부산시 근교의 공업입지와 지역적 연계

Manufacturing Location and Linkages in the Suburb of Metropolitan Pusan

부산시의 교외지역(김해시, 양산군)에 입지한 공업의 공간변화, 입지, 연계의 분석을 통하여 부산시 공업의 분산이 교외지역의 공업화에 미친 영향, 분산공업의 입지 및 연계 특성을 규명하였다. 부산시의 소규모 단일기업의 이전으로 인하여 1970년대 후반부터 본격적으로 진행된 교외지역의 공업화는 공업분포지역의 확산과 공업집적도의 증대 과정을 거치면서 주로 교통로를 따라 외향적으로 진행되었다. 부산시로부터 공업이 분산한 주요 요인은 기업정책과 용지이고 분산된 공업이 교외에 흡인된 주요 요인은 용지, 제품출하처, 교통이다. 이전 후 물자 운송, 노동력의 이동, 거래처와 접촉 때문에 기업의 연계가 크게 변화하였으며 원거리지역이 근거리지역보다 더 큰 변화를 보였다. 기업의 역외연계수준이 역내연계수준보다 높지만 거리에 따라 조락현상을 보인다. 도시내부로부터 공업분산이 교외화에 미치는 영향, 분산공업의 송출요인과 흡인요인, 연계 특성이 일반 대도시지역의 그것과 거의 일치한다.

The purpose of this study is to clarify the suburbanization of manufacturing, and location and linkages of decentralized manufacturing from Metropolitan Pusan by means of case study on manufacturing location and linkages in the suburb of Metropolitan Pusan. Kimhae city and Yangsan-Gun toward which heavy decentralization of manufacturing from the Metropolitan Pusan has been done. Both hard data and soft data were used as the basic data. Hard data are the statistical data in statistical yearbooks and firm list in directories. The former consists of the number of establishments and employees classified by product type, firm size and unit area. The latter consists of owner's names, addresses, employee number, products and headquarters of firms. Soft data are the results of the interviews with the 242 owners of firms in the four case study areas selected by Proportional Stratified Sampling Method. The major findings are as follows: 1. The spatial variations of manufacturing in the suburb was regularized in the latter half of 1970's. The primary processes to decentralize manufacturing from Metropolitan Pusan were the birth, relocation and establishment of branches of the firms. Among them the relocation of small outer-oriented single-location firms from Pusan was the most important. 2. The spatial variations undergoing spatial expansion of manufacturing distribution and increase of agglomeration degree of manufacturing, proceeded from the adjacents of Metropolitan Pusan to the outer areas along the main transportation route. 3. The main factors which caused manufacturing to decentralize from the Metropolitan Pusan were firm policy and land for this policy. The main locational factors which induced the decentralizing manufacturing into the suburb were land, market and transportation. 4. The strength of linkages with the outside of the study area is stronger than that of linkages with the inside. There is distance-decay-function in the strength of linkages with the outside, and linkages with short distant areas are stronger than those with long distant areas. 5. The ranges of spatial linkages in procurement of materials, in subcontraction and in marketing are wider than those in ordering. 6. The main factors which cause the formation of linkages are different by types of linkages: monopolistic and oligopolistic supply are important in procurement linkages; characteristics of products and the subsequent marketing difficulties, in subcontraction linkages; fluctuation, cost reduction, insufficient facility and characteristics of products, in ordering linkages; subcontract, characteristics of product and the subsequent marketing difficulties, in marketing linkages. 7. The changes of linkages owing to locational changes of firms were great, and were greater in long distant areas than in short distant areas. 8. The main factor influencing on the changes of linkages was the easiness in the transportation of goods, movement of labour and contacts with customers. In conclusion, some facts described above were proved to be consistent with the results of proceeding studies in the other areas: influence of relocation of decentralizing firms on the suburbanization; the factors of manufacturing decentralization; spatial characteristics of linkages; linkage changes owing to relocation of firms. Some were proved to be partly consistent: locational factors inducing decentralized manufacturing into the suburb were proved to be inconsistent. I think that the results of previous studies on the other areas can be applicable to the explanation on the decentralization of Metropolitan manufacturing from the viewpoint of the suburb. For the better explanation on the decentralization of Metropolitan manufacturing, more empirical case studies on the suburbanization of manufacturing are necessary.