Local government's role in inter-korean exchange cooperation

Abstract

Inter-Korean exchange and cooperation projects led by local governments has started since 1999 by Jeju Island. After the inter-Korean summit held in 2000 the size of projects increased and so did the role of the local government. However, since 5.24 action was established in 2010, almost every projects had to be delayed or cancelled. This seems to back the general assumption that central government is the central player in shaping two Korea relations. However, there were a few exceptional performances shown by local governments in borderline areas. Particularly, the role of Gyeonggi local government took a leading role to continue or even initiate with new inter-Korean exchange projects even after the 5.24 action took place. Although there have been many research conducted regarding the performance of local governments in inter-Korean exchange and cooperation

however, there is a lack of study on how some local governments have continued with their exchange with North Korea even under harsh political tension. The nature of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation has long been political or ideological. Accordingly, the paper aims to diversify the nature of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, showing its non-political aspects by examining local governments role and analyze the factors that allowed the projects to be sustainable. Accordingly, the research question of the paper is What are the elements that allowed Gyeonggi local government to carry on with the inter-Korean exchange projects even when the central government was taking an unfavorable North Korean policy? The paper contains a qualitative case study on Gyeonggi governments performance after 5.24 action. I have applied an analytical framework which consists of hierarchical partnership and horizontal partnership to interpret four key features that explain Gyeonggi local governments outperformance. In the aspect of hierarchical partnership, the paper found that 1) there was a strong passion and political will for inter-Korean exchange and cooperation displayed by the political leader, in this case, Kim Moonsu, 2) there was a positive institutional influence set from the government. Whereas in terms of horizontal partnership, there were 3) mutual economic interest shared by the affected people and North Korea and last but not least 4) diverse partnership was another key element that Gyeonggi local government shared with IOs, NGOs and Incheon city. Regardless of these outstanding performance, however, there were critical setbacks that needs to be improved. There was a lack of mutual economic interest shared with companies which can play a significant role to make the project sustainable to work.