IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/kieppa/2014_022.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

유럽 주요국의 산업경쟁력 제고정책과 시사점 (Policies for Industrial Competitiveness Improvement in Europe and Their Implications)

Author

Listed:
  • Kang , Yoo-Duk

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Oh , Tae Hyun

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Lee , Cheol-Won

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Lee , Hyun Jean

    (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Kim , Junyup

    (Independent)

Abstract

Korean Abstract:글로벌 금융위기 이후 선진국 경제에서 공통적으로 나타나고 있는 현상은 제조업에 대한 재조명이다. 성장잠재력 회복, 일자리 확충, 경제위기에 대한 대응능력 제고 등이 국가적 과제로 부상하는 가운데, 제조업이 성장과 일자리 창출을 이끄는 국가경제의 버팀목이라는 인식이 확산되면서 각국에서는 제조업 육성 및 부활정책이 전개되고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 본 연구는 유럽 각국이 공통으로 직면하고 있는 산업경쟁력 강화 문제에 대응해 EU 차원과 개별 국가 차원에서 추진 중인 경쟁력 제고정책을 분석함으로써 한국에 대한 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 글로벌 가치사슬의 관점에서 EU 회원국의 공급사슬은 다른 지역에 비해 매우 촘촘하게 구성되어 있으나, 지난 십수 년간 유럽 각국에서는 생산과 고용에 있어서 탈제조업화 현상이 계속 진행되어왔다. 이로 인해 전 세계 제조업 생산에서 EU가 차지하는 비중은 감소 추세를 보여왔으며, 이 현상은 고용 및 성장동력의 감소, 혁신경쟁에서의 퇴보 등과 연계되어 우려를 불러일으키고 있다. 그러나 EU 회원국별로 살펴보면 이러한 전반적인 탈제조업화 경향은 체제전환과 EU 가입 이후 유럽의 생산네트워크에 편입된 중동부유럽국가와 서유럽 국가 중에는 독일에서 비교적 약하게 나타났다. 또한 경상수지와 같은 거시경제지표에 반영되어 경상ㆍ무역수지 흑자국 및 적자국으로 양분되는 등 제조업 부문의 재편이 발생하였다. 특히 산업경쟁력 측면에서 살펴보았을 때 독일 등 일부 국가의 산업경쟁력은 높은 수준으로 유지되고 있는 것으로 평가되나, 남부유럽 국가들의 경우 고기술 분야산업으로의 이동에 어려움을 겪고 있다. 탈제조업화 현상은 반드시 산업경쟁력의 약화를 의미하는 것은 아니며, 하위산업에 대한 구조조정, 기업의 생산네트워크 운영전략의 변화, 경제의 고부가가치 서비스화의 일면을 보이는 경우도 있다. 따라서 EU 및 회원국의 입장에서는 탈제조업화 현상 자체보다는 그 성격이 문제가 된다. 이러한 현실을 감안할 때, 향후 EU 및 회원국의 산업정책은 개별 산업 차원의 경쟁력 유지정책 외에도 EU 역내외에서 글로벌 가치사슬이 원활하게 형성될 수 있도록 통상 및 산업정책을 조율하는 방향으로 전개될 것임을 예상해 볼 수 있다. English Abstract: A new and important debate on the role of manufacturing has recently emerged in advanced economies. Recovery of growth potential, job creation and response to economic crisis has become priority in most advanced economies. The global economic crisis has brought back into focus the need for a stable manufacturing base. Accordingly, many debates shed new light on industry policy in order to restore industrial competitiveness. In this context, this study reviews industrial strategies and policy measures taken by the European Union (EU) and its Member States and draws policy implications for Korea's industrial policy. While cross-border links by global value chain (GVC) have been densely developed among the European industries, they have experienced a decline in terms of production and employment in their economies at the same time. The share of the EU in global manufacturing production has declined considerably and this elicited concerns on its association with decrease in growth momentum and innovation in European economies. However, this 'deindustrialization' of European economies differs substantially from country to country. Among Western European countries, Germany has been successful in maintaining the importance of the manufacturing sector stable. As for the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), the level of deindustrialization has been low, due to the integration of their economies into the European production network after their accession to the EU. These various levels of deindustrialization have been reflected in macroeconomic indicators, such as in current account. For instance, Northern European countries have maintained or increased current account surplus, Southern European countries have recorded recurrent current account deficits. The contrasting performances of Northern and Southern Europe is reflecting industrial competitiveness. Particularly, Southern European countries have undergone difficulties in upgrading their industries to more technology-intensive industries. In order to enhance industrial competitiveness, the European Commission has been coming up with various policies encompassing cost and non-cost factors. In particular, Europe 2020, the EU's growth strategy, was designed to create synergistic effects between different sectoral policies; industrial policies as well as policies for SMEs and R&D were simultaneously implemented. First of all, Europe 2020 suggests seven flagship initiatives: ① Innovation Union, ② Digital agenda for Europe, ③ Youth on the Move, ④ Resource efficient Europe, ⑤ Industrial policy for the era of globalization, ⑥ An agenda for new skills and jobs, and ⑦ European platform against poverty. Among them, Innovation Union, Digital agenda for Europe, An Industrial policy, and An agenda for new skills and jobs are directly related to the enhancement of industrial competitiveness. Currently, the EU is running Horizon 2020, the largest EU research and innovation programme ever with nearly 80 billion euros in funding available for 2014-2020. According to the European Commission, Horizon 2020 can be seen as an important means to create jobs, to stimulate economic growth and to improve quality of life. Despite SMEs' key role to boost the EU economy, it seems that both global financial crisis and the European sovereign crisis have rather been imposing heavy burden on SMEs. Therefore, the European Commission needed to take further and more significant measures to release the full potential of SMEs. As a result, the Small Business Act (SBA) and Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME) were enacted.

Suggested Citation

  • Kang , Yoo-Duk & Oh , Tae Hyun & Lee , Cheol-Won & Lee , Hyun Jean & Kim , Junyup, 2014. "유럽 주요국의 산업경쟁력 제고정책과 시사점 (Policies for Industrial Competitiveness Improvement in Europe and Their Implications)," Policy Analyses 14-22, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:kieppa:2014_022
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2621317
    Note: Downloadable document is in Korean.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2621317
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.2621317?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:2014_022. 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.