한국 정부는 효과적인 경기대응 수단으로 공적보증을 이용해 왔다. 그러나 공적보증과 같은 중소기업에 대한 정책금융의 효과성에 대해서는 아직 논란이 해소되지 않았다. 비판적인 견지에서 보면 정책금융이 오히려 중소기업의 정부에 대한 의존도만 증가시켜 기업 스스로의 경쟁과 혁신을 방해하고 한계기업의 퇴출을 지연시킨다는 논리이다. 따라서 이 논문은 공적보증시스템의 운영은 어떻게 자리 잡아야 하며, 동시에 시장기반 중소기업 금융시스템과 어떻게 공존해 나가야 하는지에 대해 구체적 의견을 제시하고 있다. 첫째, 공적보증은 민간금융시장의 경기 순응적 행태가 초래하는 시장실패를 보완하기 위한 경기대응수단으로 이용되어야 하며, 정부, 국회, 납세자를 포함하는 이해관계자들과 이에 대한 인식을 공유해야 한다. 공적보증기관의 목적은 이윤추구가 아니라 성장 가능성이 높은 중소기업을 선별하여 지원하는 공공성의 확보에 있음을 명확히 할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 공적보증은 자금을 필요로 하는 중소기업에게 직접적으로 유동성을 공급해 줌으로써 단기간에 경기를 회복시킬 수 있는 대증적 처방이라는 점에서 한국은행의 이자율정책의 효과가 낮을 때 사용할 수 있는 중요한 정책대안이다. 특히 공적보증은 자본금에 근거한 운용배수 범위 내에서 공급이 이루어지므로 정부재정 정책 시 우려되는 재정적자의 위험으로부터 상대적으로 자유롭다는 장점을 지닌다. 셋째, 공적보증의 존재는 창업기업, 성장기업, 생산성 향상, 수출향상, 장기시설투자, 고용창출 사업, 그리고 혁신기업 지원과 같이 민간은행으로부터 기대하기 어려운 서비스의 제공에서 찾아야 한다.
한국 정부는 효과적인 경기대응 수단으로 공적보증을 이용해 왔다. 그러나 공적보증과 같은 중소기업에 대한 정책금융의 효과성에 대해서는 아직 논란이 해소되지 않았다. 비판적인 견지에서 보면 정책금융이 오히려 중소기업의 정부에 대한 의존도만 증가시켜 기업 스스로의 경쟁과 혁신을 방해하고 한계기업의 퇴출을 지연시킨다는 논리이다. 따라서 이 논문은 공적보증시스템의 운영은 어떻게 자리 잡아야 하며, 동시에 시장기반 중소기업 금융시스템과 어떻게 공존해 나가야 하는지에 대해 구체적 의견을 제시하고 있다. 첫째, 공적보증은 민간금융시장의 경기 순응적 행태가 초래하는 시장실패를 보완하기 위한 경기대응수단으로 이용되어야 하며, 정부, 국회, 납세자를 포함하는 이해관계자들과 이에 대한 인식을 공유해야 한다. 공적보증기관의 목적은 이윤추구가 아니라 성장 가능성이 높은 중소기업을 선별하여 지원하는 공공성의 확보에 있음을 명확히 할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 공적보증은 자금을 필요로 하는 중소기업에게 직접적으로 유동성을 공급해 줌으로써 단기간에 경기를 회복시킬 수 있는 대증적 처방이라는 점에서 한국은행의 이자율정책의 효과가 낮을 때 사용할 수 있는 중요한 정책대안이다. 특히 공적보증은 자본금에 근거한 운용배수 범위 내에서 공급이 이루어지므로 정부재정 정책 시 우려되는 재정적자의 위험으로부터 상대적으로 자유롭다는 장점을 지닌다. 셋째, 공적보증의 존재는 창업기업, 성장기업, 생산성 향상, 수출향상, 장기시설투자, 고용창출 사업, 그리고 혁신기업 지원과 같이 민간은행으로부터 기대하기 어려운 서비스의 제공에서 찾아야 한다.
Korean government had used public 'credit guarantee schemes' (CGS) as a counter-cyclical measure. However, it is still controversial about the effectiveness of policy financing on the SMEs. Criticism on policy financing involves the argument that supporting enterprises hampers competition and innova...
Korean government had used public 'credit guarantee schemes' (CGS) as a counter-cyclical measure. However, it is still controversial about the effectiveness of policy financing on the SMEs. Criticism on policy financing involves the argument that supporting enterprises hampers competition and innovation of SMEs by increasing their dependence on the government and delays the exit of marginal firms. In this paper, we investigate how to effectively build up the rationale of running public CGSs. At the same time, we propose the ways to coexist of public credit guarantee and market-based private finance system for SMEs. First, CGS, as a counter-cyclical function, must coexist with the private financial system by compensating the market failure caused by pro-cyclical behavior of the private financial market. Second, CGS has the comparative advantages, compared to both the interest rate policy of the central bank and fiscal policy of the government. The credit guarantee is the symptomatic treatment that could revitalize the economy shortly by providing liquidity. Also, knowing that CGS is provided based on the leverage ratio defined by outstanding guarantee divided by capital fund, public 'credit guarantee' (CG) has an advantage that is free from the risk of government deficit. Third, the reason for existence of the CGS should be founded in supporting services for SMEs, available only in a public sector that is difficult to expect from private banks. In this regard, it is desirable to strengthen the publicness of credit guarantee over the support for start-ups, growing companies, the improvement of productivity, increase of exports, a long-term investment in facilities, the employment-creating businesses, and innovative enterprises.
Korean government had used public 'credit guarantee schemes' (CGS) as a counter-cyclical measure. However, it is still controversial about the effectiveness of policy financing on the SMEs. Criticism on policy financing involves the argument that supporting enterprises hampers competition and innovation of SMEs by increasing their dependence on the government and delays the exit of marginal firms. In this paper, we investigate how to effectively build up the rationale of running public CGSs. At the same time, we propose the ways to coexist of public credit guarantee and market-based private finance system for SMEs. First, CGS, as a counter-cyclical function, must coexist with the private financial system by compensating the market failure caused by pro-cyclical behavior of the private financial market. Second, CGS has the comparative advantages, compared to both the interest rate policy of the central bank and fiscal policy of the government. The credit guarantee is the symptomatic treatment that could revitalize the economy shortly by providing liquidity. Also, knowing that CGS is provided based on the leverage ratio defined by outstanding guarantee divided by capital fund, public 'credit guarantee' (CG) has an advantage that is free from the risk of government deficit. Third, the reason for existence of the CGS should be founded in supporting services for SMEs, available only in a public sector that is difficult to expect from private banks. In this regard, it is desirable to strengthen the publicness of credit guarantee over the support for start-ups, growing companies, the improvement of productivity, increase of exports, a long-term investment in facilities, the employment-creating businesses, and innovative enterprises.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
This implies that the credit guarantee is a counter-cyclical fix. In this paper, we investigate how to effectively build up the rationale of running public CGSs from the previous analytical and empirical evidences. Then we would like to share ideas of how to deliver the performance and the persuasive rationale of CGS to government officials including financial regulators as well as other stakeholders including commercial banks, SMEs, and taxpayers.
This study presents the roles and tasks of the credit guarantee for enhancing publicness. Based on the analysis of literatures on publicness and the evaluation cases about management performance of public corporations and quasi-governmental organizations in Korea, we establish the concept of publicness required for CGS.
성능/효과
Second, it is important to emphasize that CGS, as a counter-cyclical measure, has the comparative advantages, compared to both the interest rate policy of the central bank and fiscal policy of the government. The credit guarantee is the symptomatic treatment that could revitalize the economy shortly by providing liquidity, whereas the effects of fiscal and monetary policies are indirect, doubtful and unpredictable.
Third, the reason for existence of the credit guarantee system should be founded in supporting services for SMEs, available only in a public sector that is difficult to expect from private banks. In this regard, it is desirable to strengthen the publicness of credit guarantee over the support for start-ups and growing companies.
참고문헌 (27)
Bank of Korea, www.bok.or.kr.
Benn, S. I. and G. F. Gaus (Eds.) (1983). "The public and the private: concepts and action," In public and private in social life, 3-27, London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Chang, W.-H. (2016), "Does the policy financing perform well the objectives," KDI Focus, 16 (in Korean).
Frederickson, H. G. (1997). "The spirit of public administration," Vol. 80, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Haque, M. S. (2001). "The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance," Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65-82.
IMF (2005). "Republic of Korea: 2004 Article IV Consultation," 2005 IMF Country Report, No.05-49.
Kang, D. (2007). "Empirical Evaluations on the Government Financial Assistances toward SMEs in Korea", Korea Development Institute (in Korean).
Kim, H. (2004). A study on the effect of policy financing on SMEs, Korea Development Institute (in Korean).
Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (2015). "Introduction to KODIT," mimeo.
Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (KODIT, 2012). World credit guarantee schemes (in Korean).
Korea Federation of SMEs (2013). Statistics for Overseas SMEs (in Korean).
Korea Federation of SMEs (2015). Indicators of SMEs 2015 (in Korean).
Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS). http://kosis.go.kr.
Lim, C., J. Khil, K. Lee, Y. Kim, and J. Chung (2013). Socio-economic impacts of credit guarantee in the perspective of fiscal efficiency, The Korean Association of Small Business Studies (in Korean).
Ministry of Strategy and Finance (2015a). The management assessment of public organizations 2014: public corporations 1 (in Korean).
Ministry of Strategy and Finance (2015b). The management assessment of public organizations 2014: quasi-government agencies-Part of fund management (in Korean).
Nam, C. (2014). The effectiveness analysis of financial support policies for SMEs: based on firm's dynamic decision model, KDI policy issue series, 2014-14, Korea Development.
Nam, J., J. Kim, M. Noh, and T. Kim (2014). Analysis of credit guarantee performance and the review on rationale of major projects, Seogang University (in Korean).
Noh, Y.-H., C. Song, and S. Hong (2015). Performance of credit guarantee and the establishment of proper feedback system, The Korean Association of Small Business Studies (in Korean).
Noh, Y.-H., J. Rhee, S. Oh, S. Hong, T. Cho, and S. Kang (2010). Economic Performance and Optimal Leverage Ratio of Korean Credit Guarantee, The Korean Association of Small Business Studies (in Korean).
OECD (2010). Facilitating access to finance: Discussion paper on credit guarantee schemes.
OECD (2015). Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.
Small and Medium Business Administration, http://www.smba.go.kr.
Small and Medium Business Corporation, http://www.sbc.or.kr.
Sohn, M., D. Kim, and S. Whang (2013). "Quarterly macroeconometric model (BOK 21)", Monthly Bulletin, July 2013, 14-34 (in Korean).
Stiglitz, J. E. and A. Weiss (1981). "Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information," American Economic Review 71, 393-410.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.