This study explores possible frontiers for industrial cooperation among Korea, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. While regarded as one of major foreign policy agenda, the ‘Eurasia Initiative’ lacks practical programs to achieve the desired goals of the Initiative, mostly due to the external constraints imposed by geo-politics surrounding the Korean peninsular. This motivation of this study is find common interests of these countries in order to provide a list of practical programs for cooperation. It focuses on the area of industrial cooperation between Korea and the major Eurasian countries. The Eurasian countries pursue diversification and upgrading of their industrial structure, specially promoting manufacturing sectors, though they are differ in how they implement their strategies. However, these countries are believed to be far behind other countries with respect to internationalization of industries, which seems to be one of the most important factors for competitiveness and economies of scale. As far as the Korean industry is concerned, international cooperation through fragmentation or production sharing should be considered as an effective strategy to promote SME. In this study, we look into the characteristics of industry structures and industrial policies and major Eurasian countries, then identify policy agenda and specific areas of industrial cooperation with individual countries.
It is well known that industry and trade structure of Eurasian countries are heavily dependent on natural rsources including oil, gas and various minerals. Eurasian countries have made efforts to change the industrial structure by promoting manufacturing sectors. Russia’s industrial policy include various industrial development plans such as ‘Plan for Improvement of Industrial competitiveness’. The Plan aims at promotion of various ‘strategic’ target industriess; aerospace, pharmaceutical and medical, shipbuilding, electronics and wireless electronic industrial development and agricultural development. Russia has activelly employed import substitution policies to support the development plan.
In the case of Kazakhstan, the government has also introduced industrial policy measures in order to strengthen its manufacturing basement. The main implementing institutions are ‘National Agency for Technological Development’,‘Investment Fund of Kazakhstan’and‘Development Bank of Kazakhstan’. Through these institutions, Kazakhstan government channel its development funds. Considering its policy focus, this study identified the major areas of cooperation including petrochemical, chemical, electricity, machine building, and medical supplies. Uzbekistan also has a primary sector driven industry such as agriculture, gold and energy. It has as highly closed economic system under strong state control.
Uzbekistan economy is vulnerable to fluctuations of international commodity prices, which plays negatively against FDI. Just like other Eurasian countries, Uzbekistan pursues diversification of its industry sturcte by promoting the manufacturing sector. Uzbekistan government announced many medium-run industry development programs for industrial competitiveness and sustainable development.
The main purpose of the programs is focused on development of machinery, oil and gas, petrochemical and chemical, textile, food processing industry and agriculture, localization, infrastructure development, energy saving etc. Recently Korea faces economic structural problems such as ‘growth without employment’ and ‘decline of growth potential’. In order to overcome these structural problems, the role of SMEs has been highlighted, in that SMEs cover more than 99% and 86% respectively in terms of the number of enterprises and the rate of employment. Nevertheless SMEs in Korea has special features, which are they are mostly based on domestic demand and linked to large enterprises or conglomerates in terms of supply and demand relation.
Korea’s conglomerates have rapidly entred into ‘global supply chain’, and global economic recession makes them face a slump in exports. These situation tells us SMEs needs to converse their domestic demand basis business to export basis. In this sense, the government policies of supporting SMEs in Korea have mainly focused on strengthening the exporting capabilities of SMEs. However, this research argues the government policy should be transformed and new strategies need to be set up. This research suggests industrial cooperation between Korea and Eurasian countries, Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. For this, a new modality for cooperation like ‘TIDA’ needs to be further developed beyond the existing system like FTAs which focus on market opening. 

국문요약

제1장 서론

1. 한국경제의 위기와 국제산업협력의 필요성
2. 연구의 주요 내용
3. 기존 연구
4. 기대효과

제2장 유라시아 주요국의 경제구조와 한·유라시아 경제관계

1. 국제적 생산분업의 확대와 산업경쟁력
가. 산업화와 국제적 생산분업
나. 러시아의 국제적 생산분업 현황
2. 유라시아 주요국 산업 및 무역구조의 특징
가. 러시아의 경제구조와 한·러 무역구조의 특징
나. 카자흐스탄 경제구조와 한·카자흐스탄 무역구조
다. 우즈베키스탄의 경제구조와 한·우즈벡 무역구조

제3장 유라시아 주요국의 산업정책 및 제조업 현황

1. 러시아 산업정책의 현황과 평가
가. 산업정책의 경과와 특징: 정책목표와 자원배분의 부정합
나. 제3기 푸틴 정부의 산업정책과 평가: 적극적 투자확대 의지와 미진한 성과
2. 카자흐스탄 산업정책의 현황과 평가
가. 산업정책의 경과와 특징: 산업다각화를 위한 장기계획의 이행
나. 제4~5기 나자르바예프 정부의 산업정책: 개방적 체제하의 국가 주도형 산업육성
3. 우즈베키스탄 산업정책의 현황과 평가
가. 산업정책의 경과와 특징: 폐쇄적 수입대체정책의 지속
나. 제4기 카리모프 정부의 산업정책과 평가

제4장 한국의 중소 제조업 현황과 국제 산업협력의 필요성

1. 한국경제의 구조적 문제와 중소기업
2. 한국 중소기업 성장의 제약 요인
3. 중소기업의 글로벌 진출전략 현황과 평가
가. 중소기업의 글로벌 진출정책 현황
나. 중소기업 글로벌 진출전략에 대한 평가

제5장 한·유라시아 산업협력을 위한 정책방안

1. 산업협력의 기본 방향
2. 전략적 산업협력을 위한 제도적 협력 방향
가. 중소기업 국제화 지원정책의 기조 전환
나. 한·유라시아 산업무역협력을 위한 새로운 협력 Modality 개발
3. 국가별·산업별 전략적 협력방안
가. 한·러시아 산업협력
나. 한·카자흐 산업협력
다. 한·우즈벡 산업협력

제6장 요약 및 결론

참고문헌

부록

Executive Summary