신남방지역의 가치사슬 분석과 교역 확대 및 고도화 방안 (Global Value Chain Analysis in the New Southern Region, Korea's Trade Expansion and Upgrading Strategy)
Young SIk Jeong,Jeong-Gon Kim,Hyoungmin Han,Jaewan Cheong,Jung Mi Lee,Jegook Kim,ChiHyun Yun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3705119
2019-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Korean Abstract: 현재 세계경제에서 신남방지역인 아세안과 인도의 위상이 부상하고 있다. 우리 정부 역시 성장잠재력이 높은 신남방지역에 주목하고 있고, 이 지역과의 교역 확대를 정책 목표 중 하나로 제시하고 있다. 그런데 2019년 들어 신남방지역과의 교역이 줄면서 목표 달성을 낙관하기 어렵게 되었다. 신남방지역을 둘러싼 대내외 환경이 녹록지 않기 때문이다. 글로벌 보호무역주의 확산, 세계경제 저성장 기조 등 대외 환경이 악화되고 있고, 신남방지역 내 경쟁 격화, 신남방 국가의 생산비용 증가, 현지 부품조달 비율 확대, 기술이전 중시정책, 한국에 대한 무역불균형 개선 요구 등 신남방지역의 무역 및 투자 정책도 이전에 비해 덜 우호적으로 바뀌고 있다. 이러한 환경 변화에 따라 신남방지역과의 교역 확대와 고도화 방안을 모색하는 것이 더욱 중요해지고 있다. 이는 또한 신남방 경제정책의 골자인 ‘상생번영’의 원칙에 입각한 한ㆍ아세안, 한ㆍ인도 경제협력을 실현하는 정책 추진에 있어 중요한 과제이기도 하다. 그래서 본 연구는 거시적 차원에서 신남방지역의 가치사슬 구조 분석, 미시적 차원에서 아세안과 인도의 GVC(Global Value Chain) 관련 정책 및 산업별 수요, 한국의 GVC 구축 현황, 일본의 GVC 구축 사례 분석을 수행하고자 한다. 이를 바탕으로 신남방지역과의 교역 확대 및 고도화 방안을 제시하고자 한다. 본 연구의 핵심 내용은 크게 네 가지로 요약할 수 있다. 먼저는 신남방지역의 가치사슬의 특징이다. 국제 산업연관표를 이용하여 주요국과 신남방지역 가치사슬구조를 분석한 결과 다음과 같은 여섯 가지 특징이 나타났다. 첫째, GVC 참여도 절대수준 측면에서 신남방지역은 다른 지역(RCEP, NAFTA 등)에 비해 높은 편이다.즉 수출품 생산에서 해외 중간재 수입 의존도가 높다는 것이다. 둘째, 시기별 추이 측면에서는 신남방지역의 가치사슬 참여도가 완만하게 하락하고 수출에 포함된 국내 부가가치 비중이 상승하고 있다. 이는 현지 생산 및 현지 조달 확대 등 현지화가 진행되고 있음을 의미한다. 셋째, 가치사슬 고도화 측면에서 신남방지역 수출 상품과 GVC 이용 방식이 꾸준히 고도화되고 있다. 즉 신남방지역은 최종재보다 중간재 수출이 빠르게 늘어나고 있다는 것이다. 넷째, 신남방지역 역내 가치사슬 참여도가 꾸준히 높아지고 있다. 역내 생산 분업화가 확대되고 있다는 의미이다. 다섯째, 신남방지역 내 가치사슬(중간재와 재수출) 허브 국가는 과거 말레이시아 중심에서 베트남, 인도, 인도네시아 등으로 다변화되고 있다. 여섯째, 한국의 경우 글로벌 가치 사슬 참여도가 다른 주요국에 비해 높고 GVC 상품의 위치도 상승하고 있다. 특히 후방 참여도가 높은데, 이는 원재료를 해외로부터 수입해 중간재 또는 최종재를 생산한다는 의미이다. GVC 상품의 위치가 상승한다는 것은 중간재 수출이 늘고 있다는 것이다. 그리고 한국의 국내 부가가치 수출이 많은 국가는 베트남, 싱가포르, 인도, 인도네시아이고, 이 중 베트남과 싱가포르는 한국과 국제 분업 관계가 높다. 두 번째 핵심 내용은 신남방지역 내 국별 ‧ 산업별 잠재 협력기회이다. 이는 한국기업이 생산 분업화 및 가치사슬을 확대하는 데 있어 중요하다. 본 연구는 한국기업의 강점 및 경쟁우위 산업, 현지 유망 및 고성장 산업을 포착하기 위해 부가가치 현시비교우위 분석과 GVC 관련 주요 정책 및 산업별 수요 분석을 실시하였다. 첫째, 실질 부가가치 수출을 기준으로 산업별 비교우위를 분석한 결과, 한국은 주요국 대비 석유 정제, 화학, 전자 부품, 자동차 운송장비 등 제조업 분야에서 수출경쟁력을 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 이 업종에 대해 신남방지역 국가의 글로벌 분업화 정도가 높고 비교우위가 있는 산업을 매칭한 결과 싱가포르ㆍ태국ㆍ베트남은 석유정제 산업, 베트남은 화학 산업, 필리핀과 베트남은 전자부품 산업, 인도와 태국은 자동차 산업에서 잠재 협력기회가 있는 것으로 분석되었다. 다음으로 이렇게 거시적 차원에서 도출된 국별ㆍ산업별 잠재 협력기회를 보완하기 위해 미시적 차원인 GVC 관련 정책, 산업별 수요조사 등도 병행하였다. 신남방지역에서 일정 규모의 내수시장(인구 3,000만 명 이상)을 가지고 있는 국가(인도네시아, 말레이시아, 미얀마, 필리핀, 태국, 베트남, 인도)를 대상으로 국별 주요 산업 육성전략 및 제조업을 중심으로 5대 핵심산업과 고성장 예상산업을 동시에 고려해 국별로 유망 협력 산업을 도출하였다. 아세안 6개국과 인도에 공통적인 유망 협력 산업은 제조업 중 식음료 가공업이다. 이 외에는 인도네시아의 경우 석탄ㆍ석유정제ㆍ자동차ㆍ수송장비ㆍ화학ㆍ기초금속ㆍ금속가공 등, 말레이시아의 경우 전자부품ㆍ통신장비ㆍ통신부품ㆍ소비자가전ㆍ정유ㆍ비금속광물ㆍ금속가공 등, 미얀마의 경우 의류ㆍ건설 및 건축 자재ㆍ소비자가전 등, 필리핀의 경우 화학ㆍ라디오와 TV 등 통신장비 및 기구ㆍ건설 및 건축 자재 등, 태국의 경우 코크스 및 정유ㆍ화학ㆍ고무 및 플라스틱 등, 베트남의 경우 섬유ㆍ의류ㆍ가죽ㆍ컴퓨터ㆍ오피스 및 통신장비ㆍ기초금속ㆍ비금속광물ㆍ목재 및 목제품ㆍ고무 및 플라스틱 등이다. 인도의 경우에는 석유정제제품ㆍ화학 및 화학제품ㆍ기초금속ㆍ제약ㆍ식품가공ㆍ자동차 및 운송장비 등이 유망 협력 산업으로 도출되었다.English Abstract: ASEAN and India are prominent emerging economies within the global economy. The Korean government is also paying attention to the so-called “New Southern Region” from its perspective (i.e. ASEAN and India), which has high growth potential, and is promoting a policy of expanding trade with the region. However, in light of the decline in trade with the New Southern Region in 2019, it looks difficult to achieve this goal. This is because the internal and external environment surrounding the New Southern Region is not as good as before. The external environment is deteriorating due to such factors as the spread of global protectionism and the global economic slowdown. In addition, trade and investment policies in the New Southern Region are less favorable than before, including intensifying competition, increased production costs, and policy changes such as increased local contents proportion, an emphasis on technology transfer, and pressure to improve trade imbalance with Korea. Due to these environmental changes, it is becoming more important to find ways to expand and upgrade trade with the New Southern Region. This is also an important task in promoting policies for Korea’s economic cooperation with ASEAN and India based on the principle of co-prosperity, which is the core of Korea’s New Southern Policy. Therefore, the study performs various types of GVC analyses in both macro and micro perspectives, which include analysis of the GVC structure of ASEAN and India, GVC-related policy and sector-level demand, the current status of Korea’s GVC structure, and Japan’s GVC network in ASEAN and India. Through this extensive analysis, the study proposes measures on promoting an extension of trade and GVC advancement with the New Southern Region. We can summarize the key findings as follows. First, in Chapter 3, we found unique characteristics within the GVC structure in New Southern Policy (NSP) countries. An analysis of data from the world input-output table reveals six characteristics: ① New Southern Policy countries have a higher GVC participation rate compared to other major regions, such as the coverage areas of the RCEP and NAFTA. In particular, NSP countries use foreign intermediate goods in their exports. ② The GVC participation rate in NSP countries has gradually decreased over the years, along with increasing domestic value-added in the exports. The trend indicates the evidence of localization in production. ③ NSP countries show advancement in export items and GVC activities, in the form of many countries in the region starting to produce more intermediate goods exports than final goods. ⑤ The GVC hub of intermediate goods (re)export within NSP countries has been diversified from Malaysia to Vietnam, India, and Indonesia. ⑥ Korea’s GVC status has changed significantly over the years. Korea’s GVC participation rate is higher than other major countries, and its GVC location has increased substantially. Korea has high backward GVC participation, which means Korea uses extensive foreign intermediate goods in its exports. The improvement of Korea’s GVC location implies that Korea’s intermediate goods exports have risen over time. The major destinations of Korea’s value-added exports are Vietnam, Singapore, India, and Indonesia. Among these countries, Korea is vertically integrated with Vietnam and Singapore. Second, in Chapter 3, we propose country/industry-specific potential cooperation possibilities with New Southern Policy countries. The cooperation with ASEAN and India is important for Korea to expand its GVC network and promote efficient production through international specialization. To identify Korean industries with a comparative advantage at the international level and high growth potential in NSP countries, the study performs various analyses, including an analysis of value-added comparative advantage, GVC-related policy, and sector-level demand. First, the value-added comparative advantage analysis reveals that Korea has comparative advantages in the areas of Coke, Refined Petroleum and Nuclear Fuel, Chemicals and Chemical Products, Electrical and Optical Equipment, and Transport Equipment. Among these industries, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam have either comparative advantages or high backward GVC participation in the Coke, Refined Petroleum and Nuclear Fuel sector, Vietnam in Chemicals and Chemical Products, the Philippines and Vietnam in Electrical and Optical Equipment, and India and Thailand in Transport Equipment. The country-industry matching indicates potential cooperation chances between Korea and NSP countries. To supplement the matching above, in Chapter 4, we conduct additional analysis on GVC-related policy and industry-specific demand. We choose seven countries which have an economically significant domestic market (Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and India) for the analysis. We analyze each country’s national industry development scheme, five major industries (focused on manufacturing sector), and distinguish high-growth potential industries to propose specific industries for potential cooperation between Korea and NSP countries. Korea has a potential cooperation possibility in the Food, Beverage and Tobacco industry in all seven countries. More specifically, Korea has better cooperation chances with Indonesia in Coke, Refined Petroleum, Chemicals, and Chemical products, Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal industries, with Myanmar in Textiles and Textile Products, Construction parts, and Consumer Product industries, with the Philippines in Chemicals and Chemical products, Telecommunication Device (Radio, TV), and Construction parts industries, with Thailand in Coke, Refined Petroleum, and Rubber and Plastics industries, with Vietnam for Textiles and Textile Products, Leather Products, Computer, Office and Telecommunication Device, Basic Metal, Other Non-Metallic Mineral, Wood Products, and Rubber and Plastics industries, with India in Coke, Refined Petroleum, Chemicals, and Chemical Products, Basic Metal, Pharmaceutical products, Food, Beverages and Tobacco, Transport Equipment industries. Third, in Chapter 5, we examine the current status of Korea’s GVC structure in the New Southern Region. In the case of ASEAN, we surveyed Korean electronics, automobiles, machinery, textiles and clothing companies in Vietnam and Indonesia, and automobiles and electronics companies in India. Our analysis identified the five following features. ① In the area of procurement of raw materials and parts in ASEAN, Korean companies are procuring the largest proportion of their demands from Korean sources, followed by local and Chinese sources. ② In the case of trading partners, electric, electronic, automobiles, and machinery companies are engaged in active transactions with their affiliates and Korean subcontractors in ASEAN. ③ The most important factors to consider when procuring local raw materials and parts were price competitiveness, followed by meeting and shortening delivery deadlines, and the demands of major customers. ④ In the case of entry into the market, electric, electronic, automobile and machinery companies mainly aim to expand sales in ASEAN, followed by exports to the Korean market. ⑤ The most representative obstacles to GVC construction of Korean companies are the lack of quality competitiveness and technological competence of local companies, followed by lack of logistics infrastructure, lack of parts or diversity, lack of cultural or language communication, and shortage of necessary workers. Next, ① India's procurement structure for Korean companies entering India shows that local Korean automakers and auto parts manufacturers have a high proportion of local procurement because the auto industry has a well-established local production network. On the other hand, the electronics industry has a relatively high proportion of import procurement due to the lack of production network in India. ② In the case of Korean companies entering India, automakers are expanding their exports of Indian products. In the electronics industry, on the other hand, exports of Indian products are just beginning. ③ Korean companies are experiencing difficulties in establishing GVCs in India due to difficulties in co-operation with local companies, poor infrastructure, and frequent policy changes. Fourth, in Chapter 6, we investigate the case of Japan successfully building GVC in the New Southern Region. The characteristics of the Japanese GVC construction in the New Southern Region are as follows. ① In terms of procurement of raw materials and parts, the proportion of local procurement is higher than that of Korea, and transactions with local companies and Japanese companies entering the market are also active. ② By industry, GVC construction is relatively active in the fields of electrical, electronics, machinery, and automobiles. This is because the company has a long history of entry and many companies have entered the market. In particular, there are many “anchor companies” leading production bases and global production network (GPN), and there are many Japanese companies that cooperate with these anchor companies. ③ Many Japanese companies that have entered ASEAN are rebuilding their production bases in light of changes in the global business environment and expansion of ASEAN economic integration. The most representative one is the Thai Plus One strategy. Meanwhile, in the case of product sales, Japanese firms that have entered the New Southern Region have a higher share of the local market than Korean firms. This is because not only transactions with local companies but also B2B transactions with many local Japanese companies are active. Japanese companies can successfully build GVCs in the New Southern Region thanks to various support and policies by the Japanese government. Representative policies include: active use of ODA to support local companies to reduce service linkage costs, improve location comparison advantages, build production networks, etc.; supporting industrial development and private sectors in developing countries; developing and supporting human resources development and technology transfer; identifying and addressing difficulties for local Japanese companies, including the establishment of GVCs. Finally, in Chapter 7, we present policy implications for expanding and upgrading Korea's trade in the value chain. First, three policy directions are presented. ① In terms of GVC construction direction, the production network and GVC should be expanded in the New Southern Region. This is accompanied by an increase in Korea's exports of intermediate goods, components, and materials for local production, and furthermore, Korea imports these intermediate goods and final goods which are produced in the New Southern Region, leading to increased trade. ② In the case of the production network and the GVC expansion method, it is first necessary to diversify the GVC base currently concentrated in Vietnam to India, Indonesia nd Thailand. In addition, value chains should be upgraded and differentiated in the New outhern Region. In Vietnam, Korea's main production network and GVC base in ASEAN, Korea should expand to other industries such as chemicals and automobiles in addition to the electronics industry. In the case of labor-intensive industries, it is necessary to induce relocation to neighboring countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar, where labor costs are relatively low. This could be a Vietnam + 1 strategy. In addition, it is necessary to expand the GVC centering on the electronic, petrochemical and automotive sectors, which Korea has strength in the New Southern Region, and to expand and strengthen the regional linkage of the GVC. ③ When expanding investment in the New Southern Region to strengthen GVC, it is necessary to select investment sectors and support these sectors in consideration of Korea's comparative advantage, participation in the local value chain, local GVC-related policies and industrial demand. Next, we propose some policy measures to achieve this policy direction. First, ODA should be strategically used to foster local infrastructure, industrial complexes development, and training high-tech workers. Next, trade and investment agencies such as KOTRA and the Korea International Trade Association need to strengthen their GVC consulting capabilities for local Korean companies. And bilateral and multilateral FTAs, which are effective in expanding and upgrading trade, should be expanded, and FTAs already signed will need to be upgraded. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the mechanisms for investigating and discovering andidentifying the overall difficulties, including the establishment of GVCs by local Korean companies.