Trends in Regional Policy in Post-Washington Consensus Period: Review, Critique and Implications

장재홍

Space and Environment

P-ISSN1225-6706
E-ISSN2733-4295
KCI

Home

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

e-Submission

Vol.21 No.3

Citation Share

Trends in Regional Policy in Post-Washington Consensus Period: Review, Critique and Implications

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295

2011, v.21 no.3, pp.129-165

(2011). Trends in Regional Policy in Post-Washington Consensus Period: Review, Critique and Implications. Space and Environment, 21(3), 129-165.

copy

Abstract

After the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, the neo-liberalist paradigm of economic development policy based on the Washington Consensus has been criticized and a chorus of voices began to proclaim that it has ended. In regional policy area the World Bank published an important report based on the Washington Consensus view and the EU/ OECD also published a few important reports based on the Post-Washington Consensus policy framework in 2009 and 2010. In addition P. Krugman self-criticized the effectiveness of the NEG in 2011 which is a theoretical basis of the World Bank report. In this paper I reviewed the recent trends in regional policy and evaluate the debates between the World Bank and the EU/OECD on the rationale and the framework of regional policy. I made a few suggestions on the future framework of the Korean regional policy; establishing the status of regional policy in the national policy agenda, strengthening the basis of the 5+2Economic Region development policy, enhancement of the effectiveness of cluster policy.

keywords: 워싱턴 컨센서스, 지역정책, 장소기반정책, 클러스터, 신경제지리학, Washington Consensus, regional policy, place-based policy, cluster, New Economic Geography

Reference

강현수. 2007. 참여정부 균형발전 정책의 성과와 과제 . 참여사회연구소 심포지엄 (한국의 발전모델과 공간경제 전략) 자료집.

고병호. 2010. 국가균형발전을 위한 지역정책 패러다임의 변화와 방법론 . ≪도시행정학보≫, 제23집 2호, 169～197.

국가균형발전위원회 산업자원부. 2004. 제1차 국가균형발전5개년계획.

김재홍. 2010. 영국 지역발전정책의 변화과정에 관한 소고 . ≪지역과 발전≫, 2010 겨울호, 92～94.

박 경. 2005. 지역정책인가 신성장정책인가? . ≪경제발전연구≫, 제11권 1호, 79～105.

박삼옥. 2009. 경제활동 공간변화와 광역경제권 . 지역발전과 광역경제권 전략, 지역발전위원회.

이호영. 2006. 지역균형발전정책의 한계와 새로운 정책패러다임의 모색 . ≪경제연구≫, 제24권 3호, 167～195.

이철우. 2007. 참여정부 지역혁신 및 혁신클러스터 정책 추진의 평가와 과제 . ≪한국경제지리학회지≫, 제10권 4호, 377～393.

장재홍. 2005. 지역혁신정책과 지역균형발전 간의 관계 분석 및 정책 대응. 산업연구원.

10.

장재홍. 2008a. EU의 지역정책 . 박경 장재홍 정옥주 정준호. 주요국의 지역정책－EU, 영국, 프랑스, 일본, 한국산업기술재단, 3～52.

11.

장재홍. 2008b. 지역경제발전을 위한 새로운 정책 패러다임 모색 . ≪응용경제≫, 제10권 2호, 145～177.

12.

정건화. 2008. 참여정부의 지역정책 평가 . ≪동향과 전망≫, 제74호, 81～114.

13.

정원식. 2009. 신지역주의 관점에서 참여정부와 이명박 정부의 지역개발정책의 비교분석 . ≪한국정책과학학회보≫, 제13권 3호, 23～53.

14.

정준호. 2007. 한국경제의 공간구조: 그 현실과 함의 . 참여사회연구소 심포지엄(한국의 발전모델과 공간경제 전략) 자료집.

15.

정준호. 2011. 최근 영국 광역경제권 정책 변화에 대한 소고 . ≪지역과 발전≫, 2011 여름호, 31～33.

16.

지역발전위원회 지식경제부. 2009. 제1차 지역발전5개년계획.

17.

최병호 권오혁 김명수 옮김. 2006. 공간적 접근법을 이용한 도시 및 지역경제학. 시그마프레스.

18.

Barca, Fabrizio. 2009. An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy－A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. European Commission. Brussels.

19.

European Commission. 2010. EU 2020－A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Communication from th Commission, European Commission, Brussels.

20.

Florida, R. 2005. “The World is Spiky.” The Atlantic Monthly, October.

21.

Garcilazo, J. E., MartinsJ. O. and Tompson, W. 2010. “Why Policies Need to be Place-based in order to be People-centred.”http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5827

22.

Gill, I. 2010. “Regional Development Policies: Place-based or People-centred?” http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5644

23.

Jang, J-H. 2009. “Regional Development Policy in Korea- Past, Present and Future.” Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, vol. 12, no. 4, 576～596.

24.

Krugman, P. 1991a. Geography and Trade, MIT Press.

25.

Krugman, P.. 1991b. “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.” Journal of Political Economy, vol.99, 483～499.

26.

Krugman, P.. 1998a. “The Role of Geography in Development.” Paper Prepared for Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington, D. C. April.

27.

Krugman, P.. 1998b “What’s New about the New Economic Geography?” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol.14, no.2, 7～17.

28.

Krugman, P.. 2011. “The New Economic Geography, Now Middle-aged.” Regional Studies, vol.45, no.1, 1～7.

29.

Lewis, W. A. 1954. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor.” The Manchester School, vol. 22, issue 2, 115～227.

30.

Martin, P., Mayer T. and F. Mayneris. 2008. “Spatial Concentration and Firm-level Productivity in France.” CEPR DP 6858.

31.

Martin, R. and P. Sunley. 2003. “Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?” Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 5～35.

32.

Muro, M. and B. Katz. 2010. “The New ‘Cluster Moment’: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can Foster the Next Economy.” Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institute, Washington D.C.

33.

OECD. 2007. Competitive Regional Clusters- National Policy Approaches. Paris.

34.

OECD. 2009a. Regions Matter: Economic Recovery, Innovation and Sustainable Growth. Paris.

35.

OECD. 2009b. How Regions Grow, Trends and Analysis, OECD. Paris.

36.

OECD. 2010. National Place-based Policies in The Netherlands. Paris.

37.

Park, S. O. 2009. “Long-term visions and strategies for the regional development policies of Korea.” Paper presented at the 2009 PCRD International Conference on Reshaping Regional Policy: Co-prosperity and Competitiveness, July 8～9, 2009, Coex, Seoul.

38.

Perroux. F. 1950. “‘Economic Space’ Theory and Application.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol.64, 89～104.

39.

Porter, M. 1998. “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition.” Harvard Business Review, vol.11, 77～98.

40.

Rodrik, D. 2006. Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? . Harvard University.

41.

Stiglitz, J. 1998. “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus.” The World Bank, January 7, 1998, The 1998 WIDER Annual Lecture (Helsinki, Finland).

42.

Sallet, J., Paisley, E. and J. Masterman. 2009. The Geography of Innovation- The Federal Government and the Growth of Regional Innovation Clusters. Washington D.C.: Science Progress.

43.

Storper, M. 2011. “From Retro to Avant-garde: A Commentary on Paul Krugman’s ‘The New Economic Geography, now Middle-aged’.” Regional Studies, vol.45, 9～15.

44.

Szörfi, B. 2007. “Development and Regional Disparities－Testing the Williamson Curve Hypothesis in the European Union.” OeNB Focus 02/2007, Austrian National Bank, Vienna.

45.

The World Bank. 2009. World Development Report 2009－Reshaping Economic Geography, Washington D.C.

46.

Tödtling, F. and M. Trippl. 2005). “One Size Fits All? Toward a Differentiated Regional Policy Approach.” Research Policy, vol.34, no. 8, 1203～1219.

47.

Williamson, J. G. 1965. “Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development:A Description of the Patterns.” Economic and Cultural Change, vol.13, 1～84.

48.

Williamson, J. 1989. “What Washington Means by Policy Reform.” in Williamson, J.(ed.). Latin American Readjustment: How Much has Happened. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

49.

Williamson, J. 2000. “What Should the Bank Think about the Washington Consensus?” World Bank.

50.

Zipf, G. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Addison-Wesley. http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/RIC/

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.21 No.3

Trends in Regional Policy in Post-Washington Consensus Period: Review, Critique and Implications

Abstract

Reference

Space and Environment