도농간 소득 및 발전 격차의 실태와 원인 분석 : 지역균형발전을 통한 도농간 소득격차 완화방안 (1차 연도)

Abstract

요 약 이 보고서는 경제사회연구회의 협동과제로 2004-06년의 3년에 걸쳐 수행될 예정인 ‘지역균형발전을 통한 도농 간 소득격차완화방안’ 연구의 1차년도 연구결과이다. 전체적으로 농가소득증대와 농촌개발을 위해 추진한 관련 정책에 대한 평가와 국내외 지역활성화 성공사례를 조사, 분석함으로써 소득격차를 완화하기 위한 정책대안을 모색하고, 시범사업을 통해 관련 제도의 정비와 효율적인 추진방안을 강구하는 데 연구목적이 있다. 1차년도인 2004년에는 도·농간 소득 및 발전격차의 실태와 문제를 살펴보고 그 원인을 규명하는 데 초점을 맞추었기 때문에 “도·농간 소득 및 발전격차의 원인 분석”이란 부제목으로 보고서를 발간하게 되었다. 엄밀한 의미에서 도농간 소득격차는 도시주민과 농촌주민의 소득을 비교해야 하지만 통계자료의 제약으로 도시근로자가구 및 농가의 소득과 소비지출의 규모 및 구성을 상호 비교하였다. 즉 도시근로자가구소득에 대한 농가의 상대소득은 1985년의 113%를 정점으로 1990년의 97.4%, 2000년의 80.1%로 감소하다가 2002년에는 73.0%로 떨어졌다. 같은 기간 가구원 1인당 소득은 112%에서 100%로, 취업자 1인당 소득은 38%에서 24%로 줄어들었다. 한편 농촌 내부에서도 지역이나 경영체의 특성에 따라 광범위하게 소득격차가 발생하고 있는데 2002년 현재 0.5ha 미만 영세농가의 소득은 2ha 이상 대농층 소득의 51.3%에 불과하다. 더구나 1995-02년 기간중 농가의 실질소득 변화를 비교해 보면 대농층은 106.5%로 조금 늘어났으나 영세농의 경우 79%로 줄어들어 영농규모별 소득격차는 더욱 확대되고 있다. 또한 인근에 얼마나 많은 농외취업 기회가 있느냐에 따라서도 소득규모는 달라지는데 지대별 농외소득 수준을 보면 산간지역의 경우 전국 평균의 83.3%에 불과한 데 비해 도시근교의 농가는 169.5%나 된다. 이 밖에 전업농(專業農)의 소득은 2종 겸업농가 소득의 74.3%에 불과하며, 농업을 주업으로 하는 농가 중 일반농가보다 부업농가의 소득이 높은 것으로 밝혀졌다. 영농 형태별로 보면 논벼농가의 소득은 21,441천 원으로 같은 해 평균 농가소득의 80.8%에 불과한 반면 축산농가와 특작농가, 과수농가의 경우 각기 평균 농가소득의 142%, 125.8% 및 111.0%로 높게 나타나 작목의 선택이 소득 수준을 결정하는 중요한 변수임을 알 수 있다. 소득격차는 소비의 규모와 내용 변화를 통해 결국 삶의 질을 규정하는데, 좀 더 나은 삶을 추구하려는 욕구 때문에 더 높은 소득기회가 있는 직업이나 지역으로 인구이동을 유발하게 된다. 즉 매력적인 직업이나 살기 좋은 환경을 선택해 순조롭게 이동을 하는 경우에도 지역에 따라 인구의 과밀이나 과소로 인한 사회경제적 문제를 유발할 수 있으며, 그렇지 못한 대부분의 사람들은 불만 속에서 격차를 감내할 수밖에 없기 때문에 종종 사회갈등의 원인을 제공하게 되는 것이다.(이하 본문참조)

ABSTRACTA Study on the Releasing Income Gap between Urban and Rural Areas through the Balanced Regional Development Strategies:The Analysis of the Reasons for Income and DevelopmentGap between Urban and Rural RegionsThis is the first year report of the three-year collaborative research entitled 'A study on bridging income gap between urban and rural areas through the balanced regional development strategies', which is led by the Korea Council of Economic and Social Research Institute. The ultimate purpose of the study is to seek an alternative policy to reduce the income gap between rural and urban regions. The main research methods applied include the review of previous policies aimed to improve farm household income and the analysis of successful case examples of regional economic development. In doing so, this first year study focuses on identifying the current situation and problems with income and development gaps between urban and rural regions. This is why the study comes to have the subtitle 'The analysis of the reasons for income and development gap between urban and rural regions'. In order to find out the income gap between the regions, the income levels of the residents living in urban and rural areas were compared. Since no such statistics is available, this study just compares the size and structure of income and expenditure of urban workers with those of farm households. The ratio of farm household's income to urban worker's income was 113% in 1985. But it decreased from 97.4% in 1990 to 73% in 2002. During the same period, income per family member dropped from 112% to 100% and the national average of income per worker also went down from 38% to 24%. According to the characteristics of regions and the size of farm household, there were income gaps even within rural regions. In 2002, the income of the small farms with less than 0.5ha amounted to 51.3% of large farms with over 2ha. Moreover, looking at the changes in real farm income between 1995 and 2002, large farm households' income increased a little to 106.5%, but that of small farm households slumped to 79%. This study has also found that the income levels differ between those who have the opportunities to get non-agricultural income and those who don't. The income level of farm households in mountainous areas was just 83.3% of the national average, but that of nearby urban areas was 169.5%. In addition, full-time farm households' income was 74.3% of that of part-time farm households. For the incomes by farming type, rice farming households earned 21,441 thousand won, only 80.8% of the average farm household income, while livestock, fruit and specialized crop farming households earned 142%, 125.8% and 111.0% of the national average, respectively. It implies that the choice of farming items is an important variable determining income level. Because of such income gap, people usually decide to move to the regions where they can get a job easily. This has resulted in socio-economic problems such as overpopulation or depopulation, as well as social conflict between residents. In 2002, the income per farm household was 24,475 thousand won that is not enough to make re-investment, but the debt per farm household has increased to 19,898 thousand won. The Engel's coefficient of farm households increased from 21.9% in 1993 to 25.3% in 2003. This implies that farmers cannot afford to enjoy the same standard of living with their urban counterparts. Thus, people tend to leave rural regions, seriously affecting the sustainability of rural societies. During the period between 1998 and 2002, the comparison of GRDP between regions reveals that the high growth regions have the higher ratio of the manufacturing industry, while the slow growth regions mainly depend on the agricultural industry. Even though the income gap between urban and rural regions originated from the difference in the type of industries they are engaged in, it has brought about underdevelopment and resulting depopulation in rural regions, and further widened the development gap between them. The depopulation of rural regions has caused manpower shortage and in turn the wage increase, which consequently decreased the competitiveness of the domestic agricultural sector. On the other hand, the overpopulation in urban areas caused problems such as housing, traffic jam and crimes, which fundamentally declined the national competitiveness in the global market. This study identifies factors, which influence the level of regional development. They include geographical location, regional resources, the quantity and quality of population, living circum- stances, national policies and the will of the local government, employment opportunities and industrial structure, and the pro- ductivity of specialized industries. These factors are closely inter- acting with each other. The analysis of the current situation and the reasons of the disparities imply that1) the development gaps differ by cases and regions. This is not likely to be solved by the general application of central government policies, but can be addressed by region-specific policies reflecting the development level of a region, locational conditions, local resources and the opinions of local residents.2) The approach should be a comprehensive one that includes agricultural and non-agricultural sectors as well as traffic system, living environment, education, culture, and welfare system.3) It needs to be based on local resources and unique characteristics rather than outside enterprises and central policies. It means that the indigenous development approaches should be put into practice.4) The central government supports should be differentiated by the level of development of individual regions. Especially, the laggard regions should be taken into account for differentiated assistance. These findings are used to propose the future directions of the rural development policies to reduce the income and development gaps between urban and rural regions.1)The future development policy should improve the competi- tiveness of agricultural production by way of the specialization of regional agriculture and the reinforcement of the product quality. By doing so, it can establish the regional innovation system and develop human resources.2) It is important to provide farmers with the opportunities to find jobs in the non-agricultural sector. Furthermore, it is essential not only to start up businesses and bring factories into the rural regions, but also to provide job-training.3) The future policy should focus on promoting industrial cluster including the region-based major industries.4) The previous agricultural policy should be expanded into the 'rural policy' encompassing agricultural and non-agricultural sectors and farmers and all residents in rural areas. Moreover, under the ?special regulation on the improvement of living quality of farmers and the rural development planning?, local governments should set up regional development plan and introduce the novel 'comprehensive rural development plans'.5) The participation of local governments and residents is essential for the implementation of the policies. This study have identified some factors for successful implementation of policies. They include participation of agricultural institutes and residents, the assistance and will of local governments and the groups of expertises, and the flexible budgetary support system.6) The data on local areas is crucial for setting up regional development plan and conducting various kinds of schemes. Currently, no GRDP data is available at the local level.7) Finally, it is essential to establish a development strategy based on the lessons learned from various successful case examples of other regions and foreign countries, and try to get useful ideas for regional development from such cases.Researchers: Dong-Phil Lee, Shi-Hyun Park, Tae-Yeon Kim, Joo-In Seong and Eun-Jeong Shin, Jeong-Hong Kim, Chang-Hyun KimE-mail address: ldphil@krei.re.kr