소셜커머스에서 거래의 특성이 분배적 정의와거래 의도에 미치는 영향

방영석,이동주 한국경영정보학회 2013 Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems Vol.23 No.2

Social commerce has been gaining explosive popularity, with typical examples of the model such as Groupon and Level Up. Both local business owners and consumers can benefit from this new e-commerce model. Local business owners have a chance to access potential customers and promote their products in a way that could not have otherwise been easily possible, and consumers can enjoy discounted offerings. However, questions have been increasingly raised about the value and future of the social commerce model. A recent survey shows that about a third of 324 business owners who ran a daily-deal promotion in Groupon went behind. Furthermore, more than half of the surveyed merchants did not express enthusiasm about running the promotion again. The same goes for the case in Korea, where more than half of the surveyed clients reported no significant change or even decrease in profits compared to before the use of social commerce model. Why do local business owners fail to exploit the benefits from the promotions and advertisements through the social commerce model and to make profits? Without answering this question, the model would fall under suspicion and even its sustainability might be challenged. This study aims to look into problems in the current social commerce transactions and provide implications for the social commerce model, so that the model would get a foothold for next growth. Drawing on justice theory, this study develops theoretical arguments for the effects of transaction characteristics on consumers’ distributive justice and purchase intention in the social commerce. Specifically, this study focuses on two characteristics of social commerce transactionsthe discount rate and the purchase rate of productsand investigates their effects on consumers’ perception of distributive justice for discounted transactions in the social commerce and their perception of distributive justice for regular-priced transactions. This study also examines the relationship between distributive justice and purchase intention. We conducted an online experiment and gathered data from 115 participants to test the hypotheses.Each participant was randomly assigned to one of nine manipulated scenarios of social commerce transactions, which were generated based on the combination of three levels of purchase rate (high, medium, and low) and three levels of discount rate (high, medium, and low). We conducted MANOVA and post-hoc ANOVA to test hypotheses about the relationships between the transaction characteristics (purchase rate and discount rate) and distributive justice for each of the discounted transaction and the regular-priced transaction. We also employed a PLS analysis to test relations between distributive justice and purchase intentions. Analysis results show that a higher discount rate increases distributive justice for the discounted transaction but decreases distributive justice for the regular-priced transaction. This, coupled with the result that distributive justice for each type of transaction has a positive effect on the corresponding purchase intention, implies that a large discount in the social commerce may be helpful for attracting consumers, but harmful to the business after the promotion. However, further examination reveals curvilinear effects of the discount rate on both types of distributive justice. Specifically, we find distributive justice for the discounted transaction increases concavely as the discount rate increases while distributive justice for the regular-priced transaction decreases concavely with the dscount rate. This implies that there exists an appropriate discount rate which could promote the discounted transaction while not hurting future business of regular-priced transactions. Next, the purchase rate is found to be a critical factor that facilitates the regular-priced transaction. It has a convexly positive influence on distributive justice for the transaction. Therefore, an increase of the ...

고전 유교 분배 정의관의 특징과 의미

김동일 한국정치사상학회 2019 정치사상연구 Vol.25 No.2

The purpose of this paper is to spell out the classical Confucian view of the concept of distributive justice in a new form and to offer its practical implication. Firstly, pointing out the problem with the attempt to show the Western understanding of distributive justice in the Confucian thought, this study explains that it is appropriate to find the Confucian own peculiar idea of the concept. With reference to the contextual research and a framework for understanding theories of distributive justice, the agent and the purpose of distributive justice is explained at the macro level while what and how to distribute at the micro level. This will show that the classical Confucian idea of distributive justice is chiefly focused on the purpose of distribution such as the moral edification of the people and the confirmation of the moral legitimacy of the monarch. The conclusion offers an implication of the Confucian view of the concept of distributive justice, which is that what is problematic in achieving distributive justice is not the law and the system of distributive justice but the immorality of the human agents who make and change arbitrarily, and thus misuse and abuse, the law and the system. 이 글의 목적은 분배 정의에 대해 고전 유교 사상이 가지고 있는 이해의 특징을 새롭게 구성해서 보여주고 그 현실적 의미를 제시하는 것이다. 우선, 고전 유교 사상에서 서양의 정의 개념을 찾으려는 시도의 문제점을 지적하고, 분배 개념에 대한 유교 사상만의 고유한 이해를 찾는 작업이 적절하다고 설명한다. 그리고, 고전 유교의 분배 정의관을 새롭게 구성하는 방법으로서 맥락적 연구와 분배 정의론 이해의 틀을 채택하여, 거시적 차원에서 분배의 주체와 목적을 설명하고 미시적 차원에서 분배해야 하는 것과 분배의 기준을 설명한다. 이 설명을 통해 유교 사상의 분배 정의에 대한 이해는 분배의 궁극적 목적인 백성의 도덕적 교화와 군주의 도덕적 정당성 확인에 그 핵심이 있다는 것을 보여준다. 결론에서는 분배를 통한 정의의 실현에 있어서 법과 제도가 문제가 아니라 인간 행위자의 비도덕성이 문제라는 현실을 간파한 고전 유교 사상의 의미를 제시한다.

생태공유지의 정의론과 기본소득

권정임 ( Jeongim Kwon ) 사단법인 아시아문화학술원 2019 인문사회 21 Vol.10 No.2

이 글은 기본소득을 공유지 수익에 대한 분배정의로만 정식화 한 판 빠레이스의 주장을 비판적으로 재구성하여 기본소득의 정의론을 수선적 정의 개념으로까지 확장하려는 시도이다. ‘분배정의’에 따른 공유지 수익만이 아니라, ‘수선적 정의’에 따라 공유지 훼손에 대한 보상으로서 생태세나 경유세 등도 기본소득의 재원이 될 수 있다. 그리고 ‘분배정의+수선적 정의’의 적용범위를 지구촌과 미래세대로까지 확장하면 지속가능한 지구기본소득의 가능성도 열린다. 이처럼 ‘분배정의’에 ‘수선적 정의’를 더하여 이 글에서는 판 빠레이스가 제시한 것보다 더 넓은 생태기본소득의 지평을 열었다. 더 나아가 ‘분배정의+수선적 정의’를 4차 산업혁명과 연계하면 기본소득의 미래 재원을 더 풍부하고 구체적으로 밝혀낼 수도 있다. 이에 대한 연구는 다음의 과제이다. This article is an attempt to expand justice theory to the concept ‘reparative justice’ through a critical reconstruction of Van Parijs’ argument which formulated basic income as a distributive justice on the revenue of the Commons. Eco-tax or diesel tax as compensation for damage to ecological Commons linked to the concept of reparative justice can be a financial source of basic income, not just the revenues of eco-Commons associated with the concept of distributive justice. Expanding the scope of 'distributive justice + reparative justice' to the global village and future generations opens also the opportunity for a sustainable earth basic income. In this way, adding ‘reparative justice’ to ‘distributive justice’ opens the wider horizon for the eco basic income than Van Parijs suggests. And this ‘distributive justice +reparative justice’ in link with the forth industrial revolution could reveal the affluent and sustainable financial source for earth basic income. The survey on this is the next project.

Ethical Problems of Public Justice in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Jaun Gu 19세기영어권문학회 2010 19세기 영어권 문학 Vol.14 No.1

This study is a critical response to the long-standing view that has aligned Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with contemporary political writings in the 1790s. From the critical perspective, Shelley's novel is often labelled a work of “Godwinian school.” However, this paper examines the questions of social justice in Shelley's novel not in the context of political revolution, but in its relations with ethics of Godwinian Utilitarianism. The narratives of social persecution of three outcasts Justine, Walton and the creature suggest that the writer inquires the problem of two kinds of social justice: corrective justice and distributive one. As Brian Barry defines, corrective justice deals with ethical appropriateness of which is due to a person as punishment, while distributive justice concerns which recipient should get which benefits and burdens other than punishments. First, the stories of persecution of Justine and the monster expose the problem of corrective justice in the public execution. Focusing on the vindictive nature of the law as well as that in the concept of justice, Shelley illustrates destructive power of public justice which excludes, extorts and finally kills such marginal characters in the name of public justice. Next, through the cases of Walton and his crew members, Shelley transfers her ethical question from the limits of corrective justice to that of distributive one. Walton's ethical choice with his care of the crew clearly overcomes the predicament of corrective justice along with limitations of Victor's Godwinian utilitarianism, since Walton's ship is presented as an alternative social space based on enlightened negotiation between Walton and his crew without any violence. However, Walton's suspended arctic exploration ironically exhibits the remaining ethical dilemma of distributive justice. In other words, the majority of citizen such as the crew can suppress an individual pursuit of exploration like that of Walton. Shelley's exploration of the boundary of two different forms of public justice poses a challenging counter-example to the principle of utilitarianism by William Godwin and that of John Stuart Mill. The quality of Frankenstein as casuistry in its form of narratives of social persecution opens up the possibility to read the novel as a speculative thought experiment to inquire about the limitations of public justice as a critique of utilitarian ethics.

조직의 공정성이 경영진에 대한 신뢰에 미치는 영향: 조직지원인식의 매개효과를 중심으로

전정호 한국자료분석학회 2015 Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society Vol.17 No.6

The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of organizational justice on trust in top management through the mediating role of perceived organizational support. The result of the study is as follows. First, not distributive justice but procedural justice have significant positive impact on the perceived organizational support. Second, not distributive justice but procedural justice have significant positive impact on trust in top management. Third, mediator, perceived organizational support have a partial mediating effect on the relationship between procedural justice and trust in top management, but do not mediate the relationship between distributive justice and trust in top management. The result showed that distributive justice do not have significant impact on both perceived organizational support and trust in top management not like procedural justice. The fact implied that social capital such as POS and TTM could not be gained easily through raising employee pay and compensation level. Instead, procedural justice should be leveled up to increase POS and TTM of employees. The result showed that organizational justice explained 58% of the variance of perceived organizational support, while the two predictors explained 55% of the variance of trust in top management. 본 연구의 목적은 조직의 공정성이 조직지원인식을 매개하여, 경영진에 대한 신뢰에 유의미한 영향을 미치는가에 대하여 조사하는 것이다. 대기업 종업원을 대상으로 한 설문을 토대로 실증 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 절차적 공정성은 조직지원인식에 유의한 영향을 미쳤으나 분배적 공정성은 조직지원인식에 유의한 영향을 미치지 않았다. 둘째, 절차적 공정성은 경영진에 대한 신뢰에 유의한 영향을 미쳤으나 분배적 공정성은 경영진에 대한 신뢰에 거의 영향을 미치지 않았다. 셋째, 붓스트래핑의 결과를 토대로 매개효과를 분석한 결과, 매개변수인 조직지원인식은 절차적 공정성과 경영진에 대한 신뢰사이의 관계를 부분적으로 매개하였으나, 분배적 공정성과 경영진에 대한 신뢰사이의 관계를 매개하지는 않았다. 연구의 결과는 조직의 공정성중 절차적 공정성과는 달리, 분배적 공정성은 조직지원인식과 경영진에 대한 신뢰에 미치는 영향이 유의미하지 않음을 보여주고 있는데, 물질적인 보상과 임금수준의 향상만으로 조직지원인식과 경영진에 대한 신뢰와 같은 사회적 자본을 구축할 수 없음을 의미한다. 이는 경제적 교환을 설명하는 변수가 사회적 교환관계를 설명하는 데에 한계가 있음을 의미한다. 한편, 조직의 공정성은 조직지원인식의 58%를 설명하였고, 조직공정성과 조직지원인식은 경영진에 대한 신뢰의 55% 가량을 설명하는 것으로 나타났다.

분배정의론이란 무엇인가?―자유주의 분배정의론의 쉬운 이해와 통괄적 연구를 위한 틀―

김동일 한국법철학회 2014 법철학연구 Vol.17 No.3

What is distributive justice? To understand the concept of distributive justice, we depend upon various theories. However, being sophisticated and complicated, the theories are in our way to a clear understanding of the concept of distributive justice. Thus, we need a framework for an easy understanding and an integral study of theories of distributive justice. The framework, with some preliminary remarks, comprises three main points of theories: why to distribute? (purpose of distribution), what to distribute? (objects of distribution), and how to distribute? (methods of distribution) The purpose of this paper is not to help understand what distributive justice is, but what theories of distributive justice are. 분배정의(distributive justice)란 무엇인가? 우리는 분배정의를 이해하기 위해서 여러 가지 분배정의론에 의존한다. 그러나 여러 가지 이론은 그 정교함과 복잡함 때문에 분배정의라는 개념에 대한 명료한 이해에 걸림돌이 된다. 따라서 우리는 분배정의론을 쉽게 이해하고 통괄적으로 연구할 수 있는 틀을 필요로 한다. 그 틀은 분배정의론의 기초적 이해를 바탕으로 다음의 세 가지 핵심 논점을 통해서 구성된다. (1) 왜 분배해야 하는가? (분배의 목적과 이유) (2) 무엇을 분배할 것인가? (분배의 대상) (3) 어떻게 분배할 것인가? (분배의 방법) 이러한 틀을 제안함으로써, 분배정의란 무엇인가가 아니라, 분배정의론이란 무엇인가를 이해하는 데 도움을 주는 것이 이 글의 목적이다.

기후변화와 환경정의 지속가능한 -지구의 미래를 위한 선순환구조의 모색-

이은기 ( Eun Kee Lee ) 한국환경법학회 2012 環境法 硏究 Vol.34 No.3

Environmental justice theory began from the civil movement for environmental justice in the US in 1970s. It is different from environmental racism or environmental equity, but is regarded to include these two concepts. Although it is an non-official definition, a report of US EPA defines that “environmental justice is fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, ethnicity, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”. Generally, one of the clear themes in environmental justice is the procedural justice that focuses on the fairness in the decision-making process, and the distributive justice that focuses on the norm of resource distribution. In that context, it is very persuasive that environmental justice is a concept combined with utilitarianism, contractarianism and egalitarianism. Accordingly, international environmental justice includes procedural justice for fairness of the decision-making process and the distributive justice for the norm of equal resource distribution. The reaction case against depletion of the Ozone layer was regarded as a successful case where industrialized countries of the North and developing countries of the South acknowledged they were victims of depletion of Ozone layer regardless of its severity and responded the discussion led by the US. Industrialized countries provided fund and technology, while developing countries cooperated for substitute material development. Such a case that overcame environmental crisis by international cooperation can be a good example in terms of distributive justice against the climate change. Mutual cooperation may be realized by distributive justice between developed and developing countries which fits for environmental justice. Environmental justice can be added to the operation of GHG(especially Carbon) Emission Trading Scheme, which was devised to overcome the climate change under the Kyoto mechanism. As a means, relatively different price can be introduced in the trading of the GHGs. In other words, the advanced countries pay for more expensive to compensate the past responsibilities, and the semi-developed countries or developing countries pay relatively lower price for GHGs. It is not easy to resolve the relation between adaption of climate change and environmental justice in terms of proper function and virtuous cycle. Rather, these two concepts seem to be contradictory to each other. However, such conflicting or inconvenient relation must not be maintained and is meaningless against solidarity of human being for overcoming climate change. Now these two concepts should be transferred to virtuous cycle and complementary relation from mutually exclusive relationship.

Ethical Problems of Public Justice in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

구자언 19세기영어권문학회 2010 19세기 영어권 문학 Vol.14 No.1

This study is a critical response to the long-standing view that has aligned Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with contemporary political writings in the 1790s. From the critical perspective, Shelley's novel is often labelled a work of “Godwinian school.” However, this paper examines the questions of social justice in Shelley's novel not in the context of political revolution, but in its relations with ethics of Godwinian Utilitarianism. The narratives of social persecution of three outcasts Justine, Walton and the creature suggest that the writer inquires the problem of two kinds of social justice: corrective justice and distributive one. As Brian Barry defines, corrective justice deals with ethical appropriateness of which is due to a person as punishment, while distributive justice concerns which recipient should get which benefits and burdens other than punishments. First, the stories of persecution of Justine and the monster expose the problem of corrective justice in the public execution. Focusing on the vindictive nature of the law as well as that in the concept of justice, Shelley illustrates destructive power of public justice which excludes, extorts and finally kills such marginal characters in the name of public justice. Next, through the cases of Walton and his crew members, Shelley transfers her ethical question from the limits of corrective justice to that of distributive one. Walton's ethical choice with his care of the crew clearly overcomes the predicament of corrective justice along with limitations of Victor's Godwinian utilitarianism, since Walton's ship is presented as an alternative social space based on enlightened negotiation between Walton and his crew without any violence. However, Walton's suspended arctic exploration ironically exhibits the remaining ethical dilemma of distributive justice. In other words, the majority of citizen such as the crew can suppress an individual pursuit of exploration like that of Walton. Shelley's exploration of the boundary of two different forms of public justice poses a challenging counter-example to the principle of utilitarianism by William Godwin and that of John Stuart Mill. The quality of Frankenstein as casuistry in its form of narratives of social persecution opens up the possibility to read the novel as a speculative thought experiment to inquire about the limitations of public justice as a critique of utilitarian ethics.

조직공정성 인식이 종업원 혁신행동에 미치는 영향

유갑곤(Liu Jiakun ),고수일(Sooil Ko  ) 전북대학교 산업경제연구소 2017 아태경상저널 Vol.9 No.1

본 연구는 중국 산동성 지역의 공기업을 대상으로 종업원의 조직공정성 인식이 조직신뢰 및 상사신뢰와 혁신행동의 관계성을 규명하고, 이론적 고찰을 통해 가설을 설정하였다. 세계화와 지식기반 사회에 직면하여 경쟁적 환경에 대응하기 위해서 인적자원의 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 조직을 위한 종업원의 자발적, 혁신적 행동은 조직목표의 달성과 발전에 큰 영향을 미친다. 그리고 선행연구에서 살펴본 바와 같이 중국 경제의 발전함에 따라 조직의 공정성과 혁신행동의 중요성이 강조되고 있다. 따라서 조직 공정성과 혁신행동에 관한 연구가 필요하다. 조직신뢰와 상사신뢰는 종업원의 행동에 중요한 영향을 미치기 때문에 조직신뢰와 상사신뢰, 그리고 혁신행동 간의 관계를 연구할 필요가 있다. 그러므로 본 논문은 중국 산동성 지역 공기업 종업원을 대상으로 190부 응답을 표본으로 SPSS 22. 0를 이용하여 검증하였다. 마지막으로 조직 공정성과 혁신 행동의 영향관계를 파악하고 상사와 조직신뢰가 매개효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. The main purpose of this is (1) to examine the effects of perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) and trust types, (2) to examine the effects of perceived organizat distributive, procedural, interactional justice ional justice and innovative behavior, (3) to examine the relationship between organizational justice and innovative behavior focused on the mediating effects of trust types. For this reason, I set up two dimensions of Trust; Trust in Organization and Trust in Supervisor in order to analyze the fitness of the research model and to test the hypotheses, the data are collected from Chinese State-owned enterprises through the administration of structured questionnaires. Among 218 responses, only 190 responses were used as final set of data for analysis. The linear regression analysis is performed by the SPSS package. The goodness of fit indices that the fit of the model to the data which is generally good. Beginning of this test, organizational justice and trust types are not divided up into meaningful factors by factor analysis that I never really predict. Theoretically, organizational justice has three factors, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice. And For the study, I Set up two dimensions of Trust: Trust in Organization and Trust in Superior. Research findings can be summarized as follows: I The results of the study showed that perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) had a positive effect on trust types. 2. The results of the study showed that perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) had a positive effect on innovative behaviors. 3. trust types mediated between perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional justice) and innovative behaviors.

분배공정성과 절차공정성이 조직 유효성에 미치는 영향

이재붕(Lee Jae boong),전정수(Cheon Choung soo) 글로벌경영학회 2010 글로벌경영학회지 Vol.7 No.3

일반기업과 마찬가지로 정부 부문에서도 구성원들의 업무성과에 따라서 성과급을 차등지급함으로써 합리적인 인사관리를 하려는 노력을 하고 있다. 이러한 성과시스템을 통하여 정부는 더 높은 경쟁력을 확보할 수 있는 것이다. 이러한 목적을 성공적으로 달성하자면, 우선 성과급 제도가 도입되었을 때 조직원들은 이러한 보상시스템이 공정하다는 사실을 인정해야 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 성과급 범주에서 분배공정성과 절차공정성의 인식이 조직 유효성에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 연구하는 것이다. 여기에서 조직 유효성이라 함은 직무만족, 조직 몰입, 그리고 노력 회피행동을 의미한다. 본 연구에서는 9개의 공정성 판단요인과 분배공정성 및 절차공정성 지각수준과의 관계, 분배 공정성과 절차공정성 지각이 조직유효성 변수와의 관계, 그리고 분배공정성과 절차공정성의 상호작용효과와 조직유효성과의 관계 등 세 가지의 가설을 검증하였다. 이러한 가설은 400명의 공무원을 대상으로 설문조사 방법으로 검증했다. 우선 가설을 입증하기 위해서 통계방법을 이용, 신뢰도와 타당도를 분석하였으며, 가설검증을 위하여 상관관계분석, 단순회귀분석, 다중회귀분석을 실시하였다. 그 결과 절차공정성 지각은 직무만족과 조직몰입을 증진시키는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 분배공정성지각은 오직 직무만족에만 영향을 미치며 조직몰입에는 영향을 미치지 않았다. 절차공정성 지각은 낮은 노력회피행동을 가져왔으나, 분배공정성 지각은 그렇지 않았다. 분배공정성과 절차공정성의 상호작용은직무만족과 조직몰입 그리고 노력회피행동에 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 끝으로, 연구결과의 한계, 차후 연구 방향 등도 논의되었다. Recently government, like many enterprises, is endeavoring to rationalize personnel management practices by means of differentiation compensation systems government can accomplish more competitiveness. And for the purposes, when introducing the performance-based pay, organizational members shoul recognize that the compensation system is justifiable. The purpose of this research is to find whether perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in performance-based bonus affect organizational effectiveness(job satisfaction, organizational commitment and propensity to withhold effort). The Present study tested the following hypotheses, 1. The effect of 9 factors(favorability, importance, equity, equality, neutrality, consistency, accuracy, ethicality, participation) on the each level of perceived distributive and procedural justice. 2. The effect of distributive and procedural justice organizational members experience on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and propensity to withhold effort. 3. The interaction effects of distributive and procedural justice on the organizational effectiveness. The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 400 civil servants. To validate hypotheses, I first analyzed the reliability and the validity of the measures of this study, and to testify hypothesis, the correlational analysis, multiple regression analysis, etc. were used. The results indicated that perceptions of procedural justice produced job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However perceptions of distributive justice had effects only on job satisfaction and no effects on organizational commitment. Perceptions of procedural justice produced low propensity to withhold effort, but perceptions of distributive justice did not. It is also supported that interactions of procedural and distributive justice had effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and propensity to withhold effort. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the research finding and suggestions for the future study were discussed.