[The Editors' Verdict] For 'Bullseye-Piercing Policies' to Be Effective

I had the opportunity to meet Deputy Prime Minister Koo Yooncheol, who was appointed as the first Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance in the Lee Jaemyung administration, in a private setting this past May. At the time, Koo, who was not holding public office, emphasized that "a major transformation is inevitable. The next administration must go all-in on artificial intelligence (AI) without exception." He stressed that the next five years would be a critical period that determines the fate of South Korea, insisting that "we need policies that are impactful and hit the core, as if piercing the bullseye."

His urgent appeal is also reflected in his book "Revolution Korea," published last year. The book presents 11 innovation tasks, with "AI economic innovation" appearing first. In this section, Koo argues that "AI will completely change our world, and we must mobilize all national capabilities," and insists that "we need to combine AI with reality to develop new business models that do not yet exist." Koo's AI policy is expected to take on more concrete form in the future.

Koo's emphasis on AI stems from his belief that it is the only breakthrough to revive the stagnant Korean economy. The call for AI has become a mainstream trend. The Lee Jaemyung administration pledged to invest 100 trillion won in AI as a campaign promise, and Chey Taewon, Chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, recently stressed at a forum that the struggling manufacturing sector must combine with AI in order to survive.

The positive impact of AI on the economy is also evident in various reports. Consulting firm McKinsey projected in a report that applying automation technologies, including AI, across the manufacturing sector could boost productivity by up to 25%. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) also analyzed the impact of AI on global manufacturing productivity through 2030 and assessed that global GDP would increase by 14% (about $15 trillion). The firm concluded that companies adopting AI have productivity that is more than 1.5 times higher than those that do not.

However, simply adopting AI does not automatically lead to such productivity gains. A CEO of a major domestic conglomerate whom I met recently stated unequivocally, "If we do not change the work culture, adopting AI is meaningless in terms of productivity improvement." This CEO, who works in the electronics industry, explained, "For example, if it used to take five days to write a report before AI, after adopting AI, it has been drastically reduced to two days." He acknowledged that there is a clear effect of reducing work hours due to AI adoption. However, he added, "The problem comes next." Because the report deadlines remain the same as before, there are now large gaps between tasks. While productivity per work unit has improved due to AI, the lack of systematic time management has offset the gains. As a result, he believes that overall productivity is not much different from before AI was introduced.

Recently, there have been concerns in business circles that Korea's response speed is far too slow compared to global competition. The United States is concretizing plans to revive manufacturing by integrating robotics technology, and China is securing cost competitiveness by lowering production costs. In contrast, Korea is lagging not only in humanoid response strategies but also in terms of work capabilities. If this continues, the nation's industrial competitiveness will inevitably decline.

The Lee Jaemyung administration has pledged to implement a 4.5-day workweek. At a minimum, this requires maintaining current levels of productivity. However, no one can say exactly how much working hours can be reduced through the use of AI. The "bullseye-piercing policy" that Koo mentioned will only be effective if accompanied by such analysis.