한국의 글로벌 경쟁력 강화를 위한 OECD국가들의 소비자 정책비교연구

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the system of policy structure of South Korean Consumer Policy with that of other OECD countries. Recently a number of developed countries are revising their systems of consumer policy structure: some of them are trying to increase their market competitiveness by balancing the relationship between consumers and producers; and some other countries are adopting policies to protect consumers while treating as a disadvantaged group. The goal of the current study is to provide the useful information to improve the future directions of consumer policies in Korea. The focus of the study for consumer policies ranges from the overall structure of the system (i.e., a core decision making system) to food safety regulation system (which have been strengthened in many countries). Countries like UK, USA, Canada, and Australia that emphasize consumer sovereignty organize consumer regulations in order to raise competitiveness of companies while the overall decisions are made by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. On the other hand, countries like Japan, France, China, and Chile that focus on resolving the unbalanced relationships between consumers and producers, adopt the governance of both citizen and government, but the government tends to intervene. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Austria that consider consumers as a disadvantaged group (e.g., women, family) use the ombudsman system to protect them. Most recently, UK started a policy so that the government can intervene more actively in protecting consumers and Japan strengthened its governmental position of consumers by establishing the Ministry of Consumer. South Korea advocates consumer sovereignty in laws and systems, but given the current market conditions, its implementation of consumer policy is not sufficient in terms of value or practice, compared to the countries that have high levels of global competitiveness. It is recognized that state and local governments implement consumer policies for the purpose of consumer welfare and patronage, but there is no recognition that the policies are required for economic development or corporate competitiveness. Companies still believe that such consumer policies cause wasteful or unnecessary expenses for industrial or economic development and thus are not helpful for corporate growth. In comparison with the consumer policy system of each country, the policy system of South Korea makes it difficult to control conflicts in case of decision-making, since the food safety policy is organized under the leadership of the Office of Premier and the overall consumer policy is managed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission that chiefly addresses the transaction policy. As national economy is maintained by trade to a considerable extent, the solution of consumer problems have great influences on the export of goods and services, so the consumer policy can play a leading role in national competitiveness in South Korea. It is somewhat difficult to globalize South Korea’s market environment within a short time, so it can be an alternative to go through a step-by-step process. To be a consumer sovereignty country in the long run, it is most urgent to build the market environment of fair competition. Hence, it will be more efficient to first make the Korea Fair Trade Commission responsible for the consumer policy and then enable markets and consumers to autonomously solve consumer problems as part of trade and industry policies. In conclusion, it will be required to enhance the overall consumer policy system to the levels of the Office of Premier or the Presidential Council on National Competitiveness, to aim at the integral policy system and to coordinate the safety policy system within the framework of the overall policy. The consumer policy of each governmental agency is to secure market fairness, so it will be necessary to promote such fairness on the one hand and to strengthen the overall policy to curb the overlapping or waste of budget and policy implementation