R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구

DTOEi8C1du80nlarfspFCA==

연구성과

연구보고서

R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구 A Study on the Institutionalization of the Strategic Spending Review in the R&D Sector

R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구원문 다운로드 R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구원문보기

보고서명
R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구
보고서명(영문)
A Study on the Institutionalization of the Strategic Spending Review in the R&D Sector

책임자 신승용
소속기관과학기술정책연구원
내부연구참여자유나리,이민정,배현근,조용희,이준민,권정인,한종현
외부연구참여자
발행기관 과학기술정책연구원
ISBN979-11-24145-07-4
출판년도2025
페이지141
보고서유형 기본연구보고서
연구유형 정책
표준분류 과학기술 > 과학기술일반
자료유형연구보고서
공공누리유형 4유형 (출처표시+상업적이용금지+변경금지)
주제어국가연구 개발사업,지출검토,연구개발 예산,지출 구조조정,배분적 효율성

조회수

조회수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

8
다운로드

다운로드 수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

0

■연구 목적
○ 재정의 지속가능성과 정부 R&D 투자의 전략성 확보를 지원하는 R&D분야 지출검토 제도화 방안을 제시하는 것이 본 연구의 목적
- 예산의 본질적 정치성과 한계를 인식하되, 기존 미시적 성과관리 중심의 제도를 보완하고, 미래지향적·전략적 재원배분 체계로의 전환을 촉진하는 실질적 방안을 모색

■주요 내용
○ 재정의 지속가능성 확보를 위한 정부의 노력: 성과와 한계 파악 및 정리
- R&D 예산편성 과정에서의 노력 및 R&D 사업 평가 과정에서의 노력
- R&D 예산편성 및 평가 과정의 한계와 지출검토 도입 필요성
○ R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 사례 정리
- 유럽 주요국 R&D분야 지출검토 사례 검토
○ R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 프레임워크 제시
- 전략적 지출검토 구조: 목표, 범위 및 대상
- 거버넌스 및 운영체계
- 분석항목 및 결과 도출
○ R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 시범운영을 통한 적용 가능성 확인 및 정책제언
- R&D 투자 효율성 제고와 재정의 전략적 운영 기반 마련을 위한 전략적 지출검토의 실제 적용 가능성 확인

■정책 대안
○ 지출검토는 한국의 재정환경과 R&D 평가 문화에 상당한 변화를 요구하는 제도로 단계적 접근이 필요
○ 지출검토 제도는 기존 R&D 평가제도와의 중복을 최소화하고 상호 보완적으로 설계할 필요
○ 지출검토의 운영을 위해서는 고위 정책결정자의 정치적 리더십의 역할이 중요
○ R&D분야 지출검토의 수행에 있어 가장 중요하고 필수적인 사항은 전문성으로 분석 데이터 인프라를 정비하여 검토 과정의 효율을 높여야 함
○ R&D 지출검토 수행 시 검토 기준과 과정을 투명하게 알리되, 결과 발표 시에는 향후 지원책 등을 함께 제시함으로써 우려를 완화하는 전략이 요구

A Study on Efficient Investment and Management System for Large-scale National R&D Projects

ㆍProject Leader: Bohun Hyun
ㆍParticipants: Nari Yoo · Seungyong Shin · Minjung Lee · Doyun Kim · Sungbeom Kang · Yonghee Cho · Jonghyun Han · Jeongin Kwon · Hyunkeun Bae · Junmin Lee · Changhee Kang · Byunghee Min

1. Introduction
Korea’s recent decision to abolish the Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) for national R&D programs marks a significant policy change in its science and technology governance. This decision responds to increasing pressure to accelerate mission-oriented innovation and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness in emerging and strategically important technology fields. Since its adoption for R&D in 2008, the PFS has been a key mechanism for preventing budget waste, improving planning rigor, and maintaining fiscal discipline.
As global technological competition intensifies, the lengthy review timelines, rigid frameworks, and low approval rates under the PFS have increasingly limited the timely start of large-scale, high-impact R&D initiatives. Although several rounds of reform, such as reducing evaluation weightings and shortening review periods, have been implemented, the fundamental mismatch between an ex-ante, document-heavy system and the speed required for cutting-edge innovation remains unresolved. This ongoing mismatch highlights the need for a new governance approach that balances planning discipline with the flexibility and speed necessary for effective R&D performance.
As policy debates increasingly recognize the need for a new governance paradigm, the abolition of PFS is viewed as a transition toward a more flexible, strategy-driven system rather than an endpoint. However, removing a major gatekeeping mechanism presents fiscal and operational risks unless appropriate institutional safeguards are in place. This study aims to evaluate the current PFS system, review international models, conduct empirical assessments of investment outcomes, and provide evidence-based recommendations for designing a next-generation R&D investment and management framework. To achieve these aims, the study combines a review of policy documents and international practices with empirical analysis of large-scale R&D investment data from Korea’s NTIS database.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the current operation of the PFS system. Section 3 compares international models. Section 4 presents empirical analyses of R&D investments. Section 5 provides policy recommendations. Section 6 concludes with implications for Korea’s R&D governance.

2. Current Operation of the PFS System
A review of the PFS system shows that it evolved from a general fiscal control tool into a central instrument for overseeing large-scale national R&D spending. The system was first implemented to prevent inefficiencies in large government projects, then expanded as national research programs grew in scale and complexity. In 2018, the transfer of PFS authority from the Ministry of Economy and Finance to the Ministry of Science and ICT aimed to align assessments more closely with scientific expertise. However, the evaluation process still requires more than three years from project planning to approval.
Analysis of 97 PFS reports produced after the 2020 guideline revision shows that most proposals fall into growth-oriented or infrastructure-oriented categories, with infrastructure-oriented projects having particularly high approval rates. Large-scale projects performed better under PFS criteria, while high-risk, challenge-driven initiatives, although achieving relatively high approval rates, remained rare. Approved projects often had reduced budgets and shorter durations, which suggests the PFS’s moderating influence on planning. These characteristics highlight the system’s strengths in preventing overinvestment and enforcing planning discipline, but also reveal structural biases toward predictable, lower-risk project types and indicate significant limitations in responding to time-sensitive technological opportunities.

3. International Comparison of PFS-like System
To identify viable alternatives to the PFS, this study examined comparable review and investment management systems in other sectors within Korea, as well as those implemented in the United States and the United Kingdom. In domestic construction, welfare, and industrial policy, review processes increasingly combine stricter scrutiny with faster pathways and, in some cases, mandatory pilot testing to improve the evidence base for decision-making.
Internationally, the United States does not use a centralized ex-ante gatekeeping institution. Instead, agencies such as NSF, NIH, and DOE apply life-cycle-based critical decision frameworks that emphasize risk management, independent peer review, performance-linked budgeting, and continuous oversight. Agencies make adjustments throughout the project lifecycle, reflecting a management philosophy that prioritizes flexibility, accountability, and real-time learning. In contrast, the United Kingdom uses the Gateway Review Process, a structured, multi-stage evaluation that spans from early concept development to post-implementation review, combined with national-level strategic R&D agendas.
Across these systems, a common theme is that evaluation is iterative rather than a one-time process, and government oversight supports informed decision-making throughout the entire lifecycle, not only at the entry point. Lessons from these countries suggest that Korea should balance centralized strategic oversight with decentralized, expert-driven management, and move toward more flexible, performance-focused investment governance.

4. The Impact of Operational Characteristics of the R&D PFS System on Project Performance
To assess the effects of the PFS system on R&D performance, the study conducted extensive empirical analyses using NTIS data from 2019 to 2023. The dataset included more than 50,000 projects and covered PFS-approved, exempted, bridge programs, and non-PFS programs.
Project-level analysis using propensity score matching shows that PFS-approved projects have higher commercialization efficiency than non-PFS projects, reflecting stronger initial planning. However, these projects do not achieve better outcomes in patents, publications, or royalty income, and their patent productivity is lower than that of exempted projects. These results suggest that although the PFS improves project structure and reduces planning risks, its rigid procedures and long delays may limit performance in fast-moving technology areas.
Firm-level analysis using two-way fixed effects and event-study designs shows that firms involved in PFS-approved projects have lower employment and sales growth than firms in exempted or non-PFS programs. However, when controlling for delays and “time-to-start” variables, these negative effects decrease significantly or even reverse. This finding suggests that the PFS system itself is not the main reason for weaker performance; rather, the rigid timeframe and procedural bottlenecks in the system reduce overall project and firm outcomes. In all empirical models, speed and flexibility consistently emerge as key factors for effective R&D performance.

5. Policy Recommendations
The transition from the PFS to a new R&D investment management framework requires a careful, evidence-based approach that balances fiscal discipline and strategic agility. Expert interviews conducted for this study indicate that abolishing the PFS should not weaken oversight; rather, it should restructure oversight into a more effective and adaptive system.
During the transition period, the government must prevent governance gaps by developing a clear implementation roadmap, ensuring legal and institutional readiness, and temporarily using existing expert institutions until new mechanisms become fully operational. To address post-PFS risks, such as project redundancy, budget fragmentation, and reduced accountability, the study recommends setting expenditure ceilings at the ministry level, strengthening strategic prioritization processes, and improving responsibility-based governance.
As alternatives to the PFS, the study proposes differentiated pre-screening mechanisms. For research-oriented projects, a lightweight “pre-planning review” aims to ensure conceptual clarity without causing excessive delays. For infrastructure-oriented R&D, a multi-stage, stepwise screening system aligns with international best practices in major facility construction and large technology deployments.
Complementary reforms include establishing a stronger ex-post evaluation system that enables real corrective action, links evaluation results to budgetary decisions, supports learning and feedback, and builds a more robust performance-oriented culture across R&D institutions.

6. Conclusion
The abolition of the PFS system marks a significant institutional transition in Korea’s national R&D governance. This policy change reflects a broader shift toward supporting bold, transformative investments in key technologies while ensuring responsible fiscal management. The main challenge is not only to eliminate an existing procedure but also to establish a new framework that can support strategic, agile, and high-impact R&D initiatives.
Empirical analysis showed that although the PFS system improved commercialization efficiency and planning, its rigid procedures and long timelines limited performance in fast-moving technology areas. Firm-level analysis indicated that procedural delays, rather than the PFS itself, were the main causes of weaker project and firm outcomes. Based on these findings, the study recommends differentiated pre-screening mechanisms, stronger ex-post evaluation, and portfolio-based budget management to provide both flexibility and accountability in the new R&D governance framework.
The findings of this study highlight the need for governance mechanisms that balance planning discipline with flexibility, speed, and accountability. These recommendations are especially relevant because Korea aims to maintain its competitiveness in emerging and strategically important technology fields, where speed and adaptability are increasingly important. By integrating strategic oversight, portfolio-based budget management, life-cycle monitoring, and enhanced ex-post evaluation, Korea can use this institutional transition to build a more future-oriented national R&D investment system, which can support sustained scientific and technological leadership in an era of rapid global change.
Future research could examine the long-term effects of alternative R&D governance models and evaluate the effectiveness of newly implemented mechanisms as Korea moves away from the PFS system.

국문 요약 i

영문 요약 I

제1장 서론 1
제1절 연구의 목적 1
1. 연구의 배경 및 필요성 1
2. 연구의 목적 6
제2절 연구의 내용 8
1. 연구의 방법 8
2. 연구의 구성 9

제2장 재정의 지속가능성 확보를 위한 정부의 노력: 성과와 한계 11
제1절 정부의 예산편성 기본방향 11
1. 2024년 예산편성 기본방향 11
2. 2025년 예산편성 기본방향 13
제2절 R&D 예산편성 과정에서의 노력 16
1. 국가연구개발사업 주요 R&D 예산 배분･조정 관련 제도적 노력 16
2. 국가연구개발사업 주요 R&D 예산 배분･조정 관련 비정례적 노력 22
제3절 R&D사업 평가 과정에서의 노력 28
1. 국가연구개발사업 성과평가 관련 제도적 노력 28
2. 국가연구개발사업 성과평가 관련 비정례적 노력 34
제4절 R&D 예산편성 및 평가 과정의 한계 35
1. 제도 및 비정례적 노력에 대한 평가 35
2. 지출검토 제도의 필요성 39

제3장 R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 사례 43
제1절 영국 43
1. R&D 지출검토 동향 43
2. R&D 예산편성 기준 44
3. 최근 지출검토 결과 46
제2절 슬로바키아 49
1. 지출검토 주요 내용 49
2. 지출검토 주요 결과 50
제3절 벨기에 53
1. 지출검토 추진 배경 53
2. 지출검토 내용 및 결과 53
제4절 덴마크 56
1. 검토 기준 및 방법 56
2. 검토 결과 57
제5절 스웨덴 58
1. R&D 포트폴리오 평가 개요 58
2. R&D 포트폴리오 평가 방법 59
3. 최근 포트폴리오 평가 결과 59
제6절 소결 61
1. 주요 내용 61
2. 함의 61

제4장 전략적 지출검토 프레임워크 64
제1절 개요 64
제2절 전략적 지출검토 구조 65
1. 목표 65
2. 범위 및 대상 67
제3절 거버넌스 및 운영체계 78
1. 거버넌스의 대안 및 사례 비교 78
2. R&D분야 지출검토 거버넌스 체계 논의 79
제4절 분석 항목 및 결과 도출 81
1. 분석 항목 및 방법 81
2. 결과 도출 방안 91

제5장 R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 시범적용 94
제1절 개요 94
1. 시범적용 설계 및 운영 개요 94
2. 시범적용 프로그램 주요 현황 97
제2절 시범적용 결과 104
1. 조사 목적 104
2. 조사 개요 105
3. 조사 설계 및 구성 105
4. 주요 검토 내용 106
5. 시범적용 주요 결과 106
제3절 소결 124

제6장 정책 제언 128

참고문헌 135

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

별점5점만점에 5점 별점5점만점에 4점 별점5점만점에 3점 별점5점만점에 2점 별점5점만점에 1점

의견(0)

연구성과에 따른 의견과 무관한 글, 선정적인 글 및 비방글 등의 게시물은 관리자에 의해 언제든 삭제 조치 될 수 있으며, 주민등록번호 형식 및 연속된 숫자 13자리는 입력할 수 없습니다.

입력 가능 Byte : 4000 Byte 현재 입력 Byte : 0 Byte

자동등록방지 숫자를 순서대로 입력하세요.

NKIS 국가정책연구포털

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

연구보고서

R&D분야 전략적 지출검토 제도화 방안 연구

A Study on the Institutionalization of the Strategic Spending Review in the R&D Sector

국문초록

영문초록

목차

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

연구보고서

정책연구자료

세미나

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

의견(0)