2021, Vol.30, No.2

20 Years of Korea Society for Regulatory Studies; Relentless but Incomplete Academic Endeavor, Preparing New 20 Years

Young Chul Kang | 2021, 30(2) | pp.3~10 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

Welfare Effects of Regulating Handset Excess Subsidy

Chung, Hoe Sang | 2021, 30(2) | pp.11~33 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

Socio-Economic Benefits Analysis of Improvement of Cloud Security Certification System (CSAP)

Su-Ah Lee , Shinhoi， Heo , Tae-Yun Kim | 2021, 30(2) | pp.35~68 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

Mergers and Acquisitions and the Competition in Korean Cement Industry: Focusing on the 2010s

SEO SEONGMIN | 2021, 30(2) | pp.69~109 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

A Study on the Gap between Border Areas due to the Regulations for Capital Areas and Policy Level Improvement Measures

KANG SEONG WOO | 2021, 30(2) | pp.111~147 | number of Cited : 2

PDF

This study intended to compare the gaps between border areas that occur when the regulations for capital areas are applied uniformly based on administrative districts without considering regional characteristics and potentials and consider policy level improvement measures. This study analyzed the difference between indicators depending on whether or not the regulations for capital areas apply to the areas where administrative districts are divided by the same water system within the nature conservation zone. Over the past 20 years, the population and the number of companies and workers in the manufacturing industry showed greater growing trend in border areas in non-capital areas than capital areas. The number and average area of industrial complexes were absolutely higher in non-capital areas. The regulations had the effect of pressing down the concentration of population and manufacturing industry, which is the purpose of the regulations for capital areas. However, there was a contradiction that industrial locations were allowed in non-capital areas that are in the upstream areas when regulations for industrial locations were for the conservation of water and environment, which is the purpose of designating nature conservation areas. As a result of examining the proposals from the National Assembly and Gyeonggi Province related to the regulations for capital areas regarding these problems, there were continuous discussions to give selective regulatory exceptions by considering regional characteristics commonly under special situations or exclude them from the capital area altogether to avoid the application of regulations. As a plan to alleviate regional gaps in border areas on the policy level, it is necessary to promote regional economic revitalization by promoting joint cooperation projects between local governments of cities and counties and selectively applying regulatory exceptions through the designation of special economic zone for specialized regional development. In the long term, it is necessary to fundamentally improve various location regulations including border areas. It is necessary to apply subdivided application of the regulations according to regional characteristics rather than applying them based on administrative districts uniformly. Although the need for regulations for capital areas for balanced national development and protection of the natural environment is acknowledged, it is deemed that more differentiated policies should be implemented by considering a sense of relative deprivation in areas that are underdeveloped than non-capital areas and to improve equity among local governments in border areas.

The Relationship Between Government Regulations and Income Equality: An Empirical Analysis Using the Regulatory Index and Gini Coefficients of OECD Countries.

Rhea KIM , Jiseok NA , Minho LEE | 2021, 30(2) | pp.149~181 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

Some argue for the need for active deregulation to secure new growth engines for our economy, while others argue that deregulation causes market inequality and increases income inequality. However, there are few empirical studies on how deregulation actually affects economic distribution. Additionally, most studies focus only on specific cases at the individual country level, so the current understanding of how the effects of regulation impact distribution remains limited. In this context, this study attempts an empirical analysis of the relationship between the degree of government regulation and income inequality. Following a regression analysis examining the relationship between the regulatory index and the Gini coefficient of 38 OECD countries, it was found that the degree of income inequality intensifies as the level of government regulation decreases. However, it is still rather tenous to assume that this inverse relationship between government regulation and income inequality can be observed with a high degree of clarity since this result was confirmed at a relatively low level of statistical significance. While an increase in regulatory levels is difficult to judge in relation to positive outcomes concerning lessening income inequality gaps, the idea that deregulation will undermine social equity is not necessarily true either. The results of this empirical analysis emphasize the need for a balanced and strategic approach to prevent impairment of social equity while also pursuing the goal of economic growth in the process of promoting regulatory reform including deregulation. This paper recommends that more detailed deregulation measures should be designed to coordinate the extremes of "economic growth" and "equilibrium". In particular, policies designed to offset the negative distribution effects of deregulation should be further discussed in greater depth before their implementation.

The Paradox of Policy, Income-led growth policy - for whom does the policy work? : Focusing on coherence between policy goals and policy alternatives

Haeyoon Lee | 2021, 30(2) | pp.183~219 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

Structural power of platform business and regulatory policy changes: Focusing on ‘Coupang’

JUSANG KIM , 김하늘 , Song, Gayoung and 2 other persons | 2021, 30(2) | pp.221~262 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of Regulation Studies 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.78

2021, Vol.30, No.2