메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
중앙대학교 법학연구원 法學論文集 法學論文集 제36권 제3호
발행연도
2012.1
수록면
5 - 29 (25page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
According to the World Bank's report published on July 7, 2010, South Korea's GDP in the previous year amounted to USD 832.5 billion (around KRW 958 trillion), ranking 15th among comparable countries. But our economic policies are still focused on growth-first and distribution-later. As Keynes pointed out, the fruits of economic growth are not distributed to all the people. Since human desire knows no bounds, satisfaction of 'absolute needs' does not stop accumulation of wealth. A human being has a thirst for satisfaction of 'relative needs' which gives one the feeling of superiority over others. Seen from this perspective, discussions on distributive justice might be able to present answers to reflective consideration of the ills of 'growth for growth's sake'. The proposition that proper distribution is possible through economic growth has not been proved despite remarkable growth of the world economy including South Korea during the past century. This results from lack of understanding of the nature of capital and human desires. Especially in South Korea, which continued with the policies of economic growth centered around Jaebeols (conglomerates) under the banner of ‘growth-first and distribution-later' regardless of the ideal of a social state which is a constitutional principle and was confronted with the Asian foreign exchange crisis of 1998 and the global financial crisis of 2008, balanced growth of the national economy and more equal distribution of wealth, the primary goals of a social state, still remain unsolved constitutional tasks. The existing of Korean Constitution is prescribed Article 119. However, it is true that the concrete meanings or normative contents of the Economic Order under the current Constitution are abstract and ambiguous compared with other constitutional principles in that the contents are too abstract and ambiguous. The state goals should be set up and proper guidelines for interpretation of the Constitution should be presented. In conclusion, we should think about the public benefit because Article 119 exist for the people.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (37)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0