後進國에 있어서의 內資의 調達과 그 産業別 配分 (基2) = The Mobilization and Allocation of Domestic Capital (Part Ⅱ)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The economic development plan in underdeveloped countries should include two aspects as its target of development policy; on the one hand the social change, and on the other, the structural change. The social change means reforming of traditional economic institutions, in which precapitalistic primitive accumulation of capital, unproductive investment of capital and so-called comprador capital can easily be prevailed. The structural change means the transformation of industrial structure into independent or self-sustained structure from dependent or subordinative one, which have grown up under long-continued colonial rule in the past and become nowadays the ground for a new form of the primitive accumulation of capital of the advanced monopolistic capitalism. The social change is related to the mobilization-programme of industrial capital, and the structural change to the allocation of capital among industries, i.e., the investment-programme of capital in the economic development plan in underdeveloped countries.
In the first part of this paper we discussed the problem of capital mobilization accompanied with the "social change," and here in the second part, the problem of capital investment accompanied with the "structural change." Both problems, however, are closely related to one another, and can not be inquired into separately. In other words, here we discuss the strategies of capital investment inspiring the structural change.
The characteristics of the industrial structure of underdeveloped countries can be summed up in a word of "subordination" to advanced economy. Generally speaking, the subordination of industrial structure was one-sidedly compelled by advanced monopolistic capitalists at the stage of imperialism in the late 19th century, and today it has changed into a new form by the modern expansionism that has tried to maintain the 19th century's subordinative relations. But there are substantially few differences between the 19th century's subordinative relations and those of today. In the underdeveloped economy, the mining industry is not linked up with its own country's manufacturing industries but with the producer's goods or heavy industries of advanced countries. And the modernized estate agriculture except the traditional small farming in underdeveloped countries is linked up not with its own country's manufacturing industries but with the consumer's goods or light industries of advanced countries. In the cities of underdeveloped countries there are few productive enterprises except handicraft and production of simple tools or instruments; but there are only the usuries, the landlords, the bureaucrats and the parasitic merchants who export their own country's primitive products and import the consumer's goods of advanced countries. Thus the underdeveloped countries with those subordinative industrial structure have few economic linkages among mining, agriculture and manufacturing, and socially, they constitute the plural or dualistic society which has few interactions between rural and urban areas.
In the underdeveloped economy with those characteristics the principle of development policy should be strictly distinguished from that of advanced economy. First, the precapitalistic traditional economic institutions such as merchant capital, usuries and semi-feudal land system should be reformed; and also all the traditional social institutions that hinder the enlarged-reproduction and force the simple reproduction should be also reformed. This means the overall social change. Secondly, the structural change of industry should proceed toward the independent self-sustained structure, getting out of the situation of ground for primitive accumulation of capital of the
advanced countries. In other words, the underdeveloped countries should establish their own mixed economy that could reform the social institutions as well as change the industrial structure simultaneously. The word "their own" implies that the underdeveloped countries, whether they are capitalist or socialist, have to exclude the subordinative relations and cast off the role of the apostle for the advanced countries on the ideological aspects. Without the construction of such independent system, it is impossible to exclude the economic pressure from advanced countries and to achieve the reasonable development of economy for the underdeveloped countries. That is a very different point between the situation of the present underdeveloped countries and that of 19th century's.
Since the allocation of capital among industries in underdeveloped countries, which we take as the subject in the second part of this paper, aims at the reformation of subordinative structure of industry, the "maximization of national productive power" should be the principle of development policy. the difference between the principle of the "maximization of welfare" in advanced countries and that of the "maximization of productive power" in underdeveloped countries is a matter of course of different stages of economic development. While the purpose of economic policy in advanced economy is on the present welfare, i.e., the present pleasure, of the people; the principle of economic
policy in underdeveloped countries is on the furture welfare of the nation, i.e., the present austerity of the people. The former intends to increase the purchasing power i.e., monetary national income (economic growth), but the latter should intend to increase the productive power (economic development), i.e., the industrialization. While the feature of the former is the marginal growth based upon the modernized industrial foundations, the latter should achieve overall change of industrial structure.
While the underdeveloped countries of 19th century, which had similar traditions of the culture and relatively high level of national income, could achieve the industrialization with a loose policy of so-called protectionism, those of the present day, which have the precapitalistic socio-economic institutions, the pressure from advanced countries, the lower level of income and savings and rapid growth of population, need inevitably the strict control of central government and the economic development plan for the rapid industrialization.
Achieving structural change under the principle of the " maximization of national productive power," there must be both the expansion of social overhead capital and the construction of the basic industries. This is the process of "Big Push" at the early stage of economic development.
For the "Big Push" process, it is necessary to supply enormous domestic capital and to import foreign capital and advanced technology. For the purpose of mobilization of domestic capital, first, the rate of social savings should be raised; secondly, the export should be raised; secondly, the export should be increased, and thirdly the international economic cooperation should be urged. For the increase of social savings, the precapitalistic economic institutions which may induce the waste of productive resources should be modernized. Therefore, we need some institutional reformations, such as land reform, the reform of marketing system specially relevant to foreign and domestic trade
and reform of capital accumulation mechanism which can mobilize the unemployed
resources into productive investment. Professor Rostow argued that the rate of
productive investment should be increased more than 10% of national income for the "pre-conditions of take-off." Professor Rostow's premise of "take-off," however, based only on ex post facto economic realities; moreover, he did not discuss about the measures which could raise the productive investment more than 10% of national income. Professor Hirschman, from the beginning of his discussion, did not pay his attention to the structural change. He evaded the core of the problem by taking the technical problems which might bring about the induced in vestment by the creation of external economies.
In my opinion, the reformation of existing economic institutions (especially the mechanism of capital accumulation) might be inevitable for raising the rate of social savings in present underdeveloped countries with less than 100 dollars of per capita income. The factors impeding the modernization of the underdeveloped countries are not the vicious circle of poverty as Professor Nurkse pointed out, but the "vicious circle of policy" rejection the institutional reform.
Besides the raise of social savings, the importation of foreign capital and modern technology must be met in accordance with the development programme. But this is a difficult task for underdeveloped countries; this problem can only be solved effectively by the international economic cooperation without any political string. Under the relations of capitalist economy, the foreign private investment, generally speaking, has been concentrated on the particular sectors such as mining, oil, rubber plantation, etc., which can supply raw materials for their own heavy and light industries. As the result, the industrial structure of under-developed countries has been distorted. as for the foreign government capital, it has been invested mainly to the social overhead capital in
underdeveloped countries. And usually this foreign capital has political strings. However, the foreign capital may play an important role in developing the basic industries of underdeveloped countries, if well-managed.
In connection with the importation of foreign capital, the priority of investment, i.e., on which basic industry to place the priority, exerts a great influence on demand and supply of foreign exchange and on shortening of industrialization period needed. For instance, if the investment priority had been placed on a integrated heavy machine building plant rather than a steel plant in the Indian Second Five Year Plan, said Professor Mahalanobis, both the goal of the Plan itself and the following investment projects could have been accomplished without any crisis of foreign exchange.
Finally, here remains the technical problems of strategies for allocation of capital among industries. But this is only the technique of minor details; it can never be the substantial problem influencing the fate of economic development plan of underdeveloped countries. Nevertheless, the most of the works of western scholars on economic development are limited to these technical problems, and as the result, they, are evading the core of the problems. The reason, I suppose, is that they take the views which are speaking for the national interests of advanced countries.
Nevertheless their strategies and techniques are very useful, if we grasp the essence of the problems correctly. When we apply them to the economic development of underdeveloped countries, of course, we need much modification and new coordination of them There are Professor Rostow's theory of primary growth sector and Professor Hirschman's theory of linkage effects for the development strategies and input-output analysis for the planning technique which we can apply economic development of underdeveloped countries usefully. But Professor Rostow's primary growth-sector is an ex post facto notion, not a dynamic one which can present a guidance to judge which the most important industry is or on which industry to place the priority. It is the basic industries that must undoubtedly be the primary growth sector in underdeveloped
countries, and if the basic industries are arranged as the new export industries, which are specialized in the new international division of labour, Professor Rostow's so-called primary growth sector will be established, Once the basic industries, as the primary growth sector, are established, we can expect the induced investment in the supplementary growth sector related to those basic industries by Professor Hirschman's complementarity effects, i.e., forward and backward linkage effects and Keynesian induced investment in the derived growth sector. Input-output analysis, as an economic planning technique, must become the ex ante analysis or the dynamic analysis based on experience which is acquired from the earlier economic development of advanced countries. Because, input-output table of an underdeveloped country itself, which is reflecting subordinative and distorted industrial structure, cannot present any guidance to
the investment programme of underdeveloped countries attempting the structural changes of industries.
One of the most important things in effort for the economic development in
underdeveloped countries is to respect the national interests of underdeveloped countries themselves. For underdeveloped countries, it is necessary to create the original "ideology' which can speak for their interests against imported foreign ideologies. List's protectionism against Ricardo's international division of labor and Sun Yat-sen's Three-fold National Principle against imperialism are some of good examples. To achieve the economic development, underdeveloped countries must find out their real images and interests.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 後進國 産業構造의 特質
• Ⅱ. 先進 資本主義經濟에 있어서의 政策基準
• Ⅲ. 後進經濟의 政策基準으로서의 國民生産力
• Ⅳ. 産業別投資의 戰略
• Ⅴ. 結論