우리나라는 경제규모 대비 외국인투자 유치 비중이 낮은 상황으로, 외국인투자를 유치하기 위해 다음과 같은 보완조치가 필요하다.
첫째, 여전히 우리나라는 대규모 외국인투자 유치를 위한 파격적 인센티브 수단을 갖추지 못하고 있어 이를 보완할 필요가 있다. 싱가포르의 경우 개척자 지위를 부여해 최대 15년간 조세면제와 같은 파격적인 조건들을 제시하고 있다.
둘째, 선진국 사례에서 얻을 수 있는 또 하나의 교훈은 이들 국가의 경우 현금지원 수단을 매우 적극적으로 활용하고 있다는 것이다. 단 우리의 경우 현금지원 수단 사용 시 외국인투자로 인해 얻을 수 있는 경제적 파급효과를 평가해서 이에 부합하도록 지원하는 방식을 모색할 필요가 있다. 특히 영국이나 미국의 경우도 입지지역의 경제적 낙후도를 평가하여 종합적으로 인센티브 지원방안을 조성하고 있다. 우리의 경우는 수도권과 비수도권으로 획일적으로 나누어서 기업지원을 달리하고 있으나, 영국의 경우 지역의 경제 낙후도 평가 시 실업률, GRDP, 재정자립도, 산업구조, 인프라 등을 종합적으로 고려하고 있다.
셋째, 선진국 사례의 특징 중 하나는 임대료 감면제도를 활용하고 있다는 점이다. 일본의 경우 다양한 특구 유형을 두고 입지지원을 하고 있고, 다른 국가의 사례 역시 입지제도를 활용하고 있다. 우리의 경우 「외국인투자촉진법」상 임대료 감면은 토지가액의 1%(외촉법 시행령 제19조 제4항)로, 이미 통상적인 산단의 경우 적용되는 5% 임대료에 비해 현저히 낮다. 특히 고도기술수반사업으로 투자금액 100만 달러 이상을 투자하는 외국인은 임대료 감면을 100% 받을 수 있게 되어 있는데, 이는 인센티브의 운영 면에서 효율성을 크게 저하시키는 방식이다. 따라서 최초 10년 동안의 총감면 임대료 이상으로 동 기간 동안
증액 투자를 했거나 특별한 경제적 효과를 창출했을 때 10년 단위로 계속 연장하는 방식을 고민해볼 필요가 있다. 임대료 감면 부분을 재투자로 환원받는 시스템으로 전환하는 것이 바람직하다.
넷째, 현재 우리나라는 교부형 현금지원제도를 운용하고 있는데, 영국이나 일본과 같이 ‘대여형’ 또는 ‘기금형’ 현금지원제도를 도입하여 제도를 보완할 필요가 있다. 현재 교부형에서는 총투자금액의 최대 30%까지 현금지원을 할 수 있는데, 이를 대여형의 50% 수준으로 확대할 필요가 있다. 일본, 영국의 대여형 현금지원과 기금 조성을 통한 현금지원 사례 등을 벤치마킹할 필요가 있다. 특히 대여형 현금지원제도와 함께 국내 민간금융기관을 활용하여 투자자금의 일부를 조달할 수 있도록 결합 운영하는 방식도 현금지원의 효과를 높일 수 있다.
마지막으로 현금지원이라는 용어를 투자효과 조정기금 또는 ‘○○ 조정기금’과 같은 명칭으로 변경할 필요가 있다. ‘현금지원’이라는 용어는 공짜로 투자자에게 주는 듯한 인상을 주기 때문이다. 앞서 언급했듯이 경제적 파급영향 정도에 따라 현금지원이 이루어지기 때문에 이는 특혜나 납세의무 회피를 유인하는 수단이 아님을 확실히 할 필요가 있다. 현금지원의 경우 조세감면과 달리 정부에 재정적 손실을 발생시키는 수단이므로 그만큼 정교하게 운영할 필요가 있다.
선진국의 외국인투자 유치에 있어서 다른 하나의 중요한 동향은 외국인투자에 대한 규제이다. 대부분 국가안보를 이유로 외국인투자에 대해서 제재를 하고 있으나, 이는 자국의 첨단산업 등 기술유출을 막기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해서 외국인투자에 대한 심사기능을 강화하고 경우에 따라서 투자를 막기 위한 해서 외국인투자에 대한 심사기능을 강화하고 경우에 따라서 투자를 막기 위한 여러 가지 수단과 제도를 만들고 있다. 미국은 「외국인투자위험 심사현대화법(FIRRMA: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act)」을 제정하여 외국인투자위원회(CFIUS)의 활동을 확대하고 있고, 일본과 영국 역시 이런 추세가 강하게 나타나고 있다.
본 보고서는 우리의 외국인투자 유치제도에서 국가안보와 경제안보적 차원에서 보완해야 할 사안을 선진국 사례를 토대로 정책 제안하고 있다
Due to COVID-19, global FDI has decreased rapidly, and the trade environment to attract foreign investment is rapidly changing. Amid the decreasing inflow of FDI worldwide, the trend of corporate tax cuts continues as competition among major countries to attract foreign investment intensifies. The global average corporate tax in 2000 was 28.3%, but fell to 20% in 2021. The OECD average fell from 32.3% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2021. Along with the trend of corporate tax cuts to attract investment, there is also a movement to set the so-called global minimum corporate tax rate, aiming to prevent excessive corporate tax cuts. On July 1, 2021, following negotiations at the OECD, 130 countries which account for 90% of the world’s GDP agreed to apply the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% from 2023. Subject to the application are multinational companies with total annual sales of EUR 750 million or more. In recent years, active reshoring policies to protect domestic industries and create jobs in developed countries have made it more difficult to attract FDI to Korea.
On his fifth day in office, President Biden announced Executive Order 14005, which prioritizes the federal government’s financial support and procurement, laying the legal foundation for the revival of U.S. manufacturing and job creation through the “Made in America” and “Buy American” initiatives. In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684), which legislated federal support for domestic infrastructure construction, passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the 117th Congress.
Advanced countries, including the United States, are pursuing active industrial policies and attracting foreign investment to build their own supply chains, which are also expected to pose difficulties in attracting domestic investment. Developed countries are providing investment support for the purpose of stabilizing the supply of semiconductors and integrating into the GVCs of key materials for the fourth industrial revolution. The U.S. Innovative Competition Act (USICA), which passed the U.S. Senate, established a semiconductor support program centered on the Department of Commerce, which invests USD 52 billion for the development of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also decided to provide 19 billion yen (KRW 200 billion) worth of subsidies to joint R&D between Taiwan’s TSMC and Japanese companies in 2021 to enhance semiconductor competitiveness and strengthen GVC linkage.
Developed countries are actively attracting foreign investment to reshape their own supply chains, and are also expanding restrictions on foreign investment for the purpose of securing technological supremacy and protecting national security. Investment regulations introduced in 52 countries in 2020 increased by 43% compared to 2019, the highest level since 2003, and most of them have been introduced for national security purposes.
This report was designed in accordance with the need to reorganize the domestic foreign investment attraction system according to the aforementioned changes in the global FDI environment. In the case of advanced countries, policies on attracting foreign investment are being promoted more actively, and Korea lies in a disadvantageous environment to attract foreign investment, such as withdrawing tax breaks for foreign investment. This is because foreign investment is still effective in technology transfer, technology development and employment promotion, and presents a good opportunity and means to promote the incorporation of domestic companies into GVC.
In addition, countries around the world are strengthening regulations on foreign investment in terms of security, technology, and intellectual rights protection, and it is necessary to review our current foreign investment policy in terms of national security and domestic industry protection through case analysis of advanced countries. Also, with the inauguration of a new administration in Korea in 2022, it is necessary to prepare a timely reform (draft) of the foreign investment attraction support system in line with the changing FDI environment and investment promotion policies for the next five years. And at the same time, the report can provide very useful information on overseas investment environments to Korean companies planning to expand overseas.
The following summarizes the policies to attract foreign investment in major developed countries by dividing them into foreign investment regulatory policies to provide investment attraction incentives and those to protect high-tech sectors, and summarizes the implications for Korea’s foreign investment attraction policy.
First, in the case of Hong Kong and Singapore, various policies have been promoted to establish business hubs for specific industries while providing various incentives to attract foreign investment. From the perspective of Koreans, these policies are the best examples and are the targets we should benchmark. One of the characteristics of the foreign investment attraction systems in Hong Kong and Singapore is that among the various support systems, cash grants are very diverse. Hong Kong and Singapore operate a tax system that does not discriminate between domestic and foreign companies. In particular, Hong Kong exempts tax on income from the aviation and shipping industries as a way to support business hubs. In addition, Hong Kong and Singapore have simple tax systems. In the case of Hong Kong, there are only business income tax, property tax, and salary income tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, dividend income tax, value-added tax, withholding tax, and inheritance tax. As a free trade port, Hong Kong does not impose tariffs on imports and exports.
Hong Kong also runs a very large cash grant program. It operates a green and sustainable growth subsidy system, an innovation and technology fund, an incentive organized by Cyberport, and a smart transportation fund, and each program operates a wide variety of systems. In Korea, although a cash grant program has been introduced, there are limitations in operation, and it is not widely used like Hong Kong and Singapore. Hong Kong’s location supports companies by creating specialized complexes, Hong Kong Science & Technology Park being the most representative example.
Due to the nature of the city, Hong Kong cannot provide industrial complexes as locations, and mainly supports startups specialized in high-tech technologies in building locations. In addition, acceleration programs simultaneously incorporate space support programs. In the case of Korea, various incubation programs or systems are currently being created to support startups. However, it is necessary to further revitalize the location support system, which provides space to startups along with comprehensive support programs.
In the case of Singapore, the most representative investment incentive is the tax reduction system. Singapore’s tax reduction system is widely operated. Various incentives including the general corporate tax reduction are provided to establish leading industries and intellectual property that increases added value. Like Hong Kong, it operates systems such as aircraft rental and shipping incentives to strengthen its function as a free city. This is interpreted as a system to strengthen Singapore’s function as a logistics hub and further strengthen its current competitiveness. In addition, in order to strengthen its function as a financial hub and intermediary trade center, it operates various specialized support programs for corporate tax reduction and exemption for companies in this industry.
Singapore’s cash grants are well known for their scale and anonymity. The Energy Efficiency Enhancement Fund is an official cash aid program. In addition, cash is also provided for the repair and expansion of buildings. Various types of programs are operated to support startups, and these programs are also essentially cash support programs. However, most of the cash support in Singapore is paid only if the company spends first, and is supported legally and in accordance with the support rules through evidentiary documents for subsequent expenditures. Other support programs include granting permanent residency to those who have invested in Singapore with certain conditions, and guaranteeing visas to those who have certain qualifications, so that necessary technicians and experts can work in Singapore.
As seen above, the policies to attract foreign investment in Hong Kong and Singapore literally institutionalized various investment incentives to attract foreign investment. On the other hand, the U.S., Japan, and the UK are actively attracting foreign investment in terms of industrial policy to stabilize the supply chain, upgrade the value chain, and enhance the competitiveness of their industries, while strengthening regulations on attracting foreign investment to protect their high-tech industries. Although there are some differences in foreign investment concentration industries in each country, foreign direct investment is intended to be used as a way to foster various high-tech and future industries such as AI, big data, and future mobility, along with areas that are spread by digital transformation (DX). Strategic industries to be fostered are selected and these are intended to attract technologies and capital that the country lacks by attracting foreign investment. In the case of Singapore, companies with advanced science and technology or start-up support programs are promoted, and the UK also implements policies to attract patent-holding companies.
Meanwhile, advanced countries such as the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom are using foreign investment attraction as a policy tool to support underdeveloped regions in terms of balanced regional development. In the case of the UK, enterprise zones are operated in areas such as England, Wales, and Scotland, and as of 2022, a total of 73 enterprise zones have been designated to actively attract investment in promising industries by individual regions.
In the case of the United States, it is very active and open to foreign investment, and there are basically no restrictions on the type of investment. The foreign investment attraction policy operates various systems in each state to attract foreign investment at the state level rather than the federal government. The Trump administration pushed for a pro-business policy through corporate tax cuts, which seems to have had a positive effect on attracting foreign investment. In the United States, tax cuts are also the most prioritized incentives to attract foreign investment. Various cash support systems are also being used very actively for industrial innovation. Active support is provided for technology transfer to SMEs, innovation partnerships, early engineering research, and industry-academic cooperation research. Various programs to provide office locations are mainly used, such as in the special zone systems in Japan and other developed countries. Free trade areas and special opportunity zones are in operation, as well as various loan programs.
In the case of Japan, policies to attract foreign investment in consideration of the region are operated along with a wide variety of support policies. Foreign investment is used as a means to revitalize the local economy, and to this end, the central government not only offers various subsidies but also guarantees various preferential measures specialized for foreign companies at the local government level. Japan also actively uses its tax system to attract foreign investment, and corporate tax is also being lowered. Various tax benefits are granted to foreign corporations. Depending on the type of corporation, corporate tax is applied differently, and it is used in various ways, such as open innovation, local base strengthening tax system for local revitalization, R&D tax system, tax system for securing talent and expanding income of SMEs, and DX investment promotion tax system. Japan has a much more diverse and wider scope in the use of corporate tax than Korea. Japan also operates various cash grant programs. Most importantly, cash grants are used first for domestic investment to stabilize supply chains. Cash grants are also used in areas that are essential for fostering future industries, such as green innovation. Japan’s location support system is also operated in the form of a special zone like the United States. These special zones are operated for various purposes such as a special structural reform zone, comprehensive special zone, special national strategic zone, special revival zone, and a startup eco-city hub city.
The UK is also using various methods to attract foreign investment to create jobs and expand domestic investment. First, the tax was lowered slightly, and from 2023, corporate tax will be applied in three stages. In terms of corporate tax reduction and exemption, corporate tax rate benefits vary depending on the type of reduction program. Venture capital, corporate investment, and early corporate investment are representative examples, but patent boxes are also well-known instruments, especially for corporate investments. This is a system to encourage the registration of intellectual property in the UK and promote the commercialization of patents, with the profits generated by these patents becoming eligible for corporate tax reduction or exemption. The UK is also actively using cash grants for foreign investment, most of these being given to companies that contribute to the local economy. There are systems in place to support office locations in special zones, which also incorporate enterprise zones. Creative industrial clusters and free trade ports are also examples of such location support systems.
One of the notable phenomena in the foreign investment attraction policies of developed countries discussed above is to increase financial support along with support for venture investment. The support system for angel businesses or venture investment is being strengthened so that innovative technologies and ideas can grow into industries in the country.
The following summarizes the lessons learned from the previous cases of advanced countries. Korea still has a low proportion of foreign investment compared to the size of its economy. ① Korea lacks exceptional incentive means to attract large-scale foreign investment, an issue which needs to be addressed. In the case of Singapore, as previously discussed, pioneer status can be granted, suggesting unconventional conditions such as tax exemption for up to 15 years. ② Another lesson that can be learned from the case of advanced countries is that these countries are using cash grants very actively. However, in the case of Korea, it is necessary to evaluate the economic ripple effect that can be obtained from foreign investment in cash grants, and seek methods to support it accordingly. In particular, in the case of the United Kingdom and the United States, incentives are comprehensively supported by evaluating the economic backwardness of the location. In our case, corporate support is uniformly divided into metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas, but in the case of the UK, various elements such as the local unemployment rate, GRDP, financial independence, industrial structure, and infrastructure are comprehensively considered when evaluating regional economic backwardness.
③ One of the characteristics of the case of advanced countries is that rent reduction systems are used. In the case of Japan, locational support is provided for various types of special zones, and other countries surveyed in this study also use industrial complex support systems. In our case, the rent reduction or exemption under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act is 1% of the land price (Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Act), which is significantly lower than the 5% rent applied to ordinary industrial complexes. In particular, only foreign investments exceeding $1 million which involve high-tech projects are eligible for 100% rent reduction, which greatly reduces efficiency in terms of the operation of incentives. It would be desirable to switch to a system where the reduced rent is returned in the form of reinvestment.
④ It is necessary to supplement the current issuance-type cash support system by introducing a loan-type cash support system and a fund-type cash support system like the UK and Japan. Since the cash support limit can be supported up to 30% of the total investment in the case of the current grant type, it is necessary to expand it to a higher 50% level for the loan type. As in the cases of Japan and the United Kingdom, it is necessary to benchmark loan-type cash support and cash support through fund creation. In particular, along with the loan-type cash support system, a method of combining and operating a part of investment funds using domestic private financial institutions can also increase the effectiveness of cash support.
⑤ Finally, it is necessary to refer to various cash support measures under names such as the Investment Effect Adjustment Fund or the “000 Adjustment Fund,” as the term “cash grant” gives the impression of giving to investors for free. Obviously, as mentioned earlier, it is necessary to make sure that this is not a means of inducing preferential treatment or tax obligations because cash support is given depending on the degree of economic ripple effect. Unlike tax cuts, cash support programs are a means of generating financial losses from the government, meaning they require delicate operation.
Another important trend in attracting foreign investment in developed countries is regulation on foreign investment. Most of the sanctions on foreign investment are imposed on the grounds of national security, but this is to prevent the outflow of technology such as high-tech industries from the host country. To this end, various means and systems are being created to strengthen the screening function for foreign investment and to prevent investment in certain cases. The United States basically had no restrictions on foreign investment, but recently strengthened foreign investment regulations through individual laws or state laws. The U.S. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act extends to all cases in which a company has the authority to determine major matters and to cases where the U.S. party does not have corporate control in acquisition of minority shares, acquisition of foreign companies in the U.S. and joint ventures. In addition, it imposes a high level of monitoring and obligation to report foreign investments for “all transactions related to core industries including important technologies and materials” with countries of special interest, such as China, but exempts companies that receive potential safe harbor letters.
For national security, Japan is tightening regulations on foreign investment by strengthening regulations on foreign investment in designated industries (155 companies) and lowering the standard for pre-report ownership from 10% to 1%. Japan classifies three types of licenses for foreign investors and differentiates the criteria for reporting obligations according to the type of license. Pre-reporting industries and reporting conditions are being strengthened, but reporting exemptions are also being classified into comprehensive exemption and general exemption, according to the type of investor.
The UK will introduce a mandatory reporting system in 17 high-tech industries with security risks and implement it from April 1, 2022. Acquisitions subject to report fall under the scope of civil and criminal penalties and fines if acquired without reporting, and even acquisitions not subject to report can be reviewed for up to five years after the acquisition.
Since current Korean law has a weak legal basis for screening national security risks, it is necessary to supplement the foreign investment screening system from the perspective of economic security. New technologies, core infrastructure, sensitive personal information, and security screening targets need to be expanded from the perspective of stabilizing the supply chain, and countermeasures for pre-reporting, follow-up management, and reinvestment of private equity funds under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act need to be supplemented. Foreign investment in listed companies in Korea needs to be classified into companies subject to pre-examination and non-examination, and it is necessary to strengthen the evaluation criteria for economic and industrial impact assessment that will occur in the future, such as domestic market structure, market dominance, and technology and intellectual property level. It is necessary to strengthen the requirements for submitting information and data necessary for the examination of foreign investment, and to strengthen functions so that an effective security examination can be conducted by enabling integrated management and ex officio investigation. In addition, through continuous monitoring of foreign investment, preemptive responses from state-run banks and others are necessary even before problems occur, and the functions of the foreign investment committee need to be expanded and strengthened as in the case of advanced countries.
1. 연구의 목적
제2장 홍콩의 외국인투자 유치정책
1. 홍콩의 투자유치제도
5. 기타 지원제도
제3장 싱가포르의 외국인투자 유치정책
1. 싱가포르의 투자유치제도
4. 스타트업 제도
5. 기타 지원제도
제4장 미국의 외국인투자 유치정책
1. 미국의 외자유치제도
5. 외국인투자 규제
제5장 일본의 외국인투자 유치정책
1. 일본의 외자유치제도
5. 외국인직접투자 규제
제6장 영국의 외국인투자 유치정책
1. 영국의 외자유치제도
2. 조세감면제도: 법인세 감면
3. 현금지원제도: 영국혁신(Innovate UK - grant funding, innovation loans and expert support)
5. 외국인직접투자 규제 및 안보심사
제7장 시사점과 정책 방향
1. 투자유치를 위한 인센티브제도 개선
2. 외국인투자 규제정책 방향
같은 주제의 보고서
연구보고서 디지털세가 다국적기업의 해외 투자에 미치는 영향 2021-12-30 연구보고서 인도의 통상정책 분석과 한-인도 협력 방안 2021-12-30 연구보고서 외국인 기업의 남북경협 참여활성화 방안 2021-12-30 연구보고서 미ㆍ중 갈등시대 일본의 통상 대응 전략 2021-12-30 세계지역전략연구 동아프리카 스타트업 시장분석 및 한국기업의 진출방안 2021-06-21 전략지역심층연구 중국의 대유럽 투자와 유럽의 정책대응 2020-12-30 Working paper Determinants of Korean Outward Foreign Direct Investment: How Do Korean Firms Respond to the Labor Costs of Host Countries? 2020-09-01 연구보고서 한국의 FTA 15년 성과와 정책 시사점 2019-12-30 Working paper How Does Protectionist Trade Policy Interact with FDI? 2019-12-30 연구보고서 체제전환국의 FDI 유입 결정요인과 북한에 대한 시사점 2019-12-30 연구보고서 다국적기업 철수의 영향과 정책대응 방안 2019-12-30 연구자료 한일 및 한중일 투자협정의 투자자-국가 분쟁해결제도: 국내법원판결에 관한 판정례를 중심으로 2019-12-30 전략지역심층연구 중소기업의 중동부유럽 진출을 위한 거시환경 분석: 경제, 제도, 비즈니스 환경을 중심으로 2019-12-30 세계지역전략연구 한국의 아세안투자 특성과 시사점: 해외 자회사 활동과 모기업 자료를 연계한 분석 2019-12-30 연구보고서 중동 주요국의 중소기업 육성정책과 한·중동 협력 확대방안 2018-12-28 연구보고서 리쇼어링의 결정요인과 정책 효과성 연구 2018-12-28 연구보고서 대외개방이 국내 분배구조에 미치는 영향 2017-12-27 전략지역심층연구 인도 외국인직접투자의 구조적 변화와 시사점: M&A를 중심으로 2017-12-27 연구보고서 한국 중소기업의 동남아 주요국 투자실태에 대한 평가와 정책 시사점 2017-11-21 연구자료 The EU’s Investment Court System and Prospects for a New Multilateral Investment Dispute Settlement System 2017-10-12