http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Un Análisis Comparativo de las Experiencias de Desarrollo de Corea y América Latina
Kim Ki-Hyun(김기현) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2007 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.20 No.3
1960 년대 세계에서 가장 가난한 나라 중 하나였던 한국은 50 년이 지난 지금 선진국 진입의 문턱에 서있는 반면, 당시 중진국의 선두주자였던 라틴아메리카는 여전히 저개발국의 상태에서 벗어나지 못하고 있다. 무엇이 이런 차이를 만들었는가? 지금까지 많은 경제학자들과 정치학자들이 이 문제를 다루었고 따라서 다양한 해석들이 존재한다. 그러한 주장들은 나름대로 합리성을 지니고 있으나 또한 한계점도 명백하다. 본 논문은 이러한 차이를 발생시킨 요인으로 우선 수출 상품의 지속적 변화라는 문제에 주목한다. 라틴아메리카 경제를 한국의 발전 경험에 비추어 볼 때, 양자 간의 가장 큰 차이점은 흔히 말해지는 수출주도형 경제와 수입대체산업화라는 경제 발전 모델의 상이함에만 있지는 않다. 보다 중요한 차이는 발전 모델의 다름을 넘어 이들 국가들의 수출 상품의 변화 여부에 있다. 1960 년대 이래 한국은 끊임없이 보다 부가가치가 높은 생산물로 수출 상품을 변화시켜온 데 비해, 라틴아메리카는 그때나 지금이나 여전히 일차상품만을 주로 수출하고 있다. 잘 알려진 대로 일차상품 수출은 교역조건의 악화와 같은 요인으로 인해 라틴아메리카 경제를 여전히 저개발의 상태에 머물게 하고 있다. 그러면 라틴아메리카는 왜 일차상품 수출에서 벗어나지 못하고 있는 것인가? 물론 이 질문에 대해서도 여러 가지 이론들이 있겠지만, 본 논문은 토지개혁, 외국자본과 외국기업의 역할, 연구개발 투자, 인적자원 양성과 같은 4가지 요소에 주목한다. 이러한 네 가지 요소에서의 비교를 통해 본 논문은 한국과 라틴아메리카 국가들의 경제적 성과의 차이의 원인이 진정 어디에 있는지를 보여준다.
이남섭(Lee, Nam-Sup) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2013 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.26 No.2
This article provides a brief sketch on the life and the ideas of Sung-Hyong Rhee from the social biographical perspective. I have analyzed the development of his ideas, divided into four periods. During his scholarly life of 20 years, he produced numerous books and articles on Latin American Studies. With regard to his major activities and ideas, I have summarized the key directions s of his work : 1] The critical analysis of the history of Latin American “Social Formation Debate” and the establishment of infrastructure for area studies of Latin America. 2] The critical study of neo-liberalism in Latin America. 3] The expansion of methodology and scale of Area Studies. 4] The contribution of his research to the public and the needs of practical approach for the social interests. Considering his achievements, Rhee should be known as the most accomplished area study specialist, also well known for his desire to understand Latin American reality from a Third World perspective without the prejudices of First World scholarship.
이성형(Sung-Hyong Rhee) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2010 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.23 No.2
The Obama administration decided to pay more attention to Latin America since presidential campaign, criticizing harshly the Bush administration’s neglect of the hemispheric issues. When in office, he trumpeted a New Partnership for the Americas looking future rapprochement in the Americas. But the gulf between his good-mannered and rosy rhetorics and stiff actions done in the crucial tests for the first year disappointed many Latin American leaders. Even though he modified some policies on Cuba allowing free travels for Cuban Americans, the administration's benign neglect of the military coup and recognition of the subsequent regime in Honduras showed the propensity to realist calculation as a regional hegemon with much weaker commitment to democracy. The agreement to lease 7 military bases in Colombia also imprinted the image of U.S. as a hawkish superpower to South American nations. The military cum humanitarian occupation of Haiti after the earthquake also smacks of the same flavor. Why Obama failed to fill the gap between the rhetorics and the actions? First, recalcitrant rightist Republicans in the Congress blocked new initiatives and the inertia of bureaucratic politics beleaguered with Pentagon’s War on Terror also made the business as usual model keep going. The priority on Latin American issues still lags behind. Second, the resurgence of extra-hemispheric powers like China, Russia, Iran, India and other non-aligned countries gave Latin American countries more room to act autonomously. Latin American nations’ drive toward self-determination and autonomy has grown more rapidly than expected during the Bush administraion with a changing power configuration in global arena. The Obama administration will face much difficulties in harmonizing the interest of hegemonic power in the Americas with shrinking power resources and more audacious regional responses.
김기현(Kim, Ki-Hyun) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2013 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.26 No.2
The main objective of this paper is to recall Sung-Hyong Rhee by examining his lifelong academic legacies. His career has left a sizable legacy of research results, ranging from Latin American politics and economics to studies of cultures and histories. In this paper, we give special attention to his research about Latin American economies. His studies in this field focused on the criticism of neo-liberalism and appraisal of its alternatives in Latin America. To examine the lifelong academic achievements of Sung-Hyong Rhee, we focus primarily on the four books in which his research has been felicitously gathered : Mexico in the Times of IMF, Light and Shadow of Neoliberlism, Latin America, Politics and Economics of the Perpetual Crisis, and A Great Flood. Sung-Hyong Rhee’s interest in Latin American neo-liberalism began with his analysis of Argentina, and extended to Mexico, Peru, Chile, Brazil, and even Venezuela, Alongside the analyses of the general socioeconomic conditions behind each country’s neo-liberalism he shed light on the concrete mechanisms of neo-liberal policies, such as privatization, regional integration, and as well as on the alternatives to neo-liberalism in Latin America.
곽재성(Kwak, Jae-Sung) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2013 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.26 No.2
This paper assesses the research of the late Dr. Sung-Hyong Rhee which he carried out as a political scientist. However, it is not within the scope of this paper to provide an assessment of the scientific significance of Rhee’s work, focusing instead on highlighting his contributions to the debates that have significantly enhanced the robustness of the field of academic Latin American studies in Korea. First, Rhee’s work started from a neo-colonial approach to the interrelationships among the different elements within Latin American social systems, a main research theme of his early career. Second, Rhee’s efforts moved toward critical evaluation of the impact of neoliberalism on development in Latin America, one of the key determinants of the political economy of the region. Fourth, we give special attention to the way in which Rhee forecasted the future of Latin America. Last, but not least, Rhee’s enthusiasm for the humanities and its influence on his work is emphasized, leading to his characterization as an ‘inter-disciplinary’ and ‘reader-friendly’ scholar. Rhee was outstanding in that he enjoyed sharing his ideas and knowledge not only with his colleagues but also with common people. In this manner he cultivated a mass audience and made area studies accessible to the public, by carrying out a fundamental shift in the approach to his research objects. However, this transformational approach has made him subject to criticisms for Dr. Rhee’s supposed weakness in theoretical approach and methodological maturity, although these would surely have been overcome in the years to come had he remained with us longer.