초록 ▼

3. 연구결과 및 정책제언

이러한 문제의 해결책은 의외로 간단하다. 연비단위만 적절하게 바꾸어주면 해결된다. 단위와 같은 선택의 맥락(choice context)만 조금 바꾸어 주어 소비자의 옆구리를 살짝 찔러주는 조치 곧 ‘넛지(nudge)’만으로도 왜곡된 인식과 행태는 쉽게 교정될 수 있다(Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). 이러한 넛지전략의 일환으로서, 본 연구는 연비단위로 인해 유발된 연료비에 대한 착오현상을 교정하기 위해 현행 자동차 표시연비제도를 다음과 같은 방향으로 개선하기를 제안한다.

3. 연구결과 및 정책제언

이러한 문제의 해결책은 의외로 간단하다. 연비단위만 적절하게 바꾸어주면 해결된다. 단위와 같은 선택의 맥락(choice context)만 조금 바꾸어 주어 소비자의 옆구리를 살짝 찔러주는 조치 곧 ‘넛지(nudge)’만으로도 왜곡된 인식과 행태는 쉽게 교정될 수 있다(Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). 이러한 넛지전략의 일환으로서, 본 연구는 연비단위로 인해 유발된 연료비에 대한 착오현상을 교정하기 위해 현행 자동차 표시연비제도를 다음과 같은 방향으로 개선하기를 제안한다.

가. 에너지소비효율성 단위(km/L)와 에너지소비량 단위(L/100km) 병행 표시

앞서 언급한 바와 같이 연비단위로 인한 착오현상은 연비단위만 바꾸어주면 된다. 그러나 현 시점에 이미 관행화.습관화된 표시행태를 하루아침에 바꾸기란 형성된 관성만큼이나 큰 사회적 비용이 수반될 수 밖에 없다. 이러한 점을 고려하여 본 연구는 현행 연비표시 라벨상 표시연비 정보에 두 가지 표시단위 (km/L와 L/100km)를 병행 표시하는 방안을 제안한다. 현행 연비표시 라벨 상 표시연비 정보에는 도심연비, 고속도로연비 및 복합연비 정보가 포함되어 있는데, 세 가지 연비정보 모두 두 가지 표시단위로 나타낼 경우의 번잡함을 고려하여, 상대적으로 강조된 복합연비에 한해서 두 가지 표시방식으로 기재하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 사료된다.

나. 5년 주행(7.5만km 주행) 평균 연료비 표시

국내 자동차 소비자 중에는 환경성(온실가스 감축 등)보다 경제성(연료비 절감 등)에 무게를 두고 연비를 고려하는 비중이 높다. 그럼에도 불구하고，현행 연비표시제도에는 환경성을 감안하여 저탄소 차량을 구매하고자 하는 소비자들을 위해，CO₂ 배출량 정보가 친절하게 포함되어 있지만，연료비 절약을 위해 고연비(고효율) 차량을 구매하고자 하는 소비자들을 위한 배려는 없다. 이로 인해 경제성을 추구하고자 하는 소비자들에게 직접적으로 해석 가능한 관련 정보, 곧 연료비 정보를 명시적으로 제공하는 방안을 표시연비제도의 실효성 증진 차원에서 고려할 필요가 있다.
이처럼 연료비 정보를 제공하고자 할 경우에는 현실적으로 가능한 한도 내에서 될 수 있으면 큰 단위를 사용하는 것이 고효율 자동차 구매 유도에 도움이 된다. 본 연구는 연평균 주행거리 15,000km를 적용하여 사용기간 5년 기준 평균 주행거리 75,000km를 상정한 차량의 연료비를 연비 라벨에 표시하는 것을 제안한다.

다. 자동차 에너지소비효율등급의 등급분류 방식 개선

연비 표시단위로 인한 문제는 동일한 연비단위(복합연비 기준)를 기준으로 등급을 분류하는 현행 자동차 에너지소비효율등급 제도에도 그대로 적용된다. 현행 자동차 에너지소비효율등급 등급분류 방식은 연비 정보 자체만을 비교했을 때는 등간격 및 대칭성 유지로 인해 착오나 왜곡을 유발할 가능성이 적다. 그러나 이를 연료비로 전환하여 해석할 경우에는 심각한 왜곡이 발생하는 데, 2~4등급에서의 등간격 및 대칭성은 무너지며 간격간 차이가 발생하며, 특히 1등급과 5등급의 경우 연비 기준 등급범위보다 각각 크게 축소 내지 확대되는 문제점이 있다.
이러한 왜곡현상을 교정하기 위해서 본 연구는 현행 에너지소비효율등급 분류방식을 다음과 같이 개선할 것을 제안한다. 우선 등급분류의 기준을 현행 연비(복합연비: km/L)에서 단위 거리당 연료소비량(L/100km)로 변경하는 것이 필요하다. 이와 함께 소비자들이 연비단위로 인해 착오에 빠지지 않으면서도 쉽게 상호간 전환이 용이한 연비수준인 10 km/L을 중심으로 인지상 왜곡이 가장 적은 연비차이 수준인 ±1.1 km/L을 등급구간(2.2 km/L)으로 3등급을 설정한다. 이러한 3등급에 대응되는 단위 거리당 연료소비량(L/100km)의 구간범위도 역시 왜곡이 적어 2.2 L/100km을 유지하게 된다. 다음으로 3등급에 해당하는 단위 거리당 연료소비량(L/100km)의 구간에 ±2.2 L/100km의 구간을 설정하고, 이에 대웅되는 연비구간을 각각 2등급과 4등급으로 설정한다. 그리고 현행 제도와 동일하게 2등급 구간범위 초과 및 4등급 구간범위 미만의 연비수준을 각각 1등급과 5등급으로 분류한다. 이와 같은 방식으로 분류된 새로운 자동차 에너지소비효율 등급부여 기준은 <표 1>과 같다.
이와 같은 등급분류 기준 개선으로 연료비를 절감하고자 하는 경제적 소비자들이 등급 정보를 활용하여 차량간 비교 시, 연료비 절감의 차이를 상대적으로 정확하게 파악하여 의사결정에 반영하는 데 기여할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Abstract ▼

1. Research Background and Purpose

From the perspective of information economics, the fuel economy labeling system (FELS), with which the government requires automakers and the advertising media to provide mileage information to consumers, can be seen as a kind of signaling support policy of

1. Research Background and Purpose

From the perspective of information economics, the fuel economy labeling system (FELS), with which the government requires automakers and the advertising media to provide mileage information to consumers, can be seen as a kind of signaling support policy of the government. In general, producers and distributors tend to hold asymmetrically greater amounts of information that is of importance to society, such as information related to fuel economy, eco-friendliness, and carbon emissions, than do consumers. Therefore, policymakers attempt to remedy this asymmetry of information by supporting the signaling of such information by producers through advertising, promotion, and various marks and labels, leading consumers to prefer purchasing products that bear such signals. The effectiveness of the FELS therefore depends upon the accuracy of the information provided via the labels or advertisements (e.g., fuel efficiency, carbon emissions, etc.) and how capable consumers are of perceiving such signals accurately. Producers may send out correct signals, but consumers may fail to understand them as such, thus erring in making purchase decisions and causing the distorted distribution of resources to persist.
Much of the controversy over car mileage, or fuel economy, has had to do with the accuracy of the information provided under the FELS, or the lack thereof. The mass media have helped raise public awareness of this problem, and the government has been making efforts to reform and improve the system. However, even though producers may provide perfectly accurate information through the FELS, consumers may still fail to perceive, understand, and use such information correctly when making purchase decisions. In such cases, the FELS still fails. And little discussion has taken place on this matter so far, both inside and outside of Korea.
However, Larrick and Soll (2008a) did attempt, through experiments, to identify and analyze the problems car consumers face when trying to understand and apply the FELS information. As a result, they succeeded in demonstrating the reality of the so-called MPG illusion, a phenomenon in which consumers misperceive a linear correlation between mileage and fuel cost. Also, Allcott (2013) confirmed, outside the confines of controlled experiments, that the illusion is a general phenomenon among average American car consumers.
In order to improve the effectiveness of the FELS, it is crucial to understand the true nature of the MPG illusion, and how this illusion affects consumers’ decisions regarding the purchase of high-mileage vehicles. It is also necessary to ascertain, empirically, whether the illusion is a real phenomenon among consumers in Korea as well. At the same time, it is equally important to make efforts to eliminate any errors and mistakes caused by the units used in the FELS. At present, the main unit of fuel economy labeling, kilometer-per-liter (km/L), causes the correlation between mileage and fuel cost to appear inversely proportional, thus adding to the confusion among consumers. Policymakers will thus need to introduce a new labeling unit, but not without first conducting a thorough review of possible alternatives and the social costs involved in such a change. The purpose of this study is to help policymakers carry out some of these tasks and answer related questions.

2. Summary and Policy Implication

Before designing a policy like the FELS, policymakers first posit a theoretical behavioral model through which they can understand and analyze the behavior of people. These models are tools with which we can perceive and understand the structure of interests and desires in the hearts of people, based upon the workings of pain, joy, appetites, and wishes. Additionally, these models help policymakers develop and establish systems of incentives intended to change people’s behavior, such as the FELS. Therefore, all theoretical models, including behavioral ones, are shadows or reflections, rather than clear representations, of reality, and are valuable only to the extent to which they explain and predict the structure of the human mind and human behavior.
Since the late 19th century, the neo-classical behavioral model has been widely accepted, in an almost dogmatic manner, as almost the only valid theory in economics. The recent emergence of behavioral economics, however, has begun to create cracks in the long-held belief in neo-classical explanations of human behavior. This neo-classical behavioral model, accepted as the de-facto truth of economic policymaking, espouses methodological individualism and instrumental rationalism. Recent studies in behavioral economics, however, have successfully revealed these core assumptions to be a mere ideological lens of liberalism, the ascent of which began in the modern West.
In reality, few actual consumers ever think or behave as the neo-classical model assumes. As this study will show, most consumers are unfamiliar with the tasks of forecasting the lifetimes of the cars they wish to purchase, accurately estimating the fuel costs that will likely accumulate as they use the cars, and converting such estimates into present value while considering the validity of the prices at which they will purchase the cars. Of course, over 90 percent of consumers do consider the financial matters of car purchases, such as car prices and fuel costs. However, a meager 8.6 percent of the consumers included in our analysis had ever attempted to calculate the present value of the fuel costs before making their car purchases. And this figure is based on consumers’ voluntary reports, so the accuracy of the estimates arrived at by these consumers remains questionable. In reality, most consumers make only rough guesses at the likely fuel costs on the basis of the relatively clear information provided by the FELS.
In order to make reasonably accurate guesses, consumers must have a good grasp of the correlation between mileage and fUel cost. However, our study reveals that consumers’ perception of this correlation is significantly distorted. There is actually an inversely proportional function (a non-linear, hyperbolic correlation) between mileage and fuel cost. This correlation, however, strikes typical consumers as unnatural, causing them to lean toward a seemingly more natural (i.e., linear) correlation between the two variables. Our study confirms that this bias, or illusion, is indeed common among car consumers in Korea, and that their estimates of fuel costs tend to be accurate at around the 10-km/L threshold, but become increasingly distorted the farther they venture from this threshold. We have also found a contrast effect, in that consumers tend to overestimate mileage differences below the 2.2-km/L threshold while overestimating mileage differences above that threshold. The main culprit of these errors is the current unit of labeling, km/L, which warps the mileage-fuel cost correlation into an inversely proportional function.
At first sight, the use of one labeling unit over another may not appear to be a significant problem. However, the km/L unit used in the Korean FELS has biased people’s perception regarding investment in improving the mileage of low-fuel-efficiency vehicles. In fact, we can more effectively reduce both fuel consumption and exhaust emissions by improving the mileage of low-fuel-efficiency vehicles rather than by investing in high-fuel-efficiency ones. However, the current labeling system blinds us to this fact. For example, switching from Renault-Samsung’s new SM3 to the Honda Civic Hybrid saves less in terms of fuel cost (KRW 324,466) than switching from the Maserati Quattroporte GTS to the Mercedes-Benz CLS350 (KRW
1, 468,956). But the current FELS makes the two decisions appear to have a roughly equivalent mileage-improving effect (of 3.9 km/L), making it difficult for consumers to realize what efforts truly need to be made to reduce the financial and environmental cost of car ownership.
The solution to this problem is rather simple: the adoption of a new labeling unit. We can easily correct the biased perceptions and behavior of consumers with simple nudges that only slightly alter the context of the choices they make, such as the fuel economy labeling units (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). This study proposes that we adopt such a “nudge strategy” to correct the illusion people have about fuel costs. The strategy would involve making the following changes.
A. Indicating fuel economy information in both km/L (for fuel consumption efficiency) and L/100 km (for fuel consumption)
The errors caused by the labeling unit can be easily avoided by simply changing the labeling unit. However, switching from one familiar and conventional unit to a new and unfamiliar one would incur an enormous social cost proportional to the inertia of the old habit. Therefore, this study proposes that fuel economy information be provided in both km/L and L/100km. The current FELS requires that information on urban, highway, and composite mileage be provided. Indicating each of these three mileages in both units would create a visually complex label, so it may be more effective to indicate only the more emphasized composite mileage in the two units.
B. Indicating average fuel cost for five years (or 75,000 km) of driving
Korean consumers tend to place greater importance on financial (e.g., reduced fuel costs) rather than environmental benefits (e.g., greenhouse gas control) when purchasing cars. Nonetheless, the current FELS requires that key environmental information, such as carbon dioxide emissions, be displayed for the few environment-conscious consumers, but no equivalent care is provided for the majority of consumers who want to purchase high-fuel-efficiency cars to save on fuel costs. It is therefore crucial to find ways to include and display information that is directly relevant to the more financially conscious consumers in order to improve the effectiveness of the FELS.
In providing information on fuel cost, using as big a unit as realistically feasible would help consumers make more financially sound choices. This study proposes that the fuel label include information on the average fuel cost of driving a given vehicle for five years, or 75,000 km, based on an average driving distance of 15,000 km a year.

3. Improving the Automobile Energy Consumption Efficiency Grading System (AECEGS)

The problems with the main unit used in the FELS are repeated in the AECEGS, which uses the same unit for composite mileage to grade vehicles according to their fuel consumption efficiency. The current AECEGS, when used to compare mileage information only, is unlikely to cause biases and errors in consumers’ perceptions thanks to the equidistant intervals and symmetry it supports. However, it is likely to cause severe biases in consumers’ perception when they begin to estimate fuel costs. The equidistant intervals and symmetry of Grades 2 through 4 begin to collapse, while the inter-grade gaps widen. With respect to Grades 1 and 5, consumers tend to underestimate or overestimate the mileage below or above the grade threshold.
This study proposes that the AECEGS be Inproved in order to avoid these biases. First, the grade threshold should be measured in terms of fuel consumption per unit distance (L/100 km) rather than the current composite mileage (km/L). As consumers find the 10-km/L mileage units easiest to convert without falling into a bias, this threshold should be used, along with 士1.1 km/L, which is the mileage gap with the least likelihood for biases, to determine Grade 3 (with a grade threshold of 2.2 km/L). The distance used in the fuel consumption per unit distance (L/100 km) corresponding to Grade 3 also carries the least likelihood for biases, thus helping to maintain the 2.2-L/100 km threshold. Next, 2.2L/100km should be added or subtracted from the fUel consumption per unit distance of Grade 3 to determine the mileage distances for Grades 2 and 4. Then Grades 1 and 5 need to be applied to mileage levels that either exceed the unit distance of Grade 2 or fall short of the unit distance of Grade 4. Table 1. shows the new AECEGS that reflects these changes.
The new mileage grading standard will allow financially conscious consumers to make better use of the grading information and gain a better grasp of the relative differences in fuel costs between the models of vehicles they compare, thus allowing them to make the most economical choice.

목차 Contents

• 표지 ... 1
• 참여연구진 ... 5
• 요약 ... 7
• ABSTRACT ... 17
• 목차 ... 27
• 표목차 ... 29
• 그림목차 ... 30
• 제1장 서 론 ... 33
• 제1절 연구의 배경 ... 33
• 제2절 연구의 목적 ... 35
• 제2장 자동차 표시연비제도의 정보경제학적 함의 ... 37
• 제1절 자동차 표시연비제도의 현황 ... 37
• 제2절 자동차 표시연비제도의 의의: 정보경제학적 함의 ... 44
• 1. 표시연비제도의 정보경제학적 함의 ... 44
• 2. 표시연비 정보의 정확성 문제 ... 45
• 제3장 고효율 자동차 구매선택 행위에 대한 이해 ... 55
• 제1절 고효율 자동차 구매선택 행위에 대한 신고전학파적 접근 ... 55
• 1. 고효율 자동차 구매선택에 대한 신고전학파적 모형 ... 55
• 2. 신고전학파적 견해의 한계: 연료비 절감효과 저평가 ... 59
• 3. 에너지 효율성 격차의 원인에 대한 신고전학파적 이해 ... 63
• 제2절 고효율 자동차 구매선택 행위에 대한 행동경제학적 접근 ... 65
• 1. 차량 수명기간 동안의 연료비 현재가치 계산 문제 ... 65
• 2. 차량 수명기간 동안의 연료비 현재가치에 대한 현실적인 계산방식 ... 68
• 3. 에너지 효율성 격차에 대한 행동경제학적 원인: 내부성 ... 74
• 제4장 연비단위(km/L)로 인해 유발된 착오 ... 89
• 제1절 편향된 믿음: 연비단위(km/L)로 인해 유발된 착오 ... 89
• 제2절 연비단위(km/L)로 인해 유발된 국내 자동차 소비자들의 착오현상 검증 ... 107
• 1. 설문설계 ... 108
• 2. 검증방법 ... 123
• 3. 검증결과 ... 129
• 제5장 자동차 연비 표시제도의 개선 ... 147
• 제1절 CORE 원리 ... 147
• 1. 에너지 소비량을 분자에 표시: 연비단위 전환 ... 148
• 2. 근본적인 목표로 직접적으로 해석 가능하도록 표시: 연료비용 표시 ... 149
• 3. 상댓값으로 표시 ... 153
• 4. 확대된 큰 단위 사용 ... 154
• 5. CORE 원리의 적용사례: 미국의 연비표시 라벨의 개정 ... 155
• 제2절 국내 자동차 연비 표시제도의 개선방향 ... 159
• 1. 에너지소비효율성 단위(km/L)와 에너지소비량 단위(L/100km) 병행 표시 ... 159
• 2. 5년(7.5만km) 주행 평균 연료비 표시 ... 162
• 3. 자동차 에너지소비효율등급의 등급분류 방식 개선 ... 164
• 제6장 결 론 ... 169
• 참고문헌 ... 173
• 끝페이지 ... 185