'文소득주도성장' 한계 지적한 英잡지..."미쳤다. 이것은 재앙이다" 한국내 불만 소개

영국의 권위있는 시사주간지 이코노미스트가 최신호에서 문재인 정부의 '소득주도성장정책'의 현주소를 진단했다. 제목은 "한국 대통령이 경제를 '민주화'하는 데 애를 먹고 있다"이다 (South Korea’s president is struggling to “democratise” the economy). '경제민주화'는 한국에서 쓰이는 표현을 차용한 것이다.

이 잡지는 文정부가 최근 최저임금을 7530원으로 전년에 비해 16% 인상했다며, 이에 대해 조임호 전국중소기업·중소상공인협회 회장은 "미쳤다, 이것은 재앙이다" (It’s crazy, a disaster)라고 말했다고 전했다. 

이코노미스트는 최저임금 인상이 文의 소득주도성장 정책의 핵심인데, 최근 실망스러운 고용지표와 중소 상공인들의 들끓는 시위로 인해 문 정부가 동요하고 있다고 밝혔다. 잡지는 문 대통령이 홍장표를 좌천 시켰고, 장하성도 곧 자리를 잃을 것이란 시각이 존재한다고 전했다.    

이코노미스트는 최저임금 인상으로, 2분기에 하위 20% 계층의 소득이 지난해 같은 기간보다 3.7% 줄었다고 지적했다. 잡지는 정책이 도우려고 했던 계층에서의 실직이 임금인상 효과를 상쇄했기 때문이라고 분석했다. (That suggests that job losses have more than offset increased wages among those whom the policy is intended to help.)

이코노미스트는 문 정부가 내년 올해보다 10%이상 재정 지출을 늘릴 것이고, 이 중 1/3은 사회복지지출에 해당한다고 밝혔다. 잡지는 그러나 중소기업들의 최저임금 인상과 고용확대를 보조하기 위에 들어가는 지원금이 非생산적일 것(counterproductive)이라고 진단했다.

이코노미스트는 이런 지원금이 수익이 거의 나지 않는 '좀비 기업들'을 떠받쳐서, 근로자들을 한계 직업군에 묶이게 하고, 생산력 증대를 악화시킨다고 밝혔다. (But it may also prop up barely profitable “zombie companies”, keeping workers in marginal jobs and so undermining efforts to raise productivity.)

이코노미스트는 근로시간 단축을 통해 소비를 늘리려는 文정부의 시도에 대해서도 비판적인 분석을 했다. 잡지는 KT가 최근, 한국인들의 근로시간이 55분 감소했다고 밝혔다고 전했다. 그러나 이코노미스트는 이런 발표에는 주의를 기울여야 한다며 KT가 조사를 한 지역은 공공기관과 정부청사들이 밀집된 시내 지역이라고 밝혔다. 실제 중소기업들이 즐비한 지역에선 근로시간이 줄지 않았다고 전했다.

또한 근로시간 단축으로 인해 오히려 술집과 음식점들이 폐업했다고 지적했다. (And a downside of the directive was also discernible: bars and restaurants in central Seoul reported a loss in business.)

김민찬 기자 mkim@pennmike.com

*다음은 이코노미스트 기사 전문

South Korea’s president is struggling to “democratise” the economy

CHO IMHO is angry. Perched on an enormous black leather chair, the director of South Korea’s association of small businesses throws up his arms in despair as he discusses the government’s economic policy. Mr Cho reserves particular ire for the recent increase in the minimum wage to 7,530 won ($6.65) an hour, 16% more than it was a year ago. The leap is the centrepiece of the government’s plan to revive the economy by boosting the incomes of the poor; further hikes are planned. Mr Cho claims many of the firms he represents are considering shutting down. Others have shed staff. “It’s crazy, a disaster,” he says.

Mr Cho is a proud right-winger from Daegu, a nest of South Korean conservatism. His aversion to the policies of the left-leaning president, Moon Jae-in, is perhaps not surprising. But in recent months a spate of disappointing employment data and loud protests from businesses have stirred unease within the government. The finance minister, for one, has sounded surprisingly equivocal about the increases.

Mr Moon has pledged to stick to his strategy of “income-led growth”, which remains popular with voters. But he now says that the minimum wage will not rise as quickly as originally planned. He also demoted Hong Jang-pyo, an adviser who was one of the policy’s architects. Some observers believe that Chang Ha-sung, his chief of staff for policy and the other main advocate of income-led growth, may be next to go. “There are tensions between the committed reformers and those who are worried about political backlash,” says Jun Sung-in of Hongik University in Seoul. “Currently, the worriers are winning.”

Small wonder: according to South Korea’s statistics agency, the income of the lowest 20% of earners fell by 3.7% in the second quarter of this year compared with the same period last year (for high earners, it rose by 12.4%). That suggests that job losses have more than offset increased wages among those whom the policy is intended to help. There has certainly been no spurt in the growth rate, which continues to hover around 3%.

It is not obvious, however, that the increase in the minimum wage is to blame for the disappointing data. There are other potential culprits: uncertainty resulting from the trade war between America and China, worries earlier this year about South Korea’s own free trade agreement with the United States and the slowdown in construction as a result of tighter mortgage-lending rules. Still, the sudden increase may have tipped the scales.

The thrust of Mr Moon’s reforms, which seek to boost innovation and productivity at smaller firms, is broadly right. The labour market suffers from extreme polarisation between big conglomerates, called chaebol, and most other employers. The chaebol offer the most coveted jobs, but most South Koreans are employed in small firms. Productivity in such businesses, which are concentrated in the service sector, is vastly lower than in the chaebol—hence the huge gap in wages (see chart). Wages for the bottom 10% of earners have barely risen over the past two decades.

Next year’s budget envisions a 10% jump in overall expenditure, with more than a third of the extra money earmarked for social spending. The basic pension will rise, there will be more funding for childcare and small firms that hire young people will receive a subsidy. A recent report by the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries, says these measures are affordable. At 45% of GDP South Korea’s public debt is less than half the OECD average of 110%. It also spends far less on social services than most other OECD countries.

But some of the reforms may be counterproductive. The complex array of subsidies intended to help small businesses implement the minimum wage and to encourage them to hire more workers, for instance, may help boost the purchasing power of poorer South Koreans. But it may also prop up barely profitable “zombie companies”, keeping workers in marginal jobs and so undermining efforts to raise productivity.

Mr Moon has also pledged to “democratise” the economy, by which he means reduce the dominance of the chaebol. Despite much such talk from past governments, however, the assets of the five biggest have grown from the equivalent of 41% of GDP in 2001 to 60% last year, according to Park Sangin of Seoul National University. In other words, they are growing much faster than the economy as a whole.

Yet Kim Sang-jo, whom Mr Moon appointed to head the trust-busting Fair Trade Commission, has softened his rhetoric. He appears to be relying more on co-operation from the chaebol than on regulation or lawsuits to unravel their complex and opaque ownership structures. In September Mr Moon took chaebol bosses, including several who have served time for corruption, on a chummy trip to North Korea to advertise the potential for investment, should the North abandon its nuclear weapons. “All our governments have ended up making policy for the chaebol in the end,” says Mr Jun of Hongik University. “It looks like Moon will be no different.”

A third strand of Mr Moon’s reforms, to chip away at a culture of absurdly long working hours and encourage more spending on fun, is also yielding mixed results. A new presidential directive limits the maximum number of hours a week that people are allowed to work at 52, down from 68. This month a study by KT, a telecoms firm, suggested that leisure spending went up in residential areas after the directive came into force.

The amount of time people spent in or near their workplace, in contrast, fell by 55 minutes a day. This suggests that the policy is working as intended, with one important caveat. KT only detected this shift in central Seoul, where most ministries and big companies are based. In areas dominated by startups and smaller firms, there was little or no decrease in working hours. And a downside of the directive was also discernible: bars and restaurants in central Seoul reported a loss in business. Reshaping the South Korean economy for the little guy turns out to be a big challenge.