韓國 企業集團의 多角化 決定要因에 관한 硏究 = (A) Study on the Determinants of Diversification of Korean Business Groups

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to analyze the inefficiency of diversification of Korean business groups by analyzing the determinants of diversification and performance of the management that have an influence on the concentration of economic powers. The contents and empirical findings are summarized as follows :
First, the concept of a business group, ownership structure and the concept, type, and method of measuring diversification are surveyed and theoretically examined.
Second, the structure of concentration of economic power in Korean business groups and trends of the diversification was examined. The share of 30 largest business groups engaging in mining and manufacturing in a whole economy is 39.7%, 33.9%, 42.6% and 16.8% respectively in terms of output, value added, real fixed asset and employment respectively. The output by 10 largest business groups is 32.1% of the whole economy and it accounts for 80.9% of output by 30 largest business groups, which indicates that the degree of concentration is high.
Regarding the diversification of business lines, in terms of 60 business lines classified by 2 digit standard industry classification, average number of business lines are 18.5 as of April 1995. The average number of business lines participated by 10 largest business groups is 26.6. In terms of industry structure, the light industry prevailed in 60's but the heavy industry prevailed in 80's. In terms of the diversification of business lines, undated diversification is preferred to related diversification.
Third, by Comparing diversification index, market concentration index and market structure index with the rate of concentration of economic power by business groups during 1986-1994, this study reveals that the concentration of economic powers~ by Korean business groups is closely related with strategy and structure and that diversification strategy has an indirect influence on the concentration of economic powers by affecting market concentration and a direct influence on the concentration of economic powers.
Fourth, the factor analysis performed in order to analyze the determinants of diversification of business groups shows that the motive of diversification is to use R&D assets, which supports the argument that business groups engage in diversification by using ideas and technological innovation that can be used beyond their current business activities. But empirical results regarding related diversification is not statistically significant, which implies that, unlike the experiences in developed countries, unrelated diversification prevails in Korean business groups.
Inside holding ratio(INMAG) shows statistically significant positive values with regard to unrelated diversification, and statistically insignificant negative values with regard to related diversification, which implies that unrelated diversification is pursued by manager's will toward growth and supports Read's argument that without synergy effect, manager's will toward growth may lead to merger of unrelated business lines.
Debt ratio shows statistically significant negative relationship with unrelated diversification, which implies that the more the unrelated diversification is pursued, the higher the dependance on borrowing from outside is, which supports Lewellen (1971)'s argument that the motive of diversification is to use borrowing advantage rather than the diffusion of the risk of revenue fluctuations.
Fifth, with regard to the performance of enterprise groups, total diversification index, advertising concentration and sales growth rate affect current profit ratio of total capital (TOSAPM). Inside holding ratio(INMAG) shows statistically significant negative values and the value of inside transaction and the market concentration rate shows statistically insignificant negative values, from which we conclude that the mom the volume of inside transaction and INMAG, the less the profit rate is.
The analysis of ordinary income to sales(SALEM) shows that total asset affects profitability and that inside holding ratio and inside transaction volume are negatively related with profitability, which implies that the more the inside holding ratio and inside transaction volume, the less the profitability is.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = ⅰ
• Ⅰ. 序論 = 1
• 1. 問題의 提起와 硏究目的 = 1
• 2. 硏究 方法과 範圍 = 3
• 3. 先行硏究 檢討 = 4
• Ⅱ. 企業集團의 多角化에 관한 理論的 考紮 = 10
• 1. 企業集團의 慨念 = 10
• (1) 企業集團의 意味 = 10
• (2) 企業集團의 所有 支配構造 = 12
• 2. 企業集團의 多角化 理論 = 21
• (1) 企業集團의 多角化의 槪念 = 21
• (2) 企業集團의 多角化 決定要因 = 25
• (3)企業集團의 多角化 測定 및 效果 = 37
• Ⅲ. 企業集團의 經濟力 集中과 多角化 現況 = 45
• 1. 韓國 企業集團의 經濟力集中 現況 = 45
• (1) 企業集團의 一般集中 = 45
• (2) 企業集團의 市場集中 = 47
• (3) 企業集團의 所有集中 = 48
• 2. 韓國 企業集團의 多角化 現況 = 54
• (1) 多角化 業種別 現況 = 54
• (2) 多角化 動耭別 現況 = 58
• Ⅳ. 企業集團의 多角化와 經濟力集中의 分析 = 62
• 1. 資料設明 = 62
• 2. 一般集中, 市場集中 및 多角化와의 關係 = 65
• (1) 一般集中과 多角化 = 65
• (2) 市場集中과 多角化 = 68
• 3. 經制力集中 實證分析 및 結果 = 70
• (1) 經濟力 集中 實證分析 = 70
• (2) 分析 結果 = 78
• Ⅴ. 企業集團의 多角化 決定要因과 經濟成果 分析 = 83
• 1. 資料說明 = 83
• 2. 多角化 決定要因에 대한 分析 = 84
• (1) 關聯·非關聯 多角化의 決定要因 = 84
• (2) 實證分析 = 86
• 3. 多角化戰略과 經濟成果 分析 = 89
• (1) 多角化와 成果의 測定 指標 = 89
• (2) 實證分析 結果 = 91
• Ⅵ. 要約 및 結論 = 93
• 參考文獻 = 97
• <부록1> 經濟力集中의 測定方法 = 104
• <부록2> 업종재분류표 = 115
• <부록3> 분석에 사용된 주요변수 = 116
• <부록4> 한국의 기업집단에 대한 정책(발췌) = 118