한국형 동반성장 정책의 방향과 과제
The Policy of Win-Win Growth between Large and Small Enterprises : A South Korean Model
1
조회
0
다운로드
36
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 최근 사회경제적 이슈가 되고 있는 동반성장의 개념과 실천 방향에 대해 논의하고자 한다. 이를 위해 동반성장의 정책적 개념을 살펴보고 유사한 개념인 상생협력과 공생발전과도 비교 분석하고자 한다. 또한 동반성장을 통해 글로벌 경쟁력을 만들어 낸 선진국 사례들로부터 교훈을 찾아내고 우리의 사회 문화적 특성에 맞는 한국형 모델을 제안하고자 한다. 한국형 동반성장 모델은 미국의 시장중심형, 일본의 문화기반형, 유럽의 정책주도형 등의 장점을 융합할 필요가 있다. 이를 위해 한국형 모델은 공동체적 에너지를 창출해내는 한국인의 잠재력 활용, 통제와 자율의 융합형 제도 개선, 미래지향적 협력관계를 위한 기업들의 행동변화 등 세 가지 요인을 핵심으로 할 필요가 있다. 한국형 모델의 실현을 위해 필요한 정부의 역할과 과제, 그리고 동반성장위원회의 역할에 대해서도 논의하고자 한다.
Abstract
Since 2000, the employment rate of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has dwindled while the creation of new jobs and the emergence of healthy SMEs have been stagnant. The fundamental reason for these symptoms is that the economic structure is disadvantageous to SMEs. In particular, the greater gap between SMEs and large enterprises has resulted in polarization, and the resulting imbalance has become the largest obstacle to improving SMEs’ competitiveness. For example, the total productivity has continued to drop, and the average productivity of SMEs is now merely 30% of that of large enterprises, and the average wage of SMEs’ employees is only 53% of that of large enterprises. Along with polarization, rapid industrialization has also caused anti-enterprise consensus, the collapse of the middle class, hostility towards establishments, and other aftereffects. The general consensus is that unless these problems are solved, South Korea will not become an advanced country. Especially, South Korea is now facing issues that need urgent measures, such as the decline of its economic growth, the worsening distribution of profits, and the increased external volatility. Recognizing such negative trends, the MB administration proposed a win-win growth policy and recently introduced a new national value called “ecosystemic development.” As the terms in such policy agenda are similar, however, the conceptual differences among such terms must first be fully understood. Therefore, in this study, the concepts of win-win growth policy and ecosystemic development, and the need for them, were surveyed, and their differences from and similarities with other policy concepts like win-win cooperation and symbiotic development were examined. Based on the results of the survey and examination, the study introduced a South Korean model of win-win growth, targeting the promotion of a sound balance between large enterprises and SMEs and an innovative ecosystem, and finally, proposing future policy tasks. Win-win growth is not an academic term but a policy term. Thus, it is less advisable to give a theoretical definition of it than to understand its concept based on its objective and method as a policy. The core of the MB administration’s win-win growth policy is the creation of a partnership between key economic subjects such as large enterprises and SMEs based on each subject’s differentiated capacity, and such economic subjects’ joint promotion of growth opportunities. Its objective is to contribute to the establishment of an advanced capitalistic system by securing the sustainability of the South Korean economy. Such win-win growth policy includes three core concepts. The first concept, ecosystem, is that win-win growth should be understood from the viewpoint of an industrial ecosystem and should be pursued by overcoming the issues of specific enterprises. An enterprise is not an independent entity but a social entity, meaning it exists in relationship with the society (Drucker, 2011). The second concept, balance, points to the fact that an effort should be made to establish a systemic and social infrastructure for a healthy balance in the industry. The social system and infrastructure should be established in such a way as to create a balance between short- term needs and long-term sustainability, between freedom and responsibility, and between profitability and social obligations. Finally, the third concept is the behavioral change of economic entities. The win-win growth policy is not merely about simple transactional relationships or determining reasonable prices but more about the need for a behavior change on the part of economic entities, without which the objectives of the policy cannot be achieved. Various advanced countries have developed different win-win growth models based on their respective cultures and economic-development stages. Japan, whose culture is characterized by a relatively high level of group-centered trust, has developed a productivity improvement model based on such culture, whereas the U.S., which has a highly developed system of market capitalism, has developed a system that instigates or promotes market-oriented technological innovation. Unlike Japan or the U.S., Europe, a late starter, has not fully developed a trust-based culture or market capitalism and thus often uses a policy-led model based on which the government leads the improvement of productivity and promotes technological innovation. By modeling successful cases from these advanced countries, South Korea can establish its unique win-win growth system. For this, it needs to determine the method and tasks that suit its circumstances by examining the prerequisites for its success as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each advanced country. This paper proposes a South Korean model of win-win growth, whose objective is to upgrade the country’s low-trust-level-based industrial structure, in which large enterprises and SMEs depend only on independent survival strategies, to a high-trust-level-based social ecosystem, in which large enterprises and SMEs develop a cooperative relationship as partners. Based on this objective, the model proposes the establishment of a sound balance of systems and infrastructure between large enterprises and SMEs, and to form a crenovative social ecosystem. The South Korean model of win-win growth consists of three axes: utilization of the South Koreans’ potential, which creates community-oriented energy; fusion-style improvement of various control and self-regulated systems for establishing a high-trust-level-oriented social infrastructure; and behavioral change on the part of enterprises in terms of putting an end to their unfair business activities and promoting future-oriented cooperative relationships. This system will establish a dynamic industrial ecosystem that will generate creative energy and will thus contribute to the realization of a sustainable economy in the 21st century. The South Korean model of win-win growth should pursue community-based self-regulation, which promotes the power of efficiency and competition that is fundamentally being pursued by capitalism while at the same time seeking the value of society and community. Already existing in Korea’s traditional roots, such objectives have become the bases of the Shinbaram culture, characterized by the South Koreans’ spontaneity, creativity, and optimism. In the process of a community’s gradual improvement of its rules and procedures, the trust among the community members increases, and the “social capital” that guarantees the successful control of shared resources can be established (Ostrom, 2010). This basic ideal can help reduce the gap between large enterprises and SMEs, alleviating the South Koreans’ victim mentality in the face of competition and the open-door policy, and creating crenovative corporate competitiveness. The win-win growth policy emerged for the purpose of addressing the polarization and imbalance structure resulting from the evolution of 21st-century capitalism. It simultaneously pursues efficiency and fairness on one hand and economic and community values on the other, and aims to foster efficient interaction between the market and the government. This policy, however, is also evolving. The win-win growth policy can be considered an extension of the win-win cooperation that the past ‘Participatory Government' promoted at the enterprise management level to the level of systems and culture. Also, the ecosystemic development agendum that has recently emerged is a further extension that has been presented as a national ideal of “a new development model that promotes the co-advancement of environmental conservation, growth, economic development, social integration, and national and individual development.”
참고문헌 (37)
- 강석훈, "한국형 자본주의 4.0 논의", 미래기획위 원회 발표자료, ~ (2011)
- "공정거래위원회 뉴스"[URL]
- "공정거래위원회 뉴스"[URL]
- "공정거래위원회 뉴스"[URL]
- 세계적 전문 중견기업육성 전략, "관계부처합동", ~ (2010)
- 대기업 ․중소기업 동반성장 추진 대책, "관계부처합동", ~ (2010)
- 김경묵, "인센티브 형 계약 시스템 도입을 통한 중소기업 혁신 증대 방안", 중소기업연구, 29(4), pp.319~350 (2007), 한국중소기업학회
- 매월노동통계조사보고서, "노동부", 노동부, ~ (2011)
- 상생협력연구회, "상생 경영" (2006), 김영사
- 상생협력연구회, , ~ (2007)
- 대기업 -중소기업 동반성장 추진 전략 및 실천과제, "송병준", 산업연구원, ~ (2011)
- 송창석, "신성장동력으로서 기업 생태계 : 동반성장과 상생", 2011 년 한국중소기업학회 춘계학술대회 (2011)
- 오세철, "한국인의 사회심리" (1982), 박영사
- 윤석철, "프린시피아 메네지멘타" (1998), 경문사
- 윤태림, "한국인의 성격" (1964), 현대교육총서
- 이부영, "한국인의 윤리관", 정신문화연구원, ~ (1983)
- 이장우, "Small Giants 대한민국 강소기업" (2010), 미래인
- 이장우, "패자없는 게임의 룰, 동반성장" (2011), 미래인
- 이장우, "실리콘밸리에서 배우는 벤처기업의 성공 비결" (1999), 중앙 M&B
- 이장우, "경영" (1994), 김영사
- 기업 생태계 경쟁력과 상생 협력 증진 방안, "이종욱", 중소기업학회, ~ (2009)
- 전진문, "경주 최 부잣집 300 년 부의 비밀" (2004), 황금기지
- G20 성공과 더 큰 대한 민국, "정부위원회 합동보고", ~
- 대․중소기업 동반성장 이렇게 이루어왔습니다, "중소기업중앙회", ~
- 대․중소기업 간 성과공유제 확산방안 연구, "한국생산성본부", ~
- 2010 상장기업 경영 분석, "한국은행", 한국은행, ~
- Altvater, E, "자본주의의 종말" (2007), 동녘
- Barney, J. B, "Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage", Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.175~190 (1994)
- Drucker, P, "피터 드러커 강의" (2011), 랜덤하우스 코리아
- Iansiti, M, "Strategy as Ecology", Harvard Business Review, 82(3), pp.68~78 (2004)
- Kalecki, A, "자본주의 4.0" (2011), 컬처앤스토리
- Nishiguchi, T., "Strategic Industrial Sourcing : The Japanese Advantage" (1994), Oxford University Press
- 안도경, "공유의 비극을 넘어" (2010), 랜덤하우스코리아
- Ouchi, W, "A Conceptual Framework For Design of Organizational Control Mechanism", Management Science, 25(9), pp.833~848 (1979)
- Porter, M., "The Competitive Advantage of Nation" (1990), Free Press
- Ringmar, E., "Surviving Capitalism" (2005), Style Pub LIC
- Sako, M., "Does Trust Improve Business Performance?, Trust Within and Organization-Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications" (1988), Oxford University Press
