이중차분모형을 이용한 일본 슈퍼중추항만 정책의 성과 분석 연구: 한국의 동북아물류중심기지 정책과 비교를 통해

Abstract

Purpose: In the early 2000s, South Korea implemented policies to establish itself as a Northeast Asian logistics hub, while Japan pursued a “Super Core Port” policy. The port policies of Korea and Japan diverged significantly. Korea nurtured both Busan Port and Gwangyang Port to promote regional balanced development. Japan opted for a focused approach by concentrating on the development of six key ports. This study aims to evaluate which approach, the regional balanced development policy or the focused selection policy, was more effective through a comparative analysis of the outcomes of the port policies in Korea and Japan. Research design, data, and methodology: This study adopts Difference-in-Differences (DiD) model. Container throughput and the LSCI (Liner Shipping Connectivity Index) were adopted as outcome variables based on previous studies. The temporal scope of the research was set around the year 2004, when both port policies were implemented. The period during which the policy effects were expected to dissipate was identified as up until 2008, just before the global financial crisis, while the period prior to policy implementation was designated from 2001 to 2003. The treatment group in Japan consisted of Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Yokkaichi, Osaka, and Kobe that benefited from the Super Core Port policy, while the control group included Hakata, Kitakyushu, Shimizu, Naha, Tomakomai, and Sendai ports. The treatment group in Korea included Busan and Gwangyang ports, which benefited from the Northeast Asia Logistics Hub policy, and the control group comprised Incheon, Gunsan, Masan, Ulsan, and Pyeongtaek-Dangjin ports. Results: The Super Core Port policy showed significant results at a level of approximately 10% concerning container traffic indicating that the policy was effective and had a positive impact. However, the LSCI model analysis indicated no significant changes in LSCI before and after the implementation of the Super Core Port policy. The analysis of the third model found that the Northeast Asia Logistics Hub policy did not have a statistically significant impact on the differences in container throughput before and after its implementation. The fourth model analysis also indicated that the Northeast Asia Logistics Hub policy did not statistically impact the differences in LSCI. Implications: Previous studies have undervalued the efficacy of Japan’s port policy, primarily because the performance of Japanese ports was minimal compared to others. However, these preceding studies may have misjudged the results of Japan’s port policy without statistical validation, claiming a lack of visible traffic growth as justification for their evaluations. This study represents a significant advancement in evaluating and verifying the performance of Japan’s port policies through a scientific methodology. Additionally, by comparing Korean port policies, it provides valuable insights into which approach, between ‘regional balanced port policies’ and ‘focused selection port policies,’ was more effective.