지역발전을 위한 지방계약법제와 민간투자법제의 정비방안

‘Regional development’ should not be narrowly understood as ‘economic growth of local area’, but as ‘sustainable improvement in the overall quality of life of local people’. To attain development in this sense, various and good-quality SOC is mandatory. There are two kinds of projects in establishing SOC: public finance project (public procurement) and PFI(private finance initiative) project. Each project is regulated respectively by “Act on a Contract of which Local Government is a Party”(hereinafter “Local Contract Act”) and “Act on a PFI(private finance initiative) for the SOC”(hereinafter “PFI Act”). We should discuss three issues related with these two Acts in ‘regional development’ context. First, when we consider that ‘principle of subsidiarity’ can be derived from the Constitution, we should make efforts to strengthen decentralized procurement. Although some may argue that local governments are not prepared for decentralized procurement, local government’s capacity building in contracting can be achieved in the very process of managing contracts. Considering the high quality of KONEPS(e-procurement) of Public Procurement Service(PPS), there remains some areas in which centralized procurement has strength. We should continue to enhance transparency in local government’s contracting, because we can find more unhealthy ties between procuring agencies and contractors in local government’s contracts. Second, Best-Value system should be actively used in regional development’ context. This system can contribute to substantially enlarging the autonomy of local government and hence lead to regional development. However, promoting transparency is also crucial task to cope with excess of discretionary power of local government. To this ends, we should establish contract review system rather than enlarge monitoring power of central government. Although assisting small and medium sized local companies can contribute to regional development, this regime should guarantee efficiency of procurement through fair competition. Third, we should use ‘Value for Money’ as a main the criterion of choice between public finance project (public procurement) and PFI(private finance initiative) project. However, this criterion should be used with other criteria such as principle of observing public interests. When we review the recently suggested criterion, we should correct some criterion in which arbitrary assessment can be conducted. If possible, this assessment should be initiated at an earlier stage of each project, and should be conducted in close relationship with national land planning. To this ends, we should make effort to connect PFI law, Local Government’s Contract Law, and National Land Planning Law.