중소기업 기술혁신역량 평가 및 글로벌 정책분석사업 (XI)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As part of a long-term study that has continued over the past 11 years, ‘technology financing’ has been selected as a research topic for this year. For the purpose of assessing SMEs’ technology innovation capability, the present study has reviewed whether their technology grades in technology credit bureau (TCB) have been enhanced. In addition, major countries’ technology financing support policies have also been compared. As a follow-up in-depth study of the previous year’s research, SMEs’ technology innovation capability has been assessed based on their total factor productivity (TFP) and the impact of industry-academia-research institute collaboration on R&D performance has also been analyzed. For this purpose, academic papers published by firms were used for the trend analysis of industry-academic-research institute collaboration, which is a new attempt for this year. In relation to this, the following three research questions have been presented; i) is the technology innovation capability of Korean SMEs improving? ii) what are the global universalities of technology financing support for SMEs and what are some features unique to Korea? and iii) what is the trend of industry-academia-research institute collaboration in Korea and has this trilateral collaboration led to specific outcomes?
The answers for these three research questions are as follows. First, the analysis of TCB technology grades reveals that manufacturing SMEs’ technology innovation capability is improving. TCB technology grades are widely used quantified indicators that objectively show the excellence of technologies possessed by companies though they have limitations as they are not open data. Second, a comparative analysis of technology financing capacity of major countries shows that the size of Korea’s technology financing is far greater than that of the UK or Japan though it lags behind that of the U.S. For the purpose of this study, technology financing has been defined as financial support for SMEs from public and private sectors based on SMEs’ technological capability as there exists no universally agreed-upon definition of technology financing among countries. Third, the analysis of TFP changes by industry shows that service sector’s TFP changes are greater than those of manufacturing sector, but TFP changes are mainly attributable to the differences in the size of firms rather than the differences between industries. This implies that narrowing the TFP gap between companies of different sizes within the service sector requires efforts to improve productivity of less productive companies. Fourth, in terms of the number of public-private collaborative papers and the ratio of these collaborative papers in the total papers, Korea lags behind other major countries. Relative to its quantitative growth of academic papers led by universities, the ratio of Korea’s industry-academia collaborative papers in the total academic papers published by Korean universities stands at only 6% (as of 2019). In the meantime, the ratio of industry-academia collaborative papers in the total academic papers published by firms is 84.9%, showing firms’ high dependence on universities.
Based on these analyses, the following five policy initiatives have been proposed. First, it is recommended to launch an information and knowledge curating service to help improve SMEs’ productivity. Second, open innovation needs to be introduced and promoted to improve the distribution efficiency within firms. Third, it is necessary to build research infrastructure that can help improve productivity of SMEs in the service sector. Fourth, it is recommended for the government to gradually move away from direct loans to SMEs to indirect investment in SMEs. Fifth, it is necessary to bring up investment experts and expand investments in regionally specialized venture firms. Sixth, a systematic analysis of firms’ academic activities needs to be conducted and a database containing the r

목차 (Table of Contents)

• [표지]
• [목차]
• 표목차
• 그림목차
• [요약]
• 1. 개요
• 2. TCB 기반 기술혁신역량 평가
• 3. 글로벌 중소기업 정책동향 분석
• 4. 총요소생산성(TFP) 기반 중소기업 기술혁신역량 평가
• 5. 산학연 연구개발 협력 분석
• 6. 결론 및 정책과제
• [제1장 서론]
• 제1절 연구의 배경
• 제2절 중소기업 혁신 지원의 주요 법제 분석
• 제3절 1차년도~10차년도(2010~2019년) 사업 종합
• 제4절 11차년도(2020년) 주요 내용 및 방법론
• [제2장 중소기업의 기술혁신역량 평가]
• 제1절 국가승인통계 기반의 중소기업 기술혁신역량 분석
• 제2절 기술신용평가 기반의 제조 중소기업 기술혁신역량 분석
• 제3절 총요소생산성(TFP) 기반 중소기업 기술혁신역량 평가
• [제3장 주요국의 중소기업 기술혁신 지원 정책동향 분석]
• 제1절 중소기업 기술금융 지원의 현황과 이슈
• 제2절 주요국의 중소기업 기술금융 동향 분석
• [제4장 중소기업 기술혁신역량 심화연구]
• 제1절 우리나라 산학연협력 연구개발의 트렌드 분석
• 제2절 산학연협력 지원사업(R&D)이 성과에 미치는 영향 분석
• [제5장 결론 및 정책과제]
• 제1절 연구결과 종합
• 제2절 정책과제
• [참고문헌]
• [부록]
• [Summary]
• [Contents]