Korea Trade Review (무역학회지)

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Choice of Export Payment Types by Applying the Characteristics of the New Trade & Logistics Environment

신(新)무역물류환경의 특성을 적용한 수출대금 결제유형 선택연구

  • 김창봉 (중앙대학교 경영경제대학 경영학부 ) ;
  • 이동준 (중앙대학교 대학원 )
  • Received : 2023.08.09
  • Accepted : 2023.08.18
  • Published : 2023.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, import and export companies have been using T/T remittance and Surrender B/L more frequently than L/C when selecting the process and method of trade payment settlement. The new trade and logistics environment is thriving in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Document-based trade transactions are undergoing a digitalization as bills of lading or smart contracts are being developed. The purpose of this study is to verify whether exporters choose export payment types based on negotiating factors. In addition, we would like to discuss the application of the characteristics of the new trade and logistics environment. Data for analysis was collected through surveys. The collection method consisted of direct visits to the company, e-mail, fax, and online surveys. The survey distribution period is from February 1, 2023, to April 30, 2023. The questionnaire was distributed in 2,000 copies, and 447 copies were collected. The final 336 copies were used for analysis, excluding 111 copies that were deemed inappropriate for the purpose of this study. The results of the study are shown below. First, among the negotiating factors, the product differentiation of exporters did not significantly affect the selection of export payment types. Second, among the negotiating factors, the greater the purchasing advantage recognized by exporters, the higher the possibility of using the post-transfer method. In addition to analyzing the results, this study suggests that exporters should consider adopting new payment methods, such as blockchain technology-based bills of lading and trade finance platforms, to adapt to the characteristics of the evolving trade and logistics environment. Therefore, exporters should continue to show interest in initiatives aimed at digitizing trade documents as a response to the challenges posed by bills of lading. In future studies, it is necessary to address the lack of social awareness in Korea by conducting advanced research abroad.

최근 수출입기업은 무역대금 결제과정과 방식을 선택하면서 신용장보다 T/T 송금과 Surrender B/L을 더 유용하게 이용하고 있으며 신(新)무역물류환경의 특성이 4IR 시대에 들어 강력하게 작용하고 있어 서류에 기반한 무역거래가 선하증권의 전자화나 스마트 계약의 발전으로 인해 새로운 국면을 맞이하고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 수출기업이 협상 요인에 따라 수출대금 결제유형 선택이 달라지는지를 검증하고 신(新)무역물류환경의 특성을 적용하여 논하는 것이다. 분석을 위한 데이터는 설문을 통해 수집하였으며, 업체 직접방문, e-mail, fax, 온라인 설문, 등기우편회수 등으로 회수하였다. 설문배포기간은 2023년 2월 1일~2023년 4월 30일까지이며 2,000부가 배포되어 447부가 회수되고(회수율 22.4%), 본 연구의 목적에 부적합한 111부를 제외한 최종 336부의 데이터가 사용되었다. 아래는 연구의 결과를 나타낸다. 첫째, 협상 요인 중 수출기업이 가지는 제품 차별성은 수출대금 결제유형 선택에 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다. 둘째, 협상 요인 중 수출기업이 인식하는 수입기업 구매우위가 높아질수록 사후송금방식이 더 큰 가능성으로 선택되었다. 본 연구는 이와 같은 분석 결과에 더하여 향후 수출기업이 수출대금 결제유형을 선택하면서 신(新)무역물류환경의 특성이 적용된 블록체인기술기반 선하증권, 무역금융플랫폼 등과 같은 새로운 방식의 결제를 고려해야 할 필요성을 제언하였다. 따라서 수출기업은 예컨대 선하증권 위기현상에 대응하는 무역서류의 디지털화 시도 등에 지속적인 관심을 보여야 할 것이고, 후속 연구에서는 국내의 부족한 사회적 인식을 해외선진연구를 통해 제고할 필요가 있을 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2023년도 정부(산업통상자원부)의 재원으로 한국산업기술진흥원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(P0020649, 2023년 산업혁신인재성장지원사업)

References

  1. 김승수(2016), "우리나라 중소무역업체 수입대금결제방식의 결정요인에 관한 실증연구," 중앙대학교 박사학위논문.
  2. 김창봉.이동준(2022), "유통물류 환경 변화에 따른 사후송금방식(Open Account) 수출거래특성과 신용위험 최소화 방안 연구-은행 금융플랫폼의 부분적 역할-," 「물류학회지」, 제32권 제4호, pp.11-27.
  3. 김창봉.양동훈.이동준(2022), "중소수출업체의 사후송금방식(Open Account) 고려요인과 결제리스크 관리성과에 관한 연구," 「무역상무연구」, 제96권, pp.57-76.
  4. 김홍률(2019), "미중 무역전쟁과 게임이론: 협상력 비대칭 상황에서의 협조적 균형 가능성," 「무역학회지」, 제44권 제3호, pp.105-121. https://doi.org/10.22659/KTRA.2019.44.3.105
  5. 성웅현(2001), 「응용 로지스틱 회귀분석」, 도서출판 탐진.
  6. 이학식.임지훈(2017), 「SPSS 24 매뉴얼」, 집현재.
  7. 이희연.노승철(2020), 「고급통계분석론」, 문우사.
  8. 장은희.최영주(2019), "국제대금결제에서 채권 미회수 위험의 회피방안 연구," 「무역보험연구」, 제20권 제1호, pp.25-48. https://doi.org/10.22875/JITI.2019.20.1.002
  9. 홍길종.김구태(2012), "무역결제방식의 변화에 따른 신용위험 관리방안에 관한 연구," 「관세학회지」, 제13권 제1호, pp.175-192.
  10. 홍세희(2005), 「이항 및 다항 로지스틱 회귀분석」, 교육과학사.
  11. Ahern, K. R.(2012), "Bargaining power and industry dependence in mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.103 No.3, pp.530-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.09.003
  12. Alsalim, M. S. H. and Ucan, O. N.(2023), "Secure banking and international trade digitization using blockchain," Optik, Vol.272, pp.1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.170269
  13. Ambler, K., Doss, C., Kieran, C. and Passarelli, S.(2021), "He says, he says: Spousal disagreement in survey measures of bargaining power," Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 69 No.2, pp.765-788. https://doi.org/10.1086/703082
  14. Arrow, K. J.(1957), "Decision theory and operations research," Operations Research, Vol.5 No.6, pp. 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.5.6.765
  15. Boudon, R.(2003), "Beyond rational choice theory," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.29 No.1, pp.1-21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100213
  16. Blaszczyk, M.(2023), "Smart contracts, lex cryptographia, and transnational contract theory," Georgetown University, Law Center, pp.1-50.
  17. Chen, Z.(2008), "Defining buyer power," The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol.53 No.2, pp.241-249.
  18. Chen, M. X. and Wu, M.(2021), "The value of reputation in trade: Evidence from Alibaba," Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.103 No.5, pp. 857-873. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00932
  19. Choi, A. and Triantis, G.(2012), "The effect of bargaining power on contract design," Virginia Law Review, pp.1665-1743.
  20. Costa-Gomes, M. A., Cueva, C., Gerasimou, G. and Tejisc￡k, M.(2022), "Choice, deferral, and consistency," Quantitative Economics, Vol.13 No.3, pp.1297-1318. https://doi.org/10.3982/QE1806
  21. Dobson, P. W. and Inderst, R.(2007), "Differential buyer power and the waterbed effect: Do strong buyers benefit or harm consumers?," European Competition Law Review, Vol.28 No.7, pp.1-12.
  22. Downs, A.(1957), "An economic theory of democracy," New York; Harper and Publication.
  23. Elster, J.(1986), "Rational choice," Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  24. Fells, R. and Sheer, N(2019), "Effective negotiation: From research to results," Cambridge University Press.
  25. Giancaspro, M.(2017), "Is a 'smart contract' really a smart idea Insights from a legal perspective," Computer Law & Security Review, Vol.33 No.6, pp.825-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.007
  26. Giovannucci, D.(2002), "Basic trade finance tools: Payment methods in international trade," World Bank, pp.1-14.
  27. Graham, J. L., Mahdavi, M. and Fatehi-Rad, N.(2020), "Finding potential speed bumps and pitfalls in buyer-seller negotiations in twenty cultures," Negotiation Journal, Vol.36 No.3, pp.249-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12333
  28. Hechter, M. & Kanazawa, S.(1997), "Sociological rational choice theory," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.23 No.1, pp.191-214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.191
  29. Krstic, M. S.(2020), "Rational choice theory-limitations and alternatives," Социолошки преглед, Vol.54 No.1, pp.40-63. https://doi.org/10.5937/socpreg54-22028
  30. Lee, B. and Park, S. K.(2022), "A Study on the competitiveness for the diffusion of smart technology of construction industry in the era of 4th industrial revolution," Sustainability, Vol.14 No.14, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148348
  31. Lukes, S.(2021), "Power and rational choice," Journal of Political Power, Vol.14 No.2, pp.281-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1900494
  32. Meehan, J. and Wright, G. H.(2011), "Power priorities: A buyer-seller comparison of areas of influence," Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol.17 No.1, pp.32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.05.002
  33. Momsen, K.(2021), "Recommendations in credence goods markets with horizontal product differentiation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol.183, pp. 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.018
  34. Monarch, R.(2022), "It's not you, It's me: Prices, quality, and switching in US-China trade relationships," Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.104 No.5, pp. 909-928. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01015
  35. Nam, P. X. and Thanh, T. T.(2021), "Effects of bribery on firms' environmental innovation adoption in Vietnam: Mediating roles of firms' bargaining power and credit and institutional constraints," Ecological Economics, Vol.185, pp.1-23.
  36. Neck, R.(2021), "Methodological individualism: Still a useful methodology for the social sciences?," Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol.49 No.4, pp.349-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-022-09740-x
  37. Niepmann, F. and Schmidt-Eisenlohr, T.(2017), "International trade, risk and the role of banks," Journal of International Economics, Vol.107, pp.111-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.03.007
  38. Pejovic, C. and Lee, U.(2022), "Blockchain bills of lading: A new generation of electronic transport documents," Poredbeno pomorsko pravo, Vol.61 No.176, pp.31-62. https://doi.org/10.21857/mjrl3ugkw9
  39. Pellegrino, B.(2019), "Product differentiation and oligopoly: A network approach," WRDS Research Paper, University of Maryland, pp. 1-53.
  40. Van Vuuren, M. J.(2022), "Using blockchain technology to solve to the international transaction dilemma," Doctoral dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
  41. Zhu, L. and Li, Z.(2022), "The blockchain bill of lading and its function as a document of title," Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.46, pp.87-114.
  42. Zhu, X., Cui, Z. and Zhang, P.(2022), "The role of electronic bill of lading and challenges to the current legal framework," Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, Vol.12, pp.19-26.