한국과 브라질의 産業化政策에 관한 硏究 : 國家自律性을 中心으로 With reference to the role of state = A Study on Industrialization Policy of Korea and Brazil

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The primary purpose of the present paper is to compare the process of
industrialization policy of Korea with that of Brazil centering around capital
accumulation and distribution viewed from the side of the role of the State.
The introduction of authoritarian technocracy in the neighboring capitalistic society had enhanced the state intervention in the economic sphere to an extent unparalled in history as the industrialization process continued.
Authoritarian technocracy was introudced, for the first time in our country, by the Chung Hee Park's regime which came into power after the May 16th military coup in 1961. A similar case may be found in Brazil where the interanal conditions calling for the introduction of authoritarian technocracy were created amid the emergence of a military regime by the Branco's military coup in 1964. These two regimes have a characteristic in common with each other in that, in order to enhance the accumulation of capital under the structural restriction of capitalistic world economy, they attempted social reform and intervened deeply in all aspects of economic.
In the process of capital accumulation, the means of intervention in economy may be considered representing public enterprises in Brazil. As of 1978 public enterprises own 78% of the total assets of 200 large private business enterprises. This indicates a rapid growht compared with 64% in 1974. The state-run enterprises of Brazil concentrated their investment on the mining and petroleum sectors. In consideration of the effectiveness of the inflow of foreign capital and limited investment capability of indigeneous capital, Brazil expanded its public enterprises.
In the case of our country, it may be well said that the State intervened in economy by means of credit control through the manipulation of public financial institutions and tried to put demestic industrial capitalists under its control.
Reviewing the fund-raising tendency of domestic industrial capitalists, they depended on financial institutions for more than two-thirds of their fund supply at the end of 1970s.
It was possible in Brazil to make a rapid growth in the manufacturing industry of consumer goods by lowering the real wages of workers and promoting the surplus value of capita. In was also the state policy of Brazil to increase greatly the income of 20% of the total population represention the upper classes, there by expanding the market of durable consumer goods. Similatly our country wsa able to attain a significant economic growth by lowering the real wages of workers.
The most serious problem that both Korea and Brazil have faced may be earning
differentials. In the distribution ratio of the national income 10% of the population representing the rich took shares nearly 15 times against 10% of the poor in 1976 and showed a steady increase from the 1980s. Brazil is a typical country which has long been annoyed with a chronical disparity of the distribution of income and property.
The proportion shared by the rich represention 10% of the population exceeded a half of the GNP until 1972, while the proportion shared by the poor represention 40% of the population was only 9.4% of the GNP.
From the strutural viewpoint of the possession of farmland, Brazil is characterized by larescale farming insterms of farm policy, while Korea places emphasis on small-scale farming. The refore, it may be comsidered that the former beongs to the category of unbalanced distribution and the latter to that of unbalanced differential destribution. In this case, it could be seen that the high-pitched growth of the two countries through the introduction of authoritarian technocracy has been attained owing to the lower wages of the working masses and unequal structure of the possession of farmland. It may further be defined that the two countries have persistently pursued the growth-orientted policy the justification of the regime in the long run.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 問題의 提起
• Ⅱ. 産業化政策과 技術官僚
• Ⅲ. 産業化政策과 技術官僚의 階級化
• Ⅳ. 産業化政策과 技術官僚의 自律性
• Ⅴ. 結論