分散處理 시스템에서 最適의 Task-processor 割當

우영춘 慶北大學校 1988 국내석사

法制와 葛藤事例를 통하여 본 地方政府의 未來像

우영춘 建國大學校 大學院 1997 국내석사

國家財政이 國民經濟에 미친 效果에 관한 硏究 : 韓國 國家統合豫算을 基盤으로

우영춘 건국대학교 대학원 2001 국내박사

The motive of this dissertation is to concern about the increase of the National Debts and the additional public finance for government to make up imprudently. Now in the political arena in Korea, it is said that the economic policy in the present Kim's Administration is a complete failure. Against it, this Administration says that the past government-oriented development policy brought about this poor economy, exerting a sword of powerful but inefficient restructuring. Though we know that the government's fiscal policy has great effects on the national economy, few people has tried an empirical and measuring study on the relation of the public finance to the national economy. This is why I started this dissertation. The objectives of this dissertation are to analyze the effects of the public budgets on the national Economy in Korea during 1948-2000 and to suggest the way the public budgets make toward. To be in detail, they're like the followings. First, how has the government contributed to the economic growth with the fiscal policy and how has it stabilized boom or depression? Second, the size of the local finance has grown consistently. And with the election of the chief of the local government in 1995, the influence of the local government has increased, too. Besides, our territory is relatively small. Under these conditions, is it right that the local governments have no effects on the national economy? Third, What effects and how much have our Unified State Budgets had on the National economy? And in case that the National debt, the burden of our people, is growing and will grow, are there no problems in the Public Budgets? However, to my disappointment, in Korea there's no Unified State Budget which puts the central government budgets and local budgets together. As of 2000, it is only a central government's budgets that is based on the IMF manual. Therefore, at first I should make up the Korean Unified State Budget including the Central government's budgets and the local government's budgets. So, I collected the materials from 1948 to 2000, accounted them by using a method of the IMF manual, and made it. It is shown in Appendix1~8. According to these Korean Unified State Budget, it has increased 15,931 times than that of 1953 in normal size; the central government budgets 10,774 times; the local government budgets 117,562 times. But the real size of the Korean Unified State Budget has increased from 26.7% to 28.2%; that of the central government budgets from 25.4% to 24.6%; the local government budget from 1.3% to 13.6%. Compared to this, GDP has increased 11,138 times for the past 48 years. As we can tell from this, the size of the local government budget has increased much more than that of the central government budget and there is a similar trend between the increase of central government budget and that of GDP. From this, I tried to see the relation of the Korean Unified State Budget to National economy by combining this Korean Unified State Budget and the past Administrations in Korea, To analyze this, the several variables were chosen. For the part of the Korean Unified State Budget, revenue or expenditure of the central government and the local government, the dependence revenue resources, and the preservation resources were chosen; for the part of the National economy, an economic growth rate, a business index, GDP, a currency(m2), an inflation rate (such as CPI, GDP Def.) were chosen. For this, I built the two following hypotheses and analyzed them. [hypothesis 1] The Korean Unified State Budget contributes the economic growth, and the increase in amount of the Unified State Budget brings about that of GDP. [hypothesis 2] The Korean Unified State Budget plays a role of the business stabilizer, and the change of the Unified State Budget results in an unemployment rate, the amount of the currency, and the inflation rate. In order to testify these hypotheses, I used Pearson Correlation analysis and Regression basically. And according to the subjects, some technics were employed. To see how much the finance has contributed to the economic growth, Solow's business accounting method was used. And to discern the effects of the discretionary fiscal policy, FI(fiscal impulse measure) was used. To know the relation of finance to GDP, the multiplier of the government expenditure was used and their efficiency of the past Administrations in Korea was compared with one another. In the end, to analyze the effects of the borrowings from the Korea Bank and the issue of the Public Debt, IS-LM curve was used. The results of these analyses showed the following findings. First, our Unified State Budget has a positive contribution to the economic growth until IMF (average degree of the financial contribution to the economic growth is 16.5%), but it may have a negative contribution in the present Kim's Administration (its degree is -4.3%). Examining the effects of the Public Budgets on the economic growth, the Unified State Budget has multiplied GDP by 1.6 times and the increase of the Unified State Budget by 1% has resulted in that of GDP by 0.3%. Also, the policies and laws related to the economic growth have a lot to do with the Budgets (A coefficient of correlation is 60.2%), which shows that the government-oriented economic growth policy has a close relation to the economic growth. It is interesting that there is a negative relation between them during the 1st Republic~the 2nd Republic and the Kim Yong-sam's Administration~the present Kim's Administration. It means that the government's economic growth policy is inefficient only to pour the government's expenditure to it during those periods. Second, when it comes to the fiscal policy, it usually conducted countercyclinically, but the role of our government as the business stabilizer is less strong than the role as the economy-growth promoter. On the discretionary fiscal policy, there were many cases that our policy against the business fluctuation is not proper. Therefore, we concluded that for our fiscal policy to be successful and efficient, forecasting ability of our government must enhanced. To look into the local financial effects as a stabilizer, we found that the local government played such a role though it is smaller than that of the central government. In this context, as a whole the local government has made up for the central government. But from the 5th republic to the Kim Yong-Sam's Administration, it hasn't been the case. This suggests that considering the size of local government and an influence of the chief in the local government has grown, the fiscal policy of the central government must connected to that of the local government if it would be successful. Third, Seeing the relation of the Unified State Budget to the economy stabilization, it has controlled an inflation rate (a coefficient of correlation on CPI is 58%), an unemployment rate (a coefficient of correlation is 69.4%). Also, the policies and laws related to the economic stabilization have a lot to do with the Budgets. For example, it has 79.3% to do with the policies for the unemployment. And Government expenditure and the Currency has been correlated closely (a coefficient of correlation is 98%), and it has resulted in prices rise. Examining the relation between the amount of the currency and government's economic policy, it has 66.9% to do with the economic growth policies, 80.5% with the unemployment policies, and 44% with the welfare policies. From this, it is inferred that the government has preferred to finance through the issue of money. However, government isn't likely to intend to get Seigniorage from the inflation tax. Besides, IS-LM curve shows that Crowding-out effects has been small and GDP has grown much more because we used policy-mix properly. Judging from the National Debts, the fiscal condition has been kept healthy until Kim Yong-sam's Administration, but it has been worsened drastically since 1998. We are in the condition that the growth rate is dulled, prices are rising, and the rate of the Public Debts for reservation resources is already over 4% of GDP. Considering this rate is expected to rise more in the coming year, we should examine how healthy our Public Budgets are. For this, Government submitted 'the law for the health of the budget' to the Congress. But it is more important to practice this law properly than enact it. Namely, rather than make the State Budgets look healthy by using the Public Finance, we must pursuit the substantial health of budget.