합리적 소비 선택에서 기회비용 개념의 의미

김종철 ( Jing Churl Kim ),장경호 ( Kyung Ho Jang ) 한국경제교육학회 2014 경제교육연구 Vol.21 No.1

본 연구는 합리적 소비 선택에서 기회비용 개념이 지니는 의미를 분석하기 위한 것이다. 이를 위해 수도권 3개 학교에 재학 중인 대학생을 대상으로 기회비용과 합리적 선택에 대한 이해력을 측정하였다. Ferraro & Taylor(2005)가 개발한 문항을 변형하여 조사한 결과 이들의 연구에서 나타난 낮은 정답률조차 명시적인 비용이 0원으로 설정된 특수한 상황으로 인해 실제보다 부풀려졌을 가능성을 발견할 수 있었다. 우리나라 대학생의 기회비용에 대한 이해력은 피상적인 수준에 그치고 있는 반면 어떤 대안을 선택하는 것이 합리적인지에 대한 이해력은 상대적으로 높은 수준을 보였다. 한편, 기회비용을 제대로 이해하지 못하는 학생들조차 자신의 이해력을 과신하는 경향을 보였다. 본 연구에서는 기회비용을 굳이 계산하지 않더라도 합리적인 선택을 할 수 있다는 점을 밝혔다. 기회비용의 개념이 사람들에게 명확하지 않거나 어렵게 느껴지기 때문에 사람들은 선택에 있어서 기회비용을 일일이 따지는 것이 부담스럽게 느껴질 수 있다. 만일 기회비용을 계산하지 않더라도 손실을 보기는커녕 합리적인 선택을 할 수 있다면 사람들은 번거롭게 기회비용을 계산하기보다는 경제학 이론이 제시하는 것과는 다른 방식으로 선택의 기준을 마련할 수 있다. 이는 합리적인 선택을 위해 반드시 기회비용을 계산할 필요는 없다는 것을 시사한다. This paper investigates the meaning of opportunity cost for consumer’s rational choice. We conduct a survey on understanding of opportunity cost and rational choice for university students in metropolitan area. Using the modified questionnaire of Ferraro and Taylor (2005) we show that their result can be overestimated due to a special setting where nominal cost is zero. The level of understanding of opportunity cost is very low while that of rational choice is relatively high. It is also shown that students tend to be over-confident about their understanding even when they fail to compute the opportunity cost of a certain choice. This paper claims that people do not understand the concept of opportunity cost but they can make a rational choice regardless of their understanding of opportunity cost. It might be burdensome to compute every opportunity cost when they confront time for choice because it is not easy to understand the concept of opportunity cost whose definition is not clarified yet. They might consider an alternative simple rule if they can make a rational choice without understanding of opportunity cost. This result implies that we may not need to compute the opportunity cost for rational choice at least in the case of comsumer choice.

기회비용에 관한 경제학과 관리회계의 접근 차이에 관한 소고

신홍철(Shin Hong Chul) 글로벌경영학회 2017 글로벌경영학회지 Vol.14 No.1

소비자의 선택 및 기업경영상 기회비용 만큼 중요한 개념은 없다고 해도 과언이 아니다. 경제학 전공 전문가 대다수가 기회비용에 관한 초보 수준의 문제를 맞추지 못했다는 Ferraro & Taylor(2005)의 연구 이후 미국에서는 기회비용을 포함한 경제 교육의 문제점을 지적하는 논문이나 글들이 뒤를 이었다. 국내 논문들은 학생들을 대상으로 한 Ferraro & Taylor(2005)의 반복조사 결과와 테셋 시험의 5년간 기회비용 문항에 대한 오답률 분석을 토대로 응시자나 학생들이 기회비용을 암묵적 비용만으로 잘못 알고 있으며 이러한 오해의 배경에는 기회비용에 대한 경제 교과서의 잘못된 정의 때문이라고 주장한다. 대부분의 경제 교과서에서 소개하는 ‘포기한 대안 중에서 가장 가치가 큰 대안의 가치’라는 정의는 암묵적 비용만을 암시하고 ‘가치’라는 용어가 모호하다고 지적하면서 기회비용은 ‘선택한 대안에 들어가는 명시적 비용과 포기한 대안의 가장 큰 순편익(암묵적 비용)의 합’으로 정의해야 한다고 주장한다. 이처럼 명시적 비용을 포함한 정의는 관련원가분석의 핵심인 차액분석의 장점을 활용하지 못하는 아쉬움을 갖는다. 관리회계에서는 ‘포기한 차선의 대안으로부터 기대되는 순현금흐름이나 공헌이익’처럼 순편익으로 정의하고 명시적 비용을 처음부터 배제한다. 이런 정의는 대안간에 차이를 보이지 않는(즉, 비관련적인) 명시적 비용의 집계 및 비교를 생략하는 차액분석의 정점을 활용하게 할 뿐만 아니라 기회비용을 기준 대안의 부가적 원가로 간주하거나 비교대안의 총관련원가에서 차감하여 순관련원가를 계산하는 두 방법 모두 효과적으로 최적 대안 선택을 가능하게 한다. 물론 총비용 대비 편익분석을 토대로 최선의대안을 선택할 수 있다. 또한 예산제약의 고려 등 총비용 산정이 필요한 경우에는 명시적 비용을 기회비용과 합친 총원가(즉, 비용)로 측정할 수 있다. 그러나 다른 대안들의 존재 여부를 인식하게 하고 대안들 간의 차이(상충관계)에 초점을 맞추게 하는 것이 기회비용의 순기능임을 감안할 때 ‘포기한 차선안으로부터 기대되는 순편익(현금흐름, 공헌이익, 이익 등)’으로 구체적으로 정의할필요가 있다. 굳이 명시적 비용을 포함한 정의를 고집할 경우에는 명시적 비용과 기회비용을 합친 총기회비용이란 용어 사용을 권장한다. Virtually all economists consider opportunity cost a central concept. However, Ferraro & Taylor(2005) study revealed that most of economic professors and Ph. D candidates failed to answer simple opportunity cost related economic question. Since then a lot of economists began to find out the cause of dismal performance and they mostly attributed to the failure of introductory level of economics principle in exposing students to basic economic logic. In Korea, based on the replication of Ferraro & Taylor(2005) and 5-year TESAT exam score analysis, some researchers argue that most of Korean students understanding of opportunity cost is very low and they claim that current textbooks are the main source of confusion and misunderstanding of opportunity cost. They argue that most of textbooks define opportunity cost as value from foregone next best alternatives excluding explicit cost of specific alternative and measure only based on the implicit cost. They insist that opportunity cost should be measured as the sum of explicit cost and largest net benefit forgone(implicit cost) which comes from the given-up alternatives. However their definition has critical weakness when compared with management accounting which defines opportunity cost as foregone contribution margin or income from next best alternative . Explicit cost is excluded in management accounting definition because management accounting use opportunity cost as a main differential cost in relevant analysis. According to cost-benefit principle which says that an action should be taken only if its benefit is at least as great as its cost, sometimes explicit cost of a certain alternative may be relevant, however, opportunity cost doesn t need to be defined as including explicit cost. Management Accounting approach is more desirable in the sense that it allows to reach an optimal choice among alternatives more efficiently based on differential analysis.

기회비용에 대한 낮은 이해도와 그 원인- TESAT 응답률과 경제 교과서를 중심으로 -

박주병 ( Ju Byoung Park ),강현철 ( Hyun Cheol Kang ),신동열 ( Dong Yeol Shin ),고기완 ( Ki Wan Ko ),손정희 ( Jung Hee Son ) 한국경제교육학회 2014 경제교육연구 Vol.21 No.3

This paper investigates that how many Koreans who are interested in economics know the opportunity cost exactly. For this purpose, we analyzed all the right and wrong answers on the opportunity cost items that TESAT(Test of Economic Sense and Thinking) has accumulated for the past five years. TESAT is the first government-authorized test of its kind on the people’s economic literacy. As a result many people regard the opportunity cost as the implicit cost. The misunderstanding stems from the economic text books that contain the wrong explanations on the opportunity cost. A large portion of the books describes that the opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the best alternative forgone. But this is wrong definition. As is well known, the opportunity cost is the sum of the explicit cost and the largest net benefit forgone, which comes from the given-up alternatives. It is always bigger than the largest net benefit forgone. If we take the largest net benefit out of the many forgone into consideration, students take the implicit cost as the opportunity cost, not together with the explicit cost. Students think that there is only one net benefit among others.

법조인 선발제도별 비용분석과 진입유인 분석

천도정 ( Do Jeong Cheon ),황인태 ( In Tae Hwang ) 한국회계학회 2016 회계저널 Vol.25 No.4

본 연구의 목적은 기존 사법시험이 갖는 소위 ‘고시낭인’이 되어 역기능으로서 사회가 부담하고 있는 사회적비용을 감소시키고 법조인의 다양성과 전문적 지식을 법에 도입하기 위한 제도로서 법학전문대학원(law school; 로스쿨: 이하 ‘법전원’)이 갖는 장점에도불구하고 법전원의 고비용구조가 우리 국민 모두가 진입할 수 있는 법조영역에 대한 진입장벽이 되어 특정 소득계층이 진입하지 못하는 문제가 과연 존재할 수 있는지의 여부를 분석하고자 하는데 있다. 법전원이 출범했음에도 불구하고 지금까지 구체적인 분석이 이루어지지 않고 막연한 추측과 여론에 의하여 고비용구조이기 때문에 법조인이 되는데 진입장벽이 되고, 오히려 기존의 사법시험을 존치하여 문제를 해결하여야 한다는 주장이 많이 제기되고 있는 실정이다. 현재 국회에는 김용남 의원 등이 발의한 사시 존치 관련 법안 4건이 계류되어있다. 여기에 오신환 의원이 대표발의한 사시 존치 법안이 지난 6월 제출되어 법안소위 회부를 기다리고있는 상태다. 그러나 기존의 사법시험과 비교하여 얼마나 많은 비용차이가 발생하는지 구체적인 분석은 이루어진 적이 없다. 본 분석의 목적은 기존 사법시험제도와 법전원체제에 대한 가치판단의 문제에 대한 접근은 제외하고, 순수한 비용분석에 의하여 국민소득계층에서 법조계에 진입하지 못하는 소득계층이 존재하는지 여부를 비교분석하는데 있으며, 만일 존재한다면 어떠한 계층이 진입할가능성이 적은지를 분석하였다. 이러한 분석은 국민의 교육과 직업기회에 대한 형평성과 법조분야의 발전에 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 본 비용분석은 법전원 출신의 변호사시험과 기존 사법시험과의 분석에서 측정 불가능한 요인은 배제하고, 측정 가능한 범위 내에서 비용의 총액과 차액분석을 통하여 비교하고, 법조인이 되기 위한 기회비용을 이용하여 비용의 차이를 비교 분석하여 소득계층의 진입가능여부의 판단기준을 제시한다는 것은 원가(비용)분석의 사례로서 큰 의미가 있다고 생각한다. The goal of this cost analysis is to explore and analyze, despite the advantages the new ``law school`` system, which reduces the social costs of the ‘entrance exam vagabond’ problem by solving this social issue the previous judicial bar entrance exam had, and allows the for the diversification of the pool of applicants and encourages professional knowledge in the law industry, if in fact there is a possibility that the cost structure of law school serving as an entrance barrier for certain socio-economic groups to apply to be a Judicial Officer is a problem that exists. Even though the law school system was established, there has not yet been a detailed analysis, and the reality is that through vague guesswork and media spin, the system is blamed as being of high cost and therefore the cause for being a high barrier of entry to certain socioeconomic classes to become a Judicial Officer, and that it also retains the problems of the previous judicial bar examination, so there are many opinions that these problems of the new law school system need to be solved. However, there has yet to have been a detailed cost comparison analysis to explore how much the cost difference is with the old judicial bar examination system. The goal of this analysis is in the case where the previous judicial bar examination has been abolished and the law school system goes into full effect, excluding the qualitative comparison of which selection process is more practical in turning out Judicial Officers, to evaluate from a strictly cost analysis point of view whether the law school system serves as a barrier of entry to any socioeconomic group. And if in fact this barrier exists, to analyze which socioeconomic group has the least chance of being able to enter. Such analysis can be seen as having significant meaning in supporting the fairness of Korea’s education system and job opportunity system and also the advancement of the Judicial Officer selection and law industry. Therefore, this study excludes any elements in the current law school entrance exam system and the previous judicial bar examination system that cannot be accurately quantified, and compares the two systems within the bounds of quantifiable ranges, such as the analysis of the total and differential costs, and also the opportunity cost of becoming a Judicial Officer. All these factors are used for comparative analysis, and to present an official set of criterion that can be used to predict the chance of a certain socioeconomic group being successfully selected as a Judicial Officer has significant meaning as a case study of cost analysis. If the law school system continues, a phenomenon in which the entry of individuals into legal circles is determined according to their economic income quantiles will set in. Therefore, various reviews on the lawyers training system should be performed. In relation to the costs of training lawyers, critics about the national judicial examination point out the seriousness of the problem of social opportunity costs due to numerous “unemployed individuals produced after failing in the examination” because the acceptance ratio remains at 3%. The costs borne by examinees who prepare for the existing national judicial examination are explicit costs that are borne by the examinees themselves. As they are willing to pay the costs, these costs can be viewed as avoidable costs. However, the costs borne by examinees for law schools are imputed costs under a system, and therefore, are more of unavoidable costs. Operating costs borne by universities to operate law schools, and scholarships and other costs borne by universities to meet the conditions required to operate law schools are indirect costs, and thus, these may be categorized as indirect opportunity costs borne by society. In addition, we should be aware that if the bar examination following the law school system continues to be operated for a long time, opportunity costs incurred by declines in the acceptance ratio should be borne. This study conducted an analysis that is limited to the analysis of costs that will actually be incurred or are projected to be incurred while excluding overall axiological judgements on the lawyers training system or discussions on the appropriateness of the system. Therefore, it should be noted that there can be a number of variations according to circumstantial changes. However, there was a limitation in the cost analysis. For example, the operating costs of law schools borne by universities and implicit social indirect costs were excluded from the analysis because it was actually impossible to obtain data on these costs or measure them.

보건분야 공무원 교육수요충족을 위한 개선방안에 대한 비용최소화방안

양병국,배은영,김영택 국립보건연구원 1998 국립보건원보 Vol.35 No.-

Analysis of Opportunity Costs Based on Survey for Pharmacy Education Eligibility Test : 약학교육 자격 시험을 위한 기회 비용 분석

방재범(Bang, Jae-beom),한나영(Han, Na-young),오정미(Oh, Jung-mi),정규혁(Chung, Kyu-hyuck),오희진(Oh, Hee-jin),권혁기(Kwon, Hyuk-ki),김병주(Kim, Byoung-joo) 한국교육학회 2022 敎育學硏究 Vol.60 No.3

본 연구는 약학교육 자격시험의 기회비용을 설문조사에 근거하여 분석하는 것이다. 약학교육 자격 시험(PEET)은 대부분의 약학대학에서 학생의 적성과 기술을 확인하기 위해 필요하다. 본 연구의 목적은 자체 보고서 조사를 바탕으로 PEET 준비를 위한 기회 비용을 평가하는 것이다. 설문지는 약학과 교육학 분야 전문가들이 개발하여 최종 검증하였다. 기회비용은 간접비용으로서의 시간 측정값, 실제 시험 준비에 필요한 직접비용 등을 합산하여 분석하였다. 설문에는 9개 대학에서 총 392명의 학생이 응답하였으며, 이 중 PEET 준비에 따른 기회비용 분석을 포함하여 설문에 응답한 학생은 245명이었다. 응답자의 대부분(92.60%)은 사교육에 대한 의존도가 매우 높았다. 직접 비용에서는 교과 수업료와 주거비가 가장 큰 비중을 차지하였다. 평균 준비기간은 17.76개월로서 상대적으로 나이가 많거나 시골 지역 일수록 준비기간이 유의미하게 길었다. 간접비용은 준비기간 중 최소한으로 산정되었다. 최종적으로 평균 기회비용은 5,506만원이었며, 연령이 높을수록 통계적으로 유의미하게 증가하였다. 다만 생활지역, 약대 입학전 전공, 준비 시작 시기, 가구소득, 경제적 지원 등은 관련이 없었다. The Pharmacy Education Eligibility Test (PEET) is required by most pharmacy schools for ascertaining students aptitude and skills. The aim of this study was to assess the opportunity costs for the PEET preparation based on self-report survey. The questionnaire was developed and finally verified by experts in pharmacy and education. Opportunity costs were analyzed by summing the measurement of time, as indirect costs, and direct costs required to prepare the exam. A total of 392 students from 9 universities responded to the survey, of which 245 students were included the analysis of opportunity costs for the PEET preparation. A total of 392 students from 9 universities responded to the survey, of which 245 students responded to it, including opportunity cost analysis according to PEET preparation. Most of the respondents (92.60%) were very high dependent on private education. Tuition fee for subject classes and housing expenses accounted for the largest portion of direct cost. The average period was 17.76 months, and the preparation period was significantly longer with older age and rural living. Indirect costs were calculated as the minimum amount of activity during the preparation period. Finally, the average opportunity costs were 55,057 South Korean thousand won and statistically significant as the age were higher. However, it was not related to living region, major before pharmacy school entrance, time of preparation start, household income, and economic support.

기회비용과 합리적 선택

장경호 ( Kyung Ho Jang ) 한국경제교육학회 2011 경제교육연구 Vol.18 No.1

This paper considers that misconception about opportunity cost and rational choice leads to wrong definition that opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the best alternative forgone and that rational choice is the choice of alternative with the lowest opportunity cost. Instead, this paper shows that opportunity cost is the sum of explicit marginal cost and the largest net benefit foregone. This paper contributes to the existing literature by showing that it is generally true that a choice is rational as long as benefit exceeds cost.

보건의료에서 간병비용 산출방법에 관한 쟁점

김윤희,박주연,정예지,김지민,이태진,배은영,송현진,신상진 한국보건의료기술평가학회 2014 보건의료기술평가 Vol.2 No.2

Objectives: This study was conducted to explore the issues related the costing method of caregiving cost in healthcare. Methods: We reviewed literature on the definition and the valuation method of caregiver costs. After we have expert meeting with critical issues of methodology, we provided the feasible costing method in Korea. Results: There are a broad of spectrum of the definition of caregiver cost. It’s useful to separate into paid caregiver cost and informal care cost in Korea. In addition, it is necessary to identify whether the reason of caregiving is patient’s medical utilization or only morbidity without medical use. The valuation of paid caregiver is relatively explicit. However, that of informal care has a lot of issues and has several methods-opportunity cost method, proxy goods method, contingent valuation method and conjoint measurement. Conclusion: It is necessary for researchers to choose and specify their definition and the valuation for costing of caregiver cost with their research purpose.

비용-효과 임계값은 무엇을 반영하여야 하나?

배은영 한국보건경제정책학회 2018 보건경제와 정책연구 Vol.24 No.2

The cost-effectiveness threshold is the basis for judging whether alternative A is cost-effective or not. Although many countries do not explicitly disclose their threshold levels, the use of an appropriate threshold is critical for efficient resource allocation. In this study, different views will be examined regarding what thresholds should be reflected. There is a claim that the threshold should reflect the opportunity cost of implementing new technologies. However, the thresholds applied in many cases are based on the willingness to pay for additional life years accrued by new technologies. The WHO threshold also takes the willingness to pay into consideration. Those who argue that thresholds should reflect opportunity costs insist that those decisions which do not take opportunity costs into account can rather reduce the total health level of the society. In Korea, per capita GDP, was used as a criterion for judging cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decision-making. Previous research results on the willingness to pay for additional QALY also generally supports this threshold level. However, if the threshold level is derived from an opportunity cost perspective, it is calculated to be 46~52% of GDP per capita. This value is an update on previous research results that reflect the difference in GDP levels of each country. In the process, however, many assumptions were used, thus it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about the level of the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, care should be taken when adjusting the threshold value, considering that the application of the wrong criterion may instead reduce the overall health of beneficiaries.

도로의 기회비용을 고려한 노상 거주자 주차공간의 사회적 비용 추정

김지훈 한국도로학회 2021 한국도로학회논문집 Vol.23 No.1

PURPOSES : In this study, the social cost of on-street parking spaces was estimated by dividing it into private and external costs. METHODS : We established a methodology and conducted a case analysis of Seoul. Private costs were estimated from the guidelines and historical data collected. The opportunity cost of the land was estimated using spatial information. External costs built a macroscopic model (using TransCAD) and estimated travel time, operation, accident, and environmental costs. RESULTS : The social cost per space was estimated at 77 million won. Private costs were analyzed as 133.3 billion won, the opportunity cost of the land was 68,555 billion won, and external costs were 118,25 billion won in 2020. CONCLUSIONS : In this study, a methodology for estimating the social cost of a road parking facility was established and applied to the case of Seoul. Therefore, it is expected to contribute to the objective reviewing of the feasibility of policy evaluation or facility investment related to parking facilities.