도시한계론의 핵심 가정에 대한 경험적 검증

초록

Paul E. Peterson's City Limits is one of the most influential books written on urban political economics in the U.S. Although it has been widely criticized because of its apolitical assumptions and conclusions, there is still widespread agreement with basic elements of Peterson's contention. Peterson's thesis consists of four propositions that are intimately interconnected. First, key decision makers in urban governments view development policy and redistributive policy as two separate and distinct policy domains. Second, they evaluate development policy as having a positive impact upon the local economy, and redistributive policy as having a negative impact upon the local economy. Third, local policymakers prefer development policy to redistributive policy. Fourth, when local policymakers determine their policy preferences, economic factors are given greater weight than political factors. The central aim of this paper is to subject these propositions to empirical testing, using data drawn from a questionnaire distributed to Korean local government mayors in 2009. This paper builds upon two earlier studies, carried out by Longoria in 1994 and by Saiz in 1999, each of which empirically examines whether the key assumptions outlined in City Limits are applicable to mayors in other industrialized societies. The empirical scope of these studies, however, is limited by examining only two (the first and third) of Peterson's four propositions, leaving the other two untested. This paper puts all four propositions empirically to the test. Analysis of survey data reveals that the core of Peterson's propositions fails to receive empirical support from Korean mayors. This outcome contradicts the conclusion of the studies conducted by Longoria and Saiz in western industrialized societies. This paper discusses why this gap occurs and posits the implications of the findings.

키워드