중소기업 기술혁신 역량평가 및 글로벌 정책분석 VII

The rapidly changing environment of innovation with the transformation of the production system in response to the 4th industrial revolution calls for change and adaptation toward the innovation entities. In particular, the technological innovation environment and innovation-friendly ecosystem of SMEs, which play a central role in innovation in the current industrial environment, are becoming more significant than ever. Despite the steady efforts to establish efficient SME support policy, it is difficult to set effective policy due to lack of development of evaluation index which can measure the technological innovation capacity of domestic SMEs with objective criteria. Thus, the purpose of this study is to clarify the direction of the government support policy by suggesting objective and accurate diagnosis of the present level of SMEs in Korea. In the flow of support policy of SMEs, the study revealed some main findings as follows. In the case of firms with less than 250 employees, domestic R&D expenditure is more than those of Japan, Germany and France, and the amount is overwhelmingly large when considering the size of the economy at the SME level. The proportion of R&D expenditure by domestic SMEs (less than 250 employees) is 22.4%, which is higher than that of the US, Japan and Germany by indicating that domestic R&D expenditure is concentrated on SMEs. Government support R&D expenditure is also dominant over other main countries, and it is analyzed that R&D expenditure is highly dependent on government support. Meanwhile, domestic large firms’ R&D expenditure per employee and R&D expenditure per researcher are also two to three times larger than those of SMEs, and the gap is gradually widening. It indicates that R&D activities of SMEs in Korea are becoming smaller, and SMEs are difficult to lead innovative development. The study also measured SME competitiveness index by integrating business activity variables such as growth, stability, innovation, and dynamics. As a result of the index analysis, in terms of SMEs, the US has overall high competitive edge , and Korea’s overall competitiveness has been stagnant with a decline from 2009 except for 2012. In the case of midsize firms, the US is recovering from the global financial crisis since 2010, and Korea is not strong compared to other major countries with great volatility of the indicators unlike SMEs. Korea, Japan and the US show that the total competitiveness of SMEs exceeds that of midsize firms, whereas Germany and France are opposite. In Japan and the US, the gap in the total competitiveness of SMEs and midsize firms is small, but Korea has a relatively large gap. It reflects the problematic domestic condition that the competitiveness of midsize firms is insufficient compared to that of large firms, and domestic SMEs with excellent total competitiveness can not sustain their strengths once they become midsize firm on the growth path. As a result of the detailed index analysis, the growth potential of domestic SMEs has been falling sharply for the recent two years due to the decline in exports and the contraction in domestic demand, and midsize firm’s growth also has recorded the lowest level. In terms of innovation, domestic SMEs are ranked first after 2013, but innovation of domestic midsize firms is the lowest in the whole analysis period. Thus, it is urgent to take countermeasures to improve the innovation. In terms of stability, domestic SMEs maintain the third position and midsize firms rank at the bottom. In addition, the dynamics of domestic SMEs and midsize firms has showed a large dynamical index by reflecting the meeting the changing market situation. The main outcomes of the study provides the following policy directions. First, implementation of R&D investment and innovation support needs to be reexamined if they are in the right direction. Secondly, tailored innovation support for midsize firms are urgently needed. Lastly, efforts to improve the efficiency of the policy enforcement phase are needed to achieve the original objectives of the various policies.