경제발전전략으로서 한국의 경제자유구역과 운영체계에 관한 연구

Abstract

Purpose After Korea’s Free Economic Zone (FEZ) system –was launched in 2003, there have been many debates aboutupgrading it and its support systems. However, as of 2013,there were insufficient results. Further, upon the designation ofthe East Coast and Chungbuk as official FEZs from February 4,2013 by the 56th the Commission, there is a concern thatmany people are in the area designated as FEZ 8. This studyinvestigates Korea's new FEZ system as part of Korea's primarynew economic development policy in the 21st century. Therefore, this study examines views on the weaknesses of thepast ten years of FEZs so that Korea can expand its FEZsystem. Research design, data, and methodology Many countries –have considered the FEZ as an economic special zone. By reviewing previous research models, this study provides an updateusing recent data and materials, until 2013, from the Center ofFree Economic Zones. In previous studies, the lack of supportsystems was attributed to proposals to ensure operational autonomy and differentiation of each FEZ; however, the maincause cannot be solved through regulatory issues, as difficultiescaused by the operational system are responsible for theproblems. We wish to analyze the FEZ, specifically the operational system; this is the main issue of this study. Results After the first FEZs were established, it became –necessary to have basic plans, as investment results in 2013compared to the same period this year led to lower earnings inthe first half of 2014. We propose an improvement of the operational system because in the free economic zones, the operational system is the root cause of the underlying problem. The results of this research are as follows. The weak management of the FEZ system is influenced by weak investment, delayed development, foreigners' living facilities, benefits of foreigninvestments, the control tower's policy making decision process,quickness of the process of satisfying legal requirements, andsupport For the independence of FEZs. Conclusion- Local governments do not have legal rights overFEZ deregulation and investment industries. This study suggeststhat the local government should have more independence fromthe central government. Moreover, independent managementcommittees are more effective for ensuring public rights, betteremployee responsibilities, and better-qualified personnel. TheFEZ committee struggles to effectively manage the locations ofFEZs, foreign investments, and related facilities under the control of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. Thus, theFEZ committee should be under either the Prime Minister's office or the Presidential committee, to control and effectively coordinate between the local and central governments. If the problem clearly applies to the operational system in 2013, it is necessary to provide materials and methods so that the results ofthe first half of 2014 can be computed despite the data limitsand lack of resources, and the data can be analyzed in a morediachronic thesis.