The changes of economic though (The trial of supply-side economics) (경제사상의 변화 (공급측면 경제학의 시험))
-
- Journal of Applied Tourism Food and Beverage Management and Research
- /
- v.8
- /
- pp.89-121
- /
- 1997
Many of the measures and policies advocated by supply-siders, such as lower taxation, less government intervention, more freedom from restrictive legislation and regulation, and the need for increased productivity can be found in writing the classical economist. Nor is supply-side economics a complete divorcement from Keynesian analysis. In both camps the objectives are the same-high level employment, stable prices and healthy economic growth, the means or suggestions for attaining the objectives, however, differ. Consequently, recommended economic policies and measures are different. keynesians rely primarily on the manipulation of effective demand to increase output and employment and to combat inflation. They assume ample resources to be available in order that supply will respond to demand. The supply-siders emphasize the need to increase savings, investment, productivity and output as a means of increasing income. Supply-siders assume that the increase in income will lead to an increase in effective demand. Keynesians suggest that savings, particularly those not invested, dampen economic activity. Supply-siders hold that savings, or at least an increase in after-tax income, stimulates work effort and provides funds for investment. Perhaps keynesians are guilty of assuming that most savings are not going to be invested, whereas supply-siders may erroneously assume that almost all savings will flow into investment and/ or stimulate work effort. In reality, a middle ground is possible. The supply-siders stress the need to increase supply, but Keynes did not preclude the possibility of increasing economic activity by working through the supply side. According to Keynes' aggregate demand-aggregate supply framework, a decrease in supply will increase output and employment. It must be remembered, however, that Keynes' aggregate supply is really a price. Lowering the price or cost of supply would there by result in higher profit and/ or higher output. This coincides with the viewpoint of supply-siders who want to lower the cost of production via various means for the purpose of increasing supply. Then, too, some of the means, such as tax cuts, tax credits and accelerated depreciation, recommended by suply-siders to increase productivity and output would be favored by Keynesians also as a means of increasing investment, curbing costs, and increasing effective demand. In fact, these very measures were used in the early 1960s in the United State during the years when nagging unemployment was plaguing the economy. Keynesians disagree with the supply-siders' proposals to reduce transfer payments and slow down the process of income redistribution, except in full employment inflationary periods. Keynesians likewise disagree with tax measures that favored business as opposed to individuals and the notion of shifting the base of personal taxation away from income and toward spending. A frequent criticism levied at supply-side economics is that it lacks adequate models and thus far has not been quantified to any great extent. But, it should be remembered that Keynesian economics originally was lacking in models and based on a number of unproved assumptions, such as, the stability of the consumption function with its declining marginal propensity to consume. Just as the economic catastrophe of the great depression of the 1930s paved the way for the application of Keynesian or demand-side policies, perhaps the frustrating and restless conditions of the 1970s and 1980s is an open invitation for the application of supply-side policies. If so, the 1980s and 1990s may prove to be the testing era for the supply-side theories. By the end of 1990s we should have better supply-side models and know much more about the effectiveness of supply-side policies. By that time, also, supply-side thinking may be more crystallized and we will learn whether it is something temporary that will fade away, be widely accepted as the new economics replacing Keynesian demand analysis, or something to be continued but melded or fused with demand management.
The government has run and managed various forms of direct payment systems, such as the paddy and field direct payment, to ease the instability of farm incomes with respect to market opening, and preserve farm income. Direct payments to the agricultural sector is a center in the key policy instrument that plays an important role in income stabilization. Despite the large amount of spending in the farm unit, the status of direct payment, and policy effects the analysis of direct payments, such as stability of income contribution, are insufficient. This paper, using the farm unit DB in 2014 and 2015, performed farm level analysis of direct payment, and derived the implications of the performance evaluation system. As a result, the distribution of direct payment showed considerable bias to the left side compared to the normal distribution curve. Approximately half of the farms (49.3%) in 2014 DB should receive below 100,000 won per year by a direct payment. A larger-scale farm showed a significantly increased income effect and income stabilizing effect because direct payments make higher contributions to farm income in proportional to the area. In the more elderly farmers, a high contribution by direct payment to farm income was found to be an advantage; however, in small-scale farms of less than 0.5ha, direct payment contribution on farm household income was only 3%. In large-scale farms, 10ha or more, the contribution to farm income were found to be 29.4%. The income of large farms was 10 times larger than small farmers, and the direct payment entitlements that were received were 110 times larger. Through this policy, direct payments are required for future improvements and modifications.
In 1984, Congress enacted a new measure of administrative sanctions which is a civil money penalty program for violations of Aviation Act and its implementing regulations. This civil money penalty system has been in operations in lieu of suspending or revoking certificates issued by Korean government, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. According to the rules of Aviation Business Act or Aviation Safety Act, where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should order an air carrier to suspend operation because of her violation under certain rules, in which case the suspension of operation is likely to cause serious inconvenience to consumers of air transport services or to harm public interest, the Minister of the department may impose an administrative monetary penalty in lieu of the suspension of operation. In this regard, airline related civil money penalties are somewhat different from those of fair trade, which is the origin of the money penalties system in Korea. Civil money penalties in the field of fair trade are imposed on executive duty violations that undermine the value of the market economy order, and focus on reimbursement of profits due to violations and compensation for unfair spending by consumers. However, in the aviation sector, breach of duty by a business operator does not simply cause the property loss of the public, but it has a direct impact on life or property of the public. In this respect, aviation penalties are more likely to be administrative sanctions or punitive measures than refunds of unfair benefits, compared to penalties in the field of fair trade. In general, civil money penalties have been highly preferred as administrative sanctions because they are subject to investigations by administrative experts and thus, efficiency can be ensured and execution is quicker than judicial procedures. Moreover, in Korea, because punitive civil damages cannot awarded by the courts, the imposition of civil money penalties is recognized as a means of realizing social justice by recognizing the legal feelings of the people. However, civil money penalties are administrative sanctions, and in terms of effectiveness, they are similar to criminal fines, which are a form of punishment. Inadequate legislation and operation of penalties imposition may cause damage to the value of Constitution. Under the above recognition, this paper has been described for the purpose of identifying the present status of the civil money penalties imposition system and operating status in the area of air transport under the laws and regulations in Korea. Especially, this paper was focused on exploring the problem and improvement direction of Korean system through the comparative study with foreign laws and regulations.
Green or an environmental consciousness has been a major issue for businesses and government offices, as well as consumers, worldwide. In response to this movement, the Korean government announced, in the early 2000s, the era of "Green Growth" as a way to encourage green-related business activities. The Korean fashion industry, in various levels of involvement, presents diverse eco-friendly products as a part of the green movement. These apparel products include organic products and recycled clothing. For these companies to be successful, they need information about who are the consumers who consider green issues (e.g., environmental sustainability) as part of their personal values when making a decision for product purchase, use, and disposal. These consumers can be considered as eco-sumers. Previous studies have examined consumers' purchase intention for or with eco-friendly products. In addition, studies have examined influential factors used to identify the eco-sumers or green consumers. However, limited attention was paid to eco-sumers' disposal or recycling behavior of clothes in comparison with their green product purchases. Clothing disposal behaviors are ways that consumer can get rid of unused clothing and in clue temporarily lending the item or permanently eliminating the item by "handing down" (e.g., giving it to a younger sibling), donating, exchanging, selling, or simply throwing it away. Accordingly, examining purchasing behaviors of eco-friendly fashion items in conjunction with clothing disposal behaviors should improve understanding of a consumer's clothing consumption behavior from the environmental perspective. The purpose of this exploratory study is to provide descriptive information about Korean eco-sumers who have ecologically-favorable lifestyles and behaviors when buying and disposing of clothes. The objectives of this study are to (a) categorize Koreans on the basis of clothing disposal behaviors; (b) investigate the differences in demographics, lifestyles, and clothing consumption values among segments; and (c) compare the purchase intention of eco-friendly fashion items and influential factors among segments. A self-administered questionnaire was developed based on previous studies. The questionnaire included 10 items of clothing disposal behavior, 22 items of LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) characteristics, and 19 items of consumption values, measured by five-point Likert-type scales. In addition, the purchase intention of two eco-friendly fashion items and 11 attributes of each item were measured by seven-point Likert type scales. Two polyester fleece pullovers, made from fabric created from recycled bottles with the PET identification code, were selected from one Korean brand and one US imported brand among outdoor sportswear brands. A brief description of each product with a color picture was provided in the survey. Demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, marital status, education level, income, occupation) were also included. The data were collected through a professional web survey agency during May 2009. A total of 600 final usable questionnaires were analyzed. The age of respondents ranged from 20 to 49 years old with a mean age of 34 years. Fifty percent of the respondents were males and about 58% were married, and 62% reported having earned university degrees. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify the underlying dimensions of the clothing disposal behavior scale, and three factors were generated (i.e., reselling behavior, donating behavior, non-recycling behavior). To categorize the respondents on the basis of clothing disposal behaviors, k-mean cluster analysis was used, and three segments were obtained. These consumer segments were labeled as 'Resale Group', 'Donation Group', and 'Non-Recycling Group.' The classification results indicated approximately 98 percent of the original cases were correctly classified. With respect to demographic characteristics among the three segments, significant differences were found in gender, marital status, occupation, and age. LOHAS characteristics were reduced into the following five factors: self-satisfaction, family orientation, health concern, environmental concern, and voluntary service. Significant differences were found in the LOHAS factors among the three clusters. Resale Group and Donation Group showed a similar predisposition to LOHAS issues while the Non-Recycling Group presented the lowest mean scores on the LOHAS factors compared to the other segments. The Resale and Donation Groups described themselves as enjoying or being satisfied with their lives and spending spare-time with family. In addition, these two groups cared about health and organic foods, and tried to conserve energy and resources. Principal components factor analysis generated clothing consumption values into the following three factors: personal values, social value, and practical value. The ANOVA test with the factors showed differences primarily between the Resale Group and the other two groups. The Resale Group was more concerned about personal value and social value than the other segments. In contrast, the Non-Recycling Group presented the higher level of social value than did Donation Group. In a comparison of the intention to purchase eco-friendly products, the Resale Group showed the highest mean score on intent to purchase Product A. On the other hand, the Donation Group presented the highest intention to purchase for Product B among segments. In addition, the mean scores indicated that the Korean product (Product B) was more preferable for purchase than the U.S. product (Product A). Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify the influence of product attributes on the purchase intention of eco product. With respect to Product A, design, price and contribution to environmental preservation were significant to predict purchase intention for the Resale Group, while price and compatibility with my image factors were significant for the Donation Group. For the Non-Recycling Group, design, price compatibility with the factors of my image, participation to eco campaign, and contribution to environmental preservation were significant. Price appropriateness was significant for each of the three clusters. With respect to Product B, design, price and compatibility with my image factors were important, but different attributes were associated significantly with purchase intention for each of the three groups. The influence of LOHAS characteristics and clothing consumption values on intention to purchase Products A and B were also examined. The LOHAS factor of health concern and the personal value factor were significant in the relationships with the purchase intention; however, the explanatory powers were low in the three segments. Findings showed that each group as classified by clothing disposal behaviors showed differences in the attributes of a product, personal values, and the LOHAS characteristics that influenced their purchase intention of eco-friendly products. Findings would enable organizations to understand eco-friendly behavior and to design appropriate strategic decisions to appeal eco-sumers.
Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.