중소기업;고유업종제도;적합업종제도;산업성장;SMEs;win-win growth;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs;suitable business for SMEs system;industrial growth;production scale;350
In 2011, ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs” revived under the name of ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” to mitigate ;;polarization’ between conglomerates and SMEs, which was abolished in 2006. The purpose of ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs”, As one of the business area protection system for SMEs, is to establish legal restrictions of conglomerate entrants to the industries more efficient to the SMEs. It was abolished under the criticism that the system had caused weakening of competitiveness, the growth evasion of superior SMEs and bringing about market share expansion of foreign firms. Recently, however, ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” was institutionalized on the basis of which the gap between large and small-medium firms had become wider in many indicators, such as production index, value added and productivity and the issue of indiscriminate expansion by conglomerates so-called ;;octopus style’ has been brought up. The purpose of both system is the same, but ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” is different from the ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs” in terms that the steering committee, ;;The National Commission for Corporate Partnership (NCCP)’, is composed of civilians and to impose sanctions through the social pressure and also to induce not only refraining of conglomerates entry but restraining of business expansion and voluntary transfer of business unit. Currently, ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” is simultaneously facing both criticism and public supports that is ;;a revival of obsoleted regulation’ and ;;a indispensable policy for long-term win-win growth’. As a theoretical support grounds for argument, aspects of business ecosystem building and infant industry protection are argued. On the opposite side, inefficiencies of artificial barriers to entry in market, theory of second-best and government failure are mentioned. During the controversy, nevertheless, significant empirical analysis has not been performed from advanced research on the effect of ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs” and ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs”. Most advanced researches only remained in the trend forecast and time series analysis. Even in the research that made the empirical analysis, sample size was too small to derive significant conclusions. In this study, to overcome the limitations in previous studies, ensured a large number of samples and performed regression analysis by setting up year · industry-specific as control variables. ;;Designation of suitablebusinesses for SMEs” was excluded because its implementation period is too short to be a subject of analysis. 54 business types and 645 panel data were extracted from the period of 1992∼2006 that ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs” had been conducted. By setting the year number of Designation and Cancellation of distinct businesses as independent variables, analyzed the effect of the policy on industrial growth with the passage of time. As dependent variables, by considering scale of production and the average production capacity, analyzed the effect of growth and protection of SMEs to which the policy was intended. By introducing real per capita income and market interest rates as control variables, excluded the impact of annual business fluctuations. Also 10 types of mid-level industry classification were introduced as a dummy variable to control industry-specific economic condition. In result of regression analysis, after designation, the elapse of year number reduced the number of small enterprises and both production scale and average production scale. Furthermore, after cancellation, the elapse of year number decreased the number of small enterprises, production scale and average production scale. Additional regression analysis was performed based on the results that there is a possibility that mainly declining businesses might have been designate as ;;distinct business’. Therefore added new variable defined as ;;dummy variable× year number variable’, by taking 10 declining business dummy variables (0 = non-declining businesses, 1 = declining businesses) from 54 sample and multiplied dummy variables by year number variable(1 = 1992, 2 = 1994, …, 13 = 2006). In results from the further analysis, even though the effect of declining business has been controlled, increase of year number of designation decreases production capacity. And statistically significant influence on the number of SMEs and average production capacity haven;;t appeared. To sum up, ;;Designation of distinct business’ does decrease production capacity but doesn;;t increase the number of SMEs and the average production scale by passage of time. In other words, the growth effect and protection of SMEs which was expected hadn;;t appeared. The reasons are as follows. Designation causes inherent inefficiencies because it is still one of competition restrictive regulations. And only excessive competition among companies had been promoted without establishing market environment able to encourage SMEs investment on R&D. Also it is possible that SMEs which obtained monopolistic position acted rent-seeking or caused the X-inefficiency. The policy failed to provide a foundation that helped small and medium-sized enterprises grow to mid-sized enterprises. As a result, the scale of SMEs deteriorated. Even after cancellation, there was no entry of new enterprises and the number of SMEs that had failed in ensuring competitiveness during the protection period decreased far more rapidly. Despite a small number of declining businesses, the fact that large firms had not entered the market implies the designated business sectors doesn;;t require of massive investments. Since cancellation was executed, decrease in production scale index and average production scale shows that SMEs wasn;;t able to be grown to mid-sized companies. It means the policy had functioned neither contributing to stability nor enhancing competitiveness of SMEs. ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” is considered as competition restrictive regulation that is possible to make recommendations to let large firms transfer business and has the same purpose as ;;Designation of distinct businesses for SMEs”, Although subject of regulation is the private committee and its recommendations remains on the level of social sanctions. Moreover the negative effects of ;;Designation of suitable businesses for SMEs” seems to be larger than positive effects on the economy because that is very difficult to define suitable business to SMEs as well as build appropriate standards for the business. Thus, establishing fair competitive market should be considered first rather than restraints of business through reforming unfair trading system between conglomerates and SMEs, eliminating the funds and labor shortage of SMEs and enabling business mediation.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
