Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Prioritization of Biopharmaceutical Industry Promotion Policy: Focusing on IPA analysis of Gyeonggi-do policy tasks

바이오의약품산업 육성 정책 우선순위 도출에 관한 연구 : 경기도 정책과제의 IPA 분석을 중심으로

  • Kang, Jimin (Policy Research Division, Gyeonggido Business & Science Accelerator)
  • 강지민 (경기도경제과학진흥원 정책연구실)
  • Received : 2021.11.23
  • Accepted : 2022.01.20
  • Published : 2022.01.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to derive policy priorities for fostering the biopharmaceutical industry. In this study, the urgency and importance of the policy to foster the biopharmaceutical industry in Gyeonggi-do was investigated, and the priorities of the policy in the biopharmaceutical industry were analyzed through IPA analysis. As a result of the study, the top priority support tasks for the biopharmaceutical industry promotion policy were 'R&D support', 'Expert training', and 'commercialization support'. As a result of deriving policy priorities for each biopharmaceutical sector, 'R&D support' and 'Expert training' were found to be high in common, and differences in policy priorities for each industry such as cell therapy products and advanced bio-convergence products were confirmed. Also, as for the policy demand, R&D funding support, clinical trial support, and commercialization funding support were found to be high. Based on these results, the government's policy to foster the biopharmaceutical industry was supported with a focus on 'R&D support' and 'Expert training', and policy implications were drawn that customized support is needed in consideration of the characteristics of each industry field.

본 연구의 목적은 바이오의약품산업 육성을 위한 정책의 우선순위를 도출하기 위하여 수행되었다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 경기도 바이오의약품산업 육성 정책의 시급성과 중요도에 대해 조사하고, IPA 분석을 통해 바이오의약품산업 정책의 우선순위를 분석하였다. 연구결과, 바이오의약품산업 육성 정책의 최우선지원과제는 '연구개발 지원', '전문인력 양성', '사업화 지원'으로 나타났다. 바이오의약품분야별 정책우선순위 도출 결과 '연구개발 지원'과 '전문인력 양성'은 공통적으로 높게 나타났으며, 세포치료제, 첨단바이오융복합제제 등 산업분야별 정책 우선순위의 차이를 확인하였다. 또한, 정책수요는 R&D 자금지원, 임상시험 지원, 사업화 자금지원 등이 높게 나타났다. 본 결과를 바탕으로 정부의 바이오의약품산업 육성 정책은 '연구개발 지원'과 '전문인력 양성' 중심으로 지원하고 각 산업분야별 특성을 고려한 맞춤형 지원이 필요하다는 정책적 시사점을 도출하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This paper has been revised and supplemented revised and supplemented part of "Research on Gyeonggi-do Biopharmaceutical Industry Promotion Plan" conducted by the GBSA. This work was supported by the Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. CN21030-협동9).

References

  1. Korea Health Industry Promotion Agency. (2020), biopharmaceutical industry analysis and policy study.
  2. Evaluate Pharma. (2020), World Preview 2020, outlook to 2026.
  3. Lee, N., & Lee, J. (2019). R & D intensity and dividend policy: evidence from South Korea's biotech firms. Sustainability, 11(18), 4837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184837
  4. Korea Biopharmaceutical Association. (2020), 2020 Biopharmaceutical Industry Trend Report.
  5. An, J. W., & Park, D. B. (2021). Policy Priorities for Promoting Youth Activities with Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA)-Case of Hongseong County. Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development, 28(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.12653/JECD.2021.28.1.0053
  6. Walsh, G. (2013). Biopharmaceuticals: biochemistry and biotechnology. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Werner, R. G. (2004). Economic aspects of commercial manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. Journal of Biotechnology, 113(1-3), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2004.04.036
  8. Walsh, G. (2004). Second-generation biopharmaceuticals. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 58(2), 185-196 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2004.03.012
  9. Joint Ministry of Relations. (2019), Biohealth Industry Innovation Strategy.
  10. Joint Ministry of Relations. (2021), Advanced regenerative medicine and advanced biopharmaceutical basic plan.
  11. Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2021), K-Global Vaccine Hub Vision and Strategy.
  12. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
  13. Lim, S. G., So, S. C., & Lee, C. S. (2017). An Empirical Analysis of the Performance of Government 3.0 Service Government Using IPA Analysis. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 55(2), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.24145/kjpa.55.2.5
  14. Kim, S. G., Choi, Y. S., & Yun, D. H. (2013). A Study on the Productivity Improvement of Container Terminal using AHP/IPA. Marine Logistics Research, 77, 289-305.
  15. Cho, S. M., Jeon, E. C., Kim, G. H., Kim. J. S. (2017). A Study on Activation of Eco-Label using AHP and IPA, Korea Policy Studies Review, 26(2), 201-225.
  16. Cho, S. J., & Hong, J. B. (2017). A Study on Operational Performance Evaluation of Marine Forest Creation project by BSC, AHP and IPA. The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration, 48(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.12939/FBA.2017.48.1.031
  17. Kim, K. W. & Hyun, S. H. (2018). Analysis of Policy Priorities in Local Governments 4th industrial Revolution Response Strategy: Using analysis the method of AHP and IPA. Journal of Korean Association For Local Government Studies, 30(4), 57-84.
  18. Gyeonggi-do. (2020), Gyeonggi-do Bio Industry Development Comprehensive Plan (2020-2024).
  19. Cho, G., Jeong, G. H., Lee, G. J., & Park, I. S. (2011). A Performance Evaluation Model of Technology Support Programs for Small and Medium Industries using BSC and AHP-Focusing on Technology Support Programs for Photonics Industries. Journal of Industrial Economics and Business, 24(6), 3389-3410.