제조 중소기업의 혁신을 위한 정책과제 고찰

Abstract

Due to the need for job creation, developed countries are focused on the value and importance of the manufacturing industry and promote the ‘manufacturing renaissance’ in these days. As a result, these countries’ manufacturing production is increasing. South Korea is also seeking to revive manufacturing through the ‘Manufacturing Innovation 3.0.’ However, Korea’s manufacturing slump may be longer. Let’s look at ‘the four innovations’ in manufacturing-product, process, organization, and marketing, we can find the cause of the poor innovation. The level of four innovations of SMEs showed a low rate of innovation rates compared to large enterprises. There is a gap in the innovation taking place in accordance with the company even between large scales. The product innovation was the most active among the four innovations of SMEs, followed by organization, marketing, process innovation in order. This is a common phenomenon to all the companies regardless of size. The reason for this high rate of product innovation is related with the demand and supply chain of manufacturing SMEs. Product innovation is generally guarded by occupying positions in the market, and considered the most innovative strategy to strengthen the relationship with the mother companies. About half of the manufacturing SMEs are participating in the supply and demand relationship. Therefore, we are able to guess the reason for product innovation coming out of high rate. On the other hand, process innovation is the innovation to enhance the competitiveness and flexibility of production over the production costs. Even though the production of manufacturing SMEs in general or modular production steps, slow process innovation can be seen that cost reduction and mass production are difficult. In addition, the sluggish process innovation leads to decreased productivity. Process innovation is costly, because innovation occurs is related to production systems and structures. Thus, the sluggish process innovation can be pointed to as the cause costs. South Korea’s ‘Manufacturing Innovation 3.0’ does not contain the innovation policy for SMEs. The accessibility to R&D tax credit, the consideration of small businesses (mainly services), and the cooperation between university and industry can be the useful policies to promote innovation in manufacturing SMEs. The probability of using tax incentives falls as financing constraints increase, while the likelihood of using direct funding increases. Regarding the association with appropriability, SMEs that are able to protect their innovations are more likely to use tax incentives, even if financing constraints increase. For large firms we find that difficulties in external access to funds are positively correlated with the use of subsidies, and negatively to the use of tax credits. This suggests that direct support may induce non-R&D doers and young firms to invest in R&D, while tax credits are unlikely to do so. These findings have some policy implications. First, R&D tax incentives and R&D subsidies do not appear to be equivalent tools for SMEs. Tax incentives provide a reward to firms that do not face important financing constraints and whose projects enjoy high appropriability, while they are likely to leave out projects that should be supported. Tax incentives, nevertheless, might be potentially useful in addressing mild appropriability difficulties of firms that are not financially constrained.