1997년 이후 한국의 신자유주의 논쟁: 1980년대 사회구성체 논쟁과의 비교

Abstract

Neoliberal reforms in the South Korean economy have been strongly implemented since the 1997 financial crisis, resulting in its structural transformations. With such changes and accompanying socio-economic problems, there have been made several different groups in understanding Korean capitalism regarding such issues as the main causes of the economic crisis of 1997, key features of the current situation in the economy after reforms, and its future prospects. Above all, three different groups in the discussions have become most distinctive and they can be called ‘progressive liberalism,’ ‘democratically-coordinated market economy,’ and ‘neo-developmentalism’ respectively. First, the ‘progressive liberalism’ group finds the causes of domestic economic crisis mainly in the backwardness of the chaebol system which has been made and grown up from the era of neo-mercantilism of the 1960s. The group also defines the key features of current Korean capitalism to be the ‘lack of liberalism and overabundance of neoliberalism.’ This group pursues the establishment of liberal order in the Korean economy through market-disciplinary measures such as shareholder-friendly governance reforms. Secondly, the ‘democratically-coordinated market economy’ group finds the main causes of the 1997 crisis not only in the chaebol system, but also in international finance. And the group considers the key features of current Korean capitalism to be neoliberlization by both chaebols and international finance, defining the current situation as ‘hybrid neoliberalism.’ The group seeks the stakeholder-centered coordinated market economy through social solidarity. Finally, ‘neo-developmentalism’ group finds the main causes of the 1997 crisis in international finance and its influences, and the key features of post-crisis neoliberal changes and resulting socio-economic problems are considered to be outcomes of the rule of international finance. The group suggests, on the one hand, a social big deal or compromise alternative between chaebol families and other stakeholders regarding management protection, investment and employment, and, on the other, the implementation of the welfare-state policies. These three groups also have debated with one another and their discussions and debates can remind us of and renew the past debates on Korean capitalism and social formations of the 1980s which were made regarding such issues as ‘dependency’ and ‘monopoly,’ now giving a new chance for theoretically renewed understanding of current South Korean capitalism and its empirical analyses.