Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (기술혁신학회지)

Korea Technology Innovation Society (한국기술혁신학회)
권호 표지

The Impact of Exclusive Subcontracting on the Input, Behavior and Output of Innovation in Small Venture Firms: Evidence from Manufacturing Industries of Korea

수·위탁거래의 전속성이 중소벤처기업의 혁신 투입, 활동 및 성과에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2019.04.03
  • Accepted : 2019.05.23
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzes the impact of exclusive subcontracting on the input, behavior, and output of innovation in manufacturing industries of Korea. Based on the analysis of pooled cross-sectional data of 6,029 small venture firms, this study proved that the exclusive subcontracting between small venture firms and large enterprises are lowering R&D investment of small venture firms. Second, the innovation activities of small venture firms including the ratio of R&D personnel and the scope of cooperation and partnership with external organizations were lower than those of small venture firms that have non-exclusive or no relations with large enterprises. Third, the innovation performance of small venture firms such as the number of patent applications, the ratio of sales by new products, and the cumulative sales growth rate was lower than those of small venture firms that have non-exclusive or no relations with large enterprises. This study verifies that the exclusive subcontracting relationships significantly weaken the innovation process and performance of small venture firms systematically, resulting in a kind of market failure in which small venture firms have almost no incentive to facilitate innovation.

본 연구는 수 위탁거래의 전속성이 수탁 중소벤처기업의 R&D투자, R&D인력, 외부 조직과 협력 범위, 특허출원건수, 신제품에 의한 매출 및 누적 매출성장률에 미치는 영향을 분석한다. 벤처기업정밀실태조사의 원자료를 이용하여 6,029개 중소벤처기업의 병합된 횡단면 데이터를 분석한 결과 첫째, 대기업 및 1 2차 협력업체와 전속거래를 하는 중소벤처기업의 R&D투자수준은 시장판매 중소벤처기업의 투자수준보다 낮음을 실증하였다. 둘째, 전속거래를 하는 중소벤처기업의 혁신활동, 즉 R&D인력 비율 및 외부 조직과 협력 제휴 범위는 시장판매하는 중소벤처기업에 비해 낮음을 확인하였다. 셋째, 전속거래를 하는 중소벤처기업의 혁신성과, 즉 특허출원건수, 신제품에 의한 매출비중, 누적매출성장률은 시장판매하는 중소벤처기업에 비해 모두 낮음을 검증하였다. 네 번째로 수탁 중소벤처기업이 위탁 대기업의 1 2차 협력업체와 전속거래를 하는 경우가 가치사슬 상위의 대기업과 전속거래를 하는 경우에 비해 혁신 투입, 활동, 성과의 모든 측면에서 낮은 성과를 보이고 있었다. 위탁대기업 또는 1 2차 협력업체와 전속거래여부는 중소벤처기업의 혁신프로세스를 전반적이고 체계적으로 약화시켜서 혁신을 통한 성장을 기대하기 어려운 일종의 시장 실패를 가져오므로 중소벤처기업의 혁신정책은 이를 반영하여 설계될 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽정수 (2010), "대중소기업간 하도급 거래가 중소기업 성과에 미치는 영향", 서울대학교 박사학위논문.
  2. 김건식 (2019), "제조 벤처기업의 혁신에서 R&D 보조금의 투입 및 행동 부가성(Additionality) 효과 : 대기업 매출비중의 조절효과를 중심으로", 기업가정신과 벤처연구, 22(1): 13-35.
  3. 남종석.홍장표 (2017), "공급 네트워크와 중소기업 연구개발투자", 산업혁신연구, 33(2): 49-78.
  4. 박상용.신현한.홍은주 (2013), "협력사의 성과에 관한 연구-삼성전자 협력사를 중심으로", 경영연구, 28(3): 281-309. https://doi.org/10.22903/JBR.2013.28.3.281
  5. 송영조.홍장표 (2017), "하도급기업의 거래관계 특성이 혁신성과에 미치는 영향", 산업경제연구, 30(3): 1051-1074.
  6. 우광호 (2013), "하도급 활용의 원인, 기업성과 및 위험분담에 관한 연구", 성균관대학교 박사학위논문.
  7. 이규복 (2009), 대.중소기업 간 수익성 양극화와 경제성장 : 기업 간 협상력 변화를 중심으로, 한국금융연구원.
  8. 이병기 (2012), "대기업 성장의 협력기업 낙수효과 분석 : 자동차.조선 산업을 중심으로", 한국경제연구원 정책연구, 2012-03, 1-62.
  9. 이세욱.이경희.성창수 (2018), "중소기업과 대기업 간의 거래특성이 협력활동 및 협력성과에 미치는 영향", 한국창업학회지, 13(3): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.24878/TKES.2018.13.3.1
  10. 이종욱.오승현 (2014), "대기업 성과가 중소기업에 미치는 영향 : 네트워크론 자료를 이용한 낙수효과 실증분석", 금융지식연구, 12(2): 141-162.
  11. 이항구.윤자영.맹지은 (2017), 전속거래 현황 및 제도 개선방안에 관한 연구, 산업연구원.
  12. 장지상.홍장표 (2016), "기업의 거래형태 및 외부기술 활용이 혁신성과에 미치는 영향", 경제발전연구, 22(1): 27-59.
  13. 지민웅.신종원.강민지.박양신.박진 (2016), 중소기업의 혁신성과 하도급거래와의 관계, 산업연구원.
  14. 홍장표.김종호 (2016), "불완전계약에서 서열경쟁이 공급업체의 연구개발투자에 미치는 영향", 경제발전연구, 22(2): 95-122.
  15. 홍장표 (2011), "하도급거래에서 구매업체의 기회주의가 공급업체의 연구개발투자에 미치는 영향", 사회경제평론, 37(1): 311-44.
  16. 홍장표.남종석 (2016), "대, 중소기업간 거래관계가 협력 중소기업의 연구개발투자에 미치는 영향", 중소기업연구, 38(1): 87-107.
  17. Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), "Innovation Management Measurement: A Review", International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1): 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x
  18. Aldrich, H. and Auster, E. R. (1986), "Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Age and Size and Their Strategic Implications", Research in Organizational Behavior, (8): 165-198.
  19. Becheikh, N., Landry, R. and Amara, N. (2006), "Lessons from Innovation Empirical Studies in t he Manufacturing S ector: a S ystematic Review of the Literature from 1993-2003", Technovation, 26(5-6): 644-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.016
  20. Berry, A. (1997), SME Competitiveness: The Power of Networking and Subcontracting, Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
  21. Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001), "An Evolutionary Model of Continuous Improvement Behaviour", Technovation, 21(2): 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00023-7
  22. Clougherty, J. A., Duso, T. and Muck, J. (2016), "Correcting for Self-selection based Endogeneity in Management Research: Review, Recommendations and Simulations", Organizational Research Methods, 19(1): 286-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115619013
  23. Deardorff, A. V. and Djankov, S. (2000), "Knowledge Transfer under Subcontracting:Evidence from Czech Firms", World Development, 28(10): 1837-1847. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00060-7
  24. Dimos, C. and Pugh, G. (2016), "The Effectiveness of R&D Subsidies: A Meta-regression Analysis of the Evaluation Literature", Research Policy, 45(4): 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.002
  25. Dyer J. H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), "Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: the Toyota Case", Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<345::AID-SMJ96>3.0.CO;2-N
  26. EIM (2009), EU SMEs and Subcontracting, Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research.
  27. Helsley, R. W. and Strange, W. C. (2002), "Innovation and Input Sharing", Journal of Urban Economics, 51(1): 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2235
  28. Heckman, J. J. (1976), "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models", Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4): 475-492.
  29. Hewitt-Dundas, N. and Roper, S. (2010), "Output Additionality of Public Support for Innovation: Evidence for Irish Manufacturing Plants", European Planning Studies, 18(1): 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903343559
  30. Hsu, D. H. (2007), "Experienced Entrepreneurial Founders, Organizational Capital, and Venture Capital Funding", Research Policy, 36(5): 722-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.022
  31. Kimura, F. (2001), Subcontracting and the Performance of Small and Medium Firms in Japan, Washington D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
  32. Krackhardt, D. (1992), "The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations", in Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, edited by N. Nohria and R. G. Ecckes., Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 216-239.
  33. Lopez-Bayon, S. and Gonzalez-Diaz, M. (2010), "Indefinite Contract Duration: Evidence from Electronics Subcontracting", International Review of Law and Economics, 30(2): 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2010.03.001
  34. Love, J. H. and Roper, S. (2015), "SME Innovation, Exporting and Growth: a Review of Existing Evidence", International Small Business Journal, 33(1): 28-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614550190
  35. Merito, M., Giannangeli, S. and Bonaccorsi, A. (2007), "Do Incentives to Industrial R&D Enhance Research Productivity and Firm Growth? Evidence from the Italian Case", L'industria, 28(2): 221-242.
  36. Merrilees, B., Rundle-Thiele, S. and Lye, A. (2011), "Marketing Capabilities: Antecedents and Implications for B2B SME Performance", Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3): 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.08.005
  37. Nooteboom, B. (2003), An Integrated Survey of Theory on Sourcing, Inter-firm Collaboration and Networks, at 'Knowledge-Intensive Services and Changing Organisational Forms', Manchester: Institute of Innovation Research, UMIST/University of Manchester.
  38. OECD (2005), Encouraging Linkages between Small and Medium-Sized Companies and Multinational Enterprises - An Overview of Good Policy Practice, Paris: OECD.
  39. OECD (2007), Enhancing the Role of SMEs in Global Value Chains - Background Report, Paris: OECD.
  40. Radas, S., Anic, I. D., Tafro, A. and Wagner, V. (2015), "The Effects of Public Support Schemes on Small and Medium Enterprises", Technovation, 38: 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.08.002
  41. Rowley, T., Behrens, D. and Krackhardt, D. (2000), "Redundant Governance Structures: an Analysis of Structural and Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries", Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 369-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<369::AID-SMJ93>3.0.CO;2-M
  42. Shefer, D. and Frenkel, A. (2005), "R&D, Firm Size and Innovation: an Empirical Analysis", Technovation, 25(1): 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00152-4
  43. Tirole, J. (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Boston, MIT press.
  44. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2001), World Investment Report 2 001: Promoting L inkages, New York: United Nations.
  45. Williamson, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institution of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press.
  46. Woodridge, J. M. (2010), Econometric Analysis of cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge: The MIT Press.