IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/kieppa/2016_015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

디지털경제의 진전과 산업혁신정책의 과제: 주요국 사례를 중심으로 (Digital Innovation and Policy Challenges: Focused on Major Countries’ Cases and Their Implications)

Author

Listed:
  • Kim , Jeong-Gon

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Na , Seung Kwon

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Jang , Jong-Moon

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Lee , Sung Hee

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • No , Suyeon

    (Korea University)

Abstract

Korean Abstract: 인터넷과 ICT가 산업 혁신을 촉진하는 핵심요소로 크게 주목받으면서 디지털 산업혁신을 위한 각국의 정책적 노력이 확대되고 있다. 본 보고서는 디지털 산업혁신의 이론을 체계적으로 제시하고, 범용기술로서 ICT의 산업별 생산성 파급효과를 검증하는 한편, 주요국의 디지털 산업혁신 역량을 요인별로 비교분석하였다. 그리고 디지털 산업혁신을 주도하는 미국, EU 및 독일, 일본, 중국의 정책을 체계적으로 분석·평가하였으며, 이상의 연구결과와 한국의 정책에 대한 검토를 토대로 디지털 산업혁신의 정책방향을 제시하였다. English Abstract: The digital transformation, which is often called as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is attracting attention as a new driving force for economic growth. Digitalization is emerging as a measure to mid- and long-term trends, such as demographic change and transition to a low-carbon economy, while leading economic and industrial innovation. It is confirmed empirically that for high-income countries including the United States, digitization contributes to productivity improvement in other industries. However, these effects differ from country to country depending on the capabilities of digital innovation such as ICT infrastructure, R&D investment, ICT industry competitiveness, legal system, human resources, business use of ICT, and entrepreneurial activities. In Korea, ICT infrastructure is world-class, and ICT adoption and utilization are highly competitive. However, the competitiveness of ICT services, the effectiveness of R&D investment, contribution to innovation, legal system, human resources and entrepreneurial activities are far behind. By contrast, the United States has the highest level of competitiveness in ICT export, R&D investment and innovation, human resources and entrepreneurial activity. These factors are key concerns of the countries' digital innovation policy, and each country is making a policy effort centering on it. The digital innovation policies of the United States, EU, Germany, Japan and China are similar due to the general characteristics of digital transformation, but they vary according to the capabilities and circumstances of each country. As in our analysis, the United States most clearly demonstrates the general purpose technology hypothesis that ICT capital contributes to increased productivity in the industry. In the United States, ICT has been a key driver of economic growth since the 1980s, and digital innovations led by Internet platform companies have become a source of mid- and long-term economic growth in the Obama administration. Recently, in the United States, innovation in the digital innovation is dominated by ICT or Internet service companies, and traditional manufacturing companies are also reviving through digitization. The US government is constantly investing in strategic research areas and advanced technologies required for digital innovation based on Strategy for American Innovation or NITRD, a government-level IT research and development program. In addition, the federal government operates a Chief Information Officer (CIO) and a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to improve digital-based government management and to accelerate industrial innovation. The private sector is leading digital innovation while the government focuses on R&D investment in digital industry platforms and basic technologies such as big data and Internet of Things, solving public problems using ICT, and building consumer information protection systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim , Jeong-Gon & Na , Seung Kwon & Jang , Jong-Moon & Lee , Sung Hee & No , Suyeon, 2016. "디지털경제의 진전과 산업혁신정책의 과제: 주요국 사례를 중심으로 (Digital Innovation and Policy Challenges: Focused on Major Countries’ Cases and Their Implications)," Policy Analyses 16-15, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:kieppa:2016_015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2954380
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:kieppa:2016_015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Juwon Seo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kieppkr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.