신자유주의와 한국농업정책에 관한 연구 : The Research on Neoliberalism and Korean Agrarian Policy : After opening Trade agreement about Agrarian Commerce
- 발행기관 서강대학교 대학원
- 지도교수 전상진
- 발행년도 2007
- 학위수여년월 2007. 8
- 학위명 박사
- 학과 및 전공 사회
- 식별자(기타) 000000104219
- 본문언어 한국어
목차
요즘 흔히들 위기의 시대 또는 위험의 시대라고 한다.
이 글은 이러한 위기 농촌의 근본 원인으로 신자유주의를 지적하고 그 신자유주의의 다른 형태로서 UR 이후의 농업통상협상을 살펴본다. 또한 농업통상협상의 결과로 나타나는 농촌사회의 위기를 분석하고 이에 대응하는 농업정책의 과제와 그 대안을 도출하는데 그 목적이 있다.
이 연구에서 사용한 주요연구 방법으로는 문헌조사, 통계자료의 분석, 농업인을 대상으로 한 심층면접조사 등이다. 이 글에서는 우리농업의 위기를 농업사회학적 관점에서 농업통상정책의 과정과 농촌실태를 분석 할 것이다.
이 글에서 제기하는 문제제기는 우선, 신자유주의가 요구하는 무역자유화를 통해 전 세계가 하나의 시장으로 통합된다면 이에 대한 대안은 무엇인지 ?
일반적으로 신자유주의하면 초국적 자본의 힘에 의해 주도되어지고 변화되어가는 것을 의미한다. 이름하여 이를 위로부터의 신자유주의라 말한다. 이에 반해 아래로부터의 신자유주의 운동은 대다수의 많은 사람들이 연합하여 또는 개별적으로 자신들의 주장을 요구하는 것을 말한다. 이는 대다수 노동조합, 농민단체, 농업인들, 근로자들이 이에 해당한다고 할 수 있다.
신자유주의에 대한 개념을 이렇게 정의 한다면 우리농업의 방향은 신자유주의의 전반적인 흐름은 인정하되 신자유주의는 아래로 부터의 방향이어야 한다는 것이다. 이렇게 될 때 아래로부터의 민주와 정책도 가능해져서 상향식 친환경 지역농업체계를 구축하고 그 방안을 제시 할 수 있을 것이다.
둘째로, 정부의 농업정책의 기본방향에 대한 의문이다.
정부는 외국과의 경쟁에서 살아남을 수 있는 경쟁력 확보에 중점을 두고 농가의 규모화, 전문화, 현대화등을 통해 수익구조의 농업정책을 지향하고 있다. 이에 대한 정책지원으로 재정자금 119조원 지원 정책, 각종 투융자계획등의 정책적인 지원에도 불구하고 농촌은 여전히 위기의 상태에 있다. 이것은 한국농업의 특성을 인정하지 않은 결과 이기도 하다.
신자유주의의 구체적인 형태로서 나타난 것이 무역통상인데 이러한 무역통상은 한국농업의 입지를 더욱 축소시켜 놓았다. 신자유주의는 초국적 자본을 이용하여 전통적인 관계를 해체하고 자본의 이동성을 무기로 하여 농업부문에 대한 우위를 확보해 나간다. 이것을 무역통상이라는 형태로 다른 나라에까지 전파하여 강대국의 자본논리를 주입한다. 농업부문에 있어서도 같은 논리로 각 국민국가들의 특성은 고려하지 않고 획일화 하려는 시도인 것이다. 이러한 과정속에서 요즘 진행되고 있는 DDA/FTA협상은 한국농업에 여러 가지 불리한 결과들을 초래하고 있으며 이에 대응하는 우리의 정책적 노력이 필요하다 할 것이다.
인터뷰 결과 농업인들은 우리농업의 위기 완화를 위해서는 농업의 중요성에 대한 적극적인 홍보와 소농구조의 장점을 살릴 수 있는 작물의 개발, 효과적인 무역협상에 대한 대응이 필요하다고 인식하고 있었다. 그 효과적인 대응이란 가능한 주요국의 요구를 가능한 늦추면서 그 기간 동안 우리의 실리를 챙길 수 있는 방법을 모색하자는 의견이 많았다. 농업의 중요성에 대한 홍보는 농업의 다원적 기능이 중요한데 이러한 다원적 기능의 발휘를 위해서는 사회적 투자가 필요하며 모든 국민이 다원적 기능의 중요성을 공감하도록 정부가 적극 노력해야 한다는 것이다.
우리농업 위기는 농업인구의 노령화, 농가경제의 약화, 정책의 일관성 부족등으로 나타나고 있는데 이는 정부의 적극적인 관심과 지원이 필요한 부문이다. 또한 우리농업의 위기 극복을 위해서는 농업구조를 활용할 수 있는 일관성 있는 정책과 농촌복지등 균형적인 시각이 필요하다. 한국의 농업정책은 정책적 혼선이 많아 종합적 대응기반이 미흡하였고 농업, 농촌의 정책간 유기적 결합이 부족하였다. 따라서 사회전체적인 분위기에 편향되어 질적인 측면이 소홀히 다루어져 농업인에 대한 대책과 특화된 정책이 별로 없다는 문제점이 있다.
이 연구에서는 신자유주의에 따른 농업위기 극복을 위한 심층면접조사를 토대로 농촌의 위기극복 완화를 위한 정책대안을 제시 하였다.
신자유주의에 따른 농업의 위기를 극복하기 위한 정책은 우선, 기본적으로 농업소득이나 고용과 같은 경제적 측면의 대책뿐만 아니라 전 국민에 대한 농업의 가치공유, 친환경농업, 지역농업 활성화 등 다차원적으로 접근해야한다.
두 번째로 농업과 농촌을 고려하는 차별화된 정책을 개발하고 지속적인 정책지원을 통해 노령화 되고 빈곤한 농업인에 대한 사회 안전망을 강화해야 한다. 세 번째로 농업의 위기완화 및 극복을 위한 중장기적인 사회정책적 종합계획을 수립 실천해야한다. 그 계획의 방향은 자본이 요구하는 합리성과 효율성이 아니라 진정한 사람의 가치를 느낄 수 있는 방향으로 세워져야한다.
이러한 정책을 성공적으로 수행하기 위해서는 소농이 대농과 공존 할 수 있는 공간을 정책적으로 마련하고 친환경농업을 기초로 하는 지역농업체계를 구축 할 수 있는 토대를 세우는데 그 지원을 아끼지 말아야 할 것이다. 이렇게 될 때만이 지속적인 농업체계를 유지 할 수 있을 것이다.
요즘 같은 위기의 시대에 우리농업의 중요성을 인식시키고 발전시켜가기 위해서는 친환경농업에 기반 한 지역농업체계를 구축하는 것이 소비자나 국가를 위해서도 유리하다는 것을 정책적으로 인식시키려는 노력이 필요하다.
People usually call this generation as that of danger or a crisis.
This writing points out neoliberalism as the fundamental cause of the critical situation of rural communities and examines agrarian commerce negotiation as the other form of neoliberalism. Also, its purpose is to analyze the crises of rural communities, to draw the mission of the agrarian policies, and to deduce the solution for it.
The major methods of research used in this study are reference of records, analysis of statistical data, and profound personal interviews with farm workers. From the view of agrosociological point, the crises of Korean agriculture, the agrarian commerce policies and the reality of rural communities, will be analyzed in this writing.
The question this writing is about to initiate is what the counterplan would be if the world is unified into a single market due to the liberalization of commerce, which is directed by neoliberalism.
Generally, neoliberalism, an ideology that is led by the power of supernational capital, is under the influence of those who have power. Hence, people call it a top-to-bottom neoliberalism. On the contrary, the bottom-to-top neoliberal activities are led by united people claiming their causes or by individuals. Most of labor unions, farmers’ unions, farming people, and laborers are in that category.
Korean agriculture should accept the general concept of neoliberalism, but it should be bottom-to-top structure. If the bottom-to-top neoliberalism is accepted, bottom-to-top democracy will also be available. Then it could construct the uptrend regional agrarian system.
Secondly, there is a problem in the government’s fundamental agrarian policy.
Aiming at the profit-based agricultural policy, the government focuses on the size, specialty, and modernization of farms to secure the competitiveness in the competition with foreign farm products. As a policy of support, the government has financial funding policy, which supports 119 trillion won, and various financing plans. Although the government’s policy of support is going on, rural communities are still facing a critical situation. This is the result of exclusion of the characteristics of Korean agriculture.
Commerce, which appeared to be the specified form of neoliberalism, even contracted the situation of Korean agriculture. Using superrnational capital, neoliberalism uses the fluidity of capital as its forte, breaks up traditional relationship and takes the advantage of agrarian industry. Transformed into the concept of commerce, it spreads out to other countries and injects them the big powers’logic of capital. It is an attempt to standardize agricultural industry without considering each nation’s characteristics. However, such capital shows inconsistency, which demands national intervention when it is profitable, while as it insists that national interference should be restricted when it disturbs its pursuit of profit. In this process, current DDA/FTA negotiations bring many disadvantageous results on Korean agriculture, so the government has to make an effort to as a matter of policy.
According to the interviews, farmers recognized that exploitation of crops, which emphasizes the advantage of small farms, and an effective countermeasure for commercial negotiation are necessary to get through the agricultural crises. Among the effective countermeasures, the most supportive one was to defer our response to main countries’ demands and take the most we can get during that extended period. Pluralistic function of agriculture is important for the advertisement of its magnitude. For the exhibition of the pluralistic function, social investment is essential, and the government has to make an effort to let people to sympathize with this idea.
The government should show progressive concern and support for the crises of Korean agriculture, which are the aging of farming population, weakening of agrarian economy, and lack of consistency of policies. Also, coherent policies and welfare of farming villages, which can utilize the agricultural structure, are necessary to overcome the crises of current agriculture. Korean agrarian policies have had much confusion, so it lacked plans for countermeasure and proper policies for terminable union between agriculture and farming village. Accordingly, there are not much specialized policies or counterplans for farmers because social ambiance has neglected the aspect of quality.
Based on the profound personal interviews, this research introduces policies for overcoming crises of agricultural villages that were followed by neoliberalism.
The policies for resolving the crises of rural communities, which were derived from neoliberalism, should approach not only from the economic aspect, such as farming profit and employment, but also from different degrees, such as public ownership of the value of agriculture, organic agriculture, and activation of regional agiculture.
Secondly, as the specialized policies that take care of agriculture and farming villages develop, the benefit of social security should be fortified to those aging and indigent farmers.
Thirdly, people should establish and practice synthetic social policies to relieve and resolve the crises of agriculture. The course of the plan should not follow the rationality and efficiency of capital but the way people can be aware of the value of human being.
I present some policies for overall Korean agriculture.
First, the government policies have to prepare places for a large-scale farming and the peasantry can coexist, and they should actively support the products of the peasantry for them to open up a new market.
Secondly, shape and actively support a policy that can construct regional agrarian system, which is based on organic agriculture, so that a durable agrarian structure can be lasted.
Thirdly, to recognizeand develop the importance of national agriculture, there is an urgent need of effort to shape policies, which can help people to perceive that establishing organic-farming-based regional agrarian system is beneficial to both customers and nation in this era of crisis.
목차
People usually call this generation as that of danger or a crisis.
This writing points out neoliberalism as the fundamental cause of the critical situation of rural communities and examines agrarian commerce negotiation as the other form of neoliberalism. Also, its purpose is to analyze the crises of rural communities, to draw the mission of the agrarian policies, and to deduce the solution for it.
The major methods of research used in this study are reference of records, analysis of statistical data, and profound personal interviews with farm workers. From the view of agrosociological point, the crises of Korean agriculture, the agrarian commerce policies and the reality of rural communities, will be analyzed in this writing.
The question this writing is about to initiate is what the counterplan would be if the world is unified into a single market due to the liberalization of commerce, which is directed by neoliberalism.
Generally, neoliberalism, an ideology that is led by the power of supernational capital, is under the influence of those who have power. Hence, people call it a top-to-bottom neoliberalism. On the contrary, the bottom-to-top neoliberal activities are led by united people claiming their causes or by individuals. Most of labor unions, farmers’ unions, farming people, and laborers are in that category.
Korean agriculture should accept the general concept of neoliberalism, but it should be bottom-to-top structure. If the bottom-to-top neoliberalism is accepted, bottom-to-top democracy will also be available. Then it could construct the uptrend regional agrarian system.
Secondly, there is a problem in the government’s fundamental agrarian policy.
Aiming at the profit-based agricultural policy, the government focuses on the size, specialty, and modernization of farms to secure the competitiveness in the competition with foreign farm products. As a policy of support, the government has financial funding policy, which supports 119 trillion won, and various financing plans. Although the government’s policy of support is going on, rural communities are still facing a critical situation. This is the result of exclusion of the characteristics of Korean agriculture.
Commerce, which appeared to be the specified form of neoliberalism, even contracted the situation of Korean agriculture. Using superrnational capital, neoliberalism uses the fluidity of capital as its forte, breaks up traditional relationship and takes the advantage of agrarian industry. Transformed into the concept of commerce, it spreads out to other countries and injects them the big powers’logic of capital. It is an attempt to standardize agricultural industry without considering each nation’s characteristics. However, such capital shows inconsistency, which demands national intervention when it is profitable, while as it insists that national interference should be restricted when it disturbs its pursuit of profit. In this process, current DDA/FTA negotiations bring many disadvantageous results on Korean agriculture, so the government has to make an effort to as a matter of policy.
According to the interviews, farmers recognized that exploitation of crops, which emphasizes the advantage of small farms, and an effective countermeasure for commercial negotiation are necessary to get through the agricultural crises. Among the effective countermeasures, the most supportive one was to defer our response to main countries’ demands and take the most we can get during that extended period. Pluralistic function of agriculture is important for the advertisement of its magnitude. For the exhibition of the pluralistic function, social investment is essential, and the government has to make an effort to let people to sympathize with this idea.
The government should show progressive concern and support for the crises of Korean agriculture, which are the aging of farming population, weakening of agrarian economy, and lack of consistency of policies. Also, coherent policies and welfare of farming villages, which can utilize the agricultural structure, are necessary to overcome the crises of current agriculture. Korean agrarian policies have had much confusion, so it lacked plans for countermeasure and proper policies for terminable union between agriculture and farming village. Accordingly, there are not much specialized policies or counterplans for farmers because social ambiance has neglected the aspect of quality.
Based on the profound personal interviews, this research introduces policies for overcoming crises of agricultural villages that were followed by neoliberalism.
The policies for resolving the crises of rural communities, which were derived from neoliberalism, should approach not only from the economic aspect, such as farming profit and employment, but also from different degrees, such as public ownership of the value of agriculture, organic agriculture, and activation of regional agiculture.
Secondly, as the specialized policies that take care of agriculture and farming villages develop, the benefit of social security should be fortified to those aging and indigent farmers.
Thirdly, people should establish and practice synthetic social policies to relieve and resolve the crises of agriculture. The course of the plan should not follow the rationality and efficiency of capital but the way people can be aware of the value of human being.
I present some policies for overall Korean agriculture.
First, the government policies have to prepare places for a large-scale farming and the peasantry can coexist, and they should actively support the products of the peasantry for them to open up a new market.
Secondly, shape and actively support a policy that can construct regional agrarian system, which is based on organic agriculture, so that a durable agrarian structure can be lasted.
Thirdly, to recognizeand develop the importance of national agriculture, there is an urgent need of effort to shape policies, which can help people to perceive that establishing organic-farming-based regional agrarian system is beneficial to both customers and nation in this era of crisis.
