RISS 학술연구정보서비스

다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • 경제성장유형에 관한 경영이론적 고찰

        서남원 성균관대학교 사회과학연구소 1968 社會科學 Vol.7 No.1

        This paper is primarily concerned with managerial aspects of economic growth. As is well known, there has been increasing concern among economists on the causes and effects of economic growth largely from the following aspects. 1) Economists are only interested in studying economic aspects of economic growth in order to make a generalization. Economic growth is determined by the basic structure of a society, and a comprehensive theory of growth should include physical environment, political structure, incentives, educational methods, legal framework, attitude to science, to changes, to accumulation to name a few. Therefore, highly simplified symbolic models expressed with mathematical forms seem to be unsatisfactory. 2) Economists are usually dealing with problems of economic growth within a theoretical model in terms of changes of national income. Such highly simplified growth model or general treatises are too narrow and deceivingly exact. 3) Economists are also formulating business cycle theories in which steady growth and cyclical fluctations are incorporated in order to explain working principles of capitalistic economy. 4) Measurements of international comparisions of economic growth and studies on comparative economic systems have been done in order to understand a porcess of economic growth especially in developing countries. 5) Patterns of economic growth has been studied among economic historicans within the framework of comparative economic systems. 6) Economic historicans have also studied stages of economic development from the long-run aspects of social development. As is shown, the treatment of the subject of economic growth Falls into two rather sharply differentiated parts: general treatises and highly simplified symbolic models, with a wide gap between. Neither approach taken by itself is satisfying. In this sense, the approach of the managerial aspects of economic growth should have a due consideration. The pattern of growth in economic structure can be understood within the conceptual framework of growth and time dimension. That is, growth process can be understood in terms of the Speed of growth of an economy. In economic analysis, such patterns of growth and its difference can be only attributed to economic factors. However, from the view point of the managerial analysis of economic growth, such difference are mainly due to a particularity of managerial systems of economic society. In general, a managerial system is a concept of a management System. This concept might be called as a $quot;management of economic circles of a society.$quot; In order to point out the characteristics of this concept, let us consider a centralized managerial system and decentralized managerial system. Under a centralized managerial system, an economy is growing in a monotonous social system. Political institutions can be characterized as a totalitarianism and dictatorship. Economic institutions can be also characterized as Leninistic socialism. Under this system, all economic activities are controlled by the government. Therefore, there is no elements of freee competition through market mechanism. Under such highly centralized managerial system, rapid economic growth might be expected through a control of investment activities imposed by the central government. In other words, at the initial stage of economic development, an economy can be growing rapidly. Yet, in the middle course of development, the rate of economic growth is growing with the diminishing rate. Once an economy is arrived at the stage of matured economy, the rate of growth can be sharply declining. Under a decentralized managerial system, an economy can be growing in a plural social system. Political institutions can be characterized as a democratic rule of games. Economic activities are fundamentally based on individualistic initiatives of entreprenuership. In other words, under this system, free enterprise system can be workable. Under such decentralized managerial system, the pattern of economic growth can be characterized as a sort of learning curve. In other words, the rate of economic growth at the initial stage of economic development might be expected to be slow and sluggish. Nevertheless, in due course of economic development, the rate of economic growth can be accelerated rapidly. Once an economy is arrived at the stage of a matured economy, an economy is under stagnation, as we often experienced in an advanced economies. However, the degree of such stagnation under the decentralized managerial system seems to be less heavier than that of the stagnation under highly centralized managerial system. Of course, it should be noted that two systems are extreme cases. In practice, two systems might be mixed: in other words, one sector of an economy is under the centralized managerial system, and the other sector is under the highly decentralized managerial system. The degree of combination of two systems seems to be quite different from countries to countries and from time to time. Finally, let us consider the pattern of economic growth in Korea. It is needless to say that the system of North Korea is under a traditional example of the highly centralized system. In contrast, it is obvious that The Republic of Korea is under the decentralized managerial system. There is a sign that qualitatively speaking, certain sectors of our economy in the Republic of Korea are under the centralized managerial system. Accordingly, it is hard to differentiate that the present high rate of economic growth were attributed to a development pattern primarily caused by the centralized managerial system or the decentralized managerial system. Nevertheless, it might be safe for us to conclude that the pattern of economic growth in the Republic of Korea is. attributed to the latter. In concluding remarks, the above arguments are, of course, an hypothesis on the pattern of Korean economic growth. Therefore, in order to make a verification of the hypothesis, quantitative research should be tried. At this juncture, the hypothesis on Korean economic growth from the managerial aspects might be of help to make a clarification of the pattern of economic growth in Korea.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료