If PDF does not display, click here to download

1
김봉재, 고아라 (2024). “R&D 예산삭감은 한국의 젊은 과학자들에게 결정타가 될 수 있다,” 네이처(Nature). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00525-7 (Kim, B. and Ko, A. (2024). “R&D budget cut could be the final straw for South Korea’s young scientists,” Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00525-7. Google Scholar ›
2
김양희, 석준희, 김병도 (2021). “기업의 ESG 역량과 기업가치의 관계에 대한 연구: 소비자 인지의 조절효과를 중심으로,” 경영학연구, 제50권 제6호, pp. 1571-1593. https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2021.50.6.1571 (Kim, Y., Seok, J., and Kim, B. (2021). “A Study on the Relationship between ESG Capability and Firm Value: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Consumer Perception,” Korea Management Review, 50(6), pp.1571-1593.) Google Scholar ›
3
김지영, 박상원 (2008). 세 부담 완화를 위한 재정융자제도의 이차보전방식 전환 연구, 한국조세연구원(KIPF). (Kim, J. Y., and Park, S. W. (2008). “A study on converting government lending programs to interest-subsidy schemes to alleviate tax burdens,” Korea Institute of Public Finance (KIPF).) Google Scholar ›
4
이정은, 김언수 (2017). “완충제로써의 CSR 보고서: 기업의 사회적 책임 활동과 재무성과 사이의 조절효과를 중심으로,” 경영학연구, 제46권 제5호, pp. 1343-1365. (Lee, J. E. and Kim, E. S. (2017). “CSR Reports as a Buffer: The Moderating Effect of CSR Reporting on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance,” Korea Management Review, 46(5), pp.1343-1365.) Google Scholar ›
5
우석진, 이명훈, 이상민, 빈기범 (2018). “중소기업 적합 업종·품목 지정 제도가 중견기업의 수익성과 성장성에 미치는 영향,” 경영학연구, 제47권 제6호, pp. 1391-1422. (Woo, S., Yi, M. H., Lee, S., and Binh, K. B. (2018). “The Effect of Suitable Business Category Regulation on High Potential Enterprise’s Profit and Growth,” Korean Management Review, 47(6), 1391-1422.) Google Scholar ›
6
윤상필, 천동필 (2022). “ESG 가 경영효율성에 미치는 영향: 기업규모의 조절효과를 중심으로,” 경영학연구, 제51권 제5호, pp.1221-1241. (Yoon, S. P. and Chun, D. P. (2022). “The Effect of ESG on Management Efficiency: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Firm Size,” Korea Management Review, 51(5), pp.1221-1241.) Google Scholar ›
7
경향신문 (2023). “연구실 사고 매년 느는데, 안전 예산 2년간 33억 원 삭감,” https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202310121548001. (Kyunghyang Newspaper (2023). “Rise in laboratory accidents, but safety budget cut by 3.3 billion KRW in two years,” https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202310121548001.) Google Scholar ›
8
과학기술정보통신부 (2023). 「국가 R&D 조달 백서」. (Ministry of Science and ICT (2023). White Paper on National R&D Procurement.) Google Scholar ›
9
과학기술정보통신부 (2023). 「정부 R&D 제도 혁신 방안과 2024년 국가연구개발사업 예산 배분·조정 결과」, 정책브리핑. (Ministry of Science and ICT (2023). “Government R&D System Innovation Measures and 2024 National Research and Development Budget Allocation and Adjustment Results,” Policy Briefing.) Google Scholar ›
10
더팩트 (2023). “[팩트체크] 내년도 주요 R&D 예산 14% 삭감…나눠 먹기·비효율 줄였다?,” https://news.tf.co.kr/read/ptoday/2045270.htm. (The Fact (2023, September 22). [Fact Check] Major R&D Budget Cut of 14% Next Year... Reduced Inefficiency and ‘Noodle Sharing’?. The Fact News, https://news.tf.co.kr/read/ptoday/2045270.htm.) Google Scholar ›
11
변화를 꿈꾸는 과학기술인 네트워크(ESC) (2024.08.01). 2024년도 R&D 예산삭감 피해사례 조사 결과. 보고서. (Engineers and Scientists for Change (ESC) (2024, August 1). 2024 R&D budget cut impact survey results. Report.) Google Scholar ›
12
한국과학기술기획평가원 (2025). 「연구실 안전환경 조성에 관한 법률 해설 및 정책적 함의」. (Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (2025). Interpretation of the Laboratory Safety Environment Act and its policy implications.) Google Scholar ›
13
KBS (2022). “연구실 안전사고 느는데…안전 관리 예산은 16억 삭감?,” https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=5571273. (KBS (2022). “Rise in Laboratory Accidents… But Safety Budget Reduced by 1.6 Billion KRW?,” https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=5571273.) Google Scholar ›
14
ScienceON (2024). “[국가 R&D 연구보고서] 2024년도 정부연구개발예산 현황분석,” 한국과학기술기획평가원. (ScienceON (2024). “[National R&D Research Report] 2024 government R&D budget status analysis,” Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning.) Google Scholar ›
15
Abadie, A., and Gardeazabal, J. (2003). “The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country,” American Economic Review, 93(1), pp. 113-132. Google Scholar ›
16
Abadie, A., Diamond, A., and Hainmueller, J. (2010). “Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), pp. 493-505. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 Google Scholar ›
17
Abadie, A., Diamond, A., and Hainmueller, J. (2015). “Comparative politics and the synthetic control method,” American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), pp. 495-510. Google Scholar ›
18
Abadie, A. (2021). “Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects,” Journal of Economic Literature, 59(2), pp. 391-425. Google Scholar ›
19
Angrist, J. D., and Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 Google Scholar ›
20
Austin, P. C. (2011). “An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), pp. 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 Google Scholar ›
21
Becker, B., Roper, S. and Vanino, E. (2023). “Assessing innovation spillovers from publicly funded R&D and innovation support: Evidence from the UK,” Technovation, 128, 102860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102860 Google Scholar ›
22
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., and Mullainathan, S. (2004). “How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), pp. 249-275. Google Scholar ›
23
Brasch, T. von, Cappelen, Å., Hungnes, H., & Skjerpen, T. (2021). “Modeling R&D spillovers to productivity: The effects of tax credits,” Economic Modelling, 101, 105545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105545 Google Scholar ›
24
Caliendo, M., and Kopeinig, S. (2008). “Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), pp. 31-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x Google Scholar ›
25
Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar ›
26
Ge, R., and Bao, H. (2024). “Digital transformation and resilience of supply chain in manufacture listed firms: A backward spillover effects in the vertical supply chain relationship,” Finance Research Letters, 65, 105516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105516 Google Scholar ›
27
Hall, B. H., and Lerner, J. (2010). “The financing of R&D and innovation. In B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (Eds.),” Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 609-639). Elsevier. Google Scholar ›
28
Havránek, T., and Irsova, Z. (2011). “Estimating vertical spillovers from FDI: Why results vary and what the true effect is,” Journal of International Economics, 85(2), pp. 234-244. Google Scholar ›
29
Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar ›
30
Isaksson, O. H. D., Simeth, M. & Seifert, R. W. (2016). “Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors,” Research Policy, 45(3), pp. 699-706. Google Scholar ›
31
Li, Y., and Bosworth, D. (2020). “R&D spillovers in a supply chain and productivity performance in British firms,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), pp. 177-204. Google Scholar ›
32
OECD (2016). The Korean Public Procurement Service: Innovating for effectiveness, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/01/the-korean-public-procurement-service_g1g620af/9789264249431-en.pdf Google Scholar ›
33
OECD (2019). “OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019,” OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en Google Scholar ›
34
OECD (2023a). “OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy : Korea 2023,” OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/07/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy-korea-2023_6517d469/bdcf9685-en.pdf Google Scholar ›
35
OECD (2023b). “OECD Journal on Budgeting,” OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-journal-on-budgeting-volume-2023-issue-3_ec1d2b4e-en.html Google Scholar ›
36
Peñasco, C., Díaz Anadón, L., and Verdolini, E. (2021a). “Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments,” Nature Climate Change, 11(3), pp. 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00971-x Google Scholar ›
37
Peñasco, C., Kolesnikov, S., and Díaz Anadón, L. (2021b), “Underestimation of the impacts of decarbonisation policies on innovation to create domestic growth opportunities,” (EEIST Policy Brief; C-EENRG Working Paper 2021-6). University of Cambridge. Google Scholar ›
38
Ramey, V. A. (2011). “Identifying government spending shocks: It’s all in the timing,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), pp. 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq008 Google Scholar ›
39
Rosenbaum, P. R., and Rubin, D. B. (1983). “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,” Biometrika, 70(1), pp. 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 Google Scholar ›
40
Stuart, E. A. (2010). “Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward,” Statistical Science, 25(1), pp. 1-21. Google Scholar ›
41
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press. Google Scholar ›

Supply Chain Ripple Effects of Government R&D Budget Cuts: Focusing on Research Safety Equipment Procurement Firms