경제윤리의 관점에서 바라본 자본주의의 미래와 기업의 사회적 책임 = The Future of Capitalism and Corporate Social Responsibility from the Perspective of Economic Ethics

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2008년 전세계 경제를 침체에 빠뜨린 글로벌 금융위기는 자본주의 경제체제의 지속가능성에 대해서 다시 생각하게 되는 계기를 마련해주었다. 본 논문은 자본주의의 미래와 기업의 사회적 책임이라는 주제를 중심으로 다음과 같은 세 가지 질문에 대해서 논의한다. 첫째, 자본주의의 총체적 위기인가? 아니면 특정 자본주의 형태의 위기인가? 둘째, 자본주의가 위기를 극복하기 위해 새롭게 탈바꿈한다면 미래의 새로운 자본주의는 어떤 모습일까? 셋째, 지속 가능한 새로운 자본주의에서는 기업의 사회적 책임 중 어떤 부분이 강조되어야 하는가? 이 글은 먼저 글로벌 금융위기는 자본주의의 총체적 위기가 아니라 신자유주의에 기반한 시장만능주의의 위기이며 시장메커니즘을 중시하는 영미식 자유시장경제 자본주의의 위기임을 주장한다. 또한 새로운 자본주의에서는 시장 실패의 문제를 극복하기 위해서 경제주체들의 경제윤리 함양이 필수적임을 주장한다. 마지막으로 새로운 자본주의에서의 기업의 사회적 책임은 기업이 정의(justice)의 원칙에 따라서 사회에 끼치는 외부성(externality)을 적극적으로 내부화 하는 것이며 경제생태계의 건강한 성장을 위해서 시장의 다양한 이해관계자들과 상생하는 것임을 주장한다. 결론적으로 새로운 자본주의의 모습은 경제구성원들이 정의와 협동의 테두리를 벗어나지 않는 범위 안에서 자신의 이익을 마음껏 추구하는 자본주의다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The global financial crisis has spurred many researchers to re-examine the nature of capitalism and its role in contributing to financial market instability, destruction of the natural environment, and income inequality. There seems to be a new urgency to remedy the weaknesses of capitalism while retaining faith in market operations. Yet the authors of this study maintain that varieties of capitalism simultaneously coexist in the world, and argue that the global financial crisis was a crisis of one type of market capitalism: Liberal Market Economies (LME). LMEs is built on the principle of free markets and has a special advantage of maximizing economic efficiency compared to coordinated market economies (CMEs) that emphasize stakeholder and welfare equality. However, LMEs have their own limitations and are especially vulnerable to negative externalities. As the financial crisis demonstrated, deregulation plus the careless and greedy behaviour of Wall Street actors can cause catastrophic market failure. While the authors suggest that those actors’ behaviour be considered a negative externality, the impact raises questions about the role of social responsibility in efficient market operations. To this point, this paper considers the future of capitalism in light of corporate social responsibility. First, we distinguish between the different types of capitalism and explain the financial crisis through this framework. Second, we discuss the literature and possible avenues down which capitalism could possibly evolve, post-crisis. Finally, we consider how to define social responsibility in the context of a new sustainable capitalism.
In response to the failure of Keynesian economic policy to arrest stagflation during the 1970s, neo-liberalism provided a platform for LMEs in the literature and in political economic practice. Since 2009, however, people have started to question the principle of deregulation based on neo-liberal philosophy, and the ability of the market to really operate as an omnipotent mechanism. The financial crisis was surely a case of inefficient resource allocation, i.e. market failure. While we do not make a radical argument that LMEs need to be discarded, we explore the possibility that market failure is indeed a deeply rooted feature of capitalism, and examine remedies for such failures.
The system of capitalism has continually evolved and morphed in order to survive (Kaletsky, 2010). Taking the evolutionary perspective, we argue that capitalism is a self-adapting system, but that restoration of economic ethics is the key to its next phase of evolution. We first focus on the concept of externality, as the presence of externalities is the most well known reason why markets fail. Neo-classical economists maintain that market failure caused by externalities can be addressed by establishing property rights according to the Coase Theorem. Our discussion questions the feasibility of creating additional markets through property rights allocation of public resources such as clean air and other private externality resources. Instead, we argue that we have to address the problems caused by externality through restoration of economic ethics.
Next, we attempt to define economic ethics. Borrowing from Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, a lesser-known but essential precursor to The Wealth of Nations, we examine the role of justice in a sound market economy. Narrowly defining justice as abstaining from doing our neighbor any positive harm, Smith contends that justice is more essential to the existence of society than beneficence, promoting happiness. In this paper, we argue that market agents’ failure to abide by moral justice is the root cause of negative externality and resultant market failure in today’s capitalism. We note that the failure of neo-classical economic analyses to account for the virtue of justice is because neo classical economics’ homo economicus principle disregards it. In the neo-classical economic model upon which capitalism is based, economic actors simply equipped with rationality and self-interest have no incentive to internalize externality that causes suffering to other people. We further consider the theoretical challenge of the prisoner’s dilemma to illustrate the limitations of the homo economicus view, and the advantages of a justice-embracing view - the win-win scenario. We finally contend that the neo-classical position, using positive science to take a neutral ethical stance, has effectively crowded out ethical economic behaviour in the economy and in economic discourse. A new, win-win capitalism must reunite ethical justice with economic agency as in the writings of Adam Smith.
Finally, we argue that the firm should be no exception in pursuing justice in a win-win capitalism, and justice should define corporate social responsibility (CSR). First, firms have to follow the virtue of justice by voluntarily internalizing negative externalities that they inflict on economic agents outside the firm. We contend that the disgraceful days of the firm as an ‘externalizing machine’ are waning thanks to increased market information about externalities and the contribution of firms to unrestrained resource consumption. Second, the advantages of win-win capitalism for firms should be clear from economic literature. Firm should avoid the risks modelled by the prisoner’s dilemma because they require both external and internal parties’ interoperation to succeed. Firms need to restrain their pure self-interest in order to achieve the greatest gains from economic participation for themselves and all their related parties in the economic ecosystem.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 자본주의의 정의(定義)와 개념
• Ⅲ. 자본주의의 여러 가지 형태
• Ⅳ. 자본주의 위기론
• Ⅴ. 자본주의는 어떻게 진화할 것인가?
• Ⅵ. 새로운 자본주의에서의 기업의 사회적 책임
• Ⅶ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 홍기빈, "자본주의" 책세상 2010

2 정동일, "새로운 경영 담론에 대한 해석, 철학적 관점에서의 경영" 2013

3 이근식, "상생적 자유주의" 돌베개 2009

4 배종훈, "기업과 시장의 구별짓기, 기업이론 관점에서의 기업" 2013

5 이재율, "경제윤리" 민음사 1995

6 장용석, "경영패러다임의 융합적 전환과 조직의 대응, 사회학적 관점에서의 경영" 2013

7 Campbell, J. L., "Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility" 32 (32): 946-967, 2007

8 Jensen, M, "Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function" 12 : 235-256, 2002

9 Annan, K., "Unparalleled nightmare of AIDS. Address to the United States Chamber of Commerce"

10 Bowles, S., "Understanding capitalism, Competition, command, and change" Oxford University Press 2005

11 Smith, A., "The theory of moral sentiments" Oxford University Press 1976

12 Friedman, M, "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" 32-33, 1970

13 Schmidt, V., "The futures of European capitalism" Oxford University Press 2002

14 Harvey, D., "The enigma of capital, And the crises of capitalism" Profile Books 2010

15 Esterbrook, F. H., "The economic structure of corporate law" Harvard University Press 1991

16 Bakan, J., "The corporation, The pathological pursuit of profit and power" Free Press 2004

17 Merton, R. K., "The ambivalence of organizational leaders, In Sociological smbivalence and other essays" Free Press 73-89, 1976

18 Rodrik, D., "The Globalization Paradox, Democracy and the Future of the World Economy" W.W. Norton 2011

19 Meyer, C., "Standing on the sun, How the explosion of capitalism abroad will change business everywhere" Harvard Business School Publishing 2012

20 Sen, A., "On ethics and economics" Blackwell Publishers 1987

21 Margolis J. D., "Misery loves companies, Rethinking social initiatives by business" 48 (48): 268-305, 2003

22 Hofstadter, D., "Metamagical themas, Questing for the essence of mind And pattern" Basic Books 1996

23 McNally, D., "Global slump, The economics and politics of crisis and resistance" PM Press 2011

24 Samuelson, P. A., "Economics" McGraw-Hill 1989

25 Frank, R. H., "Darwin economy, Liberty, competition, and the common cood" Princeton University Press 2011

26 Kaletsky, A., "Capitalism 4.0, The birth of a new economy in the aftermath of crisis" Public Affairs 2010

27 Ingham, G., "Capitalism" Polity 2008

28 Hall, P. A., "An introduction to varieties of capitalism, In Varieties of Capitalism" Oxford University Press 2001

29 Rubinstein, A., "A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics" 116 : 1-9, 2006