지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The prices of tribute items were very stable from around 1750 when Tribute Institution was consolidated until the middle of the 19th century. Not only the primary tribute prices(元貢價) but also the secondary tribute prices(別貿價) were officially fixed. And they have scarcely changed over time. Both the primary and secondary tribute prices changed within a 5% level respectively during the period from the 1810s to the 1860s. The state endeavored for an efficient adjustment of tribute prices only in limited extent. The secondary tribute prices were rather closer to the primary tribute prices than the market prices. In this regard, the tribute prices formed an independent price category distinct from the market price.
The primary tribute prices of the same items seldom differed each other in case that the same items were dedicated to royal family in various ways, or both to royal family(供上) and to government(各貢). However, they often differed each other in case that the same items were dedicated to government in various ways. This tribute price disparity can be explained by supply prices, different purposes of use, and the autonomy of respective tribute procuring offices' accounts. The fact that the primary tribute prices of the same items often differed between provincial offices(各道廳) under Seonhyecheong(宣惠廳) exhibits the lack of efforts to increase fiscal efficiency. The secondary tribute prices of the same items also often differed each other, depending on their procuring agents. The different tribute prices for the same items not only reflected supply costs, but also revealed the weak integrating power of Seoul market and the state's insufficient effort and will for fiscal efficiency.
The primary tribute prices are estimated to have been around 1.7 times the secondary tribute prices of the same items and a nearly threefold higher than their market prices, where the secondary tribute prices are approximately 1.7 times the market prices. The state, consumer of tribute goods, calculated the tribute prices, considering their market values. Because tribute purchasing agents, namely the tribute merchants(貢人) were officially designated, and prices for tribute items were officially fixed, the tribute prices deviated from their market values. The higher-than-market prices of tribute items reflected the corvee labor burden of tribute merchants, the cost of their procurement and delivery, and even appropriate merchant profits.
Although we suggest several reasons for the fact that such high tribute prices had remained over two centuries, the state can not be relived from a criticism that it was short of efforts to increase the efficiency of tribute procurement. The state could not reduce cost by flexible coordination of tribute prices to correspond to market prices and thereby it could not shut out privilege seeking activities of tribute merchants. However, it had maintained stable procurement institution of government purchase goods with a small nuisance to the people for a long time. The faithful Confucian state Chos?n chose stability and egalitarianism over efficiency for its policy goal.
Notwithstanding the fact that the state paid the tribute prices much more than the market value, the relationship between state and tribute merchants was reciprocal for economic transaction and the tribute merchants must have paid market prices for purchasing tribute items. Nevertheless, the application of officially fixed prices which were much higher than their market prices in a massive procurement of tribute items restrained further market deepening.
The primary tribute prices of the same items seldom differed each other in case that the same items were dedicated to royal family in various ways, or both to royal family(供上) and to government(各貢). However, they often differed each other in case that the same items were dedicated to government in various ways. This tribute price disparity can be explained by supply prices, different purposes of use, and the autonomy of respective tribute procuring offices' accounts. The fact that the primary tribute prices of the same items often differed between provincial offices(各道廳) under Seonhyecheong(宣惠廳) exhibits the lack of efforts to increase fiscal efficiency. The secondary tribute prices of the same items also often differed each other, depending on their procuring agents. The different tribute prices for the same items not only reflected supply costs, but also revealed the weak integrating power of Seoul market and the state's insufficient effort and will for fiscal efficiency.
The primary tribute prices are estimated to have been around 1.7 times the secondary tribute prices of the same items and a nearly threefold higher than their market prices, where the secondary tribute prices are approximately 1.7 times the market prices. The state, consumer of tribute goods, calculated the tribute prices, considering their market values. Because tribute purchasing agents, namely the tribute merchants(貢人) were officially designated, and prices for tribute items were officially fixed, the tribute prices deviated from their market values. The higher-than-market prices of tribute items reflected the corvee labor burden of tribute merchants, the cost of their procurement and delivery, and even appropriate merchant profits.
Although we suggest several reasons for the fact that such high tribute prices had remained over two centuries, the state can not be relived from a criticism that it was short of efforts to increase the efficiency of tribute procurement. The state could not reduce cost by flexible coordination of tribute prices to correspond to market prices and thereby it could not shut out privilege seeking activities of tribute merchants. However, it had maintained stable procurement institution of government purchase goods with a small nuisance to the people for a long time. The faithful Confucian state Chos?n chose stability and egalitarianism over efficiency for its policy goal.
Notwithstanding the fact that the state paid the tribute prices much more than the market value, the relationship between state and tribute merchants was reciprocal for economic transaction and the tribute merchants must have paid market prices for purchasing tribute items. Nevertheless, the application of officially fixed prices which were much higher than their market prices in a massive procurement of tribute items restrained further market deepening.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 元貢價의 체계와 추이
Ⅲ. 別貿價의 체계와 추이
Ⅳ. 원공가, 별무가 및 市價의 대비
V. 공가의 결정원리
Ⅵ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
개항 후 분원 공인과 공가에 대한 연구(1883∼1895)
한국사연구
2016 .09
-
韓中 두 나라의 異國人假面戱와 ‘貢物 바치기’에 대한 비교 고찰
중국문학
2017 .01
-
『贄』목관과『延喜式』의 贄 비교
일본문화학보
2020 .02
-
Characteristics Tribute of Turks to China
고구려발해연구
2004 .12
-
고려 말 조선 초 재정 구조의 연속성과 공납제 운영
역사비평
2017 .08
-
近代日本과 朝貢體制
근대중국연구
2000 .04
-
『世宗實錄』 地理志를 통해 본 朝鮮初 貢物 分定의 실제와 특성 : 厥貢ㆍ土貢ㆍ土産 항목의 검토를 중심으로
한국사연구
2013 .06
-
조선전기 공납제의 특징
인문학연구
2009 .02
-
Tribute Issue: Remembering Ji-Hyung Cho
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
10-13세기 동북아시아 多元的 國際秩序에서의 冊封과 盟約
동양사학연구
2007 .12
-
태조~세종대 호등제의 변천과 공물 분정
사학연구
2016 .09
-
고대 韓･日 사료에 보이는 〈盟約〉
한일관계사연구
2020 .02
-
Was Joseon a Model or an Exception? Reconsidering the Tributary Relations during Ming China
Korea Journal
2011 .12
-
高麗時代 貢賦制의 一研究
한국사연구
1980 .12
-
15ㆍ16세기 漕倉制의 재정립과 그 이해방향
역사와경계
2015 .03
-
East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute : by David C. Kang. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2016 .12
-
點刻銘이 부가된 ‘天·地·玄·黃’ 銘백자들의 사용시기와 성격
역사와 담론
2012 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-018332468