지역주도의 지역과학기술 혁신을 위한 법제 정비방안

윤종민 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2022 江原法學 Vol.68 No.-

Regional science and technology innovation is recognized as an important means of national survival that can prevent the disappearance of the regions due to population decline and the collapse of the metropolitan area caused by it, beyond the level of realizing national science and technology innovation at the regional level. Regional science and technology innovation system played a role in promoting regional development and revitalizing the local economy by creating future industries in the region. However, today, it is an important national policy that promotes balanced development of the nation by creating high-quality jobs in the region based on science and technology, and by solving social problems such as population decline that the region is facing so that individual regions can develop autonomously. In order to promote regional science and technology innovation suitable for the changed times and environment, it is most important and necessary to prepare the legal system basis so that the state and each local government can jointly establish and promote regional science and technology innovation policies. The current legal system of regional science and technology innovation has certain limitations, such as the central government-oriented policy promotion system, fragmentary regulations on regional science and technology innovation, and the difficulty of implementing science and technology policies as a means of solving complex problems in the local community, and so needs to be improved progressively. In reorganizing the legal system of regional science and technology innovation, it is desirable to enact a new independent law rather than partially amending the current related laws. In enacting an independent law, a legislative bill that can systematically reflect the following matters should be prepared that regional-oriented transformation of the regional science and technology innovation policy promotion system, securing financial means to support the continuous and stable implementation of regional science and technology innovation policies, preparing a support system to rapidly expand the region’s own scientific and technological base and capacity, and operation system of an organization in charge of professional establishment and execution of science and technology innovation policies, etc. 지역의 과학기술 혁신은 국가의 과학기술 혁신을 단순히 지역 단위에서 실현하는 것을 넘어 인구감소에 따른 지역의 소멸과 이로 인해 초래될 수도권의 붕괴를 막을 수 있는 중요한 국가 존립의 수단으로서 인식되고 있다. 즉 오늘날의 지역과학기술 혁신은 과거와 같이 과학기술 진흥을 통해 지역개발을 촉진하고 지역의 미래 산업을 창출하여 지역경제를 활성화하는 정책수단을 넘어 과학기술을 기반으로 지역의 고급 일자리를 만들고 나아가 지역이 당면한 인구감소 등의 사회문제들을 적극 해결하여 개별 지역이 자생적으로 발전해 나갈 수 있게 유도함으로써 국토의 균형적인 발전을 도모하는 중요한 국가정책으로 대두되고 있다. 그동안 지역과학기술 혁신정책은 중앙정부가 시행하는 국가과학기술 정책의 한 분야 내지 부속 정책으로 취급하여 추진되어 왔음을 부인하기 어렵고, 각 지역이 중심이 되고 개별 지역의 산업 및 사회적 특성과 여건을 반영한 독립적인 정책으로 수립하여 추진하도록 하기 위한 국가 차원의 노력이나 이를 위한 거버넌스 개편 등의 시스템 정비가 미흡하였다. 이에 변화된 시대와 환경에 적합한 지역과학기술 혁신을 도모하기 위해서는 국가와 지방자치단체가 공동으로 지역주도의 지역과학기술 혁신정책을 수립하여 추진할 수 있는 법제도 기반을 정비하는 것이 필요한 상황이다. 현행 지역과학기술 혁신법제는 중앙정부 중심의 정책추진체계, 지역과학기술 혁신에 관한 단편적인 규정, 지역사회의 복합적인 문제해결수단으로서의 과학기술 정책추진의 곤란성 등 일정한 한계를 보이고 있어 이를 발전적으로 새롭게 정비할 필요가 있다. 지역과학기술 혁신법제를 정비함에 있어서는 현행 관련 법률을 부분적으로 개정하기 보다는 새로운 독립 법률로 제정하는 것이 바람직하다. 독립 법률을 제정함에 있어서는 지역과학기술 혁신정책 추진체계의 지역중심 전환, 지역과학기술 혁신정책의 지속적이고 안정적인 추진을 지원하기 위한 재정수단의 확보, 지역의 자체적인 과학기술 기반과 역량을 조속히 확충할 수 있는 지원체계 마련, 지역과학기술 혁신정책의 전문적인 수립과 집행을 담당하는 전담조직과 기구의 운영 등에 관한 사항이 체계적으로 반영될 수 있도록 입법 추진방안을 마련하여야 한다.

유럽지역혁신시스템(RIS)의 성과 결정요인에 관한 연구

김득갑 연세대학교 동서문제연구원 2022 동서연구 Vol.34 No.1

All countries have the task of preparing for the 4th industrial revolution along with regional balanced growth. This is why the regional-based innovative growth strategy that combines regional and industrial policies that the OECD has emphasized is drawing attention. In Korea, cluster-based regional innovation systems are growing in various places, but there are many points that need to be improved. In this context, the ‘smart specialization strategy (RIS3)’ promoted by the EU and the regional innovation system in Europe can give us many policy implications. In this study, EU's smart specialization strategy (RIS3) was examined and the factors affecting the economic performance of 280 European regional innovation systems were identified by using hierarchical adjustment regression analysis with innovation performance as a moderating variable. As a result of the analysis, it was confirmed that the regional innovation system (RIS) had a significant effect on economic performance through the moderating effect (interaction effect) with the innovation performance. This study also confirmed that the economic performance of the regional innovation system is improved when the innovation performance is high, and that four elements(‘Regional innovation capacity’, ‘regional governance’, ‘business dynamism’, ‘cooperation and interaction’) constituting the regional innovation system are necessary to improve the economic performance. In addition, it was confirmed that 'regional innovation capacity' and 'regional governance' brought a significant difference to the economic performance of the regional innovation system through the interaction with the innovation performance. On the other hand, the direct effects of 'corporate dynamism' and 'cooperation and interaction' on economic performance were confirmed, but the moderating effect of innovation performance was not confirmed. This means that many underdeveloped regions in Europe have not yet been able to link corporate dynamism, cooperation and interactions with innovation activities. In order for corporate dynamism and cooperation and interaction to contribute to vitalization of the local economy, an open and dynamic innovation ecosystem must be created. The policy implications of this study are: First, the priority of policy should be placed on strengthening regional innovation capabilities. Second, in order for the regional innovation system to be successful, efficient regional governance in which all economic actors participate should be established. Third, continuous efforts should be made to create an open innovation ecosystem so that corporate dynamism, cooperation and interaction can be linked with innovation performance. Fourth, the advancement of regional innovation systems and the establishment of a dynamic innovation ecosystem cannot be achieved overnight. This is the reason why the EU and its member states have been continuously pursuing private-led open smart specialization strategies for a long time. 모든 국가는 지역 균형성장과 함께 4차 산업혁명 시대에도 대비해야 하는 과제를 안고 있다. OECD가 강조해온 지역정책과 산업정책을 결합한 지역기반의 혁신성장전략이 주목받는 이유다. 국내에서도 클러스터 기반의 지역혁신시스템이 여러 곳에서 태동·발전하고 있으나 개선해야 할 점들이 적지 않다. 이러한 맥락에서 EU가 추진해온 ‘스마트 전문화 전략(RIS3)’과 유럽의 지역혁신시스템은 우리에게 정책적 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 EU의 스마트 전문화 전략(RIS3)을 살펴보고 혁신성과를 조절변수로 한 위계적 조절회귀분석을 실시하여 유럽 지역혁신시스템(RIS)의 경제성과에 영향을 주는 요인을 규명하였다. 분석 결과 지역혁신시스템은 혁신성과와의 조절효과를 통해 경제성과에 유의한 영향을 주며, 여기에는 지역혁신시스템을 구성하는 4개의 요소가 모두 필요함을 확인하였다. 또한 ‘지역혁신역량’과 ‘지역 거버넌스’는 혁신성과와의 상호작용을 통해 경제성과에 유의한 영향을 미치는 반면, ‘기업 역동성’과 ‘협력 및 상호작용’은 혁신성과의 조절효과가 입증되지 않았다. 이는 유럽의 많은 낙후 지역에서 ‘기업 역동성’과 ‘협력 및 상호작용’이 아직 혁신성과와 연계되지 못하고 있음을 뜻한다. 기업 역동성과 협력 및 상호작용이 혁신성과와 어우러져 지역경제 활성화에 기여하려면 개방적이고 역동적인 혁신생태계가 필요하다. 본 연구의 시사점은 첫째, 정책의 우선순위를 지역혁신역량의 강화에 두어야 하고, 둘째, 경제주체들이 참여하는 효율적인 거버넌스를 구축해야 하며, 셋째, 기업 역동성과 협력 및 상호작용이 혁신성과와 연계되도록 역동적인 혁신생태계 조성에 꾸준히 노력해야 한다. 넷째, 지역혁신시스템의 고도화 및 역동적인 혁신생태계의 구축은 하루아침에 이루어지지 않는다. EU와 회원국들이 오래 전부터 민간 주도의 개방화된 스마트 전문화 전략을 지속적으로 추진해온 이유도 바로 여기에 있다.

Regular Papers : Does Regional Innovation Policy Match Regional Innovation System?: The Case of Local Public Technology Centers in Japan

( Nobuya Fukugawa ) 한국중소기업학회 2011 中小企業硏究 Vol.33 No.2

[Background] Local public technology centers, administrated by the prefectural and municipal government, have engaged in technological support for small local firms. The initiation of this regional innovation policy dates back to the modern economic growth in the 1880s. Local public technology centers offer various kinds of technological services such as testing, inspection, usage of experimental equipments, workshops for technology diffusion, technological consultation, funded research and joint research. They also conduct their own research, patent inventions and license out their patents chiefly to small local firms. Recently two structural changes forced local public technology centers to redefine their strategies in regional innovation systems. First, after a prolonged recession in the 1990s, the local authorities became highly cost-conscious, which led them to cut centers` budgets and to evaluate them more rigorously. Second, the reform of national innovation systems, symbolized by the incorporation of national universities in 2004, made knowledge interactions between small local firms and national universities more active, which has created a new source of knowledge for small local firms that performed R&D. [Purpose] Under such circumstances, local public technology centers are required to establish their own strategies that match the characteristics of regional innovation systems. Since local public technology centers are administrated by local authorities, their strategy development represents regional innovation policy. Their strategies are predicted to be most effective when they are developed in accordance with the characteristics of regional innovation systems. Using a comprehensive database on local public technology centers, this study aims to quantitatively examine whether regional innovation policy represented as centers` resource allocation strategies during 2000 and 2008 is contingent on, or regardless of, the characteristics of regional innovation systems. [Structure] First, I established the model to describe the characteristics of regional innovation systems. The model conceptualizes the local market for public technological services, such as technological consultation, workshops for diffusion of new technologies, material inspection, and joint research, from demand-side and supply-side perspectives. Demand-side factors are represented as the absorptive capacity of small local firms. Regions with more R&D-active small firms would exhibit more needs for high-quality public knowledge and more interactive channels, such as joint research, for knowledge transfer. Supply-side factors are represented as the activeness of national universities in the region to interact with small local firms via joint research. Regions with a national university willing to interact with small local firms would require local public technology centers to establish distinct strategies that do not overlap with the universities` role in the local market for public technological services. Second, I identified two key strategies that characterize technology transfer channels offered by local public technology centers. Based on factor analysis, various technological services provided by centers were integrated into two factors: the tendency to enhance the centers` own research capabilities; and the tendency to directly support small local firms. Then, I developed theoretical predictions about the relationships between regional innovation policy represented as resource allocation strategies of the centers and the characteristics of regional innovation systems where the center is located. Third, using a comprehensive dataset of local public technology centers, a statistical analysis was conducted to test whether centers` strategies were developed so that they would match the characteristics of regional innovation systems. [Method] Based on the model that describes the characteristics of regional innovation systems, I introduced a proxy variable for demand-side factors of the local market for public technological services, i.e., the ratio of R&D-active small firms to the whole small firms in the region. A proxy variable for supply-side factors was the ratio of joint research projects between small local firms and national universities to all joint research projects conducted by national universities in the region. Two proxy variables were enabled to draw a scatter chart, where vertical axis denotes demand-side factors and horizontal axis denotes supply-side factors, representing the location of the 47 local authorities in Japan. [Result] Four quadrants were identified by dividing a scatter chart by introducing averages of demand- and supply-side factors in the chart. For instance, a region (prefecture) in Quadrant II has small local firms with above-average absorptive capacity while universities in that region have below-average activity in knowledge interactions with small local firms. This implies that in such region, local public technology centers with high-quality technological knowledge can act as a significant spillover pool for small R&D-intensive firms in that region. An analysis of variance was conducted to test whether local public technology centers` strategies adopted between 2000 and 2008 aligned with the regional environmental characteristics identified as four quadrants. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference in centers` resource allocation strategies according to the characteristics of regional innovation systems. This implies that local public technology centers` resources may not have been fully utilized as an engine for regional economic development. [Contributions] Theoretical and policy implications derived from empirical results are as follows. First, based on the previous literature on regional knowledge spillovers, a model to describe the characteristics of regional innovation systems was developed. The model pictures the local market for public technological services from demand-side and supply-side perspectives. Linked to two distinct centers` strategies identified by factor analysis, this model enables us to infer theoretical relationships between regional innovation policy represented as resource allocation strategies of local public technology centers and the characteristics of regional innovation systems, which can be quantitatively examined. The newly developed model to understand regional innovation systems and empirical approach to examine the relationships between regional innovation policy and regional innovation systems can be applied to the assessment of regional innovation policy in other geographies. This constitutes the strength of the study. Second, with a comprehensive dataset of the centers, the aforementioned approach enabled us to quantitatively evaluate regional innovation policy on local public technology centers for the first time. This makes a clear contrast to the existing studies on local public technology centers based on case studies, where the generality of their implications are limited. Although local public technology centers have been considered to play an important role in regional economic development, the results suggest that they need to make their strategies more efficient so that their resources will be allocated in concord with the characteristics of the regional innovation system. The policy implications of this study are that local authorities and local public technology centers should precisely recognize their relative advantage in the region. Then it would be possible for them to rebuild guidelines that would help local public technology centers to contribute to the regional economic development in a more relevant manner.

지역혁신과 재정인센티브의 연계방안에 관한 연구

윤광재(尹光在) 영남대학교 한국균형발전연구소(구 지역혁신연구소) 2006 한국지역혁신논집 Vol.1 No.2

  현재, 여러 선진국가의 지역개발에 있어 지역혁신의 개념을 적극적으로 도입하고 있는 것으로 나타나고 있다. 다시 말해 기존의 소극적 지역발전의 개념에서 지역 스스로 지역발전의 주체가 되도록 한다는 것이다. 이와 같이 지역혁신체계(Regional Innovation System)에 대한 관심이 점차적으로 높아지고 중요성이 지속적으로 부각되고 있다. 참여정부하에서도 국가균형발전에 대한 패러다임의 전환을 모색하였으며 국가균형발전법은 각 시ㆍ도가 지역혁신발전 계획을 수립하고 지역혁신체계를 구축하도록 규정하고 있다. 또한 국가균형발전특별회계를 설치하여 국가균형발전계획의 추진을 재정적으로 지원하고 지역개발 및 지역혁신을 위한 사업을 지역의 특성 및 우선순위에 따라 효율적으로 추진하도록 지원하고 있다.<BR>  그러므로 국가균형발전을 위한 재정인센티브로써 지역의 혁신발전계획과 지역의 혁신체계 구축을 평가하여 그 결과에 따라 각각 지역개발사업계정과 지역혁신사업계정을 성과와 연계하여 운영하는 것이 필요하다. 지역학신발전의 계획에는 첫째, 지역혁신발전의 목표 둘째, 지역의 현황 및 발전역량의 분석 셋째, 지역혁신을 위한 여건개선 및 기반조성 넷째, 지역혁신을 위한 시책과 사업추진 다섯째, 지역혁신을 위한 투자재원의 조달 등을 평가의 중요요소로 고려한다. 그리고 지역혁신체계의 구축에는 첫째, 지역혁신체계의 유형개발, 둘째, 산ㆍ학ㆍ언 협력의 활성화, 셋째, 지역혁신을 위한 전문인력의 양성, 넷째, 기술 및 기업경영에 대한 지원기관의 확충, 다섯째, 대학ㆍ기업ㆍ연구소ㆍ비영리단체ㆍ지방자치단체 등의 교류ㆍ협력의 활성화, 여섯째, 지역혁신 관련사업의 조정 및 연계운용 등을 평가의 중요요소로 고려할 수 있다.   Currently, other advanced countries are introducing the concept of regional innovation to regional development. In other words, they are shifting from the passive concept of regional development to a positive strategy where each region becomes the principal force of regional development. There are increasing interests in the Regional Innovation System, as its importance is continually emphasized. The actual ‘Participatory Government’ is also seeking a paradigm shift of Balanced National Development. Balanced National Development Laws obligate each local government to devise regional innovative development plans and to establish regional innovation systems. Also Balanced National Development Special Accounting was established to financially support the execution of the Balanced National Development Plan and to promote efficiency in regional development and regional innovation projects according to regional characteristics and priorities. Therefore, for balanced regional development, there is a necessity to evaluate regional innovative development plans and innovation system establishment of local government, and to operate a financial incentive system that reflects the evaluation results on the regional developmental project account and regional innovative project account. Regional innovative development plans have to include : first of all, regional innovative development objectives, secondly, regional current status and development potentials analysis, thirdly, conditional improvement foundation building for regional innovative development, fourthly, policy and project executions for regional innovation, lastly, raising investment funds for regional innovation. Regional innovation system establishment have to include: first of all, regional innovation system type development, secondly, promotion of industrial-educational-research cooperation, thirdly, training of professionals for regional innovation, fourthly, expansion of support organizations for technology and business management, fifth of all, cooperation and interaction of universities, corporations, research institutions, non-profit organizations, regional governments etc, lastly, restructuring and cooperative operations of regional innovation projects.

대구경북 지역혁신 거버넌스의 실태와 과제 : 지역혁신 협의회를 사례로 Regional Innovation Council

이철우 경북대학교 사회과학대학 지리학과 2005 地理學論究 Vol.- No.24

『대구경북지역혁신협의회』가 대구 · 경북지역의 비전을 제시하고 지역혁신 전략을 제대로 수행하는 진정한 의미의 지역혁신 리더가 되기 위해서는, 협의회의 운영을 실질적으로 뒷받침하기 위한 『대구경북지역혁신기획단』이 설립 · 운영되어야 한다. 현재와 같은 지역혁신협의회 산하에 단순한 사무국으로는 지역혁신의 전반적인 사항을 관장할 수 없다. 뿐만 아니라 광역 지방자치단체에는 지역혁신협의회 및 지역혁신기획단의 업무를 지원하고, 지방자치단체가 수행하는 다양한 분야의 지역혁신정책을 통합 · 조정할 수 있는 통합창구로서 『지역혁신지원단』을 설치 · 운영하도록 하고, 필요한 경우 시 · 군 · 구에도 『지역혁신지원팀』을 운영하는 것이 바람직하다. 왜냐하면 지역혁신정책은 그 성격상 종래의 산업정책, 과학기술정책, 인적자원개발정책, 지역개발정책 등 여러 분야에 걸칠 뿐만 아니라 중앙부처의 각 부처별 정책을 지방자치단체의 입장에서 통합 · 조정하기 위해서도 지역혁신 관련정책의 수립 · 시행을 총괄적으로 조정할 수 있는 통합창구를 설치 운영하는 것이 효율적이기 때문이다. Daegu-Gyeongbuk Regional Innovation Promoting Agency needs to be constituted to help Daegu-Gyeongbuk Regional Innovation Council to be a truly leader for regional innovation. The Present Daegu-Gyeongbuk Regional Innovation Council can't present the vision of the Daegu-Gyeongbuk region and carry out strategies of regional innovation. Daegu-Gyeongbuk Regional Innovation Promoting Agency should be positioned as an executive body under the Daegu-Gyeongbuk Regional Innovation Council; so it must cover the issues on regional innovations. Provincial government of Daegu or Gyeongbuk area should support the works of Regional Innovation Council and Regional Innovation Promoting Agency, and need to found Regional Innovation Support Agency that integrates various strategies of regional innovation from the many areas. A local government such as Shi, Gun and Gu also needs to found Regional Innovation Support Team to improve the efficiency of regional innovation policies. Regional innovation policy is closely related with industry policy, science and technology policy, human resources development policy, and regional development; so, various policies that are proposed from several department from the central government and local government should be integrated.

지역혁신과 과학 및 산업기술 정책 비교 : 미국,영국과 그리스의 사례

임경순 ( Gyung Sun Im ),최자영 ( Ja Young Che ) 부산외국어대학교 지중해연구소 2006 지중해지역연구 Vol.8 No.2

These days, the theories on regional innovation system and cluster are variously deployed, referring to regional development as well as scientific and technological R&D. Above all, the 4th Generation R&D recently highlighted has given emphasis on reciprocal learning and tacit knowledge in the process of R&D, making itself a R&D having a close connection with regional innovation. The regional innovation related to technological development denotes two different meanings in view of regional sphere. One is the concept of ``islands of innovation``, which pays no regard to regional development in balance, placing much emphasis on metropoleis. The other one tries to lessen regional inequality of opportunity and to disseminate production factors far and wide. The policies of science and technology take different shapes according to the political and economical system of each nation as well as the situation of ages. The Silicon Valley and Route 128 in the U.S., and some part of the Cambridge Science Park in England are referred to the defence industry and high-technology. Greek industrial technology, however, is far from the defence industry, and related not only to high-tech, but also various living industry. In Greece, techno-parks began to be created around 1990 with the support of the European Community which purported to realize regional balance, devising a social redistribution policy for undeveloped countries. There are common points as well as differences between the advanced countries, U.S. and England, and undeveloped Greece, in view of the factors which decide success and failure of the regional innovation and the policy of science and industrial technology, and of the desirable strategies in the future. First, in Route 128 of MIT and the Cambridge Science Park, the large emterprises, being connected with government funds, lost the flexibility of entreprise management which was necessary for forstering competitiveness and innovational development. They declined gradually by isolation against each other, concealment of technology, and the ignorance of market information. In the midst of creating Silicon Valley, however, the enterprises repeat infinite divisions and consolidations, and lots of small companies were in a constant alignment by innovational technological development. This environment, which seemed chaotic and divergent, has been regarded by the scholars of later generations as a factor promoting successful regional innovation, assuming the hothouse for regional innovation based on reciprocal interaction, networking and learning. Like Silicon Valley, Greece in the 1990`s, with the close cooperation with the European Community, sought after regional innovation and entreprise management based on the common ownership and distribution of technology and information. The Thessaloniki Techno-Park, a representative one in Greece, however, still denotes immature cooperation between companies and research institutes, and exclusivity against each other. Theses features are partly due to inertia of enterprises and a small scale. Thence, a more comprehensive and effective program of regional innovation, such as extending the a social system composed of interacting antities, that is the knowledge application and exploitation entity and the knowledge generation and diffusion entity, to all the area of Greece as well as all the territory of European Unity. Secondly, in Route 128 and the Cambridge Science Park, the large entreprises of the defence industry lost competitiveness by assuming special favour of political authority. Beginning with the defence industry, however, Silicon Valley had less beaurocratic abuses, because creative and small companies there infinitely spin off. In Greece, with the support of both the government of the country itself and the European Community, more effective development of industrial technology and regional innovation has been pursued since the second half of the 1990`s. The innovation policy from above might lead to collision with the regional government, ignoring regional particulars. Then, there are still some issues to be solved. Decentralization of governmental finance and administration should be fairly realized to promote voluntary and creative cooperation in the level of regions. On the other hand, regional or private initiatives should also be balanced with the control and check of the governmental authorities as well as the European Communitty. Thirdly, the horizontal, sectorial support, and the upbringing of some limited regions by the policy of selection-concentration strengthen competitiveness and effectiveness. They might result in, however, much more inequality among regions and social classes in less developed countries, while not causing any serious problems in advanced countries. On the contrary, the policy seeking after regional balance could do harm to the effective innovation and technological development which could be successfully accomplished by selection and concentration. Then, it is inevitable, especially in less developed countries like Greece, that the various potency of each region should be unearthed in the long run, to get rid of temporary regional inequality caused by selection and concentration. The way could apply to us, today`s Korea, in the same degree.

지역혁신체계 구축 현황과 문제점

염미경 지역사회학회 2005 지역사회학 Vol.6 No.2

현재 지역혁신체계 구축은 모든 지역의 새로운 지역경제발전 패러다임이 되었고 중앙정부의지원 아래 지방이 주도적으로 이를 기획하고 추진하는 것을 기본 원칙으로 하고 있다. 이 글은 제주도의 지역혁신체계 구축현황을 살펴봄으로써 현재 구축되고 있는 지역혁신체계의 특징과 그 한계를 논의한다. 제주도 사례를 중심으로 볼 때 중앙정부에 의해 지역혁신 논의가 주도되는 실정이며 여전히 전략산업 육성이 중심이 되고 있다. 이는 중앙정부와 지방자치단체의 협력적 분권 의 현실적 미흡성에서 비롯된다. 중앙정부의 경우 협력적 분권을 주창하고는 있으나 여전히 중앙 정부의 강력한 주도권 행사와 지방정부의 역량부족이라는 현실의 벽에 부딪히고 있고, 결국 이는 지역혁신체계의 본래적 의미를 퇴색시킨다. 다음으로 제주도의 지역혁신발전 시행계획들은 지금까지 제주도가 추진해 온 각종 사업, 즉 이미 예산 편성까지 끝낸 사업을 ‘혁신사업’으로 포장 혹은 짜깁기하고 백화점식으로 나열해 형식적으로 지역혁신협의회의 승인만을 받으려 한 측면이 있다. 더욱이 국제자유도시 추진 7대 선도프로젝트 사업도 혁신사업에 포함시켜 놓은 상황이다. 또한 지역혁신체계라는 개념과 지역별 특화산업 육성이라는 개념이 혼재되면서 정책 비중은 특화산업 육성 쪽으로 경도되고 있다. 제주도의 경우 과거 권위주의 정권 시절의 관주도 관행과 혈연, 지연, 학연 등의 연결망이 지역의 의사결정과정 전반에 중첩적으로 작용하고 있어 아래로 부터의 민주적인 지역혁신체계 구축을 더욱 힘들게 하고 있다. 결국 지역혁신체계의 정착을 위해 필수불가결한 것은 지역 내 각 구성원들의 참여와 합의의 정도이다. 따라서 각종 지역혁신사업에 참여하는 주체간의 역할분담과 협력체제가 구축되어야 하며, 지역수준에서의 혁신을 위한 제도적 기반으로 지역거버넌스가 중요하다. 이는 지역혁신체계 구축이 단순한 경제정책의 차원을 넘어서는 사회문화적인 요소까지도 포괄하는 매우 복합적인 측면을 지니고 있기 때문이다. The Regional Innovation System (RIS) construction in Korea has been promoted for regional economic development under the supports of the central government. The strategy of the RIS is the growth of regional economy and business innovation by extending the regional structural flexibility, establishing the local identity and driving the environmentally sound and sustainable development. This paper attempts to get a brief sketch of the current characteristics and limits of the Jeju RIS construction. And this paper discussed some issues of direction and problem of Jeju-do innovation centering on building a Regional Innovation Committee, regional industry strategy, and New University for Regional Innovation. It can be understood that the RIS is related to the concepts of innovation systems, clusters and networks, which contribute to the development of regional industry by boosting innovations. And the region-specific innovation system is important because of various industrial conditions and potentials of each region. But Korean central government has done discordant regional industry policy such as overlapping and breakup investment in regional economic development. Moreover, the construction of RIS has been propelled by the public-led in the level of region. Therefore, the construction of good local governance and local democracy as an institutional base for regional innovation is needed within the framework of regional innovation system.

지역혁신체계 활성화를 통한 지역경쟁력 강화 방안 연구

김주태,고경일 한국경영컨설팅학회 2021 경영컨설팅연구 Vol.21 No.1

본 연구는 지역경제 활성화를 위해 필요한 지역혁신체계가 무엇인지를 이해하고, 지역혁신협의회의 현황 및 사례를 살펴보는 동시에 우리나 라 혁신생태계의 문제점을 국내 대학 및 국내 혁신기관을 포함하여 고찰해 봄으로써 지역혁신체계 활성화를 위해 필요한 정책이 무엇인지를 도 출하고 있다. 먼저, 내생적 지역 발전을 위해 상호작용적 지역혁신체계로서 지역의 대학, 연구소, 금융기관, 교육기관, 지방정부 등이 지역 내 혁 신 활동을 위해 효과적으로 협력하고, 자립적·분권적 조직구조로의 전환을 통해 지역 내 산·학·연·관 등 협력적 파트너십에 기초한 지역 거버넌 스를 구축해야 한다. 둘째로, 지역발전투자협약제도와 같이 지자체 자체적으로 지역발전 사업을 발굴하고 추진하여 지역의 필요를 해당 지역이 판단하여 보강해 나아가는 사업들을 추진함으로써 지역주민이 체감하는 지역혁신을 창출할 필요가 있다. 세째로, 지역혁신협의회 활성화를 위 해 지역혁신지원단의 기능을 현실화하여 균형실과 여타 실국간의 협력을 유도하고, 추진 사업에 대한 정보 공유 및 모니터링 기능을 강화함은 물론 분과협의회 활성화를 통해 혁신사업 관련 컨설팅 및 모니터링을 충실히 수행할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로, 지역사회 인적·물적·지적 자원의 거점인 대학을 활용하여 지역발전과 혁신을 도모하고, 지역의 지속가능한 성장을 강조한 지역-대학 혁신모델을 구축하도록 힘써야 한다. This study derives what policies are needed to vitalize the regional innovation system. To this end, it explains what the regional innovation systemis necessary to revitalize the local economy, examines the current status and cases of the regional innovation council, and considers the problems of the innovation ecosystem in Korea, including domestic universities and domestic innovation institutions. First, local universities, research institutes, financial institutions, educational institutions, and local governments must cooperate effectively to achieve endogenous regional development, and regional governance based on regional industry-academia-research-research cooperation partnerships should be established through the transition to an independent and decentralized organizational structure. Second, it is necessary to create regional innovation that local residents experience by promoting projects that reinforce the needs of the region, such as discovering and promoting regional development projects on their own, such as the regional development investment agreement system. Third, in order to revitalize the regional innovation council, the function of the regional innovation support group is realized to induce cooperationwith the departments, and the information sharing and monitoring functions for the project are strengthened, and it is necessary to provide faithfully consulting and monitoring related to innovation projects through the activation of the subcommittee. Lastly, it is necessary to promote regional development and innovation by utilizing universities, which are the bases of human, physical and intellectual resources in the local community, and to build a regional-university innovationmodel that emphasizes sustainable growth in the region.

사회적 자본의 의미와 지역혁신과의 연계성

박종화 국토연구원 2019 국토연구 Vol.103 No.-

This research examines the relationship between social capital, regional innovation capability, and regional innovation, and emphasizes the complexity and reciprocal circularity of the relationship. In contrast to the conventional linear innovation approach that emphasizes unidirectional innovation process in the regional development model, it emphasizes a dynamic approach that more comprehensively examines the impact of social capital on regional innovation capability or regional innovation. The analysis shows that the dual aspect of social capital as a resource and result of regional innovation is prominent. Social capital can, among other things, contribute to the formation of regional innovation capability and regional innovation. Moreover, social capital needs to be examined as a result of regional innovation along with its role as a ‘hidden link’ of regional innovation capability. Here, for the role of social capital as a resource of regional innovation, this research has, first of all, analyzed the connection between the components of regional innovation and social capital, illuminated the two aspects of social capital using contradicting empirical analysis results, and analyzed the function of social capital as a 'hidden link' of regional innovation capability. In terms of core components and circular processes, this research has, for the aspects of social capital as a result of regional innovation, revealed the formation and operation of cooperation norms and participation networks, the reinforcing aspects of the virtuous circle of collective actions, and the emergence and flow of new equilibrium. 본 논문은 사회적 자본, 지역혁신역량 및 지역혁신간의 관계성을 검토하고, 그 관계성의 복잡성과 상호적 순환성을 강조한다. 지역개발모형에서 단일 방향적 혁신을 강조하는 전통적 선형혁신접근방법과 대조적으로, 지역혁신역량이나 지역혁신에 대한 사회적 자본의 영향을 보다 포괄적으로 검토하는 동태적접근방법을 강조한다. 분석결과, 지역혁신의 자원이자 결과로서의 사회적 자본의 이중적 측면이 두드러진다. 사회적 자본은 무엇보다도 지역혁신역량의 형성과 지역혁신에 기여할 수 있다. 더욱이, 사회적 자본은 지역혁신역량의 ‘숨겨진 매듭’으로서의 역할과함께 지역혁신의 결과로서 검토될 필요가 있다. 여기서는 지역혁신의 자원으로서의 사회적 자본의 역할측면으로서 우선 지역혁신의 구성요소와 사회적 자본의 연계성 분석, 상충적인 실증분석결과를 활용한사회적 자본의 두 가지 모습에 대한 조명, 지역혁신역량의 ‘숨겨진 매듭’으로서의 사회적 자본의 기능등을 분석하였다. 그리고 지역혁신의 결과로서의 사회적 자본의 측면은 핵심 구성요소와 순환과정 측면에서 협력규범과 참여네트워크의 형성 및 작동관계, 집합적 행동의 선순환성 강화 측면 그리고 새로운 균형의 발현과 흐름 관계 등을 밝혔다.

Institution for Regional Innovation System: The Korean case

Kang, Byung-Joo,Oh, Deog-Seong World Technopolis Association 2015 World Technopolis Review Vol.4 No.2

There is an implicit assumption in most regional innovation policy studies that once a policy has been made the policy will be implemented. This assumption is not valid for regional innovation policies formulated in many countries. This assumption rests upon certain political and organization conditions. It is frequently said that regional innovation system in Korea is one of the successful cases because of properly established institution for the implementation of innovation policies. The components of institution for innovation are defined in this article. For the analysis of institution for regional innovation system in Korea, three aspects such as organization, policies & programs, and governance structure were taken into account. Institution for regional innovation system in Korea is analyzed with three aspects: (1) organization for policy implementation, (2) innovation policy, and (3) governance structure. Firstly, organizations for innovation in Korea are composed of three categories such as organizations for policy formulation, organizations for policy implementation and agencies for coordination. Secondly, there are two categories of policies for innovation: (1) policies for the enhancement of national competitiveness and policies for the regional innovation capacity building, and (2) policies for fostering manpower and policy for regulatory reform. Thirdly, innovation governance in Korea is composed of three layer structure: (1) top level governance which is composed of two committee, three ministries and two agencies, (2) local level governance such as one innovation related offices and one center for regulatory reform, and (3) one category of agency for coordination as a regional platform.