북한개발을 위한 재정전략에 대한 연구

Abstract

개성공단 금강산관광특구에 , 이어 해주특구 설립 논의까지 최근 남북경협을 통한 북한개발 사업은 활기를 띠고 있다. 북한개발은 남북간 경제 인프라의 격차 해소와 의사소통 활성화를 유도하여 단기적으론 남북관계 개선효과를, 궁극적으론 한반도 통일기반 구축의 계기가 된다. 그러나 막대한 개발비용을 어떻게 조달할 것인가는 남북경협사업을 추진하는 가장 큰 장애요인 중 하나다. 본 논문은 북한개발을 위한 재정조달 전략에 대한 분석과 향후 추진방안을 주요 내용으로 하고 있다. 북한개발 및 남북경협사업의 재정조달 전략을 실물옵션을 통한 의사결정 이론 측면에서 설명하고 재정조달 자금 원천에 대한 분류 및 사업추진 단계에 맞춘 자금 원천별 추진 방안을 제시한다. 또한 각 자금원천을 소재로 한 네 가지 종합 재정모형을 수립하고 각각의 장단점을 기술하여 정책담당자가 현장에서 정책도구 활용 가능성을 높이는 기준을 제공한다. 본고는 성공적 재정조달 추진은 실물옵션 접근을 통한 전략적 유연성 증대 및 자금원천별 장단점을 활용한 개별 재정조달 전략 수립을 통해 정책 효과성을 달성하고, 국고에 의한 재정지원보단 민간자본 참여를 활성화를 통해 정부 사업리스크 감소와 사업 안정성 제고 등 효율적 재정지출 활동이 수행될 때 비로소 실현될 수 있다는 것을 강조한다.

This paper examines how to successfully finance the development of the North Korean economy and manage successful economic cooperation between two Koreas. As a method of pricing assets for the purpose of investment, this paper suggests that the real-option approach is better for evaluating North Korean economic development projects rather than the discounted cash flow method. This is because a real-option pricing method has the advantage in evaluating huge long-term projects under conditions of high uncertainty in environments such as the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, the inter-Korean cooperative Special Economic Zone (SEZ). This paper also insists that attracting both direct investment and project finance (PF) can be recommendable measures for financing North Korean SEZ projects rather than debt financing. This is because the latter measure not only increases debt load but also spreads government risk to other stakeholders participating in the project. More commercial stakeholders in the project could enhance the security of the project even if the political environment worsens. For the purpose of analysis, this article classifies three sources of finance, i.e., banking loans, direct investment and PF. The article goes on to establish a comprehensive financial model through the combination of four financing models for North Korean economic development, detailed as follows: investment loans model, guarantee model, Official Development Assistance (ODA) loans/grants model, and PF model. The article analyzes differences (i.e., strengths and weakness) between the four models in terms of the ease of inducing the necessary private capital, government risk, the ease of repatriation of principal and dividends, and the ease with which a model may be realized within the context of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. Among four models, the PF model is the most recommendable in terms of private capital inducement and government risk. The investment loan model is less likely to induce private capital, and the guarantee model is likely to entail a higher government risk. In the case of the ODA loan/grants model, the government risk is very low. However, it seems to be less likely to be realized due to rivalries between the two Korean governments.