폐기물처리방법별 환경효율성(Eco-efficiency) 평가 연구

이소라 ( Sora Yi Et Al. ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2018 기본연구보고서 Vol.2018 No.-

In conjunction with the "Basic Law on Resource Circulation" in 2018, Korea established the Basic Plan for National Resource Recirculation (2018-2027), which contains the nation’s mid-to-long term policy directions and detailed strategies to transform into a resource circulating society. The new directive places greater importance in changing Korea’s recycling system from simple recycling to high value-adding material recycling, with the national goal to realize a final disposal rate of 3% by 2027 and zero waste-to-landfill. In this context, this study conducts the much-needed review on the environmental efficiency of Korea’s waste treatment facilities by analyzing their economic and environmental performances. Based on this review, the overall environmental efficiency of each waste treatment method is assessed to propose policies for the effective utilization of the facilities.The wastes were analyzed in terms of combustible waste (disposed in volume-rate waste bags) and organic waste (food waste). Under Korea’s regulations, among municipal/household wastes, food waste is not sent directly to landfills. Instead, a separate volume-rate system is in place for food waste so that most of the food waste is recycled, with only 1.0% and 2.2% sent to landfills or incinerated, respectively. Thus, the different treatment methods for combustible waste and food waste were examined to find the most efficient treatment methods for the respective wastes. Economic performance was evaluated using the treatment facility’s revenue per treating one ton of waste minus the operational costs as the indicator, and environmental performance was determined by conducting a life-cycle assessment (LCA) for calculating the weighted environmental impact per one ton of waste. In assessing the environmental performance, the avoidance effects from utilizing recovered incineration heat and selling the biogas produced from organic waste were excluded to prevent an overlap with the economic performance.The facilities subject to the environmental efficiency evaluation were chosen based on their location, size, treatment method, etc. for each waste disposal method. In particular, to ensure a good mix of the facilities that received high scores and those that did not in the “2016 Evaluation of the Installation and Operation of Waste Treatment Facilities (hereafter 2016 Evaluation),” the facilities were divided into five groups (for waste disposed in volume-rate waste bags: incineration facilities, combustible waste-to-fuel facilities, landfills; for food waste: organic waste biogasification facilities, food waste recycling facilities). 79 facilities were initially chosen, from which 42 facilities were finally selected and analyzed for their environmental and economic performances based on the data submitted by the facilities and the reliability of the evaluation results.The chosen facilities were divided according to their sizes, into small facilities that treat less than 100 tons per day, medium facilities that treat more than 100 tons but less than 300 tons per day, and large facilities that treat more than 300 tons per day. Different facility types were incorporated into the analysis, such as facilities for reducing food waste, converting food waste into animal feed and compost were included under food waste recycling facilities; and landfills for incombustible waste and general waste under landfills. The environmental and economic performance analyses were conducted using the following data from each treatment facility: the amounts of waste sent to the facility, energy use, incineration heat recovery, captured landfill gas, biogas production, and compost and feed production, as well as operational costs and operational revenue, etc.The environmental performance analysis by waste treatment method showed that the weighted environmental impact of landfills was the smallest at 4.42E-02 points, followed by organic waste biogasification facilities (8.87E-02 points), food waste recycling facilities (2.25E-01 points), incineration facilities (3.50E-01 points), and combustible waste-to-fuel facilities (1.39 points). On the other hand, the economic performance analysis based on each facility’s revenue minus operational costs revealed that the economic performance of landfills performed best at 731 won/ton, followed by organic waste biogasification facilities (-33,419 won/ton), food waste recycling facilities (-40,172 won/ton), incineration facilities (-58,646 won/ton), and combustible waste-to-fuel facilities (-60,149 won/ton).The environmental efficiency evaluation based on the environmental and economic performance analyses showed that landfills were most environmentally efficient at 10,837 thousand won/point, followed by the organic waste biogasification facilities (4,760 thousand won/point), food waste recycling facilities (1,540 thousand won/point), incineration facilities (760 thousand won/point), and combustible waste-to-fuel facilities (-184 thousand won/point).More specifically, in terms of the environmental efficiency by facility size, medium-sized facilities were found to have the highest environment efficiency at 2,108 thousand won/point, followed by small facilities (834 thousand won/point), and large facilities (280 thousand won/point). However, in the case of combustible waste-to-fuel facilities, the environmental efficiency of large facilities was the best at 5,306 thousand won/point, followed by small facilities (-212 thousand won/point) and medium facilities (-236 thousand won/point). Also, in the case of organic waste biogasification facilities, large facilities were most environmentally efficient at 10,617 thousand won/point, followed by medium facilities (6,236 thousand won/point) and small facilities (2,859 thousand won/point). The environmental efficiency of food waste recycling facilities turned out to be best for medium-sized facilities at 1,959 thousand won/point, followed by small facilities (1,308 thousand won/point). In the case of food waste recycling facilities, large facilities were not included in the evaluation. The environmental efficiency of landfills for incombustible waste was higher at 18,957 thousand won/point than that of landfills for general waste, which came out to be 9,458 thousand won/point.Based on the results of the environmental efficiency evaluation and a waste disposal scenario based on future projection, the environmental efficiency mix for 2027 was estimated and compared with the current environmental efficiency mix. In the case of waste disposed in volume-rate waste bags, the landfill disposal rate was 31.1%, incineration rate was 53.2%, and combustible waste-to-fuel conversion was 15.6% in 2016, but in 2027, which is the target year of the first Basic Plan for Resource Circulation, it was projected that the rates would change to 2.5%, 33.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. In the case of food waste, 10% was converted to biogas and 90% was recycled into compost or feed in 2016, but in 2027, the rates were projected to be 69.7% and 30.3% in 2027, respectively. Overall, the environmental efficiency mix for all treatment facilities was calculated to be 5,173 thousand won/point in 2016 and 4,118 thousand won/point in 2027. When it was assumed that all landfills were landfills for general waste in 2016 and will become landfills for incombustible waste in 2027, the environmental efficiency mix came out to be 4,744 thousand won/point in 2016 and 4,321 thousand won/point in 2027.The results of the environmental efficiency evaluation were compared with those of the 2016 Evaluation. The comparison revealed that incineration facilities that scored high environmental efficiencies had also received good scores in the 2016 Evaluation, although with some differences that seem to be due to the inclusion of the incineration heat recovery rate in the 2016 Evaluation. Incineration heat recovery rate was excluded from the environmental performance analysis of the present environmental efficiency evaluation, and the life-cycle assessment of the fuel used at incineration facilities was also reflected only in the environmental efficiency evaluation. In the case of combustible waste-to-fuel facilities also, the results of 2016 Evaluation and the environmental efficiency evaluation mostly agreed with each other, with slight differences due to the insignificant effect of SRF production rate on economic performance. In the case of organic waste to biogas facilities, the 2016 Evaluation and environmental efficiency evaluation did not match, which can be attributed to the exclusion of indicators such as odor management, the rate of operation, and facility management, all of which are included in the 2016 Evaluation but not in the environmental efficiency evaluation. For landfills, the 2016 Evaluation and the environmental efficiency evaluation showed similar tendencies, and any differences seemed to have been caused by the discrepancies between the technical evaluation index of the 2016 Evaluation, which includes compaction efficiency and leachate reduction rate, etc., and the index used for the environmental efficiency evaluation.The results of this study were used to develop strategies on how the environmental efficiency evaluation can be utilized through policy implementation. The factors that significantly affected the environmental efficiency evaluation for each waste treatment method were analyzed and listed in Table 4 below, which can be used as an index to improve the environmental and economic performances of the treatment facilities.It may not be appropriate to perform simple comparisons between the environmental efficiencies of individual facilities since their revenues and operational costs, which are used as economic indicators, can vary greatly depending on the location, condition, and operation standards of individual facilities. Therefore, the environmental efficiencies of waste treatment facilities need to be compared among the same facilities or analyzed specifically for individual facilities when identifying and suggesting areas for improvement. As such, three comparison coefficients were proposed for understanding how the environmental efficiency of each waste treatment facility can be improved in comparison to others, namely, the improvement comparison coefficient, benchmark comparison coefficient, and capacity design comparison coefficient.The improvement comparison coefficient can be used to compare the before and after of a specific facility when efforts are made to reduce its economic costs or environmental impacts. The benchmark comparison coefficient can be used as a guideline for identifying whether a particular facility has low environmental efficiency among comparable facilities or needs improvement when compared to the best performing facility of its type, or to understand how effective the efforts toward improvement will be and how much the facility can be improved in terms of its conditions. The capacity design comparison coefficient, on the other hand, provides a guideline for environmental efficiency depending on the size of the facility, thus preventing excessive operational costs projections or potentially adverse environmental impacts when constructing new waste treatment facilities.The improvement comparison coefficient and benchmark comparison coefficient were used to study how an improvement in waste-to-resource capacities at facilities can improve their environmental efficiencies. Specifically, case studies (types A, B, C, D) were performed by assuming an improvement in the waste-to-resources capacities of existing incineration and biogasification facilities with low environmental efficiencies and comparing them against other facilities with different levels of economic and environmental performances. Type A compared between facilities with similar operational costs and environmental performance when the energy recovery (economic value) is improved in the target facility. Type B looked into how the improvement in the target facility’s energy recovery (economic value) would compare to a facility with higher environmental performance, and Type C, to a facility with higher operational costs and similar environmental performance. Lastly, Type D compared the target facility against a facility with higher operating costs and higher environmental performance.In the case of incineration facilities, Hanam incineration facility was chosen for Type A and B case studies to investigate how an improvement in the facility’s thermal energy recovery (economic value) level would make it comparable to Asan and Gumi incineration facility, respectively. For Type C and D, Sejong incineration facility was selected and compared against Asan and Gumi incineration facilities, respectively. In the case of biogasification facilities, only Types B and D were studied due to the limited availability in facility types. For Type B, Gimhae biogasification facility, assuming an improvement in its waste-to-resource production, was compared to Namyangju biogasification facility, and for Type D, Asan biogasification facility was compared to Namyangju biogasification facility.When a 50% improvement was projected for the incineration heat recovery rate of Hanam incineration facility the improvement comparison coefficient came out to be 1.04, and the benchmark comparison coefficient to be 0.56 for Type A and 0.147 for Type B. A 50% improvement in the incinerator heat recovery rate of Sejong incineration facility rendered the improvement comparison coefficient to become 1.03, and the benchmark comparison to become 0.98 for Type C and 0.26 for Type D. Meanwhile, a 35% enhancement in the biogas production of Namyangju biogasification facility resulted in an improvement comparison coefficient of 1.02, and the benchmark comparison coefficients of 0.22 for Type B and 0.40 for Type D.The capacity design comparison coefficient was calculated by computing the mean environmental efficiency by facility size, then comparing it with other facilities of the size that showed the highest environmental efficiency. The capacity design comparison coefficient of small incineration facilities was 0.40, which is better than that of large incineration facilities; and in the case of biogasification facilities, medium-sized facilities had a coefficient of 0.59, which is superior to small biogasification facilities.We propose four ways to translate the present environmental efficiency evaluation into policy implementation: 1) using the evaluation to assess the installation and operation of waste treatment facilities and potential improvements in old facilities, 2) utilizing the evaluation methods in strategic environmental impact assessments and preliminary performance studies, 3) using the evaluation to calculate the social costs of resident subsidy projects and waste disposal charges, and 4) using the evaluation as a guideline for implementing optimization strategies and government-subsidized projects.First, the environmental efficiency evaluation can be applied to the annual evaluation on the installation and operation of waste treatment facilities for assessing the actual conditions of waste treatment operations and improving their energy utilization and recovery and operational efficiency. The current annual evaluation includes the level of efforts made toward improvements such as the efforts to enhance the facility’s economic performance and the efforts of local governments to reduce the amount of waste. However, the annual evaluation has yet to incorporate the level of initiatives for improving environmental efficiency. Thus, it will be helpful to apply the environmental efficiency comparison coefficient presented in Chapter 6.2 to assess the level of efforts to improve the facilities’ operations. Also, based on the survey of treatment facilities nearing the end of their lifecycles, the environmental efficiency comparison coefficient can be used to identify whether the facilities should be improved or closed and to decide whether new facilities should be constructed.Korea’s Act on the Promotion of Waste Treatment Facility Installation and Support to the Surrounding Areas requires strategic environmental impact assessments to be conducted and reviewed in terms of policy plans and basic development plans before making the decisions on the installation cost and site selection when installing and operating waste treatment facilities. Currently, the items reviewed under the strategic environmental impact assessment do not include an environmental performance analysis by facility size, treatment method, or the properties of the waste that is being treated, nor an economic performance analysis on the profitability of the facilities. Therefore, applying the environmental efficiency evaluation conducted in this study will allow a better assessment of the treatment facilities’ suitability in terms of type, size, and location. Also, since the environmental costs included in the preliminary performance studies on environmental facilities are often estimated based on related literature or expert surveys, which can be open to controversy, the methods presented in this study for measuring environmental efficiency using actual data from treatment facilities can be a helpful index for calculating their economic and environmental effects.The environmental efficiency evaluation can also be used to estimate the social costs of resident subsidy projects and waste disposal charges. According to our analysis, the environmental and economic performances of landfills were better than other types of facilities, possibly because the social costs related to operating landfills are much lower. A pilot project for evaluating the environmental efficiency of landfills will help to identify the social costs for preventing environmental pollution and other negative environmental impacts, especially in terms of the land acquisition costs for landfills, which are difficult to measure, by considering both the direct costs and indirect effects (drop in land prices, etc.) in the measurement of economic performance. The comparison of the social costs of landfills to that of incineration facilities showed that the economic value of general landfills was estimated at -368,703 won/ton. Since the average cost of landfill disposal is 14,956 won/ton, our results suggest that the landfill disposal charges be increased by 340,000 won/ton.Government-subsidized waste treatment facility projects aim to promote systematic government support and investment in waste treatment facilities by providing clear subsidy criteria and priorities for regional waste treatment facility installation. At present, the unit cost guidelines for installing government-subsidized treatment facilities is set according to facility type and size, where the lower the facility capacity, the higher the set unit cost subsidized by the government based on the unit cost ratio. This study revealed that the environmental efficiency of small facilities is lower than that of larger facilities, and since small facilities receive more government subsidies due to the unit cost ratio, our findings suggest that it is necessary to revise the guidelines to provide more efficient government support based on optimal facility sizes. A revision of government subsidy guidelines will also provide a useful basis for promoting investment in regional and direct-disposal waste treatment facilities in line with the national policy direction. Furthermore, it may be possible to consider incorporating he environmental efficiency evaluation in reviewing the applications for facility operation budgets and government subsidies based on the Guidelines on the Budget Support and Integrated Administrative Process for Waste Treatment Facilities (Jan 2018), Waste Treatment Facility Optimization Strategy (2011), and the Environmental Technology and Environmental Business Support Act.We anticipate the effects of utilizing the environmental efficiency evaluation as follows. First, by providing a basis for national policies for each waste treatment method through an integrated evaluation of the environmental and economic performances of waste recirculation, the environmental efficiency evaluation will contribute to the implementation of the strategies formulated under goals of the first Basic Plan for Resource Circulation (2018-2027). Secondly, it will become possible to expand the paradigm for assessing the environmental impact of waste treatment facilities from merely looking at their potentials for environmental pollution to a more robust evaluation of environmental and economic performances. Third, by establishing a model for evaluating waste treatment facilities and introducing a minimum standard for environmental-friendliness, the environmental efficiency evaluation will help improve the public image of waste treatment facilities. Fourth, the environmental efficiency evaluation will make it possible to develop strategies for managing environmental impact and pollution levels efficiently, thereby preventing environmental pollution and inducing the development of advanced technologies that consider economic efficiency through eco-innovation.The environmental efficiency evaluation in this study presents a meaningful methodology for improving and optimizing treatment facilities by providing a more accurate comparison of different treatment facilities and methods. In particular, the methods used in the environmental efficiency evaluation identify the most significant factor influencing environmental efficiency among treatment cost, revenue, and environmental impact, thus allowing for the development of better strategies for improving and optimizing individual facilities. The introduction of the environmental efficiency evaluation to government-subsidized projects, environmental impact assessments, etc., may lead to pilot projects for increasing the reliability of the data on each facility as well as expanding the utilization of the evaluation itself.When installing a preventive facility, such as a malodor prevention facility, at a waste treatment facility to control pollutants that may have negative aesthetic and health-related environmental impacts, the improvements made in this area are not included as an indicator in the environmental efficiency evaluation. As such, the facility, despite its advances, may receive a lower environmental efficiency score due to the increase in the facility’s operational costs from installing new equipment. Thus, further research and pilot projects will be necessary to improve the measurement items and methodology used in the present environmental efficiency evaluation to reflect the specific characteristics of the facilities. In addition, in the process of converting negative (-) indices to positive values, the numerical shifts and the avoidance effects were excluded from the economic performance index and the environmental performance analysis, respectively. To strengthen the robustness of the environmental efficiency evaluation conducted in this study, we suggest more case studies to be undertaken, especially on waste treatment facilities that have negative economic values and environmental impacts, and to discuss them at the global level. 2018년 「자원순환기본법」을 시행하면서 우리나라에서는 자원순환사회로 전환하기 위해 국가 중장기 정책방향과 세부전략을 담은 국가 『자원순환기본계획(2018-2027)』을 수립하였다. 그동안 주로 행해 왔던 단순 재활용에서 고부가가치를 생산하는 물질 재활용으로 변화할 필요성이 대두되는 가운데, 우리나라에서는 『자원순환기본계획(2018-2027)』을 통해 2027년 최종처분율 3%와 더 나아가 직매립의 제로화 달성을 목표로 삼고 있다. 이에 폐기물처리시설의 환경효율적인 측면을 검토할 필요성이 발생함에 따라, 본 연구에서는 폐기물처리시설의 경제성 및 환경성을 분석하여 이를 통합한 폐기물처리방법별 환경효율성을 평가하고 이를 바탕으로 정책적 활용방안을 제시하였다. 생활폐기물 공공 처리시설을 대상으로 분석하였으며, 이를 위해 폐기물의 유형을 크게 가연성폐기물(종량제봉투 폐기물)과 유기성폐기물(음식물류폐기물)로 나누어 검토하였다. 국내 제도상 생활폐기물 중 음식물류폐기물은 직매립이 금지되고 별도 종량제로 운영되어 처리물량 대부분이 재활용되고 있으며, 매립되거나 소각되는 물량은 각각 1.0%, 2.2% 수준이다. 이에 가연성폐기물의 처리방법간 비교와 음식물류폐기물의 처리방법 간 비교를 통해 효율적인 처리방안을 검토하였다.환경효율성 평가에서는 시설의 수익에서 운영비를 제외한 톤당 비용을 경제성 지표로 설정하였으며, 환경성 지표의 경우 시설에 대해 전과정평가(LCA)를 수행하여 톤당 발생하는 가중화 환경영향으로 설정하였다. 환경효율성을 평가할 때 소각여열 이용, 바이오가스판매 등에 의해서 발생하는 회피효과가 경제성 평가에서 중복 반영되는 것을 막기 위해 환경성에서는 이를 제외하였다.평가대상인 시설은 폐기물처리방법별로 지역, 규모, 처리유형 등을 고려하여 선정하였다. 특히 「2016년 폐기물처리시설 설치·운영실태평가」에서 우수시설로 평가된 시설과 그렇지 않은 시설이 포함되도록 처리방법별로 5개 그룹(종량제봉투 폐기물: 소각시설, 가연성폐기물 연료화시설, 매립시설; 음식물류폐기물: 유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설, 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설)의 79개 시설을 대상으로 선정하고, 각 시설에서 제출한 데이터와 평가결과의 신뢰도를 고려하여 42개 시설의 환경성 및 경제성을 분석하였다. 시설 규모는 100톤/일 미만의 소형시설, 100톤/일 이상~300톤/일 미만의 중형시설, 300톤/일 이상의 대형시설로 구분하였다. 특히 세부시설 유형은 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설의 경우 자원화 방식별로 감량화, 사료화, 퇴비화 시설로 구분하여 선정하였으며, 매립시설의 경우 불연물 매립시설과 일반 매립시설로 구분하여 선정하였다. 환경성·경제성 분석을 위해서는 시설별로 폐기물반입량, 에너지 사용량, 소각여열 이용량, 매립가스 포집량, 바이오가스 생산량, 퇴비 및 사료 생산량과 운영비용, 시설수익 등의 자료를 이용하였다.폐기물처리방법별 환경성 분석결과, 매립시설의 가중화 환경영향이 4.42E-02포인트로 가장 작게 나타났으며, 뒤를 이어 유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설(8.87E-02포인트), 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(2.25E-01포인트), 소각시설(3.50E-01포인트), 가연성폐기물 연료화시설(1.39포인트) 순으로 나타났다. 경제성 분석에서는 시설 수익에서 운영비용을 제외한 비용을 기준으로 하였을 때 매립시설의 경제성이 731원/톤으로 가장 높게 나타났으며, 뒤를 이어 유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설(-33,419원/톤), 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(-40,172원/톤), 소각시설(-58,646원/톤), 가연성폐기물 연료화시설(-60,149원/톤) 순으로 나타났다.환경성·경제성 분석결과를 바탕으로 환경효율성을 평가한 결과, 매립시설의 환경효율성이 10,837천 원/포인트로 가장 좋게 나타났으며, 뒤를 이어 유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설(4,760천 원/포인트), 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(1,540천 원/포인트), 소각시설(760천원/포인트), 가연성폐기물 연료화시설(-184천 원/포인트) 순으로 나타났다.시설 규모에 따른 환경효율성을 평가한 결과, 소각시설의 경우 중형시설의 환경효율성이 2,108천 원/포인트로 가장 좋게 나타났으며 뒤를 이어 소형시설(834천 원/포인트), 대형시설(280천 원/포인트) 순으로 나타났다. 가연성폐기물 연료화시설의 경우 대형시설의 환경효율성이 5,306천 원/포인트로 가장 좋게 나타났으며 뒤를 이어 소형시설(-212천 원/포인트), 중형시설(-236천 원/포인트) 순으로 나타났다. 유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설의 경우 대형시설의 환경효율성이 10,617천 원/포인트로 가장 좋게 나타났으며 뒤를 이어 중형시설(6,236천 원/포인트), 소형시설(2,859천 원/포인트) 순으로 나타났다. 음식물류폐기물자원화시설의 경우 중형시설의 환경효율성이 1,959천 원/포인트로 가장 좋게 나타났으며 소형시설(1,308천 원/포인트)이 뒤를 이었고, 대형시설은 평가대상에 포함되지 않았다. 매립시설의 경우 반입 폐기물의 성상에 따라 불연물 매립과 일반 매립으로 구분하여 환경효율성을 평가하였으며, 불연물 매립의 환경효율성이 18,957천 원/포인트로 일반 매립의 환경효율성 9,458천 원/포인트보다 높게 나타났다.환경효율성 평가결과를 바탕으로, 폐기물 처리 시나리오에 따른 2027년의 환경효율성믹스를 산정하여 현재의 환경효율성 믹스와 비교 분석하였다. 종량제봉투 폐기물의 경우2016년 에는 매립 31.1%, 소각 53.2%, 가연성연료화 15.6% 비율로 처리1)되던 것이 『제1차 자원순환기본계획』 목표연도인 2027년에는 매립 2.5%, 소각 33.5%, 가연성연료화23.5% 비율로 처리2)될 것으로 전망되었다. 음식물류폐기물의 경우 2016년에는 바이오가스화 10%, 음식물류폐기물자원화(사료화, 퇴비화 등) 90%였던 처리 비율이 2027년에는 바이오가스화 69.7%, 음식물자원화 30.3%가 될 것으로 전망되었다.산정결과, 매립시설 전체를 기준으로 하였을 때 환경효율성 믹스는 2016년 5,173천 원/포인트, 2027년 4,118천 원/포인트로 나타났다. 매립시설을 2016년에는 일반 매립, 2027년에는 불연물 매립으로 구분하여 가정하였을 때 환경효율성 믹스는 2016년 4,744천 원/포인트, 2027년 4,321천 원/포인트로 나타났다.또한 본 연구에서는 환경효율성 평가결과와 폐기물처리시설의 설치·운영 실태평가결과를 비교하였다. 그 결과, 소각시설의 경우 환경효율성 평가가 좋은 시설이 실태평가에서도 좋은 결과를 나타냈으나 약간의 차이를 보였다. 이는 실태평가에서는 소각열 회수율이 반영되었으나 환경효율성 평가의 환경성 분석에서는 제외되었고, 시설의 연료 사용에 대한 전과 정평가가 환경효율성에만 반영되었기 때문으로 보인다. 가연성폐기물 연료화시설에서도 실태평가결과와 환경효율성 평가결과가 대부분 일치하는 경향을 보였으며, 차이가 발생하는 이유는 SRF 생산율이 환경효율성 평가의 경제성에 크게 영향을 미치지 않기 때문인 것으로 판단된다.유기성폐기물 바이오가스화시설의 경우, 실태평가와 환경효율성 평가결과가 다소 일치하지 않는 경향을 보인다. 이는 실태평가에 반영된 악취관리, 가동률 및 시설관리 등의 지표가 환경효율성 평가에는 반영되지 않기 때문으로 판단된다.매립시설의 경우, 실태평가의 환경성 및 경제성 결과와 환경효율성 평가결과가 비슷한 경향을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 차이가 발생하는 이유는 실태평가의 기술성 평가지표가 환경효율성 평가 지표와는 달리 다짐효율, 침출수 감량률 등을 반영하기 때문으로 보인다.본 연구에서는 연구결과를 기반으로 환경효율성 평가를 정책적으로 활용하는 방안을 마련하였다.폐기물처리방법별로 환경효율성 평가에 큰 영향을 미치는 요소를 분석하여 <표 4>에 나타냈으며, 이를 시설의 환경적·경제적 효율 개선을 위한 지표로 사용할 수 있다.또한 폐기물처리시설의 입지조건 또는 운영기준에 따라 경제적 지표에 활용되는 수익과 운영비용에서 큰 차이가 발생하기 때문에 폐기물처리시설 간 환경효율성을 단순 비교분석하는 것은 바람직하지 않을 수 있다. 따라서 환경효율성 평가는 동일 시설 간 비교나 특정시설의 개선효과를 파악 및 권고하는 데 활용하는 것이 바람직하다. 이에 본 연구에서는 폐기물처리시설별 환경효율성 향상을 위해 개선향상 비교계수, 벤치마크 비교계수, 용량설계기준 비교계수의 3가지 비교계수를 제시하였다.개선향상 비교계수는 특정 폐기물처리시설에 대하여 해당 시설의 경제적 비용 절감 효과또는 환경영향 효과 절감 노력 등의 시설개선 전후를 비교하는 데 활용할 수 있다. 벤치마킹비교계수는 비교 대상인 여러 시설 중 특정 시설의 환경효율성 결과가 나쁠 경우, 또는 최우수 시설과 비교를 통해 특정 시설의 개선이 필요할 경우에 개선을 통해 어느 정도의 효과를 거둘 수 있는지 비교하고, 해당 시설의 환경을 어느 수준까지 개선할 수 있는지 판단하는 기준이 될 수 있다. 용량 설계기준 비교계수의 경우, 신규 폐기물처리시설 건설 시 시설용량별 환경효율성의 가이드라인을 제시하여 시설의 과도한 운영비용 산정 이나 환경영향 발생의 예방 등에 활용할 수 있을 것이다.환경효율성이 높은 시설과 비교하여 환경효율성이 낮은 시설이 폐기물 자원화 생산품판매량의 향상을 통해서 환경효율성을 개선한다고 가정할 때, 개선향상 비교계수와 벤치마크 비교계수를 사례 연구로 산정하였다.소각시설의 비교분석은 4가지 유형(A, B, C, D)으로 나누고, 각 유형에 맞는 시설을 선정하여 수행하였다. A유형은 시설운영비 및 환경성 평가결과가 비슷한 시설과 비교하여 에너지 회수를 개선(경제적 가치)하는 사례(아산 소각시설 대비 하남 소각시설의 수준으로 열에너지 회수 수준 개선)이며, B유형은 시설운영비는 유사하고 환경성 평가결과는 우수한 시설과 비교하여 에너지 회수를 개선(경제적 가치)하는 사례(구미 소각시설 대비 하남 소각시설의 수준으로 열에너지 회수 수준 개선)이다. C유형은 시설운영비가 높은 시설에 대해 환경성 평가결과가 비슷한 시설과 비교하여 에너지 회수를 개선(경제적 가치)하는 사례(아산소각시설 대비 세종 소각시설의 수준으로 열에너지 회수 수준 개선)이다. D유형은 시설운영비가 높은 시설에 대해 환경성 평가결과가 우수한 시설과 비교하여 에너지 회수를 개선(경제적 가치)하는 사례(구미 소각시설 대비 세종 소각시설의 수준으로 열에너지 회수 수준개선)이다.바이오가스화시설은 시설 유형 선정에 한계가 있어 B와 D 유형 2가지에 맞는 시설만 선정하였다. B유형은 시설운영비는 유사하고 환경성 평가결과는 우수한 시설과 비교하여 폐기물 자원화 생산을 개선하는 사례(남양주 시설 대비 김해 시설의 수준으로 바이오가스생산 수준 개선)이며, D유형은 시설운영비가 높은 시설에 대해 폐기물 자원화 생산을 개선하는 사례(남양주 시설 대비 아산 시설의 수준으로 운영비 수준 개선)이다.하남 소각시설의 소각열 회수량을 50% 개선했을 때 개선향상 비교계수는 1.04이며, A유형의 경우 벤치마크 비교계수는 0.56, B유형의 경우에는 0.147로 나타났다. 세종 소각시설의 소각열 회수량을 50% 개선했을 때 개선향상 비교계수는 1.03이며, C유형의 벤치마크계수는 0.98, D유형의 경우에는 0.26으로 나타났다. 남양주 바이오가스화시설의 바이오가스생산량을 35% 개선했을 때 개선향상 비교계수는 1.02이며, B유형의 경우 벤치마크 비교계수는 0.22, D유형의 경우에는 0.40으로 나타났다.용량 설계기준 비교계수를 산정하기 위해서 처리시설별 규모에 따른 환경효율성 평균을 계산하여 환경효율성이 가장 좋은 시설규모를 기준으로 다른 시설과 비교하였다. 평가결과 소형 소각시설의 용량 설계기준 비교계수는 0.40으로 대형 소각시설에 비해 좋은 것으로 나타났으며, 바이오가스화시설의 경우 중형시설의 용량 설계기준 비교계수가 0.59로 소형바이오가스화시설에 비해 우수한 것으로 분석되었다.환경효율성 평가의 정책적 활용방안으로는 1) 폐기물처리시설 설치·운영실태평가 및 노후시설 개선 시 환경효율성 평가 활용방안, 2) 전략환경영향평가 및 예비타당성 조사, 3) 주민지원사업과 처분부담금의 사회적 비용 산정 시 환경효율성 평가 활용방안, 4) 최적화 전략추진 및 국고보조사업 추진 시 환경효율성 평가 활용방안을 제시하였다.환경효율성 평가를 폐기물처리시설 설치·운영 실태평가에 적용하여 매년 운영 실태를 평가하고 에너지 활용 및 회수, 효율적 운영방안을 제안할 수 있다. 현재 실태평가에서는 폐기물처리시설의 경제성 개선 노력도와 지자체의 폐기물 감량률 등 개선 노력도를 평가하고 있으나, 환경성과 경제성을 모두 고려한 개선 노력도는 평가하지 않는다. 따라서 폐기물처리시설의 운영 개선 노력을 평가하기 위해 제6장 제2절에서 제시한 환경효율성 비교계수를 적용할 필요가 있다. 또한 처리시설의 노후도 조사결과에 따라 환경효율성 비교계수를 적용하여 노후시설의 개선 및 폐쇄 여부, 신규시설 설치 여부 등을 고려할 수 있을 것이다.「폐기물처리시설 설치촉진 및 주변지역지원 등에 관한 법률」에 따라 폐기물처리시설을 설치·운영할 시 설치비용과 입지선정계획 등을 결정해야 하며, 이를 위해 환경부에서는 전략환경영향평가를 시행하는 동시에 정책계획과 개발기본계획으로 나누어 검토하고 있다. 현재 전략환경영향평가의 조사항목에는 폐기물처리시설의 처리규모 및 처리방법, 반입 폐기물의 성상과 관련한 환경성 평가와 처리비용 및 수익에 관한 경제성 평가가 수반되고 있지 않다. 따라서 본 연구의 환경효율성 평가를 조사항목에 포함하여 처리시설의 종류와 규모, 입지선정 시의 적합성을 고려할 필요가 있다. 또한 환경시설에 대한 예비타당성 조사시 환경비용은 관련 문헌이나 전문가 조사에 따른 추정비용으로 산출되는 경우가 많아서 논란의 소지가 될 가능성이 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서 제시한 환경효율성 평가방법은 실제 시설에서 측정한 자료를 바탕으로 경제적·환경적 효과를 제시하므로 좋은 활용 지표가 될 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.또한 주민지원사업과 처분부담금의 사회적 비용 산정 시에도 환경효율성 평가를 활용할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 본 연구결과 매립시설의 환경성 평가결과와 경제성 평가결과가 다른 종류의 시설보다 우수하게 나타났는데, 이는 사회적으로 매립시설에 대한 운영부담을 그만큼 적게 주었기 때문으로 사료된다. 그러므로 매립시설의 환경효율성 평가 시범사업을 실시하여 환경오염 배출 방지를 위한 사회적 비용과 환경영향을 추가로 규명해야 하며, 특히 매립시설을 위한 토지확보 비용의 경우 측정하기 어렵기 때문에 경제성 평가 시 직접 비용과 간접 영향(지가하락 등)을 고려한 비용을 모두 반영해야 한다. 본 연구결과에서 소각시설과 비교하여 매립시설의 사회적 비용을 예측한 결과, 일반 매립시설의 경제적 가치는-368,703원/톤으로 나타났다. 현재 평가대상 매립시설의 평균 처리비용은 14,956원/톤이므로 톤당 약 34만 원 정도를 추가로 반영하여 매립처분부담금을 높일 필요성이 있다고 판단된다.폐기물처리시설 국고보조사업의 목적은 지역별 폐기물처리시설 설치사업에 대한 지원기준, 우선순위 등을 명확히 하여 체계적인 국고지원 및 시설투자를 유도하는 것 이다다. 현재국고보조를 위한 시설 설치비 표준단가는 시설별·용량별 기준으로 제시되는데, 시설 용량이 적을수록 사업비 표준단가가 높게 책정되며 이 표준단가에 따라 비율대로 국고지원이 이루어진다. 본 연구에 따르면 소형시설의 경우 다른 규모의 시설보다 환경효율성이 낮게 나타났으며, 국고보조사업의 지원 비율에 따라 더 높은 국고보조를 받는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 최적 시설용량에 따라 국비지원을 차등 적용하는 것에 대한 개정이 필요하며, 이는 국가정책방향에 부합하는 폐기물처리시설의 광역화·직접화 처리시설에 대한 투자추진 근거가 될 수 있다. 또한 「폐기물처리시설 국고보조금 예산지원 및 통합업무처리지침(2018.1)」, 「폐기물처리시설 최적화 전략(2011)」, 「환경기술 및 환경산업 지원법」 등에 의해 시설의 예산을 신청하거나 국비를 지원하는 경우에도 환경효율성 평가 활용을 검토할 수 있다.마지막으로 환경효율성 평가 활용에 따라 기대 효과는 다음과 같다. 첫 번째, 폐기물의 자원화에 대한 환경·경제적 통합평가를 통해 처리방법별 정책적 추진방향의 근거를 제시하여 『제1차 자원순환기본계획(2018-2027)』 목표에 따른 자원순환 전략 수행에 기여할 수 있다. 두 번째, 단순 오염부하를 기준으로 평가하는 환경성 평가 개념에서 환경·경제적 효율성 평가로 연결되는 패러다임을 확산할 수 있다. 세 번째, 폐기물처리시설에 대한 평가 모델을 구축하여 친환경적인 평가 개념 도입함으로써 폐기물 처리에 대한 국민의 이미지를 제고 할 수 있다. 네 번째, 환경영향 및 부하관리를 효율화하는 방안을 마련하여 환경오염을 사전에 예방하고 경제효율화를 감안한 기술개발을 유도하여 에코이노베이션과 연계할 수 있다.또한 본 연구의 환경효율성 평가결과는 폐기물처리시설 간, 처리방법 간의 단순 비교보다는 시설 개선 및 효율화를 위한 방법론으로서의 활용도에 더 의미를 부여할 수 있을 것이며, 특히 환경효율성 산정 방법론의 주요 요소인 시설의 처리비용, 수익, 환경부하 중에서 환경효율성에 가장 큰 영향을 주는 요인을 분석하여 시설별 개선 및 효율화에 활용할 수 있을 것이다. 환경효율성 평가가 국고보조사업, 환경영향평가 등에 도입된다면 시범사업 실시를 통해 시설별 데이터의 신뢰도가 높아지는 것은 물론이고 환경효율성의 활용도 또한 높아질 것이다.폐기물처리시설에서는 심미적 또는 건강과 관련하여 환경영향을 미치는 악취와 같은 오염물질이 발생하는 경우가 있다. 이에 악취방지시설과 같은 방지시설을 도입하면 악취 개선효과 등은 본 연구의 평가항목이 아니므로 반영되지 않는 반면에, 시설의 운영비가 증가하여 환경효율성이 떨어지는 경우가 발생할 수 있다. 따라서 추가 연구와 시범사업을 실시하여 시설의 특성을 반영한 평가항목 및 방법론을 적용하는 방향으로 개선을 모색할 필요가 있다. 그리고 본 연구에서는 환경효율성 산정에 있어 음수(-)인 지수를 양수(+)화하는 과정에서 경제성 지표의 수치이동, 환경성 평가에서 회피효과는 제외하였으므로 폐기물처리시설 특성상 경제적 가치와 환경부하가 음수로 발생하는 사례의 연구를 추가로 수행하고 국제적으로 논의 할 필요가 있다.

김정일 시대 경제성장 전략의 평가와 함의

조동호 국가안보전략연구원 2021 국가안보와 전략 Vol.21 No.4

Whether it is a socialist planned economic system or a capitalist market economic system, economic growth is achieved by increasing capital and/or efficiency. Economic rehabilitation was an urgent task for Kim Jong-il, who rose to the position of supreme leader right after the ‘Arduous March.’ So, he pursued an economic growth strategy to increase capital and efficiency simultaneously, such as implementing the ‘July 1 Measure’, dispatching an economic inspection team to South Korea, and establishing general markets. Although this strategy was desirable, it inevitably had a negative impact on the maintenance of the system. Therefore, toward the latter period, Kim Jong-il appeared to be retreating. Kim Jong-un, who put forward the ‘Byungjin,’ had no choice but to increase capital and efficiency in order to achieve economic growth. From the experience of the Kim Jong-il era, Kim Jong-un chose a more drastic strategy, and the economic situation in North Korea improved significantly. On the other hand, as a result, the socialist planned economic system collapsed. In the end, Kim Jong-un is showing signs of retreat under the pretext of economic sanctions and COVID-19. He is walking the same path as his father. If the economic situation worsens due to the return to the past, the regime will become unstable. However, efforts to increase capital and efficiency for economic growth will also make the system unstable. How to solve this dilemma is the biggest task given to Kim Jong-un. 사회주의 계획경제 체제이든 자본주의 시장경제 체제이든 경제성장은자본 및 효율 증가에 의해 이루어진다. ‘고난의 행군’ 직후 최고지도자 자리에 올랐던 김정일에게 경제 회생은 시급한 과제였다. 그래서 ‘7·1 조치’의실행, 경제시찰단의 남한 파견, 종합시장의 설치 등 자본과 효율을 증가시키기 위한 경제성장 전략을 추진하였다. 이러한 전략은 바람직한 것이었으나, 체제 유지에 필연적으로 부정적 영향을 미치게 된다. 따라서 후기로 가면서 김정일은 후퇴하는 모습을 보였다. ‘병진’을 내세운 김정은도 경제성장을 위해서는 자본과 효율의 증가를 추진할 수밖에 없었다. 김정일 시대의 경험으로부터 김정은은 보다 과감한 전략을 선택했고, 북한경제 상황은크게 개선되었다. 반면에 사회주의 계획경제 체제는 무너지게 되었다. 결국 김정은은 경제제재와 코로나19를 핑계로 후퇴하는 모습을 보이고 있다. 아버지와 같은 행보를 하고 있는 것이다. 그러나 과거로의 회귀로 경제 상황이 악화된다면 정권은 불안해질 것이다. 그렇다고 경제성장을 위한 자본과 효율의 증가 노력 또한 체제를 불안하게 만들 것이다. 이 딜레마를 어떻게 해결해 나가느냐가 김정은에게 주어진 가장 큰 과제이다

쌍발기 대비 A380 연료효율성 비교 분석 연구

장성우,유재림,유광의 한국항공경영학회 2022 한국항공경영학회지 Vol.20 No.3

At the beginning of the operation of the A380, it was expected that the A380 would replace the conventional aircraft with its excellent fuel efficiency and carbon reduction effect. The A380 is efficient when full passenger on board for long-haul routes. However, the commercial aviation landscape has changed dramatically over the past two to three years, and the demand for larger aircraft such as A380 and B747 has disappeared. As oil prices rise, airlines increasingly want to operate high-efficiency aircraft, and manufacturers are developing and supplying twin-engine aircraft such as the A350 and B787, which are capable of longdistance flights and have improved fuel efficiency. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, most airlines operating the A380 have suspended the operation of the A380. Currently, the A380 is temporarily operated due to the surge in travel demand. In the long term, the controversy regarding the economic analysis of the A380 operation will continue. In this study, the fuel efficiency of A380 and A350 was comparatively and evaluated. Using actual flight data of A380 and A350, the superiority and inferiority of fuel efficiency were presented with specific figures. Using the fuel efficiency prediction model established in this study, two cases of the same payload and the same load factor were compared. Based on the same payload, the fuel efficiency of the A350 was about 2.0 times higher than that of the A380. Based on the same load factor, the fuel efficiency of the A350 was about 1.35 times higher than that of the A380. Although the difference in fuel efficiency between the two aircraft was reduced, it was confirmed that the fuel efficiency of the latest twin-engine A350 was quite excellent, and it was evaluated that the A380 aircraft had room to compete with the A350 only when close to full passengers were on board. The economics of A380 operation was analyzed by expanding from the technical concept of fuel efficiency to the airline management concept of benefits and costs. However, in order to quantify detailed benefits and costs, there are limitations in that airlines’ own business policies and purchase contracts must be confirmed, and time series predictions of external variables such as crude oil prices and exchange rates must be studied in advance. Exact economic analysis is left as a future study, and in this study, the economic analysis of A380 operation was confirmed at a general level as a result of fuel efficiency comparison. The unit cost excluding fuel cost is assumed to be the same. CASK (Cost per Available Ton Kilometer), which is the cost of flying 1km per passenger, is higher in the A380 than in the A350. On the other hand, the economics of operating the A380 is determined by the RASK (Revenue per Available Ton Kilometer), which is the profit earned when flying 1km per passenger. If the RASK of A380 exceeds 1.35 times that of the A350, the A380 is considered to have a competitive compared with the A350. If the A380’s RASK exceeds the A380’s own CASK, the A380 can continue to operate. Airline must maintain ‘RASK > CASK’ of A380. It is necessary to increase RASK by increasing passenger ticket, cargo transportation, and in-flight duty-free sales, while reducing CASK by reducing cost.

항공사의 지속가능운영을 위한 TBL(Triple Bottom Line) 효율성에 관한 연구

김현정 ( Hyunjung Kim ),손지윤 ( Jiyoon Son ) KNU기업경영연구소 2021 기업경영리뷰 Vol.12 No.4

Due to COVID-19, international and domestic flight demand has been suspended due to the lockdown between countries, and airlines’ revenue generation is rapidly declining, so it is urgent to prepare a strategy to respond to this phenomenon. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach can help the aviation industry achieve sustainable operations during a pandemic. The TBL approach is a method of measuring the success of business operations through three dimensions: economic(profit), social(people), and environmental(planet) efficiency. This study measured the TBL efficiency of 24 global airlines from 2014 to 2018 for the sustainable management of global airlines, and according to the classification criteria of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the economic, social, and environmental efficiency of each continent was determined by DEA analysis. As a result, global airlines had high overall TE (technical efficiency) and SE (scale efficiency) in economic efficiency, and there was little difference by continent. In terms of social efficiency, TE and SE were excellent, but it was lower than economic efficiency and needed improvement. On the other hand, in terms of environmental efficiency, TE and SE were much lower, indicating that global airlines need to improve environmental efficiency most urgently. Second, as a result of comparing the efficiency by continent, the economic efficiency of North America and Canada was higher than that of other continents. This result is believed to be due to the efforts of American and Canadian airlines to pursue substantial management rather than external publicity. In terms of social efficiency by continent, TE was highest in North America and Canada, followed by Asia Pacific, Europe and Russia, and China and North Asia. On the other hand, the environmental efficiency of each continent differed in economic-social efficiency, and the environmental efficiency of airlines in all continents was significantly lower. Lastly, by comparing each airline, we searched for alternatives how to improve the efficiency in the case of the airline that showed the lowest efficiency in each of economic, social, and environmental efficiencies. Since this study integrated and analyzed TBL efficiency, the results of analyzing the efficiency from various angles could provide implications for stakeholders in the aviation industry.

스마트팜 경영효율성 분석: 상추 사례

정소영(So Yeong Jeong),양승룡(Seung-Ryong Yang) 한국농식품정책학회 2022 한국농식품정책학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2022 No.8

This paper analyzes economic efficiency of lettuce smart farms using the data envelopment analysis(DEA). It attempts to suggest how smart farms improve their economic performance by measuring economic efficiency and comparing it with the efficiency of conventional farms. Economic efficiency is divided into profit efficiency and cost efficiency. Through examining technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and scale efficiency which is detailed, we identify the cause of inefficiency. As a result, a conventional farm is evaluated as the efficient and it was suggested that smart farms need to find a way to reduce the water, electricity and heating costs and investment cost for facilities to be the efficient farm.

The Efficiency of China's Banking Industry and the Determinants

Yu Chen,Yufei Wang 한국국제경제학회 2015 International Economic Journal Vol.29 No.4

The recent global financial crisis highlights the importance of a sound financial sector for economic development. This paper evaluates the economic efficiency of China's banking industry and investigates the determinants of this efficiency. Our analysis shows that the average economic efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks is highest, followed by the ‘Big Four’ state-owned commercial banks and city commercial banks. The economic inefficiency of these banks during the past 15 years was mainly caused by technical inefficiency, and this technical inefficiency was mainly caused by scale inefficiency. Using the scores of efficiency as dependent variables, the paper also comprehensively studies the impact of (1) the characteristics of individual banks, (2) the characteristics of the whole banking industry and (3) macroeconomic factors on banking efficiency. The results suggest a number of factors that banks can work on to improve efficiency and lend support to deepening reforms in the Chinese banking industry, including regulatory reforms that require capital adequacy in a more strict way, reforms that introduce more competition and, more broadly, reforms that aim at establishing institutions that can truly commercialize Chinese banks. Last but not least, the efficiency of banking depends on healthy growth of the overall economy.

기업결합규제와 효율성 항변 판단기준에 대한 법경제학적 고찰

주진열 한국경제법학회 2010 경제법연구 Vol.9 No.1

공정거래법은 효율성 항변을 명문으로 인정하고 있다. 그런데 효율성 증대효과와 경쟁제한폐해를 서로 명확하게 비교할 수 있는 산정방법이 없으며, 산정방법을 두고 경제학계에서도 통일된 견해는 없다. 기업결합시 효율성 증대효과가 경쟁제한 효과보다 클 수도 있다는 점은 논란의 여지가 없지만, 이는 이론적 가설 내지 추측에 불과하다. 구체적 소송에서 특정 기업결합의 효율성 증대효과는 실증분석자료 또는 경제적 증거로 다툴 수밖에 없다. 효율성 증대효과에 대한 판단은 관련 데이터, 적용된 실증분석모델, 분석결과에 대한 다양한 해석 가능성 등에 의존하며, 효율성 증대효과에 대한 경제적 판단 그 자체로부터 사법적으로 운영가능한 일관된 법적 판단 기준을 도출하기란 어렵다. 더욱이 실증분석의 오남용 가능성 문제가 해결되지 않는 이상, 구체적 사건에 있어서 효율성 항변 관련 실증분석자료 또는 경제적 증거의 역할은 상당히 제한적일 수밖에 없다. 특히 실증분석 그 자체의 한계로 인해 기업결합의 효율성 증대효과와 경쟁제한효과를 명확하게 비교할 수 없는 경우라면, 효율성 항변 인정 여부는 결국 ‘입증책임’을 누가 부담하는지 여부에 따라 좌우될 것이다. 현행 공정거래법의 태도처럼 효율성 증대효과에 대한 입증책임을 기업들이 부담하는 이상, 구체적 소송에서 효율성 항변이 성공하기란 앞으로도 어려울 것으로 전망된다. Although Korean competition law recognizes efficiency defense in merger regulation case, there is no consensus among lawyers and economists about how to measure efficiency effect of a merger. Of course, there is a possibility that efficiency effect may prevail anticompetitive effect. But in a real merger case, this possibility must be proved by empirical analysis or economic evidence. There is little doubt that as efficiency defense is basically economic argument, economic evidence will play a key role in merger regulation. On the other hand, it should be noted that there is a possibility of misuse or manipulation of economic analysis come from inherent limitation of economics. If it is not possible to find out a coherent and generally accepted economic standard in evaluating efficiency effect, efficiency defense itself would have a very limited role in antitrust merger litigation. As long as the firms bear the burden of proof for efficiency effect, it might be highly difficult for them to win their case.

규제행정의 규범적·실증적 목적으로서 경제적 효율성과 정치적 효율성 -SSM 규제에 대한 효율성 분석을 중심으로-

허성욱 한국법경제학회 2015 법경제학연구 Vol.12 No.1

This paper is an experimental research on the topic of the relationship between the economic efficiency and the political efficiency in SSM(Super Super Market) regulation. We can suppose that if the political system in one country is working successfully in representing each players’preferences to political decision making process - in other words, if the status of“ political efficiency”is achieved -, then the outcome of the political process would be not much different from the outcome of economic efficiency. However, in the real world politics, we can easily find out cases where the political process is not working successfully or the political efficiency is not achieved. There are several theoretical frameworks through which we can think about the reasons of this failure in politics. Followings are a few examples of those theoretical frameworks; Pluralistic theory of politics and Republican theory of politics, Public choice theory of politics and Public interest theory of politics, Efficiency versus Fairness, Rational choice theory in politics and Irrationality in public decision making process. In this paper, I tried to analyse the reason why the gap between the political efficiency and the economic efficiency can happen in the real world of SSM regulatio 이 글은 SSM 규제의 사례를 들어서 우리 사회에서의 경제적 효율성과 정치적 효율성의 상관관계에 대한 비교적 자유로운 탐구를 시도해 본 글이다. 규제이론 중 공익이론에 따르는 경우 공익이론의 취지대로 규제가 시장실패를 교정하고 침해된 공익으로서 사회적 후생의 회복을 목적으로 하는 경우에는 그 결과로서 정치적 효율성이시장에서 형성되는 경제적 효율성과 다를 본질적인 이유는 없다. 반면에 규제를 만드는 정치참여자들이 시장실패의 극복을 통한 공익의 회복이라는 취지와는 다른 유인구조를 가지고 정치적 선택을 하는 경우에는 그 결과로서 정치적 균형은 정치적 효율성이 달성되지 않은 상태이고따라서 경제적 효율성과도 괴리가 있을 수 있다. 공공선택이론에 따르는 경우 정치 시스템이 원활하게 작동하고 각 이익집단이 정해진 규칙에 따라 공정하게 자신들의 이익에 관한 선호를 표출하고 그렇게 표출된 선호를 둘러싼 제반 정치작용이 일어나는 경우 그 정치적 균형으로서 형성된 정치적 효율성은 기본적으로는 경제적효율성과 달라질 이유가 없다. 다만 정치 과정에 일정한 구조적 혹은 체계적 하자가 존재하는경우에는 이익집단들의 이익대변 과정에서 과다대표 혹은 과소대표의 문제가 발생하고, 그로인해 정치적 효율성과 경제적 효율성 사이의 괴리가 발생할 수 있다. 이 경우에도 각 정치참여자들이 사안의 선택뿐만 아니라 정치 시스템 선택에 있어서도 합리적 선택을 한다고 가정하는경우에는 단기에는 존재할 수 있는 과다대표 혹은 과소대표의 문제가 장기에 있어서는 해소될수 있는 것이 아닌가 생각해 볼 수 있다. 또한 각 이익집단이 이익집단 활동을 통해서 성취하려는 가치가 경제적 가치가 아닌 비시장적 재화, 정치적 혹은 윤리적 가치에 관한 것인 경우에는 양자 사이의 괴리가 발생할 수 있다. SSM 규제의 상황에서 관련된 각 이익집단들이 얼마나 비시장적 재화, 정치적 혹은 윤리적 재화를 둘러싼 이익집단 활동을 하였는지는 비판적 검토가 필요하다. 민주주의에서 선호결집 과정에 대한 공법이론 중 다원주의에 따르는 경우 다원주의 정치 과정이 마찬가지로 원활하게 작동하고 기본적으로 정치참여자들이 사회적 후생에 관한 경제적 가치를 놓고 정치 활동을 하는 경우에는 정치적 효율성과 경제적 효율성이 달라져야 하는 본질적인 이유는 찾기 어렵다. 결국 양자 사이의 괴리가 발생하는 것은 여하한 이유로 우리가 가지고 있는 정치 시스템이 다원주의적인 이익을 효율적으로 반영하는 데 실패하고 있는 것으로 해석될여지가 있다. 이 경우 우리 정치 시스템의 어떤 부분에 구조적 혹은 체계적 하자가 존재하는지 그하자를 치유하기 위해서는 어떤 정치개혁을 모색해야 하는지 등이 주요한 과제가 될 것이다. 공화주의에 따르는 경우 우리 공동체의 미래에 대한 진정한 발전을 염원하는 덕성을 갖춘사람들의 숙고심의의 결과가 무엇을 그 내용으로 하고 있는지가 주요한 쟁점이 될 것이다. 그숙고심의의 결과가 경제적 효율성을 희생해서라도 재래시장의 상인 혹은 중소상인들의 이익을보호하여야 한다는 것이라면 - 설사 그것이 대형 슈퍼마켓을 이용하고 있는 다수의 일반 소비자의 후생을 감소시키는 것이라고 하더라도 - 우리는 그것이 우리 사회의 진정한 공익에 대한결단이라고 인정하고 받아들여야 할 것이다. 그렇지만 공화주의에 대해서는 ...

규제행정법상의 경제적 효율성에 대한 고찰 - 규제행정법의 경제적 분석을 위한 경제학적 방법론의 기초 -

김판기 ( Pan Ki Kim ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2013 홍익법학 Vol.14 No.1

The objective of this study is to provide the theoretical foundation for economic discussion required to accurately understand regulations - a target subject in regulatory administrative laws - and to present an economic analytical framework for regulations in the context of regulatory administrative laws by applying economic methodologies to actual practices. Science of Law and Economics are academic fields that require interdisciplinary research, and such a need is more acute in regulatory administrative laws. Research subjects for both regulatory administrative laws and economics (public economics, in particular) are almost identical in terms of economic regulations, and only vary in the viewpoints that they are perceived from-either legal or economic. Among methodologies used to analyze the subjects in particular, those used in economics are very useful. These methodologies work as significant tools in social regulations as well. Regulations in regulatory administrative laws need to be defined separately from regulations in general terms. Both regulations in the context of existing theoretical definitions and regulations in regulatory administrative laws were taken into consideration in defining the regulations in regulatory administrative laws, based on which meanings behind economic analyses of the laws in the context of regulatory administrative laws were ascertained. The foremost step in this discussion was to focus on reviewing the implications of economic efficiency in regulatory administrative laws. In analyzing regulations as a subject matter of regulatory administrative laws, it is clear that economic methodologies play a vital role; however, applying economic conclusions to regulatory administrative laws, rather than using economic methodologies to interpret in a normative manner in the context of regulatory administrative laws should be cautioned against. In other words, economic methodologies should be applied only if they are understood from a regulatory point of view by reflecting legal perspectives that include general principles of administrative law.

재정분권이 경제성장에 미치는 영향분석 : OECD 회원국을 대상으로

임정빈 ( Jeong Bin Yim ),홍근석 ( Geun Seok Hong ) 한국지방행정연구원 2012 地方行政硏究 Vol.26 No.4

The studies on fiscal decentralization have focused on the relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth as well as the one between fiscal decentralization and economic efficiency. Definite conclusions about the relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth, however, have not been presented because it is a very complex relationship that is affected by a variety of factors including the interactions of the results such as inter-regional equity, economic efficiency, macroeconomic stability, corruption, democratic governance, economic growth and etc. Therefore, the impact of fiscal decentralization should be considered with the various effects of it. From this perspective, this study is to analyze the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic growth targeting 27 OECD countries. Especially, this paper focuses on the following two research purposes, having the potential effects of fiscal decentralization on macroeconomic stability in the model. First, a direct relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth is investigated. Second, this paper tries to find the relationship among fiscal decentralization, macroeconomic stability, and economic growth. The results of the analysis first indicate that revenue decentralization has effects of reducing consumer price inflation, providing positive effect on macroeconomic stability. Second, fiscal decentralization is found to have a negative effect on economic growth. Finally, since the macroeconomic stability has a positive effect on economic growth, the negative influence of fiscal decentralization on economic growth would be somewhat mitigated by the potential macroeconomic stability of fiscal decentralization.