민족국가 부재 하에 경제발전 모색과 굴절 -한말 계몽운동기 식산흥업론을 중심으로-

Abstract

This paper is a study examining the economic development theory conducted in the absence of a nation-state in the Enlightenment movement Period. The theory of economic development after the Russo-Japanese War was proposed in a political and economic environment that was significantly different from the previous period. With the political and economic support of the Japanese Resident-General(統監府) Japan’s economic penetration was gradually expanding in the commercial and industrial sectors and labor markets. On the other hand, Korean capitalists began to face internal confrontation over the direction and initiative of economic development as small and medium-sized business owners, who had been suppressed by the traditional commercial system, became active. Due to the incapacitation of the Korean Empire government, it was necessary to reorganize the subject and method of economic development, and at the same time, it was necessary to respond to Japan’s colonial economic policy. In this situation, there were two different types of economic theories that could be defined as “Liberal economic development theory” and “Nationalist economic development theory” regarding the theory base, subject setting, and method and direction of economic development, reflecting the internal separation of capitalists. The liberal economic development theory was an economic theory that reflected the positions of capitalists in the economic domain where Koreans’ commercial districts remained relatively stable or benefited from transactions with Japan despite the expansion of economic penetration. The nationalist economic development theory was an economic theory representing the position of capitalists belonging to the economic domain facing strong pressure of competition for survival due to Japan’s expansion of economic penetration. However, these two economic theories had a logical problem in achieving the ultimate goal of economic development, ‘restoration of national sovereignty’. Although the details were different, both theories defined the essential role of state power for economic development, but the Korean Empire was already neutralized after the Russo-Japanese War. It was also a problem that more and more subordinate capitalists were incorporated as sub-partners of Japanese capitalism and sought profits. Liberal economic developmentists tried to solve this problem by emphasizing the moral responsibility of capitalists. In addition, some gave up the establishment of the system through the central government and promoted the local autonomy system as an alternative. However, most other liberals failed to solve this problem, supported the laws and systems enacted by colonial powers, and showed subordination to pursuing legitimate economic development. On the one hand, in the case of nationalist economic developmentists, there were some commentators who showed some subordinate attitudes, but most of them were critical of the policy of colonial power. Rather than expecting colonial power, they tried to solve this problem by seeking new subjects to protect domestic industries on behalf of the nation-state. Although it did not lead to a substantial economic organization, it was meaningful in that it was an attempt to pursue independent development through the gathering of ethnic and social groups, not economic development through compromise and subjugation with colonial power.