Competitiveness Analysis of National and Foreign Auto-parts Makers

외자계와 내자계 자동차 부품회사의 경쟁력 비교

  • Yu, Ji-Soo (College of Business Administration, Kookmin University) ;
  • Jung, Kyung-Hee (Department of Industrial & Management Systems Engineering, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2010.06.15
  • Accepted : 2010.08.23
  • Published : 2010.09.01

Abstract

The present study classified the auto-parts makers into four groups according to their investment ownership. Four groups consist the one fully owned by Koreans, the one fully owned by foreigners, the one owned less than 100% but more than 50% by foreigners, lastly the one owned by less than or equal to 50% by foreigners. Among these, the auto-parts makers, 100% foreign ownership, have the highest Malmquist productivity index while 100% Korean-owned part-makers has the lowest productivity. In case of the 100% foreign ownership companies, the cause of Malmquist change, however, is attributed to the technical efficiency change. In particular, the pure technical change is the main source of the Malmquist change. This may indicate that the 100% foreign-owned companies have successfully transferred their production process technologies to the Korean plants. They are enjoying so called the "imitation-effect." 100% Korean-owned companies were not able to create the "imitationeffect" and therefore failed to close the gap with the foreign-owned companies in terms of the production efficiency. 100% Korean-owned auto-parts makers, however, outperformed the foreign-owned companies in the technological change. The outstanding technological change may indicate that Korean-owned part makers were able to narrow the gap with the foreign-owned companies in the area of engineering technological capabilities. The same results were also observed for 50% foreign-owned companies. Knowing that the core competence of the auto-parts makers lies on the engineering technological capabilities, the research found that the most desirable form of the foreign investment was 50% of foreign ownership.

Keywords

References

  1. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., and Diewert, W. E. (1982a), Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity, Washington DC : Technical Bulletin No. 1831. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  2. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., and Diewert, W. E. (1982b), The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity, Econometrica, 50, 1393-1414. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913388
  3. Choi, Y. J. (2009), The analysis of total factor productivity using Malmquist index, Monetary Economy Research, 267, Report of Bank of Korea.
  4. Jung, K. H. and Cho, J. R. (2009), An analysis about determinants of total factor productivity and technical efficiency in manufacturing industries : non-parametric Malmquist approach, Proceedings of Spring Conference, Korea Safety Management and Science, April 24.
  5. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, B. Lindgren, and P. Roos (1989), Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals : a Malmquist output index approach", Discussion Paper, 1989-3, Department of Economics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
  6. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, B. Lindgren, and P. Roos (1992), Productivity Changes in Swedish Pharmacies 1980-1989 : A Nonparametric Malmquist Approach, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1-2), 85- 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158770
  7. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, and C. A. K. Lovell (1994a), Production Frontiers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  8. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang (1994b), Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries, The American Economic Review, 84(1), 66-83.
  9. Mao, W. and Koo, Won W. (1997), Productivity growth, technological progress, and efficiency change in Chinese agriculture after rural economic reforms : a DEA approach, China Economic Review, 8 (2), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1043-951X(97)90004-3
  10. Nkamleu, B. G. (2004), Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in African agriculture, African Development Review, 16(1), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8268.2004.00089.x
  11. Ruggiero, J. (2000), Measuring technical efficiency (theory and methodology), European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00010-7
  12. KIET. (2009), Analysis of business performance and new growth strategy of Korean auto-part makers, 499.