In the field of national defense and security, importance is shifting from military power to the economy, and accordingly, it is necessary to seek new approaches.

Moon Mi-ok, President of the Science and Technology Policy Institute, stated this in her opening remarks at the Science and Technology Policy Forum. Describing that “technological hegemony, triggered by the U.S.-China trade conflict, is a global topic,” she began by saying, “While various discussions are underway domestically, these are on an individual level, and it is necessary for the state to take an integrated lead.”

The Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI) held the 446th Science and Technology Policy Forum on the 17th. Under the theme of "National Strategies for Securing Economic Security and Technological Sovereignty," the forum, co-hosted by the Korea Institute for National Security Strategy, provided a platform to discuss policy directions and discourse at a time when economic security is becoming a prominent issue.

The common consensus among the presenters on this day was that rather than individual ministries responding separately, a government-wide and integrated response and policy formation are necessary. There are different hegemonic competition issues in the technology, manufacturing, and trade sectors, and it was ordered that tasks be solved using a common framework along with departmental responses to these issues.

■ Economy, Science, and Technology Security: Four Presenters, Four Perspectives; The Conclusion is an Integrated Vision
Today, technological sovereignty is emerging as a top national and international concern. While the importance of technology has been overlooked amidst the flow of globalization, the COVID-19 era and the formation of global blocs due to trade wars have served as an opportunity to re-recognize that scientific and industrial technological competitiveness is the core of national competitiveness.

Lee Wang-hui, a professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Ajou University, highlighted this fact in his presentation. He explained, “The biggest reason the United States can stand as a hegemonic power is its backing from science and technology,” adding that “techno-trade and digital protectionism have revived with the outbreak of trade wars under the Trump administration.”

The Biden administration is preparing the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework to establish Ally-Shoring and Friend-Shoring. This signifies a coalition with allies and partners, such as the Quad and CPTPP, aimed at countering China. Professor Lee predicted, "Korea is currently a member only of RCEP, and following the application for CPTPP membership, it will also proceed with joining IPEF after this summit."

In the subsequent presentation, Kim Kyung-hoon, a research fellow at the Korea International Trade Association, presented "Korea's GVC Strategy in Response to the Global Supply Chain Crisis." Kim identified structural problems in the domestic supply chain, including high dependence on China, the unresolved trade deficit in materials, parts, and equipment with Japan, and a structure vulnerable to changes in the external environment.

It was emphasized that intermediate goods account for over 60% of exports and imports to and from China, and that 2,434 items among imports from China were identified as vulnerable, comprising the overwhelming majority. Furthermore, it was explained that the trade deficit in materials, parts, and equipment with Japan accounts for 99.4% of the total deficit with Japan, and that as domestic exports of semiconductors and displays increase, imports of chemical and electronic products from Japan also increase.
Kwon Seong-hoon, a legislative researcher at the National Assembly Research Service, stated that the strategy for fostering science and technology and advanced industries is listed as items 24 and 75 in the detailed national agenda items announced by the current Yoon administration.

Agenda Item No. 24, aimed at securing a super-gap in future strategic industries such as semiconductors, AI, and batteries, consists of: providing incentives and expediting licensing for semiconductor facility investments; providing comprehensive support including international cooperation in R&D for the strategic industry ecosystem; and fully activating the support system under the National Advanced Strategic Industry Act and strengthening support measures. Agenda Item No. 75 aims to achieve a leap to the G5 in science and technology by fostering strategic technologies that create a significant technological gap. The two agenda items are separated and fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and the Ministry of Science and ICT, respectively.

Investigator Kwon stated that as a direction for improving related legislation, it is necessary to integrate and streamline the 'National Advanced Strategic Industries Act' and the 'Special Act on the Promotion of National Strategic Technologies' to address similarities and overlaps. Furthermore, he argued that integration is required because the legal provisions regarding national core technologies, national strategic technologies, and national advanced strategic technologies are similar.

Baek Seo-in, Director of the Science and Technology Policy Institute, pointed out that "Korea's work on technology export control lists is insufficient" and suggested that "monitoring of control lists in other countries is necessary because the focus is solely on fostering." He emphasized that "a national vision must be established first, followed by defining the role of science and technology, and then proceeding with analysis and coordination by technology and industry," adding that "it is necessary to coordinate overlapping roles among government ministries and conduct mission-oriented research within a common framework."

■ Discussion Panel: Expectations and Concerns for the Yoon Administration
The panelists participating in the forum that day viewed the newly inaugurated Yoon Seok-yeol administration's high-tech industry policies with concern. They expressed a shared opinion that the approach of fostering high-tech industries and strengthening competitiveness from an existing perspective should be avoided, noting that it does not deviate significantly from the policy frameworks of previous administrations.

Ahn Hyun-sil, Director of the AI Economic Research Institute at the Korea Economic Daily, emphasized, “It is a dangerous idea to think only about expanding the scope of relevant ministries in an era of U.S.-China conflict,” adding that “the interests of ministries must not undermine the interests of the nation.” He strongly criticized the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, stating that “there is no visible will to clear away the legacy of structural problems from the past.” He then proposed strategies for private sector leadership, an action plan for corporate utilization, and the nurturing of young startups.

Park Byeong-won, a senior research fellow at the Science and Technology Policy Institute, argued, “While research budgets in high-tech industries are expected to increase, the establishment of an overall industrial ecosystem is needed first,” adding, “Simply injecting money into the field does not solve everything, and a single ministry must coordinate and manage the whole.”
Kim Hyung-joon, Director of the Next-Generation Semiconductor Research Institute at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology, cautioned against approaching science and technology policy from an existing perspective, stating, “Science and technology policy merely encompasses all the terms used by previous administrations and lacks freshness.” In addition, they expressed doubts about the private-sector-led strategy, stating that it is difficult to make bold investments in future sources looking 10 to 20 years ahead with private-sector leadership alone.

Director Kim noted that the semiconductor trend cycle has recently accelerated rapidly to about 2-3 years, pointing out that cases of rapid growth achieved through radical innovation and "big bang" technology are emerging. He stated, "If there is concentrated national competition for investment and fostering, similar to the Manhattan Project, the issue can be resolved in a short period," adding, "It is urgent to establish a challenging research environment where failure is tolerated and where we can attempt things that other countries have not tried."

The sense of crisis evident at this forum can be seen as representative of the prevailing atmosphere across the business and industrial sectors. Furthermore, amidst both concerns and expectations regarding the new administration, attention is focused on whether integrated industrial policy operations and a vision will be presented to respond to the upcoming restructuring of global supply chains.