A Study on Kinship and Reciprocity in Pauline Congregations

최현욱(Hyun wook Choi) 개혁주의이론실천학회 2015 개혁주의 이론과 실천 Vol.- No.8

The fact that reciprocity merges as a significant form of economic relationship practiced by the Pauline communities is quite reasonable. It is understandable if we examine it against the prevailing situation of economic deprivation experienced by the early believers. The socioeconomic background of Pauline congregations called for generalized and balanced reciprocities among the members of the same congregation or other congregations to survive by overcoming their poor economic situations by means of leaning on each other. The reciprocity among Christians as members of an extended kinship group within congregation was an embedded strategy which was crucial to survival. It provided a means whereby individuals in precarious economic circumstances could attain some measure of material stability. It also called for redistributions between congregations that were some distance apart, through their spiritual leader, Paul, for the same kind of reasons. Moreover, if they accepted the teachings of the early Christian church that all believers of Jesus were siblings, and also had faith in the New Covenant of loving one another in Christ, which includes giving materially, it should be a natural thing for them to apply generalized reciprocity and redistribution as a practice of their faith. Thus Paul promoted the reciprocity relations to grow from balanced reciprocity to liking reciprocity. This could bring solidarity among Christian siblings of different backgrounds, proclaiming the gospel of Christ, which can be centered by the self-giving love of other-regard. 바울 공동체들에서 행해진 중요한 경제적 상호 관계의 형태가 호혜(互惠)적인 형태의 것이라는 것은 당시 로마제국 내의 그리스-로마(Greco-Roman)와 바울 공동체의 경제 상황을 이해한다면 상당히 합리적인 분석이다. 만약에 우리가 상당수의 초기 그리스도인들이 경제적인 박탈을 경험하는 상황하에 있었다는 것을 알게 된다면 그들의 그러한 특수 상황 하에서 이러한 관계들은 충분히 정상적인 것이라는 점을 이해할 수 있다. 바울 공동체들의 이러한 사회경제적 배경은 그들의 어려운 경제적 상황을 이겨내기 위해 지역의 공동체내 또는 지역 외의 공동체들 사이에서 일반화된 호혜관계(generalized reciprocity)와 균형적인 호혜관계(balanced reciprocity)를 필요로 했다. 확장된 친족그룹으로서의 신앙공동체내의 멤버들 사이의 호혜관계는 그들의 생존에 매우 중요한 내장(內裝)된 전략이었다. 호혜관계는 위험한 경제적 상황에 처해 있는 개인들이 어느 정도 경제적인 안정을 얻을수 있는 수단을 제공했다. 바울 공동체들의 사회경제적 배경은 그들이 처한 어려운 경제 상황들 때문에 어느 정도 거리가 떨어져 있는 공동체들 사이에서도 그들의 지도자인 바울을 통한 재분배(redistribution)를 필요로 했다. 게다가 만약에 바울 공동체의 성도들이 모든 신자들은 형제라는 초대 교회의 가르침을 받아들였고 물질적인 나눔까지 포함하는 “그리스도 안에서 서로 사랑하라.”는 새언약을 믿었다면 그들이 신앙의 실천으로써 일반화된 호혜성과 재분배를 그들의 삶 가운데 적용하는 것은 당연한 일이라고 볼 수도 있다. 그러므로 바울은 성도들간의 호혜관계들이 균형적인 호혜관계(generalized reciprocity)에서 애호(愛好)적인 호혜관계(liking reciprocity)로 성장하도록 권장했다. 성도들의 관계가 균형적인 호혜관계에서 애호적인 호혜관계로 성장하는 것은 바울 공동체들의 경제적 난관들을 극복할 수 있도록 도와 주었을 뿐 아니라 타자존중의 자기희생적인 사랑을 핵심으로 하는 그리스도의 복음을 성도들이 몸소 삶으로 선포함으로써 서로 다른 배경들을 지닌 그리스도인 형제들 사이의 연대를 가져올 수 있었다.

마키아벨리즘과 긍정적․부정적 호혜성 간의 관계: 정서지능의 조절효과

구현진,이수란,신용환,손영우 한국사회및성격심리학회 2016 한국심리학회지 사회 및 성격 Vol.30 No.1

This study examines the moderating role of emotional intelligence on the relationship between Machiavellianism and two types of reciprocity: positive reciprocity and negative reciprocity. We used the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), Christie and Geis' Machiavellianism Scale (Mach-IV) and the Personal Norm of Reciprocity (PNR) questionnaires (N = 367). The results of hierarchical regression analysis indicated that the interaction of machiavellianism and emotional intelligence was significant on both types of reciprocity. Regarding the moderation of emotional intelligence, results showed that the aspects of moderation differed between the two types of reciprocity. In positive reciprocity, emotional intelligence buffered the negative effect of machiavellianism on positive reciprocity, whereas in negative reciprocity, emotional intelligence strengthened the positive effect of machiavellianism on negative reciprocity. These results could be explained by a recent research that emotional intelligence is the capacity to adapt one's response flexibly in accordance with others' behaviors and strategies. And this aspect of emotional intelligence suggests that when emotional intelligence interacts with machiavellianism, it can either have buffering or strengthening effect, depending on the social context. 본 연구는 마키아벨리즘과 긍정적․부정적 호혜성 간의 관계에서 정서지능의 조절효과를 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 총 367명(여성 208명, 남성 159명)의 참가자들에게 마키아벨리즘 척도(Mach - IV: Christie and Geis’ Machiavellianism scale), 정서지능 척도(Wong and Law’s Emotional Intelligence scale), 호혜성 척도(Personal Norm of Reciprocity)가 포함된 설문을 실시하였다. 위계적 회귀분석 결과, 기존에 호혜성에 영향을 미친다고 알려진 변인들의 영향을 통제한 후에도 마키아벨리즘과 정서지능의 상호작용이 긍정적․부정적 호혜성 각각에서 유의하게 나타났다. 하지만 정서지능의 조절효과는 마키아벨리즘과 긍정적․부정적 호혜성 간의 관계에 따라 상이한 양상을 보였다. 긍정적 호혜성의 경우, 정서지능은 마키아벨리즘이 긍정적 호혜성에 미치는 부적 영향을 완화시켰다. 이와 반대로 부정적 호혜성에서 정서지능은 마키아벨리즘이 부정적 호혜성에 미치는 정적 영향을 강화시켰다. 이러한 결과는 정서지능이 대인 간 상호작용 맥락에 따라 유연하게 자신의 전략을 조절할 수 있다는 최근 연구들의 결과를 뒷받침하는 것이며, 정서지능의 이러한 유연성 특성이 마키아벨리즘 성격과 상호작용 할 때에는 사회적 맥락에 따라 마키아벨리즘의 영향력을 완충 또는 강화시킬 수 있다는 가능성을 시사한다.

루이지노 브루니(Luigino Bruni)의 ‘상호성(Reciprocity)’ 개념 고찰

이은주 국립부경대학교 인문사회과학연구소 2024 인문사회과학연구 Vol.25 No.1

본 연구는 최근 한국사회에 소개되고 있는 이탈리아 시민경제학에서 중심 역할을 하고 있는 루이지노 브루니(Luigino Bruni)의 ‘상호성(reciprocity)’ 개념을 고찰하였다. 브루니는 상호성을 연대와 협력이 일어나도록 하는 원칙으로 보며 시민생활에는 계약을 포함한 다양한 형태의 상호성이 상호작용하고 있음을 게임이론을 통해 분석하고 있다. 본 연구는 상호성에 대한 이러한 혁신적인 접근을 상호성 이론에 대한 브루니의 주요 저서들을 중심으로 구체적으로 파악하여 시민사회의 협력을 활성화하는 데 있어서 시사점을 살펴보고자 하였다. 고찰 결과 브루니는 상호성을 3가지 유형(‘계약의 상호성’, ‘우정의 상호성’, ‘무조건적 상호성’)으로 제시하고 있으며 건강하고 지속가능한 시민사회를 위해서 다양한 상호성의 공존이 중요함을 게임이론을 통해 증명하였다. 특히 이제까지 일방적 이타주의로 간주해온 자선이나 조건 없는 베풂, 배려, 자비가 상호성의 한 유형(‘무조건적 상호성’)임을 제시한 후 공동체나 조직의 협력을 촉진하고 활성화하는 데 있어서 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있음을 다차원적 상호성의 역학 분석을 통해 입증하였다. 그러나 동시에 ‘무조건적 상호성’(자비로운 협력자)의 빈도가 ‘계약의 상호성’(신중한 협력자) 빈도보다 높으면 ‘무조건적 상호성’뿐만 아니라‘ 우정의 상호성’(용감한 협력자)도 소멸함을 확인하였다. 때문에 ‘무조건적 상호성’ 만이 모여 있는 조직이나 공동체의 경우 지속가능성이 위협받을 수 있음을 경고하고 있다. 결론적으로 브루니의 상호성 이론은 공동체나 조직 내 협력을 활성화하는 데 있어서 중요한 행위인 ‘무조건적 상호성’의 중요성을 일깨워줌으로써 자원봉사나 비영리활동/공익활동과 같은 시민사회 내 조건 없는 행위들을 가치화하고 이를 활성화하는데 이론적 근거로서의 잠재력을 갖고 있다. 또한 다차원적 상호성의 역학 분석을 통해 ‘무조건적 상호성’의 의도하지 않은 위험성과 이 위험을 ‘조건부 상호성’이 상쇄시키는 과정을 파악하여 실제 시민생활에서 협력을 활성화하기 위해서는 다양한 유형의 상호성이 공존해야 함을 강조하고 있다. This study examined Luigino Bruni's concept of 'reciprocity', which plays a central role in Italian civic economics, which is recently introduced in Korean society. Bruni sees reciprocity as a principle that allows solidarity and cooperation to occur, and analyzes through game theory that various forms of reciprocity, including contracts, are interacting in civil life. This study attempted to examine the implications of revitalizing cooperation in civil society by grasping this innovative approach to reciprocity in detail. As a result of the study, there are three types of reciprocity ('contract reciprocity', 'friendship reciprocity', and 'unconditional reciprocity') and it has been confirmed that coexistence of various reciprocity is important for a healthy and sustainable civil society. In particular, charity or benevolence, which has so far been regarded as unilateral altruism, has proven to be a type of reciprocity ('unconditional reciprocity') and has implications for promoting and revitalizing unconditioned activities such as volunteering and non-profit activities. In addition, the dynamic analysis of multidimensional reciprocity identifies the unintended risk of 'unconditional reciprocity' and the process by which conditional reciprocity offsets this risk, providing insight for how to activate cooperation in real civil life. In conclusion, Bruni's theory of reciprocity has potential as a theoretical basis for valuing and revitalizing unconditional acts in civil society, such as volunteering and non-profit/public interest activities, by reminding the importance of "unconditional reciprocity," which is an important act in revitalizing cooperation within a community or organization. It also emphasizes that various types of reciprocity must coexist in order to revitalize cooperation in real civil life by identifying the unintended risks of "unconditional reciprocity" and the process by which "conditional reciprocity" offsets this risk through analysis of the dynamics of multidimensional reciprocity.

The Effects of the Perceived Motivation Type toward Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customer Loyalty

김경진,박종철 한국마케팅과학회 2009 마케팅과학연구 Vol.19 No.3

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities have been shown to be potential factors that can improve corporate image and increase the ability of corporations to compete. However, most previous studies related to CSR activities investigated how these activities influence product and corporate evaluation, as well as corporate image. In addition, some researchers treated consumers’ perceptions of corporate motives as moderator variables in evaluating the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and consumer response. However, motive‐based theories have some weaknesses. Corporate social responsibility activities cause two motives(egoistic vs. altruistic) for consumers, but recently, Vlachos et al. (2008) argued that these motives should be segmented. Thus, it is possible to transform the original theory into a modified theory model (persuasion knowledge model, PKM). Vlachos et al. (2008) segmented corporate social responsibility motives into four types and compared the effects of these motives on customer loyalty. Prior studies have proved that CSR activities with positive motives have positive influences on customer loyalty. However, the psychological reasons underlying this finding have not been determined empirically. Thus, the objectives of this research are twofold. First, we attempt to determine why most customers favor companies that they feel have positive motives for their corporate social responsibility activities. Second, we attempt to measure the effects of consumers’ reciprocity when society benefits from corporate social responsibility activities. The following research hypotheses are constructed. H1: Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a positive influence on the perceived reciprocity. H2: Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on the perceived reciprocity. H3: Egoistic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H4: Strategic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H5: Perceived reciprocity for corporate social responsibility activities has a positive influence on consumer loyalty. A single company is selected as a research subject to understand how the motives behind corporate social responsibility influence consumers’ perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty. A total sample of 200 respondents was selected for a pilot test. In addition, to ensure a consistent response, we ensured that the respondents were older than 20 years of age. The surveys of 172 respondents (males‐82, females‐90) were analyzed after 28 invalid questionnaires were excluded. Based on our cutoff criteria, the model fit the data reasonably well. Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities had a positive effect on perceived reciprocity (t = 6.75, p < .001), supporting H1. Morales (2005) also found that consumers appreciate a company’s social responsibility efforts and the benefits provided by these efforts to society. Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities did not affect perceived reciprocity (t = ‐.049, p > .05). Thus, H2 was rejected. Egoistic‐driven motives (t = ‐3.11, p < .05) and strategic‐driven (t = ‐4.65, p < .05) motives had a negative influence on perceived reciprocity, supporting H3 and H4, respectively. Furthermore, perceived reciprocity had a positive influence on consumer loyalty (t = 4.24, p < .05), supporting H5. Thus, compared with the general public, undergraduate students appear to be more influenced by egoistic‐driven motives. We draw the following conclusions from our research findings. First, value‐driven attributions have a positive influence on perceived reciprocity. However, stakeholder‐driven attributions have no significant effects on perceived reciproc... Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities have been shown to be potential factors that can improve corporate image and increase the ability of corporations to compete. However, most previous studies related to CSR activities investigated how these activities influence product and corporate evaluation, as well as corporate image. In addition, some researchers treated consumers’ perceptions of corporate motives as moderator variables in evaluating the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and consumer response. However, motive‐based theories have some weaknesses. Corporate social responsibility activities cause two motives(egoistic vs. altruistic) for consumers, but recently, Vlachos et al. (2008) argued that these motives should be segmented. Thus, it is possible to transform the original theory into a modified theory model (persuasion knowledge model, PKM). Vlachos et al. (2008) segmented corporate social responsibility motives into four types and compared the effects of these motives on customer loyalty. Prior studies have proved that CSR activities with positive motives have positive influences on customer loyalty. However, the psychological reasons underlying this finding have not been determined empirically. Thus, the objectives of this research are twofold. First, we attempt to determine why most customers favor companies that they feel have positive motives for their corporate social responsibility activities. Second, we attempt to measure the effects of consumers’ reciprocity when society benefits from corporate social responsibility activities. The following research hypotheses are constructed. H1: Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a positive influence on the perceived reciprocity. H2: Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on the perceived reciprocity. H3: Egoistic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H4: Strategic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H5: Perceived reciprocity for corporate social responsibility activities has a positive influence on consumer loyalty. A single company is selected as a research subject to understand how the motives behind corporate social responsibility influence consumers’ perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty. A total sample of 200 respondents was selected for a pilot test. In addition, to ensure a consistent response, we ensured that the respondents were older than 20 years of age. The surveys of 172 respondents (males‐82, females‐90) were analyzed after 28 invalid questionnaires were excluded. Based on our cutoff criteria, the model fit the data reasonably well. Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities had a positive effect on perceived reciprocity (t = 6.75, p < .001), supporting H1. Morales (2005) also found that consumers appreciate a company’s social responsibility efforts and the benefits provided by these efforts to society. Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities did not affect perceived reciprocity (t = ‐.049, p > .05). Thus, H2 was rejected. Egoistic‐driven motives (t = ‐3.11, p < .05) and strategic‐driven (t = ‐4.65, p < .05) motives had a negative influence on perceived reciprocity, supporting H3 and H4, respectively. Furthermore, perceived reciprocity had a positive influence on consumer loyalty (t = 4.24, p < .05), supporting H5. Thus, compared with the general public, undergraduate students appear to be more influenced by egoistic‐driven motives. We draw the following conclusions from our research findings. First, value‐driven attributions have a positive influence on perceived reciprocity. However, stakeholder‐driven attributions have no significant effects on perceived reciprocity...

The Effects of the Perceived Motivation Type toward Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customer Loyalty

Kyungjin Kim,Jongchul Park 한국마케팅과학회 2009 마케팅과학연구 Vol.19 No.3

企业社会责任活动已被认为是提高企业象和企业竞争力的一个潜在因素。 然而, 先前大部分关于企业社会责任活动的硏究是主要针对的是这些活动如何影响影响对产品, 企业以及企业形象的评价的评价。 另外, 一些学者将消费者对企业动机的感知作为企业社会责任和消费者反应之间直接关系中的调解变量。 然而, 动机理论和相关的硏究存在一些缺点。 对消费者, 企业社会责任活动只有两个动机, 但最近, Vlachos等人(2008) 认为这些动机应该细分。 因此,它有可能从原有理论发展为修正理论模型(说服, 个人知识管理(PKM)。 Vlachos等人(2008) 将业社会责任动机细分四种类型, 并尝试发现这些动机在影响程顾客种程度方面的作用以及不同。 以前的硏究已经证明具有积极动机会对的社会责任活动会有积极的影响。 但并没有买证地解释其心理原因。 因此本硏究適目的是双重的。第一, 本硏究试图发现顾客为什么会在他们感受到企业社会活动的积极动机的情况下表达他们的感激。 第二, 本硏究试图测试当社会从企业社会责任活动已中获得利益时与消费者的回报的效果。 以下是本硏究的假设: H1: 企业社会责任活动的价值驱使的动机积极影响认知的对等对于互惠的期待。 H2: 企业社会责任活动的參股者驱使的动机消极影响于互惠的期待认知的对等。 H3: 企业社会责任活动的利已驱使的动机消极影响于互惠的期待认知的对等。 H4: 企业社会责任活动的战略驱使的动机消极影响对于互惠的期待认知的对等。 H5: 对企业社会责任活动的互惠的期待认知的对等积极影响消费者忠诚度。 我们选择了一个公司作为硏究对象来理解企业社会责任活动的动机是如何影响于互惠的期待认知的对等和顾客忠诚度。 总样本为100名受访者被选为试验测试。 此外, 为了获得一致的回㚆, 我们保证所有的受访者都超过20岁。本调查中, 在排除了28份无效问卷以后, 总受访者是172名 (82名男性, 90名 女性)。 基于截至标准, 数据和模型的适配度良好。 在观察结果以后, 企业社会责任活动的价值驱使的动机对于互惠的期待认知的对等有积极的影响(t=6.75, p<.001), 假设1被证明。 Morales (2005)也指出消费者的确感激企业对社会所做出的努力以及对社会所给予的利益。 而且企业社会责任活动的參股者驱使的动机对于互惠的期待认知的对等没有影响(t= -.049, p> .05)。 因此, 假设2被拒绝。 我们可以用符合论来解释这个结果。 利己驱使动机(t= -3.11, p < .05)知战略驱使的动机(t= -4.65, p < .05) 对认知的对符有消极影响。 因此H3和H4被证明。 而且认知的对符积极影响消费者的忠诚度(t= 4.24, p< .05), H5被证明。 从结果中看, 与大众群߮ Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities have been shown to be potential factors that can improve corporate image and increase the ability of corporations to compete. However, most previous studies related to CSR activities investigated how these activities influence product and corporate evaluation, as well as corporate image. In addition, some researchers treated consumers' perceptions of corporate motives as moderator variables in evaluating the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and consumer response. However, motive-based theories have some weaknesses. Corporate social responsibility activities cause two motives(egoistic vs. altruistic) for consumers, but recently, Vlachos et al. (2008) argued that these motives should be segmented. Thus, it is possible to transform the original theory into a modified theory model (persuasion knowledge model, PKM). Vlachos et al. (2008) segmented corporate social responsibility motives into four types and compared the effects of these motives on customer loyalty. Prior studies have proved that CSR activities with positive motives have positive influences on customer loyalty. However, the psychological reasons underlying this finding have not been determined empirically. Thus, the objectives of this research are twofold. First, we attempt to determine why most customers favor companies that they feel have positive motives for their corporate social responsibility activities. Second, we attempt to measure the effects of consumers' reciprocity when society benefits from corporate social responsibility activities. The following research hypotheses are constructed. H1: Values-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a positive influence on the perceived reciprocity. H2: Stakeholder-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on the perceived reciprocity. H3: Egoistic-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H4: Strategic-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H5: Perceived reciprocity for corporate social responsibility activities has a positive influence on consumer loyalty. A single company is selected as a research subject to understand how the motives behind corporate social responsibility influence consumers' perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty. A total sample of 200 respondents was selected for a pilot test. In addition, to ensure a consistent response, was ensured that the respondents were older than 20 years of age. The surveys of 172 respondents (males-82, females-90) were analyzed after 28 invalid questionnaires were excluded. Based on our cutoff criteria, the model fit the data reasonably well. Values-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities had a positive effect on perceived reciprocity (t = 6.75, p < .001), supporting H1. Morales (2005) also found that consumers appreciate a company's social responsibility efforts and the benefits provided by these efforts to society. Stakeholder-driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities did not affect perceived reciprocity (t = -.049, p > .05). Thus, H2 was rejected. Egoistic-driven motives (t= -3.11, p < .05) and strategic-driven (t= -4.65, p < .05) motives had a negative influence on perceived reciprocity, supporting H3 and H4, respectively. Furthermore, perceived reciprocity had a positive influence on consumer loyalty (t= 4.24, p < .05), supporting H5. Thus, compared with the general public, undergraduate students appear to be more influenced by egoistic-driven motives. We draw the following conclusions from our research findings. Fires, Value-driven attributions have a positive influence on perceived reciprocity. However, stakeholder-driven attributions have no significant effects on perceived reciprocity. Moreover, both egoistic-driven att

시민권과 기본소득: 호혜성 원리 중심의 고찰

이명현 ( Myoung Hyun Lee ) 한국사회보장학회 2010 사회보장연구 Vol.26 No.4

기본소득은 매우 매력적이지만 복지국가 패러다임에 익숙한 사람들에게 이질감을 주는 것도 사실이다. 복지국가의 시민권에는 시민의 자격과 관련된 호혜성이 포함되며 노동과 소득의 연계가 대표적이라 할 수 있지만 기본소득은 그런 규범이 존재하지 않으므로 부정하는 주된 논거 중의 하나가 되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 시민권과 기본소득을 둘러싼 이론적 논의들을 호혜성 원리를 중심으로 고찰하고 그와 관련된 기본소득의 방향에 대한 전망을 도출해 보았다. 복지욕구의 권리적 속성을 고려할 때 기본소득은 개인의 자율문제를 기본적 욕구로 인식하는 관점을 통해 권리성을 인정할 수 있다. 호혜성과 기본소득과의 관계는 호혜성 원리의 확장과 다양화에 의해 상호 양립하면서 기본소득이 오히려 호혜성을 촉진할 가능성이 생겨날 수 있다. 이와 같은 호혜성과 기본소득과의 관계에 대한 이론과 주장들을 분석한 결과 그 방향성에 대해서 다음과 같은 가능성을 도출할 수 있었다. 호혜성과의 관계에 있어서 기본소득은 첫 번째로 무조건성 완화와 호혜성 원리의 편입, 둘째 호혜성 확장을 통한 패키지(package)화 된 기본소득으로서의 제도화, 세 번째는 호혜성에 대한 선호의 변화와 정당화이다. The reciprocity objection is one of the most widespread criticisms against Basic Income. In this article I challenge the context between the reciprocity principle and the Basic Income. This study research about citizenship and basic income theories investigated a reciprocity principle and tried to view the direction of basic income. When considers the right attribute of social welfare need, recognizes the autonomy of the individual with will be able to recognize the right of basic income. The reciprocity principle is expanded and variously, changes and the basic income and reciprocity are combined, the basic income rather will can promote a reciprocity. After analyzing the theories which discuss the relationship of reciprocity and basic income, with after words will be able to discover possibility about the direction. First, The basic income relaxes an unconditional characteristic from relationship with reciprocity and transfers a reciprocity principle. Second, The System of package basic incomes in compliance with the expansion and a diversification of reciprocity. Three, Justification of the basic income in compliance with the preference change of reciprocity principle.

중국 국제도산제도상의 호혜원칙에 대한 고찰

劉聰慧,祝翠瑛 한국채무자회생법학회 2021 회생법학 Vol.23 No.-

중국의 현행 파산법은 호혜원칙을 원칙적으로만 규정하였다. 이전의 사법 실무에서는 호혜관계, 즉 사실호혜는 호혜원칙에 대한 엄격한 해석 으로 인하여, 중국 법원은 호혜를 근거로 외국 법원의 도산 판결, 재정 을 직접 승인하고 집행한 경우가 매우 드물었다. 중국의 국제도산제도 중의 호혜원칙이 끊임없이 개선되고 보완되었는 데, “사실호혜” 원칙을 기점으로 점차 “선도적인, 적극적인 호혜관계 형 성 촉진” 원칙, “추정호혜” 원칙, “호혜원칙 적용의 새로운 방식 탐색” 원 칙으로 발전하였다. 이러한 사실로 비추어 볼 때, 중국 법원은 사법 협 조에 있어 점차 개방적인 태도를 취하게 되었고, 호혜원칙에 대한 해석 방식 역시 기존의 보수적이고 엄격했던 해석에서 더욱 적극적이고 유연 한 해석으로 바뀌었다. 본고는 중국 호혜원칙 적용과 관련된 법률규정, 중국법원에서 인정한 호혜원칙과 관련하여 개선 및 보완이 필요한 점에 대한 정리를 주 내용 으로 하였다. 본고의 마지막 부분에서는 관련 사례에서 호혜원칙의 사법 적용이 어떻게 이루어졌는지를 소개함으로써, 중국 국제도산제도 중의 호혜원칙을 연구하고자 하는 연구원들에게 시사점을 제공할 수 있기를 희망하고자 하는 의미를 담았다. China’s current bankruptcy law stipulates only the principle of reciprocity in principle. In the previous judicial practice, since reciprocal relationship, also known as factual reciprocity, was a strict interpretation of the principle of reciprocity, Chinese courts barely had cases regarding direct approval and execution of foreign courts’ bankruptcy judgment and adjudication based on reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity in China’s international insolvency system has been constantly improved and supplemented. Beginning with the principle of “factual reciprocity”, the principle of reciprocity gradually developed to “promoting the formation of a leading and active reciprocal relationship”, “estimated reciprocity” and “searching for a new way of applying the principle of reciprocity”. In light of these facts, it can be seen that Chinese courts have gradually adopted an open attitude towards judicial cooperation, and the interpretation of the principle of reciprocity has also changed from a conservative and strict interpretation to a more active and flexible one. The main content of this thesis is to summarize the legal provisions related to the application of the principle of reciprocity in China, and the points that require improvement and supplementation in relation to the principle of reciprocity recognized by the Chinese courts. In the last part of the thesis, by introducing how the judicial application of the principle of reciprocity was made in related cases, we hope to provide implications for researchers who are willing to study the principle of reciprocity in China’s international insolvency system.

상호주의와 국제협력: 한반도 핵문제의 경우

김태현 세종연구소 2002 국가전략 Vol.8 No.3

This paper attempt to clarify the meaning of reciprocity as a strategy and a condition conducive to international cooperation, then apply it to the case of North Korea nuclear issue during the past 10 years. In particular, the distinction between "specific" and "diffuse" reciprocity is made clear along three elements -- time, actor, and issue. That is, instead of accepting the loose definition of diffuse reciprocity as a social obligation made by Keohane, an analytic conception of diffuse reciprocity as "a rough equivalence of benefits over time, across actors, and across issues" is developed to accommodate a variety of literature on the conditions of international cooperation. Then, this paper examines the process of resolving North Korea nuclear issue in order to examine the conditions for cooperation. The bargaining process was characterized by mutual practices of specific reciprocity. Yet the issue was successfully settled because such elements of diffuse reciprocity as long-term time frame, issue-linkage, and multilateral participation were either present or strategically created. An implication is that the policy debate in the political circle of South Korea over strategic (or specific) reciprocity versus comprehensive (or diffuse) reciprocity in handling North Korea is rather misplaced. For, practicing specific reciprocity in bilateral bargaining is tactical, and pursuing a policy to develop conditions conducive to the operation of diffuse reciprocity, hence cooperation, is strategic. 이 논문은 크게 두 부분으로 구성된다. 첫째는 이론적 부분이다. 이 부분은 1980년대 이래 국제정치학 논쟁의 주류를 이루어 온 국제협력이론의 전개를 주로 상호주의의 개념에 초점을 두어 정리한다. 둘째는 경험적 부분이다. 탈냉전이라는 세계적 변동의 와중에 세계질서 안정성의 핵심부분인 핵비확산레짐, 한 국가의 생존, 경쟁 국가의 치명적 안보 문제가 맞물려 전개된 북한 핵문제가 바로 그 분석의 대상이다. 이 글은 그처럼 엄중한 사안이 첨예한 한반도 안보정세를 배경으로 전개되었음에도 불구하고 평화적으로 해결/봉합되었고, 그 이후 그 해결/봉합에 따른, 그리고 그를 유지하기 위한 실천조치로서의 KEDO과정이 여러 가지 도전에도 불구하고 비교적 순항해 온 이유를 국제협력 조건에 관한 이론적 논의에 비추어 살펴보았다. 이 글의 논지의 다음의 세 가지로 요약된다. 첫째, 이론적으로 이 글은 국제협력의 조건에 관한 기왕의 연구의 상당부분이 액설로드와 코헤인이 말한 상호주의, 특히 「포괄적 상호주의」로 집약될 수 있다고 주장한다. 즉, 액설로드가 “미래의 그늘”이라고 지칭한 상호관계의 지속성과 장기성, 그리고 협력의 조건으로 오래 그리고 널리 지적되어 온 「이슈의 연계」와 「다자주의」 등은 결국 시간, 공간, 이슈 차원의 「포괄적 상호주의」의 일면을 이룬다고 주장한다. 둘째, 경험적으로 이 글은 북한 핵문제의 해결과정은 대체로 ‘눈에는 눈, 이에는 이’식의 「구체적 상호주의」에서 작동으로 볼 수 있지만, 그것이 성공한 이면에는 관계의 지속성과 장기성, 이슈간의 연계, 참여자의 다수 등 포괄적 상호주의의 조건을 전략적으로 설정하거나 그것들이 구조적으로 존재하였기 때문이라고 주장한다. 셋째, 따라서 「구체적 상호주의」가 양자적, 직접적 관계에서 작동하는 전술적 개념이라면, 「포괄적 상호주의」는 전략개념이기 이전에 분석개념이다. 즉 포괄적 상호주의는 기본적으로 행위자들의 선호와 전략의 선택에 영향을 주는 조건에 관한 것이며, 이로써 국제협력의 현상을 설명하는 분석적 개념이다. 이로부터 국제협력을 용이하게 해 주는 조건을 형성하기 위한 전략으로서의 포괄적 상호주의는 제2차적이다.

Between and Beyond Reciprocity and Communion

Rohun Park 한국기독교학회 2016 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.101 No.-

호혜에 관한 수많은 연구에도 불구하고, 기독교 공동체 내의 호혜의 성격에 관하여는 아직 충분한 학문적 소명(疏明)에 이르지 못하였다. 본래 사회적 규범으로서 호혜는 사람, 가족, 집단 사이의 상호의존 관계를 나타낸다. 본 논문은 고린도교회를 중심으로, 기독교 공동체 내의 상호의존 관계와 그 규범을 재구성하고자 한다. 초기 기독교의 호혜에 관한 연구는 호혜에 관한 공시적 다양성과 통시적 변역성에 대한 논의를 필요로 한다. 본 논문은 고린도전서 11:17–34에 담긴 공동식사에 관한 기록을 중심으로, 기원후 1세기 그레코–로만 세계와 그 사회적, 문화적, 윤리적, 정치적 지형 속에 형성된 ‘호혜’를 고찰한다. 우선 바울이 제시하는 호혜의 규범을 이해하기 위해, 호혜에 관한 기존의 비평적 관점들과 연구들을 살펴볼 것이다. 나아가 기존의 연구 성과들을 기초로, 공동식사에 담긴 바울의 호혜의 해석학을 조사할 것이다. 마지막으로 바울의 교훈 속에 담긴 ‘부자’와 ‘빈자’, ‘자신’과 ‘타인’을 서로 연결하며 잇는 새로운 호혜의 구성을 고찰할 것이다. 그리스도의 ‘몸’을 담아내는 ‘주의 만찬’은 물질의 사적 이용과 착취를 제한한다는 점에서, 그레코–로만 사회의 지배 이념에 대해 중대한 도전을 제기한다. 본 논문은 ‘호혜’에 관한 성서학적 연구뿐 아니라, 현대 경제학과 문화연구, 그리고 문화인류학의 성과를 적극 활용한다. As a social principle, reciprocity consists of relations of interdependence between persons, families, clans, and groups. Because of its internalized value and process, it induces people to voluntarily cooperate with each other. However, the norm of reciprocity-its character and even the conditions of its possibility-is by no means resolved in contemporary scholarly debates. In order to wrestle with the mode of reciprocity in early Christianity, one must engage in a synchronic variation and diachronic change within and beyond its constitution. This essay attempts to re-conceptualize reciprocity in early Christianity and the Corinthian Church in particular. The account of the common meal in 1 Cor 11:17–34 relates to the reciprocal relationship in the “material” world and its social, cultural, and ethical configurations. In order to grasp the Pauline re(de)construction of reciprocity, this essay first addresses the diverse studies on reciprocity and its broader conception of economic relationship. Following the scholarly discussions, the essay further explores the account of the common meal in 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Paul rebukes the Corinthian believers for their procedure at the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s instructions present a direct challenge to the upper - class ideology of Greco-Roman society. This essay combines insights from cultural studies as well as modern and cultural economics of the exchange of foods, goods, services and people in order to reconstruct the Pauline reciprocity.

THE DETERMINANTS OF TRUSTING AND RECIPROCAL BEHAVIOUR : EVIDENCE FROM AN INTERCULTURAL EXPERIMENT

CSONGOR CSUKÁS,PAULO FRACALANZA,TAMÁS KOVÁCS,MARC WILLINGER 중앙대학교 경제연구소 2008 Journal of Economic Development Vol.33 No.1

In this paper we provide evidence that trust and reciprocity, the two key elements of social capital, are affected by country differences. Based on the amounts sent and returned in the investment game by student subjects we find evidence on trusting and reciprocal behaviour and we show significant cross-country differences between the levels of trust and reciprocity. We also show that the answers for ‘trust in strangers’ type attitudinal questions have a significant effect either on trusting or reciprocal behaviour, while gender does not affect any of them. We report that reciprocity is affected by the same variables as trust: in particular stated trust has a significant influence on reciprocal behaviour, which can be explained by attitudes such as projective reasoning. Furthermore, we find that questionnaire based rankings of countries are poor predictors of trusting behaviour rankings, which is mainly due to the differences in strength of correlation between stated trust and trusting behaviour country-by-country. In this paper we provide evidence that trust and reciprocity, the two key elements of social capital, are affected by country differences. Based on the amounts sent and returned in the investment game by student subjects we find evidence on trusting and reciprocal behaviour and we show significant cross-country differences between the levels of trust and reciprocity. We also show that the answers for ‘trust in strangers’ type attitudinal questions have a significant effect either on trusting or reciprocal behaviour, while gender does not affect any of them. We report that reciprocity is affected by the same variables as trust: in particular stated trust has a significant influence on reciprocal behaviour, which can be explained by attitudes such as projective reasoning. Furthermore, we find that questionnaire based rankings of countries are poor predictors of trusting behaviour rankings, which is mainly due to the differences in strength of correlation between stated trust and trusting behaviour country-by-country.