish cooperative governance frameworks to coordinate efforts with neighboring regions, such as Daejeon and Chungbuk.


Each regional startup ecosystem has distinct strengths and characteristics, leading to diverse development pathways. However, there is a need for nationally coordinated policies and supportive environments to foster their growth. From a national perspective, the following policy directions aim to promote balanced growth between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions and ensure the sustainable development of innovation startup ecosystems.
(1) Strengthening Interregional Collaboration and Introducing Startup Economic Zones
The current fragmented approach to regional startup policies, divided among metropolitan and local governments, necessitates a transition toward a startup economic zone model. This model would integrate resources and opportunities across regions with high accessibility. As confirmed by ecosystem indicators, essential components such as human capital, startup infrastructure, and investment capital are heavily concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area. Regional case studies highlight that leveraging resources and infrastructure from neighboring areas yields measurable outcomes. Under existing administrative boundaries, strategies for fostering interregional collaboration in innovation startup ecosystems must be developed.

(2) Enhancing Venture Investment Capacity for Sustainable Growth
To ensure the sustainability of regional innovation startup ecosystems, venture investment capacity must be strengthened. While regional funds are being established, the management of these funds largely remains in Seoul-based venture capital firms, limiting local ecosystems from gaining operational experience in investment, returns, and reinvestment.
Key recommendations include: (i) Selecting fund operators with a strong understanding of regional dynamics to design funds tailored to local startup characteristics; (ii) Establishing incentives for reinvesting returns into regional ecosystems, creating a self-sustaining investment-reinvestment cycle.
Prioritizing regionalization of fund management to invigorate local ecosystems and foster long-term growth.

(3) Developing Regional Startup Talent and Ecosystem Monitoring
The need for youth entrepreneurship and talent attraction is critical across all regions, particularly in non-metropolitan areas facing population decline and potential extinction. Securing startup talent is a fundamental prerequisite for any effective policy. Beyond entrepreneurs, systematic training of startup support professionals is required to facilitate connections between startups and ecosystem resources, ensuring sustainability.
Future monitoring systems should evolve to include: (i) Detailed indicators for investment stages, startup growth, and the impact of startups on local industries; (ii) Metrics capturing regional entrepreneurial characteristics and sector-specific startup activity; (iii) Involvement of regional startup support experts in monitoring activities to assess challenges, track ecosystem progress, and provide actionable policy feedback. This participatory approach would enhance the synergy between startup support policies and ecosystem management, driving sustainable regional innovation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• [제1권] 지역 혁신창업생태계 현황과 과제
• 국문 요약 ⅰ
• 영문 요약 Ⅰ
• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구 배경 및 목적 1
• 제2절 연구 구성 및 범위 3
• 제2장 지역 혁신창업생태계 지표 체계 6
• 제1절 지역 혁신창업생태계 진단을 위한 이론 틀 6
• 제2절 지역 혁신창업생태계 지표 선정 및 지표화 12
• 제3절 지역 혁신창업생태계 비교: 양적 지표 중심 17
• 제3장 지역 혁신창업생태계 현황 조사 21
• 제1절 울산 21
• 1. 울산 혁신창업생태계 현황 21
• 2. 울산 혁신창업생태계 구조 44
• 3. 울산 혁신창업 사례 46
• 제2절 대구 49
• 1. 대구 혁신창업생태계 현황 49
• 2. 대구 혁신창업생태계 구조 72
• 3. 대구 혁신창업 사례 73
• 제3절 충북 청주(오송) 75
• 1. 충북 혁신창업생태계 현황 75
• 2. 청주(오송) 혁신창업생태계 구조 88
• 3. 청주(오송) 혁신창업생태계 사례 91
• 제4장 지역 혁신창업생태계 현장관계자 참여 미래워크샵 96
• 제1절 지역 혁신창업생태계 개선을 위한 실행연구 접근 96
• 제2절 지역 혁신창업생태계 미래워크샵 결과: SOAR 분석 101
• 1. 울산 101
• 2. 대구 103
• 3. 청주(오송) 104
• 제3절 지역 혁신창업생태계 미래워크샵의 의의와 개선 방향 107
• 제5장 결론 109
• 제1절 연구 종합: 사례 지역 별 혁신창업생태계 현황과 과제 109
• 1. 울산 109
• 2. 대구 116
• 3. 청주(오송) 121
• 제2절 지역 혁신창업생태계 개선을 위한 과제 123
• 1. 혁신창업생태계의 초지역 연계 및 협력 강화: 창업경제권 도입 123
• 2. 지역 혁신창업생태계의 지속가능성장을 위한 벤처 투자 역량 강화 125
• 3. 지역 창업 인재 양성 및 창업생태계 모니터링 126
• 참고문헌 129
• 부 록 135