A preliminary feasibility study was conducted in 1999 to evaluate the adequacy of large-scale new projects under the National Finance Act. During reorganization in 2019, the proportion of evaluation items for projects in the metropolitan area and non-metropolitan area was dualised. Since then, the metropolitan area project is evaluated only by economic feasibility (60-70%) and policy feasibility (30-40%), while the non-metropolitan area project is evaluated by economic feasibility (30-45%), policy feasibility (25-40%) and balanced regional development evaluation (30-40%). In the case of balanced regional development, only non-metropolitan areas are subject to evaluation. The evaluation method has been changed from an addition-subtraction system&nb to an addition-point system for non-metropolitan areas.
After reorganization of the preliminary feasibility study system in 2019, 202 regional projects were conducted by May 2023. Among them, this study analysed B/C value and AHP score for 179 local projects that performed cost-benefit (B/C) analysis and AHP analysis. According to the analysis, only 2.4% (1/41) of projects in the metropolitan area were approved (AHP 0.5 or more) despite a B/C value of less than 0.80 while 20.3% (28/138) of projects in the non-metropolitan area were approved. Moreover, 9.8% (4/41) of projects Abstract135 in the metropolitan area failed to pass while only 2.9% (4/138) of projects in the non-metropolitan area failed to pass, although the B/C value was 0.80 or higher. This means that after reorganization of the system, projects in the metropolitan area often failed to pass because balanced regional development was not considered, although they had relatively high B/C values. Therefore, underdeveloped areas in the metropolitan area are difficult to pass the preliminary feasibility study due to the lack of policy support such as balanced regional development points. Institutional supplementation is needed in terms of equity for underdeveloped areas in the metropolitan area.
So far, there are only balanced regional development index at the national level, Seoul and Gyeonggi Province level. Thus, it is necessary to develop an index that can be applied to the metropolitan area. As for the analysis method, factor analysis applied in the KDI preliminary feasibility study of regional backwardness index was applied. Analysis procedure such as the weight calculation method was performed in the same way. However, the analysis unit was set as a basic local government to reflect the backwardness of basic local governments in the metropolitan area. Thirty-six indicators of the Balanced National Development Committee, Balanced Regional Development Indicators for Seoul and Gyeonggi-do Regional Development Index were used as original indicators. As a result of factor analysis, the balanced regional development index consisted of four factors: residential environment, infrastructure, sustainability, work and residential district.
This study presents methods to improve the preliminary feasibility study to promote balanced regional development in underdeveloped areas in the metropolitan area. First, it is necessary to analyse the degree of regional backwardness by autonomous districts in consideration of the imbalance between autonomous districts. Next, the weight of each item needs to be applied to economic feasibility, policy and balanced regional development items before 2019. Finally, it is necessary to add a balanced regional development effect to the special project evaluation item among the feasibility of policy.