2008
年度研究報告：生産性グループ
●氏名・所属
小口登良・専修大学商学部教授
●2008
年度の研究実施内容
台湾の上場企業データベースと、非上場の中小企業データベースを使って、産業部門別
の企業規模による生産性比較分析を確率的フロンティアーモデルを用いて行った。
昨年度より引き続き、ウーロンゴン大学商学部地域、中小企業研究センターとの研究協 力として、自由貿易協定や経済連携協定等の中小企業への影響についてのアンケート調査 を韓国について行った。アンケート質問票は参考資料として添付する。
●研究成果の公表
「 日 本 、 韓 国 、 マ レ ー シ ア の 製 造 業 に お け る 大 企 業 と 中 小 企 業 の 生 産 性 格 差 」（ 英 訳：”Productivity Gap between Major Firms and Small and Medium Enterprises in the
Manufacturing Industries of Japan, Korea and Malaysia”）をモノグラフシリーズとして
2009年3月公表する。その狙いは以下のとおりである。
雇用や生産額において中小企業が国の経済の中で大きな地位を占めていることは多くの 国で変わらないが、より細かく見れば、中小企業の性格やその役割は国によって異なって いる。一般に中小企業は生産性が低く、その分を低賃金で補うことによって生存している とみなされることが多い。事実ここで見る 3 カ国については、中小企業の労働者一人当た り資本装備率及び労働生産性は大企業より低い。しかしこのことを持って中小企業の生産 性が低というのは一面的である。
1 SECTION A. General Information of Business
A1. Identify the sector of your business
(1) Manufacturing Please go to A3
(2) Service Please go to A4
A3. Manufacturing sub area
(1) Textiles and Apparels (2) Wood & Wood products (3) Food and Beverages (4) Rubber and plastic products (5) Machinery and equipment (6) Metals and Metal Products (7) Electrical and electronics (E&E)
(8) Other (Please specify: )
A4. Service sub area
(1) Education and Health (2) Professional services (3) Wholesale
(4) Retail trade
(5) Transport and communication (6) Computer Industry services
(7) Other (Please specify: )
A5.Type of ownership
(1) Sole
(2) Partnership
(3) Limited liability Company
(4) Other (Please specify: )
A6. Ownership by nationality
(1) 100 % Korean owned ( Please go to A9)
(2) 100 % Foreign owned
( Please go to A7 and then go to A9) (3) Predominately Korean owned (>50%)
(4) Predominately Foreign owned (>50%)
2 A7. Specify foreign nationality
□ (1) ASEAN (Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, etc) □ (2) Other East Asia (China, Japan, Taiwan, etc) □ (3) Australasia (Australia, New Zealand)
□ (4) South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc) □ (5) North America
□ (6) South America □ (7) Middle East □ (8) Europe □ (9) Africa
□ (10) Other (Specify: )
A9. Gender of owner/CEO? □ (1) Male □ (2) Female
A10. Age of owner/CEO?
□ (1) 18-23 □ (2) 24-30 □ (3) 31-35 □ (4) 36-40 □ (5) 41-45 □ (6) 46-50 □ (7) 51-55 □ (8) above 56
A11. Highest education qualification of owner/CEO? □ (1) No formal qualifications
□ (2) High school qualifications □ (3) College qualifications □ (4) Undergraduate degree □ (5) Master degree
□ (6) PHD/Doctorate
A12. Location of business (Headquarter) □ (1) Seoul
□ (2) Seoul Metropolitan area □ (3) Busan
□ (4) Kwang-ju □ (5) Dae-gu □ (6) Dae-jeon
□ (7) Other(Specify: )
A13. Years of establishment.
3 A14. Employee numbers
□ (1) less than 5 □ (2) 5～20 □ (3) 21～50 □ (4) 51～150 □ (5) Over 150
A15. Approximate breakdown of total employees by educational attainment.
(1) No formal qualifications ( ) %
(2) High school qualifications ( ) %
(3) College qualifications ( ) %
(4) Undergraduate degree ( ) %
(5) Master degree ( ) %
(6) PHD / Doctorate ( ) %
[Total: 100%]
A16. Approximate break down of total employees by work experience.
(1) Less than 1 year ( ) %
(2) 1~2 year ( ) %
(3) 3~5 year ( ) %
(4) 6~10 year ( ) %
(5) Over 10 year ( ) %
[Total: 100%]
A17. Foreign workers Employed (% of total workforce)
□ (1) 0% □ (2) 1% -25% □ (3) 26% -50%
□ (4) 51% -75% □ (5) 76% -100%
A18. Annual Sales Turnover. (billion won)
1998 2003 2006
□ (1) Less than 1 □ (1) Less than 1 □ (1) Less than 1 □ (2) 1 ~ less than 4 □ (2) 1 ~ less than 4 □ (2) 1 ~ less than 4 □ (3) 4 ~ less than 8 □ (3) 4 ~ less than 8 □ (3) 4 ~ less than 8 □ (4) 8 ~ less than 13 □ (4) 8 ~ less than 13 □ (4) 8 ~ less than 13 □ (5) 13 ~ less than 18 □ (5) 13 ~ less than 18 □ (5) 13 ~ less than 18 □ (6) 18 ~ less than 23 □ (6) 18 ~ less than 23 □ (6) 18 ~ less than 23
□ (7) Over 23 □ (7) Over 23 □ (7) Over 23
4 A19. Predominant source of business finance.
□ (1) Commercial banks
□ (2) Personnel funds/savings/retained earnings □ (3) Borrowing from friends/relatives
□ (4) Microfinance Institutions (MFIs)
□ (5) Development finance Institutions (DFIs) / Government agencies □ (6) Other (Please specify: )
A20. Are you exporting your products?
□ (1) No ( Please go to A23) □ (2) Yes ( Please continue)
A21. Percentage of export revenue to total turnover.
□ (1) 0-5% □ (2) 6%-10% □ (3) 11%-15% □ (4) 16%-20% □ (5) 21-25% □ (6) 26%-30% □ (7) 31%-35% □ (8) 36%-40% □ (9) 41-45% □ (10) 46%-50% □ (11) 51%-55% □ (12) 56%-60% □ (13) 61-65% □ (14) 66%-70% □ (15) 71%-75% □ (16) 76%-80% □ (17) 81-85% □ (18) 86%-90% □ (19) 91%-95% □ (20) 96%-100%
A22. Major export destination(s), please tick the appropriate box(es)
□ (1) ASEAN (Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, etc) □ (2) Other Ease Asia(China, Japan, Taiwan, etc) □ (3) Australasia(Australia, New Zealand)
□ (4) South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc) □ (5) North America
□ (6) South America □ (7) Middle East □ (8) Europe □ (9) Africa
□ (10) Other(Please specify: )
A23. Percentage of R&D expenditure to total turnover
5
A24. Have you developed a new product or a new business process innovation or a new market innovation in the last 3 years? (Tick more than on box if appropriate)
□ (1) new product □ (2) new process □ (3) new market □ (4) none
A25. What are your long run business objectives? (Tick more than one box if appropriate)
□ (1) Increase profit □ (2) Decrease total cost □ (3) Enhance market share □ (4) Enhance competitiveness □ (5) Increase export
□ (6) Other(Please specify: )
A26. What sort of strategy will you follow in order to achieve your long term objectives?
□ (1) Increase productivity □ (2) Increase sales □ (3) Enhance business skills □ (4) Develop a new process □ (5) Develop a new
product
□ (6) Diversity product range
□ (7) Other(Please specify: )
A27. What will be the primary barrier to achieving your long term business objectives?
6
Section B： Business Performance and linkages with multinational companies and
government policies
B1: Business performance <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Substantially
Decreased Decreased Same Increased
Substantially Increased
Answer
(I) How has your proportional market share changed in the last 3 years?
(II) How has your Profitability changed in the last 3 years?
(III) How has your Productivity, in terms of output, changed in the last 3 years?
(IV) How has your Productivity, in terms of labor, changed in the last 3 years?
(V) How has your product quality changed in the last 3 years?
(VI) How have your business costs changed over the past 3 years?
B2: Inter-enterprise Business networking <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Unimportant Somewhat
unimportant Neutral Important
Very Important
Answer
(I) How important for your business is geographical location?
(II) How important is it for your business to have vertical links with MNCs? (III) How important is it for your business to have horizontal links with MNCs? (IV) How important is it for your business to have vertical links with other small
business?
(V) How important is it for your business to have horizontal links with other small business?
(VI) How important for your business is it to link with government schemes or policies?
(VII) How important is it for your business to collaborate on R&D and share technology with other businesses?
(VIII) How important is it for your business to participate in a business association?
(IX) How important is it for your business to participate in a business supply
7 chain?
Section C： Perceptions on the challenges faced by the SMEs in Korea
C1: Perceptions on financial issues <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer (I) SMEs in Korea often face difficulty in obtaining financial aid from the
government or financial institutions?
(II) The interest charged by financial institutions on loans borrowed by SMEs is quite high?
(III) The processes involved in applying for loans from financial institutions are excessive and complicated?
(IV) The financial products offered by Korean financial institutions are not keeping pace with SME demands and expectations?
(V) Financial institutions in Korea do not put enough effort to promote efficient and reliable products and services for SMEs?
C2: Perceptions on human capital issues <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer (I) It is often too expensive to employ a professional and competent employee in
Korean SMEs?
(II) There is a low level of managerial/administration skills in the Korean SME workforce?
(III) Labor productivity of the Korean SME workforce is low?
(IV) There is not much creativity/innovation among the SME workforce?
(V) The workforce in Korean SMEs does not have much experience/skills to deal with their international counterparts/businesses?
8 C3: Perceptions on business competitiveness
<LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer (I) in Korea face a high level of competition from MNCs?
(II) The products and services of SMEs in Korea face a high level of
competition from overseas products (e.g. Japanese products) that are of better quality?
(III) High costs of business operations reduce the competitiveness of Korean SMEs?
(IV) Global developments such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) could challenge Korean SMEs?
(V) There are not many avenues for Korean SMEs to access international markets?
** Please answer for follow statement.
(VI) Korea is moving toward liberalization of international trade through WTO negotiation, bilateral FTA, EPA, etc.
1. What do you think obout this in general?
□ (1) It is good thing Go to question 2
□ (2) It is disturbing thing Go to question 3 □ (3) It is hard to day good or bad Go to question 4
2. Which do you think is most disirable among the following? □ (1) Lowering general trade barriers through WTO
Go to question 4 □ (2) Bilateral FTA
□ (3) EPA
□ (4) Multilateral agreement with (For example ASEAN, etc) □ (5) Other (Please explain concretely: )
3. Which do you think is most disturbing among the following? □ (1) Lowering general trade barriers through WTO
Go to question 4 □ (2) Bilateral FTA
□ (3) EPA
9
4. Would the above mentioned movements toward liberalization of international trade affact your firm?
□ (1) Yes Go to question 5
□ (2) No Go to question 8
□ (3) Can’t say Go to question 10
5. What kind of effects would they be?
□ (1) Good effect Go to 6 and then go to 8 □ (2) Bad effects Go to 7 and then go to 8
□ (3) Can’t say Go to 8
□ (4) Both good and bad effects Go to 6, 7 and then go to 8
6. More specifically what kind of effects would they be? Choose from the following. (You can mark more than one). (go to question 8)
□ (1) More markets for products become accessible □ (2) More profitable markets become accessible
□ (3) More markets of intermediate good and raw materials to import become accessible □ (4) Lower price markets of intermediate good and raw materials to import become accessible
□ (5) More (foreign) labor become available
□ (6) Other (Please explain concretely: )
7. More specifically what kind of effects would they be? Choose from the following (you can mark more than one). (go to question 8)
□ (1) More competing imports become available □ (2) Cheaper competing imports become available □ (3) Trading partner may move abroad
□ (4) Other (Please explain concretely: )
8. Recently, Korea has completed or trying to complete FTA with Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, China, etc) and countries in other areas. Which country among them would have the largest effect to your firm?
□ (1) Thailand □ (2) Malaysia
□ (3) Singapore □ (4) Japan
□ (5) Philippines □ (6) China
□ (7) Australia □ (8) Chile
10
9. Which items in the agreements would have large effect? (You can mark more than one)
□ (1) Lowering of tariffs
□ (2) Liberalization of foreign direct investment (foray of foreign firms)
□ (3) Liberalization of foreign indirect investment (acquisition of stocks or firm itself by foreign firms)
□ (4) Influx of foreign workers
□ (5) Other (Please explain concretely)
10. What do you think about Korea’s effort to exclude the agricultural sector from the agreement?
□ (1) It is necessary
□ (2) There is no reason to treat agriculture sector differently □ (3) Can’t say
11. What do you think about the Korea’s handling of the negotiation? □ (1) Japan should proceed faster
□ (2) Japan should proceed more cautiously □ (3) Japan should stop negotiation
□ (4) Can’t say
C4: Perceptions on availability of infrastructure <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer (I) Lack of access to information (e.g. access to government policies,
information on overseas markets) hinders the business growth of Korean SMEs?
(II) Lack of access to better technology and ICT (due to high cost) hinders efficient and productive business operations among Korean SMEs? (III) There is not much focus on the importance of research and development
infrastructure among Korean SMEs?
(IV) SMEs in Korea always face difficulty getting access to raw materials and capital?
(V) There are problems with legal protection of property rights of SMEs in Korea?
11
C5: Perceptions on regulatory/government policies <LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer (I) SMEs in Korea do not get adequate/ sufficient government support to
undertake their business?
(II) High level bureaucracy in government agencies/ministries hinders efficient business development operations among Korean SMEs?
(III) Unpredictable policy changes by the Korean government creates problems for SMEs?
(IV) The handling of incentives or grants for SMEs by various government departments tends to create confusion among SMEs?
Section D: Evaluation of government policies/incentives towards SMEs in Korea
<LIST>
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Agree
Answer D1 The current government’s policies in terms of delivering and promoting
SME incentives/financial assistance/grants are adequate and sufficient to assist SMEs in their development and growth?
D2 Government’s support to SMEs for product and process innovation is adequate and sufficient to assist SMEs in their development and growth? D3 Government’s support to SMEs in terms of human resource development
is adequate and sufficient to assist SMEs in their development and growth? D4 Government’s support to SMEs in terms of promoting product exports is
adequate and sufficient to assist SMEs in their development and growth? D5 Government’s support and assistance to ILP is adequate and sufficient
to assist SMEs in their development and growth?
D6 Government’s support and assistance to develop SME business networks is adequate and sufficient?
12 Section E： Comments / Suggestions
E1. Please rank the following barriers/challenges to SMEs in the order of “1” for the major problem to “5” the least major problem. Each barrier/challenge should be ranked accordingly.
SMEs Barriers/Challenges Ranking (1 - 5)
Limited access to Finance
Lack of Human Resources
Inappropriate Market Environment (e.g. global competitiveness)
Lack of Infrastructure
Regulatory/Government Constraints (e.g. limited government assistance)
E2. In your opinion, what types of policies should the government in Korea implement or improve upon to assist SMEs in their future development/growth into global markets (to be more competitive, productive and efficient)? Also recommend the best channel through which the government can deliver incentives and grants to you.
2008
年度研究報告：生産性グループ
●
氏名・所属
伊藤恵子・専修大学経済学部准教授
●
研究目的と計画
「サービス産業生産性」に関する研究
これまで、日本のサービス業は生産性が低い、と度々議論されてきたが、厳密なデータ 分析に基づいた検証はほとんどなされてこなかった。また、経済産業省も日本経済の持続 的成長のための戦略の一つとしてサービス業の生産性向上を掲げている。しかし、サービ ス業の生産性については、その計測方法すら十分に確立されているとはいえず、特に日本 の場合はサービス業に関する公式統計が不十分なために、信頼性の高い統計的分析は非常 に少ない。日本のサービス業の生産性が低いという議論においては、特に商業等で非効率 な零細企業が多いという問題がしばしば取り上げられてきた。まず、サービス業において、 大規模企業と中小企業との間でどれほどの生産性格差が存在するのかを統計的に検証する。 また、サービス産業における国際化の進展と、企業パフォーマンスとの関係を検証する。
「中小企業におけるM&Aの実態と効果」に関する分析
近年、日本企業間または日本企業と外国企業との間でM&A（企業の買収・合併）が活発 に行われているにも関わらず、まだ実態把握も十分ではない状況である。上場企業に関し ては、企業データを利用してM&Aが企業パフォーマンスに与える影響等が少しずつ分析さ れ つ つ あ る が 、 中 小 企 業に 関 し て は 実 証 的 な 研 究が ほ と ん ど 行 わ れ て い ない 。 レ コ フ や
ZephyrなどのM&Aデータベースを利用し、中小企業におけるM&Aの実態を把握し、M&A
が中小企業の生産性や雇用に与える影響を実証的に分析する。
●
2008
年度の研究実施内容
（１）サービス産業の生産性と国際化に関する研究
サービス産業の生産性が低迷していることは、昨年度の本プロジェクトにおける研究
サービス貿易統計をみると、1990年代後半以降、多くの先進国でコンピュータ・情報サー ビスやその他のビジネスサービスの輸出入額が拡大したのに対し、日本のそれは極めて低 い伸びにとどまったことがわかる。また、日本におけるコンピュータ・情報サービスやそ の他のビジネスサービスの国際取引は、輸入においても、直接投資の受け入れにおいても、 米国と比べてその増加率は格段に小さかった。これらのサービスの国内生産規模の拡大ス ピードも米国と比べて非常に小さかった。米国や英国では、これらのサービスの国際化が 進んだとともに、生産規模も生産性も上昇したが、日本ではこれらサービスの国際化も進 まず、生産性も向上していない。また、規制についても、卸売や情報通信などで規制緩和 が進展したものの、その他のサービス業種においてはほとんど規制緩和も進展していない。
産業レベルでみれば、国際化や規制緩和は産業全体の生産性向上をもたらすかもしれな い。しかし、国際化や規制緩和の影響は、大企業と中小企業とで異なるであろうと推測さ れる。企業レベルのデータを利用して、企業間格差の分析を継続して進めていく。
（２）企業間生産性格差に関する分析
経済産業省『企業活動基本調査』のデータを利用して、同一産業内の企業間生産性格
差について分析した。1990年代末以降、製造業においても非製造業においても、企業間生 産性格差は拡大する傾向にあることが示された。製造業では、生産性上位の企業が生産性 を大きく伸ばす一方、その他の企業は生産性が低迷した。つまり、製造業における生産性 格差の拡大は、生産性上位企業の生産性の伸びによるところが大きい。非製造業において は、生産性上位企業が生産性を伸ばすとともに、生産性下位企業が生産性を下げたため、 生産性格差が拡大した。回帰分析の結果、製造業においては、国際化の進展は生産性格差 を拡大させた一方、情報通信技術の導入は生産性格差を縮小させたことが示された。
（３）中小企業におけるM&Aの実態と効果に関する分析
トムソン・フィナンシャルが提供している世界のM&A（買収・合併）データベースを利 用して、主に日本・韓国・中国・台湾のM&A概況を分析した。欧米諸国と比べると東アジ ア諸国ではM&A件数が格段に少ないが、近年増加傾向が見られ、特に日本国内企業同士の
M&Aは1990年代後半以降急増している。日本では国内企業どうしのM&Aは非常に活発
しかし、企業のタイプ別（上場または非上場）、産業別にM&Aの現状を把握し、上記東ア ジア諸国について比較分析を行う。どのような企業が買収対象になるのか、またどのよう な企業が他企業を買収するのか、M&Aの決定要因について、継続して研究していく。
●研究成果の公表
伊藤恵子・川上淳之（2008）「貿易・生産構造の変化と企業間格差」、深尾京司・宮川努編 『生産性と日本の経済成長―JIPデータベースによる産業・企業レベルの実証分析』第 10 章、東京大学出版会。
