중소기업의 기술능력 제고를 위한 기술하부구조정책: 미국의 MEP와 한국의 중진공을 중심으로 한 사례 비교

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study analyzes the development of technological infrastructure(TI) and technological infrastructure policy(TIP) to enhance the technological capabilities of small and mid-sized manufacturing enterprises(SMEs) in the U.S. and Korea in terms of the technological system(TS) concept, which is composed of technological infrastructure, industrial organization, and institutional infrastructure. In order to analyze the internal dynamics of the system, such as incentive mechanisms, the interaction among economic actors, and the policy implementation process, we compare the MEP(Manufacturing Extension Partnership) system of the U.S. and the Joong-Jin-Gong system of Korea. Among many similarities, contrasts, and insights from each country's effort to construct TI and TS, the main findings are as follows. (1) Both the MEP system and the Joong-Jin-Cong system are TI-led or government-led type TS. However, the nation-wide picture is different: in the U.S., most TSs including the MEP system., are classified as TI-led type; in Korea, many TI-assisted or private sector-led TSs have been developed since the early 1960s. (2) the MEP system, as a representative case of the U.S., is less stable than the Joong-Jin-Gong system of Korea in terms of financing and political cycle. (3) The MEP system is a more complex and cooperative network than the Joong-Jin-Gong system. NIST, as a critical mass, generates the system, bridges various institutions, and influences the development of the system by providing funding. (4) Regarding TI components, TSs in both countries focus on utilizing off-the-shelf technologies rather than advanced technologies. However, the direction of movement is different: in the U.S., TSs have come to emphasize existing technologies to counterbalance an innovation system that has been highly focused toward new technologies; in Korea, TSs have been moving from focusing on a higher diffusion rate of imported process technologies to stressing new technology development. (5) Personnel and staffing, embodying technological capability, is an important concern in both countries. But the human capital infrastructure of the U.S. system is more efficient and industry-oriented than that of the Korean system due to a more flexible labor market. (6) While the U.S. has a strong tradition of state and local autonomy in constructing TI and TS to fit SMEs's specific need, Korea has a centralized and bureaucratically-led policy implementation process.