The Journal of the Korea Contents Association (한국콘텐츠학회논문지)

The Korea Contents Association (한국콘텐츠학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Knowledge-based Economy and the Efficiency of National Intellectual Capital: Focusing on Korea.US.Japan.China

지식기반경제와 국민지적자본의 효율성: 한.미.일.중을 중심으로

  • 김선재 (배재대학교 전자상거래학과)
  • Published : 2008.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Measuring intellectual capital efficiency is one of the greatest challenges for all who are involved in knowledge-based economy, at macro as well as at micro level. The purpose of this study is to calculate and analyze the efficiency of national intellectual capital and value added intellectual coefficient for Korea, US, Japan, and China during the period 2000-2005. Major findings from the analysis can be summarized as follows. The US shows both the highest value creation efficiency of national intellectual capital, 1.480 and the highest value added intellectual coefficient, 6.585. It holds rank one according to GDP per capita, $41,541 in 2005. In Korea, the coefficient of national intellectual capital efficiency is 1.321 while that of value added intellectual capital is 4.733. However, the national intellectual capital efficiency of Japan, 1.271 is in opposition to the created high of vale added, 5.695. Finally, China shows that the coefficient of national intellectual capital efficiency is 1.438 while that of value added intellectual capital is 3.815.

최근 지식기반경제로의 진입과 함께 지적자본의 효율성 측정에 관한 문제는 미시적 측면은 물론 거시적 관점에서도 중요한 관심의 대상이 되고 있다. 본 연구는 2000년-2005년 기간 동안 한국, 미국, 일본, 중국을 중심으로 각 국가별 지식기반경제에 있어서 국가경제 성취도를 측정할 수 있는 새로운 지표 즉, 국민지적자본의 효율성계수와 부가가치지적계수를 측정하여 상호 비교분석 하였다. 분석 결과 미국의 경우 국민지적자본의 효율성계수와 부가가치지적계수가 각각 1.480과 6.585로 4개국 중 가장 높게 나타났다. 이는 4개국 중 가장 높은 1인당 GDP 41,541 달러와 연결됨으로서 가장 효율적으로 국민지적자본을 활용하고 있는 것 으로 나타났다. 한편, 한국 경우는 국민적자본의 효율성 계수는 1.321인 반면 이에 상응하는 부가가치지적 계수는 4.733으로서 지식기반경제의 이행정도와 국가 경제규모에 걸맞게 국민지적자본을 활용을 하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 일본의 경우 가장 낮은 국민적자본의 효율성(1.271)에 비해 매우 높은 부가가치지적계수(5.695)를 보인 반면, 중국의 경우는 비교적 높은 국민지적자본의 효율성(1.438)에 가장 낮은 부가가치지적계수(3.815)를 보임으로서 여타 국가들과 대조를 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국제전기통신연합(ITU), "World Telecommunication Indicators Database 2006," 2006.
  2. 김선재, 이병엽, 김정숙, 이석기, "지역별 특성에 따른 국민지적자본 측정지표개발-광역시를 중심으로-", 한국지역개발학회지, 제19권, 제1호, pp.71-92, 2007.
  3. 이건우, 지식기반산업의 산업연관분석, 산연구원, 2000.
  4. 이무근, "인적자원개발: 다학문적 접근," 제5차 KRIVET HRD 정책포럼자료집, 한국직업능력개발원, 2000.
  5. 정보통신국제협력진흥원, IT기업의 수출확대 및 해외진출 주요 실적, 2007.
  6. 표학길, 한국의 산업별, 자산별 자본스톡추계(1954-1996), 서울: 조세연구원, 1998.
  7. 한국은행, 지식기반산업의 국민경제적 역할, 서울: 한국은행, 2000.
  8. 한국정보사회진흥원, 국가정보화백서, 2007.
  9. N. Bontis, "Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries," Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.1, No.1, pp.85-100, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930010324188
  10. S. Bozzolan, F. Favotto, and F. Ricceri, "Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure: An empirical analysis," Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.4, No.4, pp.543-558, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310504554
  11. L. M. Ducharme, "Measuring Intangible Investment," OECD: Paris, 1998.
  12. J. Eeckhout and B. Jovanovic, "Knowledge Spillover and Inequality," American Economic Review, 92, pp.1290-1307, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024511
  13. J. Eeckhout and B. Jovanovic, The Well-Being of Nations: The role of human and social capital, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation: Paris, 2001.
  14. S. Herbig and C. McCarty, "National management of innovation: interactions of culture and Structure," Multinational Business Review (Spring): pp.19-26, 1993.
  15. L. G. Kastriner, "The revival of confidence in the patent system," Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, pp.5-23, 1991(1).
  16. M. Kotabe, "A comparative study of U.S. and Japanese patent systems," Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.21, No.1, pp.113-130, 1992.
  17. D. C. Mowery and D. J. Teece, "Japan's growing capabilities in industrial technology: implications for U.S. managers and policy makers," California Management Review, 35(winter), pp.9-34, 1993.
  18. R. R. Nelson, Government and Technological Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis, Pergamon Press: New York, 1982.
  19. R. R. Nelson, High Technology Policies: A Five-Nation Comparison, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research: Washington, DC., 1984.
  20. R. R. Nelson, "U.S. technological leadership: where did it come from and where did it go?" Research Policy, 19, pp.117-132, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90042-5
  21. R. R. Nelson, National Innovation Systems, A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.
  22. OECD, OECD Broadband Statistics to December, 2006.
  23. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2003.
  24. P. Patel and K. Pavitt, "Is western Europe losing the technological race?," Research Policy, 16, pp.59-85, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90024-2
  25. A. Pulic, "VAICTM : an accounting tool for IC management," Available at www.vaic-on.net, 2000.
  26. A. Pulic, Intellectual Capital: Efficiency on National and Company Level, Croatian Chamber of Economy-International Capital Association: Zagreb, Croatia, 2003.
  27. A. Pulic, K. Jelcic, P. Cavlovic, Z. Vukelic, V. Sobot, and V. Tomic, Intellectual Capital: Efficiency in Croatian Economy, International Business Efficiency Consulting: Zagreb, Croatia, 2002.
  28. H. K. Pyo, "Estimates of Capital Stock and Capital/Output Coefficients by Industries for R.O.K. (1953-1986)," KDI Working Paper No. 8810, 1988.
  29. H. K. Pyo, "A Synthetic Estimates of the National Wealth of Korea, 1953-1990," KDI Working Paper No.9212, 1992.
  30. D. Quah, "Spatial Agglomeration Dynamics," American Economic Review, 92, pp.247-252, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802320189348
  31. N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK., 1982.
  32. A. Shapiro, "Responding to the changing patent system," Research-Technogy Management, (September/October), pp.38-43, 1990.
  33. O. A. Stamm, "GATT negotiations for the protection of new technologies," Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, pp.680-699, 1991.
  34. K. E. Sveiby, The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets, San Francisco: Barrett-Kohler, 1997.
  35. UNESCO, Education for All: Purpose and Context, France, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1991.
  36. S. G. Winter, "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 5,pp.287-320, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(84)90004-0
  37. http://www.nso.go.kr.
  38. http://unstats.un.org.
  39. http://www.unece.org.
  40. http://www.chinainfobank.com.
  41. http://www.imf.org.

Cited by

  1. Structural Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Organizational Performance in a Customer Service Organization: Focused on the Role of Dynamic Capability vol.14, pp.12, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.12.911