CONSUMERS’ SOCIOECOMONONIC WOLRDVIEW AND CONSUMPTION PHENOMENA

Hyun Young Cho,Seungwoo Chun,Joo-Hyoung Ji,Joon Woo Park,Chunduk Hwang 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Introduction Existing studies have revealed various value systems’ relationship to consumer behavior. The factors that have been shown to explain consumer behavior include basic values (e.g., Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong, 2009), consumer worldview (e.g., Saatcioglu & Ozanne, 2013), the dominant ideology of society (e.g., Juhl, Fenger, & Thøgersen, 2017), and political ideology (e.g., Jung, Garbarino, Briley, & Wynhausen, 2017). In this study, we attempted to identify a new, overarching construct that captures individuals’ socioeconomic worldview and then to investigate its impact on consumer behavior. In doing so, we developed a neoliberalism scale and investigated how it relates to consumption-related factors. This neoliberalism construct encompasses individuals’ perspectives on various dimensions, including profit centrism, government intervention, welfare, and self-development. Theoretical development Neoliberalism, as used in this construct, is defined as one’s tendency to support economic liberalizations (e.g., free trade, open markets, financial liberalization, deregulation, globalism, privatization, and private-sector enhancement) and the government’s powerful ruling and legal enforcement to reinforce them even at the expense of significant demographic processes. However, neoliberal individuals otherwise tend to consider the government and political system to be much less efficient and much more oppressive than the competitive market and private sector are. Additionally, they strive to manage everyday life strategically, as if they were innovative entrepreneurs. These individuals believe that one’s success largely depends on his or her own merits and efforts, and thus that inequality or unequal compensation is inevitable in order to achieve efficiency, economic growth, and moral justice (e.g., Peck & Tickell, 2007; Steger & Roy, 2010). Methods We distributed our survey to 374 adults (187 female) who are recruited through a market research firm’s online panel in Korea. Participants’ education levels were as follows: those who have only graduated from high school or have yet to graduate from high school = 20.9%, those who are current college students or have graduated from college = 66%, post-college graduates = 13.1%. Based on the literature on neoliberalism, we generated 54 items to measure neoliberalism tendencies. We initially created 12 dimensions, each of which included between four and six items. The dimensions included belief in economic growth, opposition to government intervention, belief in the inefficiency of the government, opposition to labor unions, opposition to policies that favor the majority, hostility toward social welfare, belief in the need to protect private property, support for globalization, interest in time management, elitism, interest in self-development, and interest in wealth management. We adapted our measures from existing scales, except for perceived social mobility and perceived social inequality, which were measures that we created. We measured long-term orientation (Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2006), the perceived importance of achievement (Burroughs & Rindfleish, 2002), community values (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002), political cynicism (Kaid, 2002), political liberalism (Mehrabian, 1996), life values (Schwartz, 1992), materialism (Richins, 2004), consumer values (S?nchez-Fern?ndez, Angeles Iniesta-Bonillo, & Holbrook, 2009) and impulsive buying behavior (Rook & Fisher, 1995). Results Using the data from 374 respondents, we conducted an exploratory-factor analysis to examine the factor structure of our neoliberalism scale. The exploratory-factor analysis used a principle-component method with direct oblimin rotation, and the criterion of eigenvalue greater than 1.00 generated an 11-factor solution. This factor solution accounted for 59.83% of the total variance. This study employed the following three criteria to retain factors and items: (a) items with factor loading greater than .4, (b) factors with at least three items, and (c) items that do not cross load on the other factors. The results yielded 32 items that comprise seven factors: interest in economic development, hostility toward welfare, interest in wealth management, distrust in government ability, opposition to labor unions, support for the protection of private property, and interest in self-development. We ran an another exploratory-factor analysis using the same methods and items as before, which confirmed that those items loaded well for the seven factors, explaining 59.37% of the total variance. Each factor—hostility toward welfare, interest in self-development, distrust in government ability, interest in economic development, opposition to labor unions, interest in wealth management, and support for the protection of private property—was found to account for 24.08%, 14.11%, 5.12%, 5.01%, 4.27%, 3.40%, and 3.30% of the total variance, respectively. Additionally, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of each factor was as follows: hostility toward welfare = .87, interest in self-development = .83, distrust in government ability= .62, interest in economic development = .68, opposition to labor unions = .76, interest in wealth management = .75, and support for the protection of private property = .67. Finally, we created the neoliberalism index by averaging these seven factors. There was a significant difference in how survey participants responded to the five factors of the neoliberalism construct used in this study—namely, interest in economic development, interest in self-development, opposition to labor unions, hostility toward welfare, and support for the protection of private property. In general, support for those five factors tended to increase with the age of the individual, such that participants over 50 years old appeared to place the most emphasis on the importance of economic development, self-development, and the need to protect private property, while showing more unfavorable attitudes toward labor unions and government welfare policies compared to younger age groups. Overall, neoliberalism index, which is the average of all seven factors, also demonstrated similar patterns. People seem to agree more with neoliberal values as they age. We examined the correlation between the neoliberalism index and related measures such as perceived social inequality, perceived social mobility, and long-term orientation. Our data revealed a significant and positive correlation between neoliberalism and perceived social mobility (r (372) = .35, p < .01), and neoliberalism and perceived social inequality (r (372) = .23, p < .01). Neoliberal individuals are likely to perceive the society to which they belong as relatively equal and to believe that they can achieve a satisfactory social status as long as they strive to do so. This tendency is well explained by the significant correlation between neoliberalism and long-term orientation (r (372) = .47, p < .01), that of neoliberalism and the perceived importance of achievement (r (372) = .39, p < .01). Neoliberal individuals’ positive attitudes toward their future status appear to encourage them to work diligently for their future achievements and to improve their status. In contrast, a significant correlation with political cynicism (r (372) = .27, p < .01) indicates neoliberal individuals’ distrust in government. It can be also inferred that neoliberal individuals are politically conservative, given that neoliberalism is negatively correlated to political liberalism (r (372) = -.29, p < .01). Finally, this index is positively correlated to community values (r (372) = .32, p < .01). Furthermore, our neoliberalism index was correlated with Schwartz’s general life values (Schwartz, 1992), including efforts toward self-enhancement (r (372) = .41, p < .01), openness to change (r (372) = .28, p < .01), efforts toward self-transcendence (r (372) = .32, p < .01), and interest in conservation (r (372) = .45, p < .01). Highly neoliberal individuals may strive to develop themselves, seek interesting and stimulating experiences on their own, tend to be altruistic, and conform to what has been established. Given that politically conservative individuals have been considered to be less altruistic and less open to change, the current results, which contradict prior assumptions, seem to indicate that neoliberalism is very different from conservatism. Our data indicated that there is a significant correlation between neoliberalism and the five dimensions of consumer values—namely, efficiency (r (372) = .26, p < .01), quality (r (372) = .37, p < .01), social values (r = .30, p < .01), play (r = .27, p < .01), aesthetics (r = .32, p < .01), and materialism (r = .16, p < .01). Individuals with neoliberal views are likely to consider various factors prudently in choosing products and proper places to shop. What matters to them in their consumption would be satisfactory shopping experiences as a whole rather than just the quality of the products for which they shop. It is interesting to note that highly neoliberal individuals are likely to value possessions. Given the significant correlation between neoliberalism, social mobility, and inequality, neoliberal individuals may believe that they can be like others who achieve a better status than they have and perceive that having more possessions is an efficient tool for acquiring a higher social status. Impulsive buying behavior was not significantly correlated with neoliberalism. Self-development, one of the seven dimensions of this neoliberalism construct, is closely linked to an emphasis on efficient time management and self-control. Neoliberal individuals are likely to be more thorough and careful in their decision-making and consumption behavior. Thus, it is not surprising to observe an insignificant relationship with impulsive buying behavior. Discussion We attempted to determine if individuals’ worldview could explain consumption-related phenomenon such as the extent to which they value possessions. The data supported the prediction that neoliberalism is closely linked not only to basic human values (Schwartz, 1992), but also to consumption phenomena, including materialism (Richins, 2004) and consumer values (e.g., S?nchez-Fern?ndez, Angeles Iniesta-Bonillo, & Holbrook, 2009). Although we were unable to make clear casual inferences from correlational findings, our results shed light on future research in the field of materialism and other consumerbehavior phenomenon using this neoliberalism construct. Experimental manipulation of neoliberal tendencies would generate more intriguing results.

신자유주의와 종교관련 연구사 검토 경제위기에 대한 종교계의 대응 모색

이혜정 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2020 한국학 Vol.43 No.3

This paper will focus on existing research on the neoliberal economic system in order to analyze the economic crisis and the religious response. What influence did neoliberalism have on the Korean religious researchers? How did Korean religious researchers accept and criticize neoliberalism? And what alternatives did researchers offer to counter neoliberalism? With these questions, we intend to critically analyze the trend of research through review of existing research. This paper can be said to be a review by Korean religious circles on the discussion of neoliberalism. Through the review of the research institute, we intend to analyze the overall research trends, researchers' interests, and criticisms and alternatives in detail. Researcher review work can contribute to grasping the topographic map of future neoliberal research. After experiencing the foreign exchange crisis in the late 1990s, I would like to understand what themes and grounds the researchers have been studying mainly in neoliberalism that has been fully developed in Korean society. In the current situation where related research has been accumulated for more than 20 years, it may be applied in the direction of discovering areas with insufficient research in the future or supplementing the tendency of existing research through the review of research institutes. Through this work, it is possible to examine the Korean religious perception and evaluation of neoliberalism. Chapter II deals with the existing studies by religion and by topic. Specifically, research topics and theories of thesis, the interests and inclinations of researchers, and the characteristics of research by religion were analyzed. Based on the analyzed contents, an attempt was made to explain the overall trend of the existing research. As a result, it can be seen that the existing research on neoliberalism has been published steadily in the Christian world, and has been led especially by researchers of the Christian progressive camp. In reality, the voice of conservative Christians who support neoliberalism has not appeared at least in previous studies. Progressive Christian theologians dealt with a consistently critical argument for neoliberalism. Chapter Ⅲ classified and analyzed various criticisms and alternatives of researchers. Compared to Catholics, the existing studies of Protestant theologians deal with a relatively wide range of discussions, but the thesis of the existing studies on neoliberalism is mainly divided into three categories. The first is the criticism of Hayek, which settled the neoliberal economic order in earnest, the second is the criticism of neoliberalism’s features and phenomena in terms of ethics, values, ​​and justice, and the third is an analysis of the religious characteristics and influence of neoliberalism, etc. 본고는 신자유주의 논의에 대한 한국종교계의 연구사 검토라고 할 수 있다. 필자는 연구사 검토를 통해 전반적인 연구경향과 연구자들의 관심, 비판의 논지와 대안에 대해 분석하고자 하였다. 구체적으로는 1990년대 말 외환위기를 경험하고 난 후 한국사회에 본격적으로 전개된 신자유주의에 대해 종교 연구자들이 어떠한 주제와 근거들을 주로 연구해 왔는지를 파악하고자 하였다. 관련연구가 20년 이상 축적된 현 상황에서 연구사 검토를 통해 신자유주의 연구지형도를 파악하는 한편 앞으로 연구가 미진한 분야를 발굴하거나 기존연구의 경향성을 보완하는 방향으로 적용될 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 작업을 통해 신자유주의에 대한 한국 종교계의 인식과 평가를 살펴볼 수 있을 것이다. Ⅱ장은 종교별 기존연구를 주제별로 다루었다. 구체적으로는 연구주제들과 논지의 근거들, 연구자들의 관심과 성향, 종교별 연구의 특징을 분석하였다. 분석된 내용을 바탕으로 기존연구의 경향성을 전반적으로 설명하고자 시도하였다. 그 결과 신자유주의에 관한 기존연구는 주로 기독교계에서 꾸준히 발표되어 왔으며 특히 기독교 진보진영의 연구자들에 의해 주도되어 왔음을 알 수 있었다. 현실적으로 신자유주의를 지지하는 보수 기독교계의 목소리는 적어도 기존연구에는 나타나지 않았다. 진보진영의 기독교 신학자들은 신자유주의의 부정적 측면을 강조한 비판적 논지를 일관되게 다루고 있었다. Ⅲ장에서는 개별 연구자들의 다양한 비판과 대안을 분류하고 분석하였다. 가톨릭 연구자들은 주로 종단의 공식입장을 언급하는데 비해 개신교 신학자들의 기존연구는 상대적으로 다양한 논의를 다루고 있는데 신자유주의 기존연구의 논지는 주로 세 가지로 구분된다. 첫째는 신자유주의 경제질서를 본격적으로 정착시킨 경제학자 하이에크의 이론을 비판하는 내용, 둘째는 신자유주의의 특징과 현상을 윤리, 가치, 정의의 측면에서 비판하는 내용, 셋째는 신자유주의가 가진 종교적 특징과 영향력에 대한 분석 등이다. 본고의 공헌은 신자유주의 연구사검토를 통해 신자유주의에 대한 종교계의 대응과 대안을 분석한다는 점이다. 반면 한계는 연구사 검토의 결과에 나타난 바와 같이 신자유주의 경제질서에 대한 비판은 잘 드러나 있지만 그에 대한 적절한 대안적 실천의 가능성은 여전히 멀리 있는 것 같다. 연구자들이 제시한 대안적 실천방안은 개인들의 연대협력과 실천에 있었고 그 대응상대는 경제를 최고국시로 여기는 정부와 기업, 세계경제기구 등이다. 소위 계란으로 바위치기이다. 신자유주의 경제질서의 모순을 구조적으로 보완할 수 있어야 하겠다. 또는 개인의 연대협력과 실천이 더욱 구조적차원으로 확대될 수 있도록 해야 한다. 세계국가의 정치체제가 다양하지만 적어도 대의민주주의체제를 시행하고 있는 정부는 국민 개인의 필요와 복지를 연결시킬 수밖에 없다. 그럼으로 신자유주의 경제질서가 일으킨 경제적 불평등구조를 구조적차원으로 해결하기 위해 접근할 수 있는 가능성은 여전히 존재한다.

신자유주의 시대와 기독교 신학의 과제

박숭인(Sung-In Park) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2015 신학논단 Vol.80 No.-

After the cold war era, the world has been ruled by the capitalistic principle. The capitalism is making itself to get the maximum profit, and finally to be neoliberalism. So we are in the negative power of the neoliberalism, not knowing what it is. Basically the neoliberalism is not an economic theory, but an economic policy, which is ignored by most academic fields, in spite of widespread influence of it. In this sense the theology has to meet, struggle with and overcome the problem of the neoliberalism. This thesis deals with the task of the theology in the era of neoliberalism. In order to manage the above mentioned theme, the nature of the neoliberalism should be clarified. The discourse on the nature of the neoliberalism forms the main theme of the second chapter. At the same time the neoliberalism is discussed concretely in the korean context. The third chapter of the thesis focuses on the task of the theology in the era of neoliberlaism. Some theologians have tried to investigate the nature of the neoliberalism and to set up the task of theology. Their researches are very helpful to construct the task of theology today. Most of them debate the problem of the neoliberalism on the economical level. But the fact is that the neoliberalism is dominant all the national and international levels of life itself. In this sense the problem the neoliberalism is an indispensible task of the theology. As a result of above mentioned investigation this thesis suggests three important points to develop the theological task. Firstly, the theology should endeavor to take off the mask of the neoliberalism and to reveal the real nature of it. Secondly, the theological task should be continuos work. Thirdly, it would be better that the task is debated on the interdisciplinary level. After the cold war era, the world has been ruled by the capitalistic principle. The capitalism is making itself to get the maximum profit, and finally to be neoliberalism. So we are in the negative power of the neoliberalism, not knowing what it is. Basically the neoliberalism is not an economic theory, but an economic policy, which is ignored by most academic fields, in spite of widespread influence of it. In this sense the theology has to meet, struggle with and overcome the problem of the neoliberalism. This thesis deals with the task of the theology in the era of neoliberalism. In order to manage the above mentioned theme, the nature of the neoliberalism should be clarified. The discourse on the nature of the neoliberalism forms the main theme of the second chapter. At the same time the neoliberalism is discussed concretely in the korean context. The third chapter of the thesis focuses on the task of the theology in the era of neoliberlaism. Some theologians have tried to investigate the nature of the neoliberalism and to set up the task of theology. Their researches are very helpful to construct the task of theology today. Most of them debate the problem of the neoliberalism on the economical level. But the fact is that the neoliberalism is dominant all the national and international levels of life itself. In this sense the problem the neoliberalism is an indispensible task of the theology. As a result of above mentioned investigation this thesis suggests three important points to develop the theological task. Firstly, the theology should endeavor to take off the mask of the neoliberalism and to reveal the real nature of it. Secondly, the theological task should be continuos work. Thirdly, it would be better that the task is debated on the interdisciplinary level.

외환위기 이후 한국에서의 신자유주의의 내부화

장상철(Sangchul Jang) 한국인문사회과학회 2021 현상과 인식 Vol.45 No.2

이 글의 문제의식은 신자유주의의 ‘내부화’에 관한 논의에서 출발한다. 신자유주의의 내부화를 말한다는 것은 신자유주의가 국외에서 발생하여 국내로 도입되었다는 사실을 전제한다. 신자유주의의 개념을 확정하고 그 구성요소를 밝히는 데 기여한 논의들은 신자유주의의 역사적 등장 배경과 일국적 및 전 세계적 차원으로의 확장 과정을 다루면서, 신자유주의를 구성하는 핵심적인 정책 요소들—이른바 ‘워싱턴 컨센서스’로 표현되는—을 확인하고 있다. 신자유주의가 한국에 내부화되는 과정을 다루는 기존의 연구성과들도 몇 가지 점에서 공통적인 내용에 대한 합의에 도달하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 한국에서 신자유주의는 외부의 압력 못지않게 국가관료들의 적극적인 정책적 선택의 결과이다. 한국에서 신자유주의가 처음 도입된 시기는 박 정희 정부 말기에 입안된 경제안정화 종합시책이 실제로 시행된 전 두환 정부 시기이다. 1997년의 외환위기는 한국에서 발전국가의 잔존요소가 거의 일소됨으로써 신자유주의가 심화되는 결정적 계기였다. 한국에서의 신자유주의 내부화에 관한 연구들은 통상적으로 발전국가와 성격이 충돌하는 것으로 이해되는 신자유주의적 정책들이 한국에서 도입되고 수동적인 동의를 얻을 수 있었던 정치사회적 배경을 설명함에 있어서 일정한 성과를 보여 주고 있다. 사회학적 관점에서의 연구가 한국에서의 신자유주의의 내부화와 관련된 논의에 기여하기 위해서는, 신자유주의 시대의 불평등의 심화 현상에 대한 올바른 인식을 가로막고 있는 사회 제도들에 대한 비판적 논의가 출발점이 될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. The subject-matter of this article begin with the discussion of the ‘internalization’ of neoliberalism. The internalization of neoliberalism presupposes the fact that neoliberalism is a phenomenon brought into the country, which has its origin in foreign countries. Discussions that have contributed to defining the concept of neoliberalism and unfolding its components are identifying the key policy elements—represented as so-called ‘Washington Consensus’—that make up neoliberalism as they address the historical background of neoliberalism and its expansion to national and global level. Prior researches that have dealt with the internalization process of neoliberalism in Korea also seem to be reaching a consensus on some crucial points. In Korea, neoliberalism is brought about by active policy choices of state officials as much as external pressures. Neoliberalism was first introduced in Korea during the Chun Doo-hwan administration, when the comprehensive economic stabilization measures drawn up at the end of the Park Chung-hee administration were actually implemented. The 1997 foreign exchange crisis was a decisive moment for the intensification of neoliberalism as the residual elements of the developing country were almost wiped out in Korea. Many studies on the internalization of neoliberalism in Korea have shown certain achievements in explaining the political and social background in which neoliberal policies having commonly been seen as not fitting to the developing countries could be introduced and be obtaining passive consents in Korea. In order for sociological research to contribute to proper understanding of the internalization of neoliberalism in Korea, it is necessary to take as a starting point critical discussions on social institutions hindering from understanding rightly the deepening inequality in the neoliberal era.

국내 사회과학 연구의 신자유주의 개념에 대한 비판적 검토 및 재개념화: 퀸 슬로보디언(Quinn Slobodian)의 역사분석을 중심으로

최서영,서정민 한국사회역사학회 2019 담론 201 Vol.22 No.3

Neoliberalism is suffering from conceptual vagueness. Extant studies do not provide a clear definition of neoliberalism. Rather, they use liberalism and neoliberalism interchangeably without distinction or fail to define the essence of neoliberalism and discuss its results as if they were its essence. As a result, neoliberalism became a ghostly, prevalent concept that cannot be used as an operational variable in social science. This article suggests to conceptualize neoliberalism through a Weberian ideal type that reflects the specificities originating from the birth of the concept in order to make a meaningful variable out of neoliberalism. Quinn Slobodian’s historical analysis provides that the consolidation of the modern nation-state system and the global spread of democracy were at the background of the birth of neoliberalism as a concept. Borrowing from this perspective, we define neoliberalism as the principle that justifies the legal and institutional arrangement to encase capitalism from nationalism and democracy. Such definition allows the operation of neoliberalism as a conceptual variable in view of the state-society-market relationship. We hope that this conceptualization will open up new possibilities in the study of neoliberalism which ought not to be discarded but to be reanalyzed. 오늘날 신자유주의 개념은 그 모호성으로 인해 실증적 사회과학 연구에서 의미있는 변수로 활용되지 못하고 있다. 기존 연구들은 신자유주의에 대한 명확한 정의를 제시하지 않은 채 신자유주의와 자유주의를 유사한 개념으로 혼용하거나, 신자유주의의 본질을 명시하지 않은 채 신자유주의의 결과만을 기술한다. 신자유주의는 실체를 알 수 없으나 만연한 개념이 되었기에 사회과학 연구에서 유의미한 변수로 사용되지 못하고 있다. 본 연구는 신자유주의를 개념이 등장한 역사적 특수성을 반영할 수 있는 막스 베버(Max Weber)식 이념형으로 개념화 및 변수화를 시도한다. 신자유주의 개념이 등장한 배경에는 국민국가 체제의 공고화와 민주주의의 전 세계적 확산이라는 세계 질서의 변화가 있었다는 퀸 슬로보디언(Quinn Slobodian)의 역사분석을 기반으로 한 본 연구는 신자유주의를 ‘국가와 시민사회의 힘이 커질 때, 시장을 민족주의와 민주주의의 위협으로부터 보호하기위한 법적, 제도적 협의를 마련하는 것을 정당화하는 원칙’이라 개념화한다. 이러한 개념화는 신자유주의 개념을 국가, 사회, 시장의 관계에 비추어 변수로서 조작화하는 것을 가능하게 한다. 이를 통해, 폐기될 위기에 놓인 신자유주의 개념을 유의미한 변수로 사용하는 사회과학 연구의 새로운 가능성을 제시하고자 한다.

신자유주의의 효율성과 효율적 이타주의

박숭인 연세대학교 신과대학 연합신학대학원 2019 신학논단 Vol.95 No.-

After the cold war era, the world had been ruled by the capitalistic principle. The capitalism is making itself to get the maximum profit, and finally to be neoliberalism. So we are in the negative power of the neoliberalism, not knowing what it is. Basically the neoliberalism is not an economic theory, but an economic policy, which is ignored by most academic fields, in spite of widespread influence of it. In this sense the theology has to meet, struggle with and overcome the problem of the neoliberalism. This thesis deals with the efficiency and effectiveness of the neoliberalism – as they say - and the effective altruism. In order to manage above mentioned theme, the nature of the neoliberalism should be first clarified. The discourse on the nature of the neoliberalism forms the main theme of the second chapter. At the same time the efficiency and the effectiveness which is emphasized by the neoliberalists. The third chapter of the thesis focuses on the meaning of the effective altruism. Effective altruism is a thought and movement whichuses evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others. In this sense it differs from the traditional altruism or charity. On the basis of the above mentioned analyses on the effective altruism as well as on the efficiency and the effectiveness of neoliberalism, the differences between the two are explained. As a result of above mentioned investigation, this thesis tries to develop the theological task. Dietrich Bonhoeffer determines the life of Jesus Christ as “Für-andere-dasein”. We christians should follow the way of Jesus Christ and find the way to be the being for others. In order to carry out our duty for others as disciples of Jesus Christ, we should endeavor to take off the mask of the neoliberalism and to reveal the real nature of it. Neoliberalism is dominant all the national and international levels of life itself. So the problem of the neoliberalism should not be debated only on the economical level. As far as it is related to the whole life of menkind, the theology should accept it as one of the most important tasks, which should be continuous and concrete work. 본 논문은 신자유주의를 분석하되, 신자유주의에 관한 지금까지의 논문들에서 부분적으로 논의되고 강조된 바는 있지만 그 주제에 집중해서 논구되지는 못한 주제, 즉 신자유주의에서 강조하는 효율성의 문제에 천착하고자 하는 필자의 의도에 따른 것이다. 효율성이라고 하는 주제는 때로는 신자유주의를 추동하는 다양한 정책 수단들 또는 강제적 집행들 배후에서 그 다양한 비인간적인 추동들의 정당성을 담보해주는 가장 확실한 근거로 자리하고 있으며, 때로는 신자유주의 정책의 상징적 혹은 실질적 구호로 작용하면서 신자유주의 정책을 이끄는 기수 역할을 하는 중심 주제이다. 신자유주의에서 강조되는 효율성이라는 주제를 냉철하게 분석하여 앞으로 신자유주의를 비판적으로 검토하는 일에 하나의 초석을 놓으려고 하는 것이 본 논문의 집필 목적 중 하나이다. 또한 신자유주의를 규정하는 내적 중심 논리인 효율성이 지극히 이기적인 욕망의 극대화인 동시에 그 욕망의 정당화로 보고 그와는 대척점에 서 있는 이타적 정신이 기독교 정신의 본질일 뿐 아니라 사실상 인간 본성의 뿌리임을 밝히고자 한다. 이를 통하여 신자유주의가 강조하는 효율성의 허구를 폭로할 뿐 아니라, 인간 정신의 구체적이고 새로운 대안을 제시하고자 하는 것이 본 논문을 저술하는 목적이다. 이러한 과제를 수행함에 있어서 기독교 신학의 원론적인 접근 방식보다는 구체적이고 실행 가능한 접근 방법을 택하는 것이 더 효과적이라고 생각하기에 본 논문의 많은 부분을 효율적 이타주의에 할애하고자 한다. 이상의 동기를 지닌 본 논문은 다음의 내용으로 구성된다. Ⅱ장은 신자유주의를 분석하되, 신자유주의 자체 논리인 경제적 효율성에 집중하여 논구하는 내용으로 구성된다. 이를 위하여 신자유주의가 주장하는 논리들의 허구성을 지적하는 것으로 논의를 시작하고자 한다. 무엇보다도 신자유주의라는 이름 자체에 숨어 있는 용어의 문제를 지적하는 것으로 시작하여, 유토피아적 시장만능주의, 낙수효과의 허구 등을 밝힘으로써 신자유주의의 허구와 진실을 드러내고자 한다. 이러한 기반 위에서 신자유주의가 주장하는 경제적 효율성을 분석하되, 그 효율성을 구성하는 본질적 성격은 물론 불합리성을 제시함으로써 Ⅲ장에 등장하는 효율적 이타주의와 대비되는 점을 분명히 하고자 한다. Ⅲ장은 효율적 이타주의를 다룬다. 신자유주의의 이기적 효율성의 대척점에 서 있는 사상으로서 효율적 이타주의를 다룸에 있어서 동일하게 사용되는 효율이라는 용어에 우선 집중하여 논의를 진행하고자 한다. 여기서는 효율이 결코 가치중립적인 개념이 아님을 아는 것이 중요하다. 그 어떤 가치를 위한 효율인지에 따라 사회적 미덕과 악덕 두 가지 방향성으로의 확대, 전개가 가능한 개념이 효율임을 밝히고, 신자유주의의 경우와 이타주의의 경우에서 어떻게 다른 방식으로 전개되는가를 논구하는 것으로 중심 내용을 구성하고자 한다. 이를 위하여 효율적 이타주의를 표방하는 사람들의 이론과 실천 방식을 소개한다. Ⅳ장은 지금까지 논의된 연구의 바탕 위에서 신자유주의라는 전 세계적 소용돌이 속에서, 또 그 사태에 직면한 기독교 신학이 감당해야 할 사명에 대한 전망을 하는 것으로 매듭을 짓고자 한다.

신자유주의의 불균등발전과 국토 및 도시 공간 정책의 변화

최병두 국토지리학회 2011 국토지리학회지 Vol.45 No.3

On the basis of Harvey's arguments on neoliberalism, this paper is first of all to see the concept of neoliberalism and its uneven geographical development on the world, secondly to examine both the introduction and development process of neoliberalism in S. Korea and the changing process of national and urban spatial policies in S. Korea, and finally to consider certain limits or crises of neoliberalization and neoliberal spatial and environmental policies in S. Korea. Neoliberalism can be seen as a currently dominating ideology emphasizing freedom of market and actually existing processes appealing on market mechanism, but it has resulted in realizing class interests with little, if not, further economic growth, through what Harvey calls 'accumulation by dispossession'. S. Korea which was once characterized in terms of the development state introduced neoliberalism after the democracy movement in the late 1980s, and since then has gone on what can be called 'developmental neoliberalism'. This process has been implied in national and urban spatial policies, and the 4 river project, Han-river Renaissance project, and Newtown development project can be seen as typically neoliberal ones characteristic of 'creative destruction'. As these neoliberal national and urban spatial projects seem to be faced with serious limits or crises, so it can be argued that we need to produce new postneoliberal alternatives. 이 논문은 신자유주의에 관한 하비(Harvey)의 주장에 근거를 두고, 최근 국토 및 도시 공간 정책의 배경으로서 신자유주의의 개념과 그 불균등한 전개과정을 고찰한 후, 우리나라에서 신자유주의가 어떻게 전개되어 왔으며, 국토 및 도시 공간 정책이 어떻게 변화해 왔는가를 살펴보고, 끝으로 현재 신자유주의 및 그 공간환경 정책이 봉착한 한계 또는 위기상황을 서술하고자 한다. 신자유주의는 시장의 자유를 강조하는 이데올로기이며, 시장에 의존하는 실제 존재하는 메커니즘으로 정의되며, 이러한 신자유주의는 경제의 추가적 성장보다는 ‘탈취에 의한 축적’을 통해 결과적으로 계급적 이해관계를 실현시켜 주는 것으로 이해된다. 1960년대 이후 본격적인 자본주의화 과정에서 발전주의 국가로 특징지워졌던 우리나라는 1980년대 후반 민주화 과정 이후 신자유주의가 도입되게 되면서 혼종적 성격을 가진 ‘발전주의적 신자유주의’로 나아가고 있다. 이러한 과정은 국토 및 도시 공간 정책에도 반영되고 있으며, 특히 현재 진행되고 있는 4대강 사업이나 ‘한강르네상스사업’, 도시재개발·뉴타운사업 등은 ‘창조적 파괴’에 기초한 전형적인 신자유주의적 공간환경 개발 프로젝트라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 신자유주의적 국토 및 도시 공간 사업이 한계 또는 위기에 봉착함에 따라, 탈신자유주의적 대안을 모색할 필요가 있다고 주장된다.

신자유주의적 통치성, 주체, 그리고 공공성의 문제: Foucault의 1978, 1979년 강의를 중심으로

이문수 고려대학교 정부학연구소 2019 정부학연구 Vol.25 No.2

This Study aims to explicate Michel Foucault’s argument concerning how neoliberal subjects are easier targets of government, largely based on his lectures at the Collège de France during 1978-79. Foucault saw neoliberalism as a type of governmental rationality, in which individuals are promised to be capable of realizing their desires while those desires are incessantly postponed as the intensity of economization and commodification in ever-growing fields of individuals’ lives increase. For Foucault, such a promised but incessantly postponed fulfillment of one’s freedom and desires constitutes one of the most important features of neoliberalism, making individuals in neoliberalism “eminently governable.” Individuals in neoliberalism can be seen to be relatively free from discipline and control, but, in fact, they are not less than passive subjects systematically responding to the environmental variables manipulated by both the government and business, and Foucault generalizes it as an environmental intervention of neoliberalism. This study, then, makes clear what environment means for Foucault by delving not only into the historical alterations of its meaning across several centuries in Europe, but also into the theoretical origins in both German ordo-liberallism and Chicago School economists. Despite the fact that Foucault rarely gave a clear-cut definition of environmental intervention in neoliberalism, this study suggests a new interpretation which argues that the kernel of intervention lies in desire and freedom. Lastly, the issue of shrinking importance of ‘the public’ in neoliberalism is tackled with a view of the possibility of counter-acting the current trend by utilizing the very weapon of neoliberalism. 본 연구는 신자유주의에서 어떻게 개인들이 통치하기 탁월한 가능한 존재가 되는가의 문제를 Michel Foucault의 1979년의 강의를 중심으로 풀어보려는 목적을 가지고 수행되었다. Foucault는 신자유주의의 특징을 개인들에게 최대한의 자유를 주고 또는 욕망의 실현을 약속해주면서 동시에 그것들의 지속적인 경제화, 상품화를 통해 그 실현을 무한히 연기할 수 있는, 또 그렇게 함으로써 개인들을 계속 통치의 대상으로 묶어두는 하나의 통치합리성을 의미하는 것으로 보고 있다. 여기서 개인들은 자유주의에서처럼 규율의 대상으로는 간주되고 있지 않고 외적으로 보면 자유롭게 행동하는 존재인 것처럼 보이지만 사실은 자본이나 정부가 조정할 수 있는 환경적 변수에 반응하는 수동적 존재에 불과한 것으로규정되고 있으며, 이를 Foucault는 신자유주의의 “환경유형적 개입”으로 일반화시킨다. 본 연구는 Foucault의 이와 같은 주장을 하는 배경이 되는 독일의 질서자유주의, 미국의시카고학파의 이론에 대한 심층적 탐구를 통해 그 의미를 분명히 한다. 또한 신자유주의가과연 공공성과 관련하여 어떤 역할을 하는지도 탐구될 것이다. 마지막으로 통치가 자유에필연적으로 의존하기 때문에 자유를 주체적으로 활용한다면 현재의 통치에 저항할 수 있는 가장 중요한 무기도 될 수 있다는 사실도 밝힐 것이다.

IMF위기 이후 신자유주의의 내부화 과정

윤상우(Yoon, Sang-Woo) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2013 亞細亞硏究 Vol.56 No.3

This study attempts to examine how to internalize neoliberalism since the IMF crises in Korea and Brazil, based on the comparative analysis of policy regimes and social outcomes of neoliberalism in Korea’s Noh Moo-Hyun government and Brazil’s Lula government. Main research question is about whether the neoliberal regimes in Korea and Brazil have been convergent or divergent. We can find that neoliberalisms in Korea and Brazil have been distinguished from classical neoliberal models in the Anglo-Saxon countries and they can be identified as ‘developmental neoliberalism’ combing market fundamentalism and developmentalist state intervention. Furthermore, neoliberalism in Lula government also has features of ‘social neoliberalism’ as well as developmental traits.

The Threat to “Our Democracy” and the Neoliberal Crisis of Legitimacy

Adam Kotsko 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2021 신학논단 Vol.106 No.-

최근 미국의 정치 평론가들은 도널드 트럼프가 출범한 정부가 야기한 ‘민주주의’의 위협에 대해 경고하며 이 위협의 직접적인 맥락이 글로벌 금융 위기 이후에 계속 되고 있는 신자유주의 질서의 정당성의 위기라고 주장한다. 하지만 필자는 신자유주의는 단지 경제 정책과 정치 제도의 문제가 아닌 도덕적 가치들 위에 정당성의 기반을 두는 정치신학적 패러다임을 주장하는 바이다. 신자유주의론은 개인의 자유를 최고의 가치로 여기며, 이는 시장 경쟁에서만 완전히 실현될 수 있다고 주장한다. 이 신념에 따라 신자유주의는 계속해서 시장 경쟁의 모델에 따라 사회를 재편하려고 시도한다. 그러나 이런 신자유주의가 정의하는 인간의 자유는 매우 협소한 시각에서 바라본 자유에 불과하며, 사회적 실패의 책임을 묻기에 충분한 매개가 될지는 모르나 현 시대의 위기 상황을 바꾸기에는 충분하지 않다. 신자유주의와 민주주의의 관계는 항상 모호하다. 자유 선택에 기반을 둔 이데올로기는 투표 결과를 완전히 무시할 수는 없지만 신자유주의만을 택하는 것은 자유를 거부하는 것을 의미할 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 레이건 치하에서 신자유주의가 처음 도입된 후 미국의 선거 제도는 한정된 권한과 분열된 정부를 낳았고, 더 적극적으로 반민주적인 결과를 낳았다. 신자유주의를 정당화하는 전략의 근본적 당위성은 글로벌 금융 위기로 인해 산산조각이 나고 말았다. 이러한 종말론적인 도전에 직면하여 시스템은 위기의 원인에 대해 점점 더 엄격하고 편집증적인 이야기를 만들어냈다. 결론적으로 필자는 트럼프의 기행이 대중을 설득시킬 정당성과 실질적 대안을 잃어버린 채 권력에서 쇠퇴하는 신자유주의 질서의 자연스러운 산물이라고 주장하는 바이다. In recent years, US political commentators have warned of increasingly dire threats to “our democracy” stemming from Donald Trump and his Republican colleagues. What is missing is any attention to the more immediate context of Trump’s rise and his anti-democratic machinations: the ongoing legitimation crisis of the neoliberal order in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. As I argue in Neoliberalism’s Demons, neoliberalism is not just a matter of economic policies and political institutions—it is a political theological paradigm that grounds its legitimacy on moral values that are enshrined as its “ultimate concern.” Chief among these values is individual free choice, which can only be fully actualized in market competition. Hence neoliberalism seeks to remake as much of society as possible on the model of market competition. Yet neoliberalism’s very narrow vision of human freedom is a trap, giving us just enough agency to take the blame for social failures but not enough to change our circumstances. Neoliberalism’s relationship with democracy has always been ambiguous. On the one hand, an ideology founded on free choice cannot totally ignore the ballot box. On the other hand, choosing anything but neoliberalism means rejecting freedom. Hence, after the initial installation of neoliberalism under Reagan, the American electoral system has produced narrow mandates and divided government—and, increasingly, actively anti-democratic results. The basic plausibility of the neoliberal strategy of legitimation was shattered by the Global Financial Crisis. Faced with such an apocalyptic challenge, the system did not change course but doubled down, spinning increasingly punitive and paranoid narratives about the causes of the crisis. Far from an aberration, Trump is a natural outgrowth of a declining neoliberal order that no longer commands popular legitimacy but clings to power by excluding and scapegoating real alternatives.