승수효과분석으로 살펴 본 연구개발(R&D) 투자의 명과 암 = The Bright and the Dark Sides of R&D Investments: A SAM Multiplier Analysis focusing on Korean economy

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study investigates the relationship between technological innovation, labor market, and income distribution with considerations of structural characteristics of Korean economy, to address the intrinsic properties of technological innovation as one of the underlying causes for conflicts between growth and distribution within the knowledge-based economy. In this study, we use a knowledge-based SAM to quantitatively analyze the direct and indirect growth and distribution effects of the investments in R&D focusing on Korea.
Based on a constructed SAM dataset, this study has conducted a SAM multiplier effect analysis to identify how the increased innovation activities in the economic system with additional R&D investments would affect the industrial outputs, value-added composition, and income distribution via multiplier effects and relevant direct and indirect paths within the national economy, by comparing with the scenario of increasing physical capital investment with the same amounts. Based on the key findings of the SAM multiplier analysis, it is found that in the case of the Korean economy, technological innovation represented by R&D investment can lead to increases in output and gross income growth, but may have negative impacts on income distribution in the economic system by further inducing relative demand for high-skilled labor and physical capital. This study suggests that the Korean economic structure has an inherent possibility that leads to skill-biased and capital-biased technological progress by creating differential demand among the factors of production in the factor input market when there is an expansion of technological innovation through additional R&D investments. Those findings suggest that it is important to investigate what types of policy design and implementation can be used to achieve both objectives of growth and distribution within a knowledge-based economy, not solely stressing out the quantitative expansions of R&D investments. Furthermore, it is also highlighted that innovation policy design needs to be pursued with comprehensive and structural approaches, given that economic growth and distribution are the outcomes of complex interactions among the many institutional sectors within the economic system.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2000년대 초반부터 이어져온 기술혁신 주도 경제성장은 최근 저상장 추세의 장기화, 양극화 및 소득 불평등 확대 등의 문제와 연결되면서 위기를 맞고 있다. 하지만 이러한 위기의원인을 단순히 혁신주도 성장때문이라고 단정지을 수는 없다. 이에 본 연구는 우리나라의혁신정책이 나아가야 할 방향에 대한 시사점을 제공하기 위해, 기술혁신에 따른 경제성장과그 이면의 불평등 확대가 경기순환적인 현상이기보다는 기술진보의 내재적 속성으로 인한구조적 문제임을 파악하고자 하였다. 이를 위해, 본 연구에서는 우리나라 경제체제를 묘사하는 사회회계행렬를 구축하고, 승수효과분석을 통해 기술혁신, 노동시장, 그리고 소득분배간 관계를 구조적으로 파악하고자 했다. 이를 통해 기술혁신이 성장과 분배 사이의 충돌을초래할 수 있음을 경계하는 최근 다양한 연구들의 주장 속 핵심 기저요인으로서 제기되는요소편향적 기술진보가 우리나라 경제체제에서 구조적으로 발현되는지를 확인하고자 하였다. 분석 결과, 우리나라 경제체제의 경우 R&D 투자로 대변되는 기술혁신은 경제체제 내산출량 증대 및 총소득 증대 효과가 나타났다. 하지만, 혁신 및 지식집약적 산업의 성장을바탕으로 고숙련 노동 및 물적자본에 대한 상대적 수요를 더욱 유발함으로써, 경제체제 내소득 분배에 있어서는 부정적 영향을 끼칠 수 있음을 이해할 수 있었다. 이를 통해, 우리나라경제 구조가 R&D 투자 증대를 통한 기술혁신의 확대가 있을 때, 생산요소 시장에 있어생산요소 간 차별적 수요를 형성함으로써, 숙련편향적, 그리고 자본편향적 기술진보를 일으킬 수 있는 구조적 속성을 내재하고 있음을 파악할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 분석결과는 향후혁신정책을 설계하는데 있어서는 기술혁신을 바탕으로 한 성장잠재력 확대를 위한 정책 대안 모색과 더불어, 성장과 분배 간 상충관계를 고려한 정책 설계 역시 중요함을 시사한다.
이미 저성장 현상과 한정된 자원 분배가 고착화되고 있는 가운데, 향후 기술혁신 주도 성장을 위해서는 포용적 성장의 틀에서 혁신정책의 역할과 방향에 대해 모색할 필요가 있음을본 연구는 시사한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박상욱, "혁신연구와 과학기술학(STS)의 상호작용을통한 혁신시스템 관점의 진화적 발전과정 연구" 한국혁신학회 8 (8): 33-54, 2013

2 양정승, "한국의 세대 간 소득이동성 추정" 한국노동경제학회 35 (35): 79-115, 2012

3 양희원, "지식기반 사회회계행렬 작성 방안 연구" 한국생산성학회 26 (26): 257-285, 2012

4 송위진, "지속가능한 사회⋅기술시스템으로의 전환과 정책통합" 4 (4): 49-69, 2009

5 한국은행, "우리나라의 국민계정체계" 한국은행 2010

6 최은영, "소득계층별 교육과 가구소득의 세대간 이전에 관한 연구" 한국지역사회학회 20 (20): 23-42, 2012

7 신동천, "국제무역의 연산균형분석" 세경사 1999

8 안종범, "교육 및 소득수준의 세대간 이전" 한국재정학회 1 (1): 119-142, 2008

9 정성문, "공정혁신과 제품혁신이 고용구조와 경제성장에 미치는 영향" 한국혁신학회 12 (12): 87-117, 2017

10 Brynjolfsson, E., "Winning the race with ever-smarter machines" 53 (53): 53-60, 2012

11 Mućk, J., "Will The “True” Labor Share Stand Up? An Applied Survey On Labor Share Measures" 32 (32): 961-984, 2018

12 Acemoglu, D., "Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality" 113 (113): 1055-1089, 1998

13 Blanchard, O., "What we know and do not know about the natural rate of unemployment" 11 (11): 51-72, 1997

14 Guerriero, M., "What determines the share of labour in national income? A cross-country analysis" Institute of Labor Economics 2012

15 Hong, C., "Validation of an R&D-based computable general equilibrium model" 42 : 454-463, 2014

16 Mallick, S.K., "The skill premium effect of technological change : New evidence from United States manufacturing" 156 (156): 113-131, 2017

17 Brynjolfsson, E., "The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies" WW Norton & Company 2014

18 Goldin, C., "The race between technology and education" Harvard University Press 2008

19 David, H., "The polarization of the US labor market" 96 (96): 189-194, 2006

20 Marouani, M.A., "The labor market effects of skill-biased technological change in Malaysia" 57 : 55-75, 2016

21 O'Mahony, M., "The impact of ICT on the demand for skilled labour : A cross-country comparison" 15 (15): 1435-1450, 2008

22 Freeman, R. B., "The effect of demographic factors on age-earnings profiles" National Bureau of Economic Research 1979

23 Elsby, M.W., "The decline of the US labor share"

24 Acemoglu, D., "The Rise and Decline of General Laws of Capitalism" 29 (29): 3-28, 2015

25 Karabarbounis, L., "The Global Decline of the Labor Share" 129 (129): 61-103, 2014

26 Machin, S., "Technology and changes in skill structure : evidence from seven OECD countries" 113 (113): 1215-1244, 1998

27 Bartel, A.P., "Technological change and wages : an interindustry analysis" 107 (107): 285-325, 1999

28 Ales, L., "Technical change, wage inequality, and taxes" 105 (105): 3061-3101, 2015

29 Card, D., "Skill-biased technological change and rising wage inequality : Some problems and puzzles" 20 (20): 733-783, 2002

30 Danninger, S., "Research in Labor Economics, 19" Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1-28, 2000

31 Ostry, M. J. D., "Redistribution, inequality, and growth" International Monetary Fund 2014

32 Brynjolfsson, E., "Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy" Digital Frontier Press 2012

33 Jorgenson, D. W., "Quality of the US Workforce" Harvard University 1994

34 Antonietti, R., "Opening the “Skill-Biased Technological Change” Black Box: A Look at the Microfoundations of the Technology-Skill Relationship" 24 (24): 451-476, 2007

35 OECD, "OECD employment outlook 2018" Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) publishing 2018

36 Shim, M., "New stylized facts on occupational employment and their implications: Evidence from consistent employment data" 59 : 402-415, 2016

37 Oberfield, E., "Micro data and macro technology" National Bureau of Economic Research 2014

38 Keane, M., "Micro and macro labor supply elasticities : A reassessment of conventional wisdom" 50 (50): 464-476, 2012

39 Doraszelski, U., "Measuring the Bias of Technological Change" 126 (126): 1027-1084, 2018

40 Joumard, I., "Less income inequality and more growth-are they compatible?" Oganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) 2012

41 Hamermesh, D. S., "Labor demand and the source of adjustment costs" National Bureau of Economic Research 1993

42 Goos, M., "Job polarization in Europe" 99 (99): 58-63, 2009

43 Bridgman, B., "Is Labor’s Loss Capital’s Gain? Gross versus Net Labor Shares" 1-18, 2017

44 Miller, R.E., "Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions" Cambridge university press 2009

45 Vivarelli, M., "Innovation, employment and skills in advanced and developing countries:A survey of economic literature" 48 (48): 123-154, 2014

46 Bresnahan, T. F., "Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor : Firm-level evidence" 117 (117): 339-376, 2002

47 Llop, M., "Income distribution in a regional economy : a SAM model" 26 (26): 689-702, 2004

48 Lee, J.-W., "Human capital in the long run" 122 : 147-169, 2016

49 Michaels, G., "Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven countries over twenty-five years" 96 (96): 60-77, 2014

50 Acemoglu, D., "Handbook of labor economics, 4" Elsevier 1043-1171, 2011

51 Keuning, S.J., "Guidelines to the construction of a social accounting matrix" 34 (34): 71-100, 1988

52 Jung, S., "Growth versus equity: A CGE analysis for effects of factor-biased technical progress on economic growth and employment" 60 : 424-438, 2017

53 Lahiri, R., "Growth patterns and inequality in the presence of costly technology adoption" 79 (79): 203-223, 2012

54 Bentolila, S., "Explaining movements in the labor share" 3 (3): 1-31, 2003

55 Goos, M., "Explaining job polarization : Routine-biased technological change and offshoring" 104 (104): 2509-2526, 2014

56 Pissarides, C. A., "Equilibrium unemployment theory" MIT Press 2000

57 Uhlig, H., "Do technology shocks lead to a fall in total hours worked?" 2 (2): 361-371, 2004

58 Haltiwanger, J., "Cross country differences in job reallocation: the role of industry, firm size and regulations" 26 : 11-25, 2014

59 Autor, D., "Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share" 107 (107): 180-185, 2017

60 David, H., "Computing inequality: have computers changed the labor market?" National Bureau of Economic Research 1997

61 Acemoglu, D., "Changes in unemployment and wage inequality : an alternative theory and some evidence" 89 (89): 1259-1278, 1999

62 Piketty, T., "Capital in the 21st Century" Harvard University Press 2014

63 Barro, R.J., "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950-2010" 104 : 184-198, 2013

64 한국과학기술기획평가원, "2010 연구개발활동조사보고서" 한국과학기술기획평가원 2011

65 한국은행, "2010 산업연관표"

66 고용노동부, "2010 근로형태별 근로실태조사" 고용노동부 2011

67 통계청, "2010 가계동향조사" 통계청 2011