日帝下 植民地農業政策과 農村社會

田剛秀 효성여자대학교 산업경영연구소 1989 경영경제 Vol.6 No.-

This paper aims at groping a new perspective in the analysis of Korean modern history through surveying five recent empirical studies which were made after 'the Modern History Controvercy'. All of these are worthy of notice in that they strive to find new directions in their respective fields of empirical study, although they involve several problems and limits in the technic of analysis and the method of argumentation. In Ch. Ⅱ, I examined three studies on the representative colonial agricultural policies by Japanese Imperialism, i.e. the Land Investigation Project in the 1910s', the Rice Augmentation Plan in the 1920s' and the Rural Society Promotion Movement and the Korean Agricultural Land Law in the 1930s'. Thereby I can reach the concolusion that we have to grasp the subjective intetion of imperialism and the internal conditions in colonial Korea, which resticted it, simultaneously and dialectically in the analysis of colonial agricultural policies. to the period of Japanese rule. And in Chang's study, it was confirmed that it is possible to theorize the mechanism of the movement of colonial landownership. I think it is left as an important task to the study on Korean modern history to make clear the several points of argument which were found through this investigation with more profound empirical studies from now on. In Ch. Ⅲ, I surveyed two studies on peasant differentiation and on colonial landownership respectively. In Kang's study, it was made clear that in the analysis of peasant differentiation it is necesseary to extend the standpoint of the Theory of Internal Development

기본소득 사상의 세 흐름에 대한 비교 검토와 그 함의 -재원 정당성을 중심으로-

전강수 참여연대 2019 시민과세계 Vol.- No.35

This paper views that the Basic Income Theory has three different traditions of thought. Henry George and the Georgists valued the justification of the financial resources and the right way to spend the revenues. In their view, revenues from land value taxation, user charges of natural resources, environmental tax, and progressive tax on certain privileges are the justifiable financial sources. They believe that these revenues should be evenly distributed as every person has an equal right to them. Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax, which is viewed as a different form of basic income. As a well-known opponent to welfare policies, Friedman supported cash transfer programs for low-income households just to correct the errors of the welfare programs at that time. Lastly, Philippe Van Parijs lays out various resources for basic income arguing that every income includes unearned part that comes from social capital. He maintains that it is equal distribution of ‘gifts’, but this entails the risk that it may be used as means to support indiscreet taxation rather than justifiable taxation standards. To avoid the criticism for basic income that it would take from those who work hard to those who are poor and lazy, the financial justification issues need to be thoroughly considered. Many financial models of basic income that appeared in the existing literature in Korea do not seem to fulfill the financial justification standards. In fact, it is inevitable to face such obstacle when the basic income allowances are set in advance before finding the justifiable financial resources. Some financial resources that are justifiable and usable include national land holding tax, more progressive income and business taxes, environmental tax or revenue from carbon auctions, and tax on the Artificial Intelligence. Thus, the amount of basic income allowances needs to change each year based on the revenues from these sources. 본 논문에서는 기본소득 사상에 세 개의 큰 흐름이 있다고 보았다. 헨리 조지와 조지스트는 재원의 정당성과 정의로운 지출 방법을 중시했다. 그들이 정당하다고 생각한 재원은 토지가치세, 자연자원 사용료, 환경세, 특권이익에 부과하는 누진세 등이다. 여기서 나오는 수입에 대해서는 모든 사람이 평등한 권리를 가지므로 당연히 1/n씩 분배해야 한다는 것이 그들의 생각이다. 밀턴 프리드먼은 소득세 체계를 활용하여 기본소득의 변형이라 불리는 마이너스 소득세를 제안했다. 복지정책을 싫어하는 그가 저소득층에게 현금을 지급하는 정책을 제안한 것은 오로지 기존 복지 프로그램의 혼란을 해결하기 위해서였다. 판 파레이스는 모든 소득에 사회적 자본에서 나오는 불로소득이 포함되어 있다고 주장하며 다양한 기본소득 재원을 제시했다. ‘선물의 공평한 분배’를 내걸었으나, 그것은 정당한 과세의 근거가 아니라 무분별한 과세의 수단으로 활용될 우려가 있다. 재원 정당성 문제를 제대로 정리해두지 않으면 기본소득은 자칫 일하는 사람의 것을 빼앗아서 게으른 빈자에게 준다는 비판에 직면하기 쉽다. 기존 연구에서 제시된 기본소득 재정 모델들은 대체로 재원 정당성 기준을 충족시키지 못하고 있다. 사실 기본소득 지급액을 미리 결정해 놓고 재원을 찾는 경우 이 함정에 빠지는 것은 불가피하다. 한국에서 기본소득 재원으로 활용할 수 있는 정당한 재원으로는 국토보유세, 소득세⋅법인세의 최고세율 인상, 환경세 또는 탄소 배출권 판매 수입, 인공지능 과세 등을 꼽을 수 있다. 기본소득 지급액은 고정시키지 말고 이 재원들에서 나오는 수입의 크기에 따라 해마다 변동할 수 있도록 해야 한다.

헨리 조지의 눈으로 본 토마 피케티의 􋺷21세기 자본􋺸

전강수 한국경제발전학회 2015 經濟發展硏究 Vol.21 No.1

피케티는 공정한 자본주의를 추구하고, 불평등 분석에 전력투구하며, 조세를 통한 문제 해결을 도모한다는 점에서 헨리 조지와 유사하다. 한편 노력소득과 불로소득을 구분하지 않고, 토지의 중요성과 특수성을 무시하며, 토지가 치 변동의 특수성을 감안하지 않는다는 점에서는 조지와 다르다. 만일 조지가 살아와서 􋺷21세기 자본􋺸을 읽는다면, 300년이 넘는 기간을 대상으로 방대한 통계 자료를 수집ㆍ정리해서 불평등의 실태와 역사적 추이를 보여주었고, 역사의 무대 뒤로 사라졌던 ‘상대적 분배율 이론’을 일거에 복권시켰으며, 조세를 통한 불평등 해소를 단지 사후적 교정에 그치지 않고 사전적 차단의 수단으로 제시했다는 점을 들어 피케티에게 박수를 보낼 것이다. 하지만 􋺷21세기 자본􋺸은 통계와 이론적 근거의 부정합, 주장과 사실의 괴리를 느끼게 하는 내용을 적잖게 담고 있다. 본 논문의 목적은 􋺷21세기 자본􋺸에서 드러난 문제점들이 토지와 자본을 융합한 신고전학파의 전통을 답습하 여 토지의 중요성과 특수성을 무시한 데서 기인하는 바가 크다는 사실을 논증하는 데 있다. 토지의 중요성과 특수성을 중시한 조지의 토지관을 받아들일 경우 피케티 이론이 어떻게 개선될지 밝히는 것도 본 논문의 과제이다 (JEL: E2, B1, H2) Thomas Piketty is similar to Henry George as he pursues a fair capitalism, strives to explore inequality, and seeks to resolve the problems through taxation.However, Piketty does not distinguish between earned and unearned income, ignores the importance of land, and does not consider the special characteristics of change in land value. If George were to come back to today's world and to read Capital in the Twenty-First Century, at first he would applaud Piketty'sefforts and achievements in collecting statistical data for the period over 300 years, showing the trend and reality of inequality, restoring the theory of relative income shares, and finally suggesting taxation as a fundamental solution to inequality. Yet, Capital in the Twenty-First Century contains some inconsistencies between statistical arguments and theoretical grounds. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that the shortcomings found in the book are the results of following the tradition of neoclassical economics that amalgamated land and capital and ignoring the importance and peculiarity of land. In addition, this paper aims to show how Piketty's theory could be improved by incorporating Henry George's view on land.

植民地期 朝鮮의 米穀貯藏奬勵政策과 벼檢査·共同販賣制度 : 1930년대를 중심으로

田剛秀 효성여자대학교 산업경영연구소 1993 경영경제 Vol.10 No.-

성경적 토지법과 통일 한국

전강수 기독교통일학회 2009 기독교와 통일 Vol.3 No.-

[특집:토기공개념의 역사와 현실]일본 부동산 거품과 장기불황

전강수 역사비평사 2004 역사비평 Vol.- No.66

일본계 은행 자금의 유출입이 태국의 외환위기에 미친 영향

전강수,최창규,한동근 국제지역학회 2002 국제지역연구 Vol.6 No.2

This paper pays attention to the role of massive inflow and abrupt outflow of the Japanese banks' loan in generating the Thailand's currency crisis in 1997. The plunge of yen value after 1995, combined with the collapse of Japanese asset markets in 1990s, badly aggravated the BIS capital/asset ratios of the Japanese banks. The Japanese banks responded to the aggravating capital/asset ratios by refraining from giving additional credits and eventually withdrawing the existing loans from Thailand. The huge withdrawal by the Japanese banks triggered other foreign banks to engage in competitive retreat from the Thailand's credit market. This paper points out that the Japanese banks' sudden holdback and/or massive withdrawal, caused by weak yen against dollar and falling asset prices in Japan, was a major external factor to generate the Thailand currency crisis. The external factor complements the internal factors in Thailand, such as mismanagement of exchange rate, bust of bubble, and hasty capital liberalization, in explaining the Thailand currency crisis.

통일 한국을 위한 새로운 해방의 경제학

전강수 효성여자대학교 산업경영연구소 1998 경영경제 Vol.15 No.-

경제위기 극복을 위한 기독교적 대안 : 성경적 토지법과 헨리 조지 경제학에 기초하여

전강수 통합연구학회 1998 통합연구 Vol.11 No.3-4

A fundamental cause to the economic crisis is our disobedience to God's economic laws. We have forgotten them or intentionally ignored them. The most important part of the God's economic laws is the land law. God wishes everyone to have an equal right to land use. So, He ordered the Israelities to divide the land of Canaan equally into every family's inheritance. Worrying that their equal rights to use land may be violated, God enacted redemption and the Year of Jubilee. Today, instead of this biblical land tenure system, the institution of private property in land is accepted in many societies. The Bible says it is the Baal's land tenure system. Actually, the institution of private property in land brings about poverty and cyclical economic depressions by enforcing taxation on many kinds of earned incomes and making land-value rise more rapidly than productivity. Korea's present economic crisis also resulted form the institution of private property in land. The only way to overcome the economic crisis si to realize God's will, repent our sins and go back to His laws. Henry George's land-value taxation is the best economic policy through which we can go back to the God's laws. God gave us the Bible and Henry George who was filled with the Holy Spirit. We, God's people already have a solution to this economic crisis.

제 3 의 경제체제 헨리 조지의 ' 새로운 해방의 경제학 '

전강수 기독교학문연구회 1998 신앙과 학문 Vol.3 No.3

N/A