經濟開發과 經濟體制 = Economic Development and Economic System
저자
朴喜範 (서울大學校 商科大學)
발행기관
서울大學校商科大學 韓國經濟硏究所(INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY)
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
1966
작성언어
Korean
KDC
320.5
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
1-44(44쪽)
제공처
소장기관
Economic system is a social order in which the economic institutions as its component factors are not only consistent with each other but form an integrated organization. There may be some economic institutions which defend and support the interests of existing ruling economic powers. But if those private interests conflict with national interest, that is, the development of national productivity, the economic institutions must be changed to be appropriate for the development of national productivity and in the result the character of the economic system is changed. In this way, the economic powers based on the old institutions will be substituted for the other economic powers suitable for the new institutions.
The relation between the national productivity and the economic institutions forming an economic system is divided into two cases: in general case, the development of national productivity determines the character of economic system; and in special case, on the contrary, the reform of economic system brings the development of national productivity. The advanced economies, I think, belong to the former, and the backward to the latter. In other words, in the advanced economy the development of national productivity has acted as an independent variable in reforming the economic institutions or system; in the backward economy the reform of the institutions or system has played a role of independent variable in the development of the national productivity.
The series of the systems of the advanced economy, in the reform of which the development of national productivity has played a ruling role, may usually be understood as mercantilism, industrial capitalism, monopolistic capitalism, and modified capitalism. And also the series of the systems of the backward economy, in which the reform of economic institutions has played a ruling role in the development of national productivity, can be understood as physiocracy, protectionism, Sunwenism (a kind of ideal type), and backward countries' type of mixed economic system. Therefore, in spite of the background of the same age there may well be the difference in the economic systems between the advanced and the backward countries according to the individuality of national economy. The backward countries who created the economic systems suitable for their individuality which is different from that of the advanced countries have achieved the rapid development of national productivity; on the contrary, the backward countries without their suitable systems did not break away from economic backwardness. This is a historical lesson.
The economic systems in backward countries which conquered successfully their economic backwardness have coped and coexisted with those of advanced countries; namely, physiocracy with mercantilism, protectionism, with industrial capitalism, Sunwenism, with imperialism, and finally backward countries' type of mixed economic system with modified capitalism. There is no doubt that this contrast or distinction has not the same exactitude as in natural science. It is also obvious that the implications of economic system vary to a large extent according to the peculiarity of cultural tradition and national individuality.
We have so far described the factors to change advanced economic systems in relation to the different stages of economic development, and backward economic systems in relation to the difference of individuality-economic backwardness- in national economy. For that reason, by the difference of individuality many countries in the same development stage of productive power have adopted different economic systems respectively. Succeeding to the same monopolistic capitalism inview of the development stage of productive power, the "Have Nations" whose resources were rich have been transformed into modified capitalism on one hand, and the "Have-not Nations" whose resources were poor were transformed into fascism on the other hand. This historical fact proves that the difference of national individualities accrues partly from natural environments.
Here is, however, an economic system based on the theory of Marxian socialism. The series of economic systems in backward countries which I mentioned above, though they are historical facts, can be considered as one of the alternatives in viewing from the theoretical aspects. For example, economic system other than protectionism might have opposed to the industrial capitalism of advanced countries, have developed their national productivity rapidly, and have wiped out economic backwardness; and in the result, the above economic systems might have brought up the countries to become members of advanced group in the near future as the protectionism has done. In the same way, the economic system which could have opposed to imperialism-the highest stage of monopolistic capitalism, and protected its national interest, may not imply only Sunwenism. We can say that the economic system of Marxism-Leninism was one of the possible systems in backward countries. Why Marxian socialism could not but be born in the most economically backward country, Russia, contrary to the prophecy of Marx, can not be explained without standing on the different theoretical ground from Marxism.
It seems to me that the deep-rooted foreign capital unable to be eliminated by laissez-faire, the sudden introduction of modern institutions shocking the feudal semi-serfdom, the secret police system of Imperial Russia, and other cultural traditions, etc. were the factors to have made out the economic system of Marxism-Leninism which is a sort of socialism having Russian individuality. From the viewpoint of the exclusion of humanity and other cultural values, that system has many faults. But that ruthless and violent system has accomplished economic modernization. On the contrary, Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles which is more rational and ideal than Marxism-Leninism has ended in a failure.
Though Marx and Schumpeter were based on the different theoretical ground, both foresaw the coming world after capitalism to be socialist society. But they emphasized only the generality of history based on the advanced capitalist economies which had played a leading role in modern history; they neglected the various effects of the supporting role of a number of backward economies on the modern history. In this sense, they have forgotten the individuality of historical phenomena. It can be known from the fact that the proposition of Marx-the most advanced capitalist economies will transform into socialism in the first place-was denied by the very man, Lenin, his genuine successor. In spite of long and boring explanation by the socialists, the historical fact that in the most economically backward country, Russia, was born socialism for the first time, contradicts the proposition of Marx.
I do not doubt that Marxian socialism is one of the alternative ways in economic development of backward countries. But this system may be irrational economic system as well as abnormal.
Marxian socialism cannot destroy the general law that the connotation of a term varies according to the development stages of productive power. Marxian socialism is classified into advanced and backward types, as same as advanced type of industrial capitalism implied laissez-faire and backward type of it protectionism. Soviet Union has recently transformed into revised socialist system, but Red China is to stick to Stalinism. In this very point the economic factor of Sino-Soviet ideological dispute is believed to lie. Soviet Union could not but transform into revisionism for her national interest, the development of productive power, on the contrary, to Red China Stalinism seems rather appropriate.
Various types of economic system after industrial capitalism-protectionism, Sunwenism, Fascism, two kinds of Marxian socialism and all other possible socialist economic systems, can be defined as modern economic systems. The word 'modern' in this place means that it is not the traditional economic system the characteristic of which is the unproductive allocation of resources, but the economic system which is characterized by the productive allocation of resources and which makes, therefore, economic development possible. In other words, the word 'modern' does not imply the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., merely one-way transfer of wealth, but the accumulation of industrial capital by private sector and/or government.
Here I must emphasize the point that any economy has created a new economic system on the basis of historical inheritances. A new economic system as a new social order was established by modifying the system taken over as historical inheritance or lesson according to new principles, or by creating partly new institutions. It is proved by the fact that socialist economic systems which are utterly hostile to capitalism in ideology have adopted capitalist institutions in modified form suitable for their principles. Therefore, in case we discuss the economic system in the backward countries which were emerged as independent nations in our times, we must keep it in mind that all the economic institutions constituting it can not and need not be newly created.
Now, let's summarize the analysis of the mixed economy which is supposed the most rational economic system for the backward countries. Above all, it is necessary to make clear some problems in the reformation of economic institutions in the backward countries.
First, it is needed to remove some elements of traditional or pre-modern institutions which block the economic modernization of the backward countries. As for this point, Professor W. W. Rostow asserts that the control in the flow of income should be transferred from the unproductive class to the productive. So long as the control in the flow of income remains in the hands of unproductive or traditional economic powers, i.e., middlemen, brokers, foreign exchange or real estate speculators, etc., the economic surplus as once mentioned by P. Baran is laid out unproductively or penetrates into the same consumption process as redistribution in the end. Hence, the control must be transferred to the modern productive class, whether it is private and/or government. To say once more, the social and economic activities which pursue the primitive accumulation of capital must be changed into the other social and economic activities in which the accumulation of industrial capital plays a ruling role. To satisfy these social desires the existing economic system must be reformed or a new system must be created.
Second, the economic system in the backward countries must have the same institutional arrangements which can assure the realization of policies for national interests as the protectionism of backward countries in the nineteenth century had. The backward countries in the nineteenth century could guarantee their national interests, i.e., the development of national productivity, only by protecting their infant domestic industries. But the case of the present emerging independent countries is very different from the above. Their domestic industries are not only infant, but economically subordinate to the industries of advanced countries. They are subordinate not entirely in the pattern of manufactured goods versus primary goods as in the colonial ages. Maintaining partly this type of subordination, they are subordinate mainly in the aspect that their domestic consumer-goods-processing industries constructed after their independence are dependent on the heavy machinery industries and heavy chemical industries of advanced countries in the demand side of their facilities and raw materials. And also those consumer-goods-processing industries are usually forming monopolistic or oligopolistic positions in the backward countries, and they have comprador characteristics acting only as the fixed merchandise market for advanced countries.
Consequently, the industrialization policies in the backward countries must be ultimately focused on establishing economic independence. But in the present economic conditions they must necessarily pursue the inward-looking nationalism aiming at the intensive industrialization. The reasons are as follows: the international specialization in the latter half of the twentieth century has changed long before from north-south trade to east-west; the advanced countries which have lost their colonies are protecting their agriculture as one means of industry-diversification policies; the advanced countries including the United States which forms the backbone of international trade are suffering from the overproduction in the agricultural sector; and to make matters worse, by the invention of synthetic raw materials the industries of advanced countries do not so much depend on the raw materials of the backward countries as before. From the outside factors, the industrialization of emerging independent countries enforces the intensive industrialization. Moreover, the nationalism of those countries which were liberated from the colonial rule is naturally rushing into the inward-looking nationalism. The economic system in the backward countries, therefore, needs the institutional arrangements which can satisfy this inward-looking economic nationalism.
The next problem is which economic system can defend the national interests of the backward countries. Of course, we can think of the variously possible economic systems; modern capitalism, Fascism and various types of socialist systems may be the adoptable in the point that they can change the traditional types of economic activities into the modern. But the economic system we intend to pursue must be one which is rational and normal to any extent on one hand, because the economic life is not all of the social life of man, and rather the economic activities are the mere means to accomplish the higher objectives; and which can maintain the nationalistic features on the other hand.
It will be identified that the backward countries' type of mixed economic system as H. Myint defined can satisfy the above requirements.
First, it needs the institutional reform related with the agricultural sector. The institutional framework must be arranged which can transform the economic surplus originated from agriculture into the productive investment by abolishing the semi-feudal tenant system through land reform. The institution need be arranged which can remove the control in the flow of income around the agriculture from the unproductive landlords to the farmers, so that the farmers can invest productively in agriculture or other sectors. Agricultural revolution, however, cannot be fulfilled only by the land reform. The economic surplus in agriculture has been expropriated not only by the traditional feudal forces, but also by the precapitalistic merchant capital. Moreover, in the agricultural sector without landlords there are so many owner cultivators or petty cultivators that minor middlemen versus major cultivators form the selling or purchasing market for the necessaries of life and the agricultural products. As the result, the oligopolistic competition peculiar in the backward countries occurs in the marketing process, and the expropriation of farmers by the middlemen becomes more excessive. Hence, the marketing mechanism for the farm products and the necessaries of farmers need be modernized. The marketing revolution in the agricultural sector must be focused on the following policy: the agricultural cooperatives must take charge of the former function of middlemen so that the economic surplus can be resolved to the farmers or cooperatives themselves, or mobilized into production in the form of government tax revenues. Central Marketing System in Malaysia, Farmer's Association System in Taiwan, and State Marketing System(or State Trade System) in Burma and India, are the good examples.
As the land reform or marketing revolution aims ultimately at the productive transformation of the semi-feudal land capital, middle merchant capital or usury capital, such an agricultural revolution must coincide with the industrialization plan which makes possible the productive mobilization of unproductive capitals.
Second, the marketing revolution is needed not only in the agricultural sector but also in the industrial sector or other commerce and service sectors.
In order to remove the control in the flow of income from the unproductive classes to the productive classes, modern marketing system must be established in the overall marketing sector. The principles of institutional reform in this sector are the same as those in agricultural cooperatives: the intermediate marketing system excluding retail trade must be undertaken by the producer's associations which are organized respectively by occupations. This will transfer the incomes of excluded middlemen to the producers associations or the producers themselves; and therefore, it will be conducive to the reduction of tax-collecting expenses and the increase of government revenues, because the taxation policies can be executed against the producer's associations. To efficiently administer the producer's associations and to block the evasion of taxes by the exact grasping of the production and circulation of goods, the financial institutions must be arranged. All the transactions excluding those with the final demanders must be regulated in the check exchange and balanced through the current deposit accounts of banks, so that the evasion of taxes by the usurpation on raw materials or finished goods and by the unfairness in the allocation of raw materials can be prevented.
Third, the government organization must be so reformed that it can orientate and supervise producer's associations in accordance with the policies and can accomplish the objectives of them, because the occupational producer's association are not the production organization but the regulation organization. The marketing mechanism and the government organization of Fascism which, allowing in principle the priviate property system and the freedom of enterprise in the production activities, could obstruct the waste of resources by allocating the resources productively according to the government plan, may be utilized for the mixed economic system of the backward countries. Here we must keep it in mind that the ideology of Fascism is one thing and the economic institutions of it are another. It would be a good lesson that the Soviet socialism adopts many capitalistic institutions in various sectors, but administers them entirely differently from capitalism.
The fourth is the problem about the monopolistic and oligopolistic financial cliques. The monopoly and oligopoly in the backward countries are formed not only in the marketing sector as already mentioned, but tend to be formed in the manufacturing sector, especially in the consumer-goods-processing industries or the durable consumer-goods-processing industries. These financial cliques generally have subordinate and comprador subcontract relations with the heavy machinery industries, the heavy chemical industries and the exact machinery industries of advanced countries in the aspect of facilities, raw materials and technology. As long as these subcontract relations are continued, the investment in these sectors can not expect the derived investments by linkage and/or multiplier effects.
In spite of these features, the financial cliques have received the special favor in finance under the name of industrialization and have generally formed family companies. In having formed the financial cliques, their creative entrepreneurship must have played a large role, but their connection with the political powers may have been a much more direct factor.
The formation of family financial cliques largely impedes the automatic mobilization of private capital. Low interest loans, even if there is not progression of inflation, give enormous opportunities for vested interests along with other subsidies. So long as such a loan system exists, the development of the automatic mobilization machinery of private capital, i.e., the stock market, will be blocked, and the popularization of stocks will be impossible. Though the theoretical discussion on the development bank is still continuing, it is a general trend of many countries that loan policy is being substituted for investing policy. Development bank will be able to make the automatic mobilization of private capital and the popularization of stocks possible, for it can invest directly in the stock market. Consequently, the reformation of financial institutions is desired.
In the particular economic sectors or industries which private capital can not undertake, government will be able to invest directly and dispose of the enterprises to private capitalists; this case was historically the state capitalism in the initial stage of modernization of Japan.
Fifth, various problems can be appeared in the transitory period. As the modernization of backward countries implies the change of social powers in the sociological and political aspects, there must be social frictions. Especially, the present backward countries which were liberated from the colonial rules must fight against the domestic traditional powers on one hand as in the industrialization process of advanced countries; and must fight against the oppression by the advanced countries' monopolistic capital which is linked with the domestic subordinate processing industries on the other hand. The maintenance of traditional, commerce capitalistic or usury capitalistic institutions are favorable to both of the domestic traditional powers and the monopolistic capital of the advanced countries. Therefore, the coalition of these two powers is the most important factor blocking the modernization of backward countries. Here is one of the reasons why nationalism is so prevalent in the present backward countries.
The unemployment problem in the transitory period may not be very important. Though frictional unemployment will occur temporarily, the more creation of productive employment opportunities will make it easier. The frictional unemployment in the retail trades or other services business which give the most of employment opportunities will be affected little by the marketing revolution. The exclusion of middlemen or brokers will be compensated by the employment opportunities created in the modern marketing organization by the producer's associations. Consequently, the frictional unemployment cannot be an important social problem. It is a quite different problem how the mass communication defending the existing economic powers will treat this problem.
It is already mentioned that the industrialization of backward countries can not but have the intensive character and advance to the inward-looking nationalism. To realize the inward-looking nationalism; first, on the side of policy measures the intensive industrialization plan is necessary, second, on the side of institutions the tariff system and the adjustment of domestic price mechanism able to support the industrialization plan must be established. And the institutional arrangements will be necessary which can systematically carry forward the plan in order to form the social overhead capital and to establish the basic industries essential for the intensive industrialization.
분석정보
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)