본 연구는 정부규제의 변화 원인을 기존의 사익이론적 접근이 아닌 딜레마라는 독특한 이론적 틀을 가지고 분석하였다. 즉, 외환위기 이후, 국민의 정부와 참여 정부에서의 수도권 입지규제 사례를 통해 어떠한 요인에 의해 딜레마상황이 형성되고, 이러한 딜레마 상황에서의 대응이 수도권 규제에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가를 분석하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 딜레마 상황과 딜레마 대응을 살펴보면, 국민의 정부에서는 ‘수도권에 외국인직접투자를 유치해야 하는가 말아야 하는가’라는 딜레마 상황이 형성되었고, 이러한 딜레마상황에서 국민의 정부는 ‘한정적 대응’, ‘눈가리기식 대응’을 하였다. 참여정부에서는 국민의 정부에서의 딜레마 대응에 의해 유발된 새로운 형태의 딜레마가 형성되었다. 즉, 국민의 정부에서의 딜레마 대응은 ‘국내 대기업의 저항’이라는 새로운 변수를 생성하였으며, 동 변수에 의해 참여정부는 새로운 딜레마 상황, ‘국내 대기업의 수도권 입지를 허용해야 하는가 말아야 하는가’의 딜레마 상황에 직면했다. 이 상황에서 참여정부는 ‘비일관적 대응’으로 딜레마상황에 대응하였다. 둘째, 소극적 딜레마 대응은 딜레마 상황을 근본적으로 해결하지 못함에 따라 새로운 딜레마를 형성하는데 영향을 미쳤으며, 이는 딜레마의 경로의존성(path dependency of dilemma)을 유발하였다. 셋째, 이러한 딜레마 대응은 점진적이나 수도권 규제의 완화를 가져와 규제의 ‘형식화(formalization)’을 유발하였다.

This study analyzed the cause of change to governmental regulations with a unique theoretical frame, namely dilemma, rather than with the existing approach from the private interest theoretical perspective. In other words, the study analyzed how a dilemma situation is created, and which factors formed it through the case of the “regulation of location in the metropolitan area” of the Kim Dae-Jung Administration and the current government of the Roh Moo- hyun Administration after the Financial Crisis; and how reactions in such a dilemma situation affect the regulation of the metropolitan area. As a result of the analysis, first, in delineating the dilemma situation and the reaction to the situation, the Kim Administration created a dilemma situation regarding “whether they should allow the location of foreign direct investment in the metropolitan area”, and the Kim Administration showed a “restricted reaction” under such a dilemma situation. The Roh Administration created a new type of dilemma that was instigated by the reaction of the Kim Administration to the dilemma situation. That is, the reaction of the Kim Administration to the situation created a new variable, namely, “resistance of large Korean corporations”, and the Roh Administration has confronted the dilemma situation of “whether they should allow the location of large Korean corporations in the metropolitan area” by the variable, which is a new dilemma situation. In this situation, the Roh Administration reacted to the dilemma situation with an “inconsistent reaction.” Second, the passive reaction to the dilemma failed to solve the dilemma situation radically; therefore, it affected the creation of a new dilemma, and this provoked the “path dependency of dilemma.” Third, such reaction to the dilemma induced a “formalization” of regulations as it brought about a mitigation of the regulations of the metropolitan area even though this happened slowly.

This study analyzed the cause of change to governmental regulations with a unique theoretical frame, namely dilemma, rather than with the existing approach from the private interest theoretical perspective. In other words, the study analyzed how a dilemma situation is created, and which factors formed it through the case of the “regulation of location in the metropolitan area” of the Kim Dae-Jung Administration and the current government of the Roh Moo- hyun Administration after the Financial Crisis; and how reactions in such a dilemma situation affect the regulation of the metropolitan area. As a result of the analysis, first, in delineating the dilemma situation and the reaction to the situation, the Kim Administration created a dilemma situation regarding “whether they should allow the location of foreign direct investment in the metropolitan area”, and the Kim Administration showed a “restricted reaction” under such a dilemma situation. The Roh Administration created a new type of dilemma that was instigated by the reaction of the Kim Administration to the dilemma situation. That is, the reaction of the Kim Administration to the situation created a new variable, namely, “resistance of large Korean corporations”, and the Roh Administration has confronted the dilemma situation of “whether they should allow the location of large Korean corporations in the metropolitan area” by the variable, which is a new dilemma situation. In this situation, the Roh Administration reacted to the dilemma situation with an “inconsistent reaction.” Second, the passive reaction to the dilemma failed to solve the dilemma situation radically; therefore, it affected the creation of a new dilemma, and this provoked the “path dependency of dilemma.” Third, such reaction to the dilemma induced a “formalization” of regulations as it brought about a mitigation of the regulations of the metropolitan area even though this happened slowly.

Dilemma, Path Dependency of Dilemma, Formalization, Restricted Reaction, Inconsistent Reaction