본 연구는 한국기업의 對중국 및 베트남 해외직접투자의 특징을 도출하고, 실증분석을 통해 성공적 투자진출 및 운영을 위한 전략적 시사점을 제시하였다. 첫째, 한국의 對중국 및 베트남 해외직접투자는 진입시기에 따라 경영성과가 달리 나타났다. 특히 중국과 베트남의 급격한 개방 정책 이후, 한국의 경영성과가 높아졌다. 둘째, 한국의 對중국 진출에 있어서는 합작투자가 단독투자보다 그 비율이 높게 나타나고 있으며, 반면 베트남 진출에 있어서는 단독투자가 합자투자보다 그 비율이 높게 나타났다. 셋째, 최근 한국의 對중국 및 베트남 해외직접투자의 동기로서 현지시장 개척을 위한 투자동기가 현지 자원개발이나 저임금활용을 위한 투자보다 부각되고 있다. 이는 중국과 베트남이 단순 제조업의 공장으로서의 역할뿐 아니라 소비시장으로서 부상하고 있음을 시사한다. 넷째, 한국의 對중국 투자는 서비스업보다 제조업의 매출신장률이 높게 나타났는데, 향후 5년의 예측 분석결과는 서비스업이 더 높게 나타났다. 對베트남의 분석 결과는 현재와 향후 5년 모두 제조업보다 서비스업의 매출신장률이 높게 나타났다. 따라서 향후에는 제조업뿐 아니라 점차 서비스업에도 관심을 높여야 할 것이다. 다섯째, 투자규모(종업원 수/투자금액)에 따른 분석에서는 일부 그룹 기업들의 경영 성과가 약간 높게 나타났으나, 전체적으로 투자규모에 따른 그룹별 경영성과의 차이는 나타나지는 않았다.
여섯째, 한국의 對중국 입지우위 측면에서는 베이징, 상하이, 칭다오가 다롄보다 입지 경쟁력이 있다고 판단되며, 對베트남의 경우는 호치민이 하노이보다 경쟁력이 있다고 판단된다
The goal of this study is to draw the characteristics of outward foreign direct investment (FDI) of Korean firms in China and Vietnam. It includes the result of empirical tests and suggests some strategic implications for successful outward FDI. This study finds six characteristics from existing research-timing,method, motivation, industry, size, location. Meaningful results can be found as follows.
Firstly, the performance of Korean outward FDI in China and Vietnam showed differently according to their entry timing. The performance of Korean firms increased after China joining to the WTO in 2001. The performance of Korean firms increased much more after Vietnam carrying out “Doi Moi” innovation in 2006. That is, the performance of FDI is related to the time of an open-door policy. With the adoption of open-door policy, reshaping investment-related law and incentives for foreign investors, inward FDI will gain its momentum. This is because cornucopia of business-friendly environment makes inflow of FDI grow. Secondly, In China, the ratio of wholly-owned subsidiary (WOS) has increased than that of joint venture (JV). However, the performance of JV is better than WOS. On the other hand, in Vietnam, the performance of WOS is better than that of JV. But the results of statistic don’t show significantly. We cannot find the reasons. However, recently many Korean firms, which have built up their experience in China and Vietnam, are likely to judge the benefits of WOS (i.g. speedy decisionmaking) are bigger than that of JV (i.g. the dispersion of risk, utilizing the information of host country).
Thirdly, Korean firms’ outward FDI motivations in China and Vietnam have changed from resource-seeking and efficiency-seeking to market-seeking. This implies that the roles of China and Vietnam in Korean firms’ outward FDI have changed from sources of raw material and efficient producers to potential mass markets. Fourthly, the performance of manufacturing industry in China showed higher than that of service industry. However, this survey showed, in future (2011~2015), the performance of service industry will be higher than that of manufacturing industry. And the performance in Vietnam of service industry showed higher than that of manufacturing industry in both present and future (2011~2015). Therefore, the outward FDI of Korean service industry should be considered very positively. Fifthly, considered the size of firm based on the number of employees and the amount of investment, some groups’ performances are a little better than the others. However, generally there are no differences among groups. Therefore, the size of a firm is not closely related to the performance of FDI or there are the other important factors in the performance of FDI. Finally, location advantages have affected the performance of FDI in China and Vietnam. Therefore, Beijing, Shanghai, Qingdao (China) and Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), well equipped with infrastructure, were preferred to Dalian (China) and Hanoi (Vietnam) in the performance of Korean firms. This result shows that location advantages are important in performance and decision-making of outward FDI. And this also denotes validity of Dunning’s OLI paradigm.