RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

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

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기

    민주주의 공고화를 위한 대규모기업집단정책 : 공정거래법상 경제력집중억제제도를 중심으로 = Democratic Consolidations and Economic Concentration in Korea

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Democratic consolidation as a subject related to the democracy after democratization is a difficult subject to define, and none of the scholars offer a
    fully satisfying definition. Some emphasize the negative aspects of consolidation and others offer to disaggregate and differentiate new democracies. But many of them concur with the point that durability of the new democracies will depend on their economic performance of the government, and that a huge gap between the rich and the poor can lead to the severe political unstability in the newly democratized regime. Poor economic performance and unbalance in the wealth in a society can be a primary reason for the revert to the authoritarian regime from the democratic government.
    This article concerns the gap between wealthy and poor, and warns that it can
    be threat to the stable democracy in Korea. The concentration of wealth in
    Korea have a long history. Economic concentration in Korea resulted from the
    government’s policy to promote economic growth and failure to balance
    between equity and efficiency. The Korean government ignored the
    redistribution of wealth to the working class and society on purpose. It
    concentrated insufficient resources to the strategic industries like heavy-chemical
    industries, and the result of that strategy was the concentration of economic
    resources to some big businesses and capitalists.
    Some policy measures to treat the economic concentration were taken, but
    they had no effect. First, because overall economic policy was oriented towards
    big business, the anti-economic concentration policy played only a limited role
    in treating the problem. Second, Korean government failed to balance between
    equity and efficiency, since its policy measures on big business were arbitrarily
    taken according to the business cycle and political demands. Third, the discrepancy between the aim of the regulation and the policy measures led to the
    deepening of economic concentration. This article tries to find the answer to
    these problems and suggests some policy measures by looking at the regulatory
    institutions designed to restrain economic concentration, i.e. Monopoly
    Regulation and Fair Trade Act.
    This article argues that the Korean government should reduce the gap
    between wealthy and the poor if it were to avoid political turmoil. To make
    Korean democracy stable and harmonious, first, Korean government should
    make the anti-concentration measures suitable for the aim of the regulation.
    Second, government should keep an eye on the market competition between
    businesses and have the right to demand the divestiture of the monopoly
    enterprises. Third, government must take policy measures based on the principle
    of equity consistently.
    번역하기

    Democratic consolidation as a subject related to the democracy after democratization is a difficult subject to define, and none of the scholars offer a fully satisfying definition. Some emphasize the negative aspects of consolidation and others offer ...

    Democratic consolidation as a subject related to the democracy after democratization is a difficult subject to define, and none of the scholars offer a
    fully satisfying definition. Some emphasize the negative aspects of consolidation and others offer to disaggregate and differentiate new democracies. But many of them concur with the point that durability of the new democracies will depend on their economic performance of the government, and that a huge gap between the rich and the poor can lead to the severe political unstability in the newly democratized regime. Poor economic performance and unbalance in the wealth in a society can be a primary reason for the revert to the authoritarian regime from the democratic government.
    This article concerns the gap between wealthy and poor, and warns that it can
    be threat to the stable democracy in Korea. The concentration of wealth in
    Korea have a long history. Economic concentration in Korea resulted from the
    government’s policy to promote economic growth and failure to balance
    between equity and efficiency. The Korean government ignored the
    redistribution of wealth to the working class and society on purpose. It
    concentrated insufficient resources to the strategic industries like heavy-chemical
    industries, and the result of that strategy was the concentration of economic
    resources to some big businesses and capitalists.
    Some policy measures to treat the economic concentration were taken, but
    they had no effect. First, because overall economic policy was oriented towards
    big business, the anti-economic concentration policy played only a limited role
    in treating the problem. Second, Korean government failed to balance between
    equity and efficiency, since its policy measures on big business were arbitrarily
    taken according to the business cycle and political demands. Third, the discrepancy between the aim of the regulation and the policy measures led to the
    deepening of economic concentration. This article tries to find the answer to
    these problems and suggests some policy measures by looking at the regulatory
    institutions designed to restrain economic concentration, i.e. Monopoly
    Regulation and Fair Trade Act.
    This article argues that the Korean government should reduce the gap
    between wealthy and the poor if it were to avoid political turmoil. To make
    Korean democracy stable and harmonious, first, Korean government should
    make the anti-concentration measures suitable for the aim of the regulation.
    Second, government should keep an eye on the market competition between
    businesses and have the right to demand the divestiture of the monopoly
    enterprises. Third, government must take policy measures based on the principle
    of equity consistently.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 유승민, "효율성,민주주의,형평성,그리고 재벌개혁" (여름) : 129-158, 1998

    2 한국경제연구원, "한국의기업집단 : 30대기업집단의형성과성장요인" 한국경제연구원 1995

    3 장훈각, "한국의경제력집중규제제도의변동요인에관한연구" 연세대학교대학원 2006

    4 김용철, "한국의 경제발전과 민주화 경험: 정치경제의 역설적 순환" 사회과학연구소 26 : 117-149, 1996

    5 정병휴, "한국의 경제력집중과 독점금지정책" 한국경제학회 2-43, 1985

    6 최장집, "한국민주주의의조건과전망" 나남출판 1996

    7 박기덕, "한국 민주주의의 이론과 실제 : 민주화·공고화·안정화" 한울아카데미 2006

    8 張夏準, "한국 금융위기 이후 기업구조조정에 대한 비판적 평가" 한국경제의 분석패널 9 (9): 255-304, 2003

    9 임경묵, "출자총액제한제도의폐지및재도입과기업집단의지배권기여지수 변화" (171) : 1-11, 2006

    10 류근관, "출자총액제한제도의 현황 및 정책적 대안" 서울대학교 기업경쟁력연구센터 2003

    1 유승민, "효율성,민주주의,형평성,그리고 재벌개혁" (여름) : 129-158, 1998

    2 한국경제연구원, "한국의기업집단 : 30대기업집단의형성과성장요인" 한국경제연구원 1995

    3 장훈각, "한국의경제력집중규제제도의변동요인에관한연구" 연세대학교대학원 2006

    4 김용철, "한국의 경제발전과 민주화 경험: 정치경제의 역설적 순환" 사회과학연구소 26 : 117-149, 1996

    5 정병휴, "한국의 경제력집중과 독점금지정책" 한국경제학회 2-43, 1985

    6 최장집, "한국민주주의의조건과전망" 나남출판 1996

    7 박기덕, "한국 민주주의의 이론과 실제 : 민주화·공고화·안정화" 한울아카데미 2006

    8 張夏準, "한국 금융위기 이후 기업구조조정에 대한 비판적 평가" 한국경제의 분석패널 9 (9): 255-304, 2003

    9 임경묵, "출자총액제한제도의폐지및재도입과기업집단의지배권기여지수 변화" (171) : 1-11, 2006

    10 류근관, "출자총액제한제도의 현황 및 정책적 대안" 서울대학교 기업경쟁력연구센터 2003

    11 김선구, "출자총액제한제도의 바람직한 개선방향" 한국산업조직학회 12 (12): 81-131, 2004

    12 박상인, "출자총액제한제도의 대안 연구-(환상형)순환출자금지를 중심으로" 14 : 17-57, 2006

    13 고동수, "출자총액제한제도와 기업투자와의 관계" 산업연구원 2006

    14 이건범, "최근재벌의출자행태와정책적시사점" 10 (10): 2-7, 2001

    15 임혁백, "지연되고있는민주주의의공고화:정치민주화의과정과문제점" 5-34, 1997

    16 장하준, "제도주의적정치경제학의정립을향하여" 13 (13): 55-92, 1999

    17 장하준, "제도경제학의최근동향" 44 (44): 191-221, 1996

    18 대한민국구회사무처, "제131회국회경제과학위원회회의록제9호"

    19 최병선, "정부규제론 : 규제와규제완화의정치경제" 법문사 1992

    20 공정거래위원회, "전경련의출자총액제한제도로인한 투자저해주장에대한 공정위입장"

    21 전국경제인연합회, "전경련40년사" 경제인연합회 2001

    22 김진방, "재벌의소유구조:통계,개념,분석" 48 (48): 57-89, 2000

    23 송원근, "재벌의사업구조와경제력집중" 나남출판 2005

    24 최정표, "재벌에 의한 경제력집중의 정태 및 동태적 분석" 한국산업조직학회 12 (12): 62-88, 2004

    25 황인학, "재벌구조와 재벌정책-평가 및 과제" 한국경제연구원 2000

    26 유승민, "우리나라 기업집단의 소유·경영구조와 정책대응" 14 (14): 3-36, 1992

    27 조성욱, "외환위기이후재벌구조변화에대한실증분석 : 리스크이전및주가수익률 동조화를 중심으로" 한국개발연구원 2002

    28 이기영, "업종전문화시책의현황,평가및향후금융지원정책의방향" 한국조세연구원 1996

    29 배성인, "신자유주의 시대 경제발전과 민주주의의 상관성에 대한 논의" 1 (1): 23-55, 2005

    30 공정거래위원회, "시장경제 창달의 발자취-공정거래위원회 20년사" 공정거래위원회 2001

    31 공정거래위원회, "쉽게풀어쓴시장개혁3개년로드맵" 2003

    32 정세열, "상호출자 금지 및 출자총액제한제의 실효성 검토" 한국산업조직학회 13 (13): 47-68, 2005

    33 오창헌, "민주주의의 공고화:개념적?방법론적 고찰" 대한정치학회 10 (10): 97-120, 2002

    34 최배근, "민주주의와 시장경제 그리고 경제성과의 관계" 한국산업경제학회 17 (17): 721-741, 2004

    35 이행, "민주적 공고화와 아시아적 가치" 21세기정치학회 15 (15): 163-178, 2005

    36 최병규, "독점규제법 상 기업집단(재벌)에 대한 규제와 출자총액제도의 문제" 15 : 587-623, 2003

    37 박헌주, "독점규제 및 경제력집중 완화:공정거래법 개정과정을 중심으로, In 한국경제개혁사례연구" 오름 427-476, 2002

    38 양영식, "대기업집단정책의 쟁점 및 경쟁정책과의 연관성" 한국산업조직학회 14 (14): 31-59, 2006

    39 김영호, "대기업집단에 대한 공정거래법적 차원에서의 규제에 대한 재검토 ― 출자총액제한제도의 개선을 중심으로 ―" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 9-40, 2006

    40 산업연구원, "대기업정책과출자총액제한제도폐지에관한연구" 1-67, 2006

    41 김종호, "기업활동규제에대한국제비교-World Bank의Doing Business를중심으로" 38-49, 2007

    42 최정표, "기업집단지정제도의 유효성에 관한 실증분석" 한국산업조직학회 11 (11): 1-36, 2003

    43 전인우, "기업집단의형성과경제력집중관련정책. ""한국의기업집단-30대기업집단의 형성과 성장요인" 한국경제연구원 1995

    44 위정범, "기업집단의 계열사간 출자와 사업구조" 한국재무학회 18 (18): 69-92, 2005

    45 이왕휘, "기업지배구조의 정치경제학: 주주모델에 대한 이론적 비판" 한국정치학회 40 (40): 263-290, 2006

    46 이인권, "기업지배구조와 출자규제 제도의법리적, 실증적 연구" 한국경제연구원 2005

    47 송혁준, "기업지배구조가 경영자의 이익조정과 기업성과에 미치는 영향" 한국회계정보학회 24 (24): 167-186, 2006

    48 임영재, "공정거래법상 경제력집중 억제정책의 평가 및 과제" 13 (13): 31-56, 2003

    49 이연호, "경제적자유화에있어서의국가의역할:경제규제의정치학" 32 (32): 77-94, 1999

    50 홍재우, "경제위기와 민주주의:외환위기 전후 대중의 민주주의체제 지지의 변화" 16 : 109-136, 2006

    51 Dahl, Robert A, "경제민주주의" 인간사랑 1995

    52 임영재, "경제력집중규제및기업분할청구제, In 공정거래관련 법령의 개선방안" 한국개발연구원 160-205, 2003

    53 김회경, "경제력집중규제를위한법체계" 7 : 69-92, 1998

    54 황인학, "경제력 일반집중과 기여요인에 관한 연구" 8 (8): 49-74, 2000

    55 이장규, "경제는당신이대통령이야-전두환시대의경제비사"

    56 임영재, "경쟁촉진을 위한 시장구조 교정수단에 관한 연구" 한국경제의 분석패널 9 (9): 165-233, 2003

    57 O’Donnell, Guillermo A, "Transitions, Continuities, and Paradoxes, In Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective" University of Notre Dame Press 1992

    58 Linz, Juan J., "Toward Consolidated Democracies" 7 (7): 14-33, 1996

    59 Huntington, Samuel P., "The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century" University of Oklahoma Press 1991

    60 Gasiorowski, Mark J., "The Structural Determinants of Democratic Consolidation: Evidence from the Third World" 31 (31): 740-771, 1998

    61 Haggard, Stephan, "The Political Economy of Deomcratic Transitions" Princeton University Press 1995

    62 Polanyi, Karl., "The Great Transformation" Rinegart & Company, Inc 1944

    63 Schmitter, Philippe., "The Consolidation of Democracy and the Representation of Social Groups" 35 (35): 422-449, 1992

    64 Chu, Yun-han, "How People View Democracy: Holting Progress in Korea and Taiwan" 12 (12): 122-136, 2001

    65 Schneider, Ben Ross., "Democratic Consolidations: Some Broad Comparisons and Sweeping Arguments" 30 (30): 215-234, 1995

    66 Collier, David, "Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research" 49 (49): 430-451, 1997

    67 Diamond, Larry, "Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia" Lynn Rienner 1989

    68 Przeworski, Adam., "Democracy and the Market: Political and Economical Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America" Cambridge University Press 1991

    69 Dahl, Robert A., "Democracy and Its Critics" Yale University Press 1989

    70 Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, "Capitalist Development and Democracy" University of Chicago Press 1992

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2011-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.79 0.79 0.9
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.81 0.73 1.316 0.31
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼