市場經濟制度의 非倫理性과 制度的 限界

박천익 大邱大學校 社會科學硏究所 1999 社會科學硏究 Vol.7 No.2

본 논문은 자본주의 시장경제제도의 비윤리성과 제도적 한계 문제를 시장경제제도 본질을 중심으로 분석하였다. 최근에 자본주의 시장경제제도는 지구촌의 생존과 번영을 위한 최선의 선택으로 인식되고 있으나 그 내면에는 많은 문제점이 있음을 알 수 있다. 그 중에서도 가장 본질적인 문제는 자본주의 시장경제제도가 갖고 있는 비윤리 성과 제도적 한계의 문제이다. 본 논문에서는 경제윤리의 기본적 개념을 통상 적인 기준에 의거하고 있다. 시장경제제도는 단순히 경제성장의 외형적인 측면에서는 분명히 효율성이 높은 제도이다. 그러나 그러한 효율의 문제도 역시 특정한 범위 내에서만 보장 가능한 문제이다. 시장경제제도에 있어서 비윤리성과 제도적 한계 문제는 시장경제제도의 근원적인 과제로서 시장은 본질적으로 윤리자체의 문제를 상정하지 않고 있다는 점과 경제적 이해의 문제 이상으로 윤리문제를 포함하고 있지 않는다는 젊이 중요한 약점으로 인식되고 있다. 또한 시장경제제도는 제도 그 자체에서 경쟁의 강점을 갖고 있는 대신 분배적 정의를 등한시하고 있음을 지적하였다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 시장의 무제한 적인 경쟁보다는 최적경쟁의 개념이 도입되어야 함을 강조하였다

한국자본주의정신과 동아시아경제모델

박천익 대구대학교 경제경영연구소 2003 경제경영연구 Vol.2 No.1

1960년대 이후 동아시아의 경제발전을 주도해온 동아시아 경제모델이 1990년대에 접어들면서 비판의 대상이 되기 시작했다. 특히 1990년대 후반에 이르러서 동아시아경제가 연쇄적인 경제위기를 겪으면서 그 강도는 높아 졌다. 한국을 비롯한 세계의 주류경제학자들은 합리적 행위가 요구되는 글로발리제이션 시대에 있어서 온정주의적 가치가 다분한 동아시아경제모델은 폐기되어야 한다고 주장하고 있다. 과연 이러한 주장은 옳은 것일까? 만약 동아시아경제모델이 시대적 요구에 맞지 않다면 그 대안은 무엇인가? 경제적 기초가 서구의 그것과는 현저히 다른 동아시아적 환경에서 시장적 글로발리즘은 어떤 문제를 갖고 있는가? 한국경제를 보다 한국적 여건에 맞는 모형을 통해서 한층더 효율적으로 발전시키는 방안은 없는가? 시장론자들은 시장의 능력을 과신하고 있지만 현실적으로 한국경제에 나타나는 많은 부정적 요인들은 잘못된 市場觀에서부터 출발하는 경우가 많다. 시장원리를 근거로 한 放任的 자유, 過當競爭이 야기하는 조직 및 발전의 불안정성은 시장적 사고가 가져오는 부정적 시각의 일부분이다. 경제적, 문화적, 의식적 배경이 서구와 같지 않는 상황에서 맹목적인 시장신뢰 그 자체가 많은 문제를 갖고 있음을 부인할 수 없다. 그렇다면 한국경제를 비롯한 동아시아국가들에 있어서 대안적 모델은 없는가? 필자는 그 대안적 방안을 신동아시아경제모델에서 찾아보고자 한다. 신동아시아경제모델은 기본적으로 유교적 가치를 바탕으로 한 공동체자본주의 모델이다. 즉 경쟁의 효율성과 협동의 안정성을 혼합하여 최적적경제상태를 실현하는데 목표를 두고 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 목적의 시론이라고 본다. This study is analysed eastern asian economic model with the sprits of Korean capitalism. In November 1997, only 10 years after the Asian miracle, Korea was on the verge of foreign currency crisis, and Thailand and Indonesia came very close to declaring a national moratorium in July 1997 and in 1998, respectively, as the financial and foreign currency crisis deepened. The drastic deterioration of Eastern Asian economies left experts wondering about the causes of the demise of Eastern Asian economies. Many economists raised criticism on the Eastern Asian economic model itself. The criticism on the Eastern Asian economies led to negation on the very fundamentals of the Eastern Asian Economic models. In consequence, the Eastern Asian economy that had been once a darling of the economist was now considered as a wrong model that to be discarded, according to the pervasive opinion of todays economists. There was no objection to the argument that Eastern Asian economic model built on the Confucius values wasn't fit to the international economy prescribed with logics and competitions. However, there are a lot of flaws with the statement that Eastern Asian economic model should be eradicated due to its illogical and obsolete values. It is well know that many social variables are intricately woven into the economic systems. It is for this reason that in the selection of an economic model that make the most sense to a country, one should take into consideration the social variables that play into an economic model. Although the developed countries in the west have maintained a higher level of economic stability in comparison with the Eastern Asian countries, it is certain that they still have problems ensuring the comfort and happiness of the citizens in terms of the quality of living as well as defining the value systems. The Confucius capitalism of East Asia is deeply rooted in the Confucius values, which center on ethical and mental values with the objective of ensuring people to follow the ethical codes, differing from the market capitalism built on economic interests. The market capitalism is a principle of competitions and order among individuals, clearly defining the efficiency and logical aspects of market principles, but lacks the ethical values for people in communities. The market capitalism is associated with too many problems to become an economic model for a society to adopt: it hasn't addressed the issue of isolation of people, and the lack of community sprit, corporation and sharing within communities and fulfillment of human spiritual quest. This research reviews the fundamentals of the Eastern Asian economic model, as well as re-examining them with the focus on the sprits and value system of the Korean capitalism against the backdrop that the world capitalism becomes central to the contemporary values. After analyzing the Eastern Asian economic model, which was under intense criticism recently, with regards to the fundamentals and the values of Confucius capitalism, this research determines what kind of modification the Confucius capitalism is in need of to be transformed into an advanced model equipped with the logic that meets the future capitalism of the world. The East Asians are in need of a new value system to better prepare themselves for the era of new world capitalism. The new value system is neither Asian nor the western values. The downsides of the western values have caused adverse effects in the western societies, as well. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the western values will be the world-leading values down the road in the future. The best long-term alternative will be to establish new value systems by adopting the western values based on the Asian ones. In other words, the specifics of the market capitalism will be absorbed into a society built on the premises of the Asian values. We should take into account the following criteria in the building of new value system. Firstly, we should understand the essence of the Asian and the western values. The ethical values are of little difference in theory across both cultures. The question is how these values are practiced in reality. Secondly, we should recognize that principle of competitions and reasonability must be upheld and accepted. The market is an institutional devise that leads to efficiency-and has appeals to most people. We are in need of a precise economic model in which Confucius concepts are materialized in market activities. Thirdly, there should be explicit regulations on the specifics of economic activities and the enforcement of these regulations should be validated. A lot of less developed countries suffer from lack of supervision and responsibility over economic activities, and thus fail to deliver economic justices. The East Asian governments should initiate ongoing restructuring on the economic values to equip the economic system with self-control capabilities based on the principle of efficiency.

구조조정과 사회안전망 정책에 대한 一考察 /

박천익 대구대학교 경제경영연구소, 2002 경제경영연구 Vol.1 No.1

시니어 웰빙과 노후보장을 위한 재산관리 방안에 대한 시론적 고찰

박천익 대구대학교 (한사대학) 사회복지연구소 2004 社會福祉硏究 Vol.27 No.-

지금 우리는 안정적인 노후생활을 위하여 재산관리를 숙고해야할 고령화사회를 맞고 있다. 고령자에게 있어서 재산관리는 여러 가지 측면에서 중요한 과제가 된 것이다. 이 논문은 추상적이고 이론적인 연구보다는 현실적으로 제기되는 사례와 구체적인 과제들을 중심으로 고령자의 안정적인 노후생활을 보장하기 위해 선택 가능한 재산관리모형을 모색해보고자 한다. 이 논문은 노후 재산금융관리를 위해 몇 가지 제안을 한다 : 첫째, 고령자의 노후를 위한 재산금융관리는 빠를수록 좋다. 가능하다면 사회진출과 동시에 준비하는 것이 좋다. 둘째, 재정투자를 위해서는 장기적인 계획을 세우는 것이 바람직하다. 셋째, 펀드의 성격과 자신의 투자성향에 따라 재정을 관리하는 것이 필요하다. We have come to the aging society which demands countermeasures for comfortable old ages. It is believed to be an important task for the seniors to take care of their finances. We would like to suggest several ways to manage assets for the old ages especially in times when we can hardly find the means to increase properties due to the economic downturn and lowering of the rate of interest. First, start the finance management as soon as possible, as early as you start your business careers. Second, make a long-term plan for financial investments. Third, manage your finance according to your investment inclination and the characters of the funds.

限界效用學派와 新古典學派의 比較 : 經濟學說史的 側面에서

朴天翼 韓社大學 1980 대학논문집 Vol.10 No.-

Both Marginal School and Neoclassical School are support of moderneconomic school. It is a large summit which is achieved the same generation. Generally, economists deal with these schools together as a moderneconomics school because they are represented by the economists that is the symbol of moderneconomics. Of course, these schools are same times in sight of generation and have discontented with economic theories of those stages. In this point of view, these schools are very much different with scientific philosophy and system of fundamental thought. First, Marginal Utility School take a side of pure economic philosophy, while Neoclassical School have a side of practical economic thought. The former's theory is background by philosophy of pure doctrine, the later is done philosophy of experimentalism. Second, instead of Marginal School criticized Classical School and challenged it, Neoclassical School embrassed it and developed. Specially, Marginal School achievedwith new theory which criticized it Classical School's in theory of value. Third, We could see Marginal School accomplished greatly in the system of general equilibrium while Neoclassical School achieved in the system of synthesis very much. It is shined brilliantly by L. Walras system of general equilibrium that economic theory of Marginal School is followed by S. Jevons and C. Menger. Also it is post on the position of foruner for a direction of current economics that economics of synthesis is advocated by A. Marshall. Forth, In place of Marginal School it's economics lead to the economics of the capitalism against the economics of socialism, Neoclassical School developed it and that the school is a foruner of current welfare economics. When, we considered like this, we could see that these school's contribution is a very great in the economic history. If we thought that Classical School had creatived economics, Moderneconomic School make a foundation which economics is, so to speaked P.A. Samuelson, 'queen of social sciences'.

厚生評價基準에 관한 硏究

박천익 대구대학교 평화통일연구소 1985 平和統一硏究 Vol.2 No.-

新自由主義經濟思想과 經濟危機의 構造化(Ⅰ)

朴天翼 大邱大學校 社會科學硏究所 2001 社會科學硏究 Vol.9 No.1

신자유주의는 현대자본주의의 핵심적인 경제사상이다. 국경 없는 무한경쟁의 지구촌경제를 주도해나가는 신 자유주의 경제사상은 국가경쟁력의 측면에서 상대적인 우위를 확보하고 있는 선진국들에게는 국가적인 이익을 보장해 주지만, 그렇지 못한 후발국가들에 대해서는 엄청난 경쟁력 강화의 부담과 고통을 안겨 주고 있다 신자유주의 경제학은 범세계적인 자유경쟁의 시장자본주의를 제도화함으로써 국가경쟁력을 전반적으로 향상시켜 지구촌공동체를 한층 더 발전시킨다는 긍정적인 면이 없지 않으나, 국제경쟁구조의 내면을 면면히 분석해 본다면 선진국을 제외한 세계자본주의추종국들에게는 빈곤과 경제위기의 구조화라는 부정적인 측면이 보다 더 크게 부각되고 있음을 부인할 수 없다. 그 원인은 본질적으로 신자유주의 경제학의 이론적 틀 그 자체에 내재하고 있다고 본다. 본 연구에서는 이미 누차에 걸쳐 언급되고 있는 신 자유주의 경제학의 본질과 경제위기의 구조화라는 측면을 체계적으로 분석해 보고자 한다. 특히 신자유주의의 이념적 뿌리와 역사적 전개과정을 개관하고, 현실적인 측면에서 후발국들이 공통적으로 대처해나가야 할 방안들을 모색해 보고자 한다.

南北韓 經濟協力의 現況과 展望

박천익 대구대학교 (한사대학) 평화통일연구소 1993 平和統一硏究 Vol.10 No.-

厚生制度와 厚生改革 /

박천익 大邱大學校 經商科學硏究所, 1989 經商科學 Vol.10 No.-

Cambridge學派의 資本論爭

박천익 韓社大學 産業福祉硏究所 1980 産業福祉 Vol.3 No.-

Modern-economics have not yet found the method of solution it’s problems in capital controversy that one of the most controversy in the history of economic theory. Specially, in theory of economie growth, neoclassical economists assert that Capital is diffiult to measured is much impact on specific vision and elaboratic concept of neoclassical school. In history of economic theory, neoclassical is the streams of moderneconomics which is succeed on after School of Marginal Utility and the Economics of Alfred Marshall. Especially, this school is an outstanding contribution in field of economic growth theory. The reason that neoclassical have gotten scathing criticism of Cambridge School, it seems’ to be decline that neoclassical position. Of course, here we say the combridge school, it means that London Cambridge School what he called in midist of MIT Cambridge and London Cambridge. And so, what capital controversy of Cambridge school indicated controversy of London and MIT. The stream economists of MIT Cambridge are Don. Patinkin, T.Modiglian, and P.A.Samuelson and so on, and the stream economists of London Cambridge are Joan. Robinson, Nicholas Kaldor, Lugi.Passinetti, and Piero, Sraffa and so forth. Cambridge School cast a written callenge to the theory of Neoclassical School as a kinds of following. First, it is difficult to measurement of capital itself because labour is a single goods but capital is unlimited goods in the kinds of it. Therefore there are many kinds of method that take a measurement of the range. Second, wage frontier’s slope will no longer measure the aggregate capital labour of the economy. Third, ti can be shown that the presence of reswitching is sufficient to in validate almost all the neoclassical parables. So to speak, generally Cambridge School as a like contents, insist on difference theory about Neoclassical School that is equilibrium of Golden Age as maximized of economic growth theory. Consequently, as a like of the front, we could see the point of difference in this both school come from the heterogeneity of philosophical view. We could see that theory of Neoclassical School base on idealistic and rationalistic philosophy of value, while theory of Cambridge School base on experimental and realistic philosopy of it. Thus like thinking, we could see that capital controversy is an advanced controversy in history of economic theory. And so we could speak that economic theory of Cambridge School and Neoclassical School are have to adjusted and deveopled with the ground of reality.