[ad_1]
– I'm wrong for the third period of the Conservative government
– Growth of innovation? Park Keun-hye, the creative economy of the regime, there is no other, only change the cover
– I'm in a sweet temptation to do a job compromising with the chaebols
– Moon Jae-inin, the government economic team, does not get a good score, I do not even know the reform well
– Reform the bureaucrats?
Leave a fish to a cat
– Concerns that if the government can not correct its political orientation, the past Roh Moo-hyun administration must again fail
– There is no government effort to improve the chauvinism economic mistreatment, the Fair Trade Commission has never published
– The rich economy erroneous framework, reversing the reversal of the economy to buy people
– Income from property should be better than earned income
– Moon Jae-in government, chaebol reform, financial reform, labor reform, welfare reform, major reforms to change the overall economic structure
– The government is too nervous and in a hurry
– Income-Driven Growth and Chaebol Reform Should Precede the Effect of the Increase in the Minimum Wage
Broadcasting of the radio broadcast is broadcast on the Internet.
■ Release date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018
■ Interviews: Park Sang-in, Professor, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University
◇ Anchor Lee, Hyung-hyung (박형인)> Moon Jae-in declared a statement of intellectuals concerned about the social and economic policies of the government. Moon Jae – to the government abandoned the reform of the social economy, and it seems that it will regress in the past. I will speak with Professor Park Sang-in from the Graduate School of Public Administration of the Seoul National University who participated as a promoter in the statement of intellectuals.
◆ Professor Park Sang-in (Seoul National School of Public Administration, National School of Public Policy, Seoul National University)> Yes, hello
◇ Yong Hyung> How are you involved in the declaration of intellectuals
I want to express. After the first year of the Moon Jae-in government, I was expecting concrete and aggressive socio-economic reforms especially after the local elections. The session is in progress. If we do not correct the wrong direction at this point, we must sign because of the desperation that the Moon Jae-in government has never succeeded economically.
◇ Portable Type> 323 intelligent intellectuals participated in the signatures. It's regressive in the past.
◆ Park Sang-in> Recently, I'm watching a series of streams. You have turned the head of the economy into a traditional bureaucrat. It is said that the direction of the policy itself is also the growth of innovation, but in fact, it seems that there is no fundamentally different from the creative economy from the old Park Geun-hye regime. It is the constant growth idea of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye government to continue the growth of innovation through regulatory innovation. It's a policy that has not been successful in the Conservative regime in the last nine years. But I will change the cover and try again. In the end, not by structural reforms, but by compromising with the chaebol, they can create jobs and grow. In fact, it turns out impossible. However, I fear that this government will fall again into this sweet temptation.
◇ Type of mobile> I've read a specialty. In the end, whether it is all staff or not, even if the president's mind is caught up in the change, economic bureaucrats under the old conditions can not reform.
◆ Park Sang-in> I am actually a top government school, and I have a lot of bureaucrats. What our bureaucrats have done up to now, and those who have experience, are very competent. However, a new way of thinking, of reforming things, in fact, has a constitutional meaning of rejection. I think these people do not even know. On the other hand, I can see that many former senior officials had close relations with Samsung, just as Samsung CEO Lee Chung-ki had done. In this regard, when the ministers of certain ministers of the economy and bureaucrats show their behavior under the moon government, how can bureaucrats be reformed? Because Our basic economic structure is the maintenance of Park Chung Hee's development system, and it's focused on bureaucracy, chaebol-centric, changing the system is somehow inconsistent with bureaucratic understanding. This is why some bureaucrats worry that reforming may be the way to put a fish on a cat.
◇ Mobile type> Democratic Government, or Progressive Government C is the third time, Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun same regime, in the end not to win the bureaucrats because it was also pointed out. However, on the other hand, it is a little over a year since the government began, and I have pointed out that intellectuals of progressive minds are expecting a little more, and what to give them ways to broaden the reform
As I have said, over the past year, many progressive intellectuals have sought to achieve government success, and last year was a very important and very important question. The Democratic Party won the election in local elections a year later. I believed that it was time to take aggressive reforms with the power of reform. However, after the provincial election, when we look at greetings and diagnoses, we are going against our expectations. At this point, if the government can not correct the direction of the policy, I fear that the government of Moon Jae-in will have to repeat the Roh government's failure in the past. So, before it was too late, I was declared in the government's loyalty to fix it before it was too far in the wrong direction. As you know, most people who have declared it are people who really want the success of the government of Moon Jae-in.
◇ Type of mobile> Let me ask you specifically. He pointed out that he was turning his back on the nation's aspirations to reform the chaebol. Do you think you are watching a chaebol?
◆ Park, Sang-in> Basically, it's not just professionals that the government's government Moon Jae-in is not very pleased with the chaebol's reform during the summer. last year. Most people who are interested in this area, including most journalists, agree that everyone is in agreement. President Kim Sang-joo said that what he continued to say for a year would result in a voluntary change. But voluntary changes have almost never happened. The same is true of the part that makes you feel different. In addition, there is no improvement in areas where it is commonly said that the economic concentration, the recent Hanjin, the Asian problem, the Emperor's management problems and the economy of the chaebols are blurry. The government has not made institutional and active efforts to achieve this improvement. More importantly, chaebol's economic concentration is a fundamental problem of the Korean manufacturing crisis. The theory that has been pbaded on to past economic development is a chaebol-centric and government-run policy, and I doubt that it has the idea of doing so by compromising while maintaining this system. This is why there is an indication that institutional chaebol reform is very pbadive. Recently, the Fair Trade Commission announced a special revision of the Fair Trade Act. The reform plan itself has not yet been published, but there is a problem with the holding company, the internal transactions and the public interest companies of the Fair Trade Commission that have shown that the Fair Trade Commission had a problem. I can not answer at all to the question of whether that is the case. I came up with an idea that can not be solved at all. I think Moon Jae-in's government has the will to reform the economy like the chaebol reform.
◇ mobile type ◇ In the end,
◆ Park Sang-in> Because of this, the fact is that conservative regimes have always been in business, and that's why the economy is hard to handle with the reader, and if the chaebols can not get help, I've talked about Business Friendly, and I've been working on pro-chaebol policies. It has been said that it has not worked for nine years. I want to ask the other way around. If we now maintain the same system centered on the chaebols, the economy will be better. I think that if this system is maintained, the second economic crisis will come. More specifically, our economy is now very difficult. Take the example of Hyundai. In the case of Hyundai Motors, I have achieved some profit by maintaining price competitiveness up to now, but this structure started moving three or four years ago. The source of price competitiveness is the low cost of parts. We were able to maintain price competitiveness because the unit price was lower than our competitors because of many price declines. So, in the case of Hyundai Motor, the profit for innovation has decreased. There is one aspect that neglects investment in new technology compared to other auto companies. In addition, there is no profit to innovate for Hyundai Motor's manufacturing subcontractors in the structure where parts prices are reduced and technology deodorization widespread. What has happened in this situation is that Hyundai's price competitiveness is starting to lose its competitiveness as Chinese and Indian companies pursue it. And now the Connected Carra electric car has new innovations. There will be no national companies that produce major pieces of such innovation. What is called Hyundai is a sandwich and a cracker with nuts. I think it is the fundamental problem of the manufacturing crisis that occurred after 70 years of chaebol in our manufacturing. I think that it is necessary to solve the economic power to revitalize it and bring a new vitality to the economy. If the problem of the concentration of economic power due to internal transactions is resolved, the innovation of the intermediate goods industry will take place. And if we create institutional arrangements that can protect the property rights of the weak and technology to attract innovators, I think our manufacturing sector will evolve into an intermediate goods manufacturing center that will produce high added value and special materials. . . The Korean economy needs sustainable growth to achieve sustainable growth. But now, keeping the same chaebol system and working with chaebol to increase the number of jobs, it has failed for 9 years, and theoretically impossible. It seems easy.
◇ Mobile type> The chaebol reform is insufficient. The other said that the republic's real estate system should be broken, while the detention tax should be strengthened.
◆ Park Sang-in> In fact, I think the frame with the rich frame is very bad. Not only real estate. It is also blocked by the information department to increase tax on complete finances this time. I think we actually have a very reversible detergent. For rentals, the top 10% have 90% of financial income. Thus, in terms of overall taxation, the tax rate of the top 10% may be lower than that of ordinary workers. It's a big setback. So, it's the job of fixing it, and I think it's wrong to take it as part of the wealth. Comprehensive taxation on all income, not just the overall property tax, but a complete tax and financial income, is quite necessary, not just an imposition. This is also necessary in terms of tax efficiency. Mr. Speaker has a lot of words centered on people. I am talking about a people-centered economy, which I think refers to such a tax system and an economic system where the value of work is more appreciated. However, if these gains on capital gains, rental gains or the difference with real estate are not much more taxable than income for work, and people with such income can live much better, it's not a people-centered society.
◇ Mobile Type> The Roh Moo-hyun government tried to solve the problem of the reserve tax once, but was it not lost?
◆ Park Sang-in> Of course, yes. However, theoretically, it is often said that when you apply a detention tax or a tax, there is economic loss. Theoretically, holding taxes are effective taxes that minimize economic losses. I think it's a little more positive to increase the detention fee. However, this is not a normal company that can make money unimaginable in real estate in one or two years, in five to six years, that real money can earn in through real estate. I think that it is necessary to make a social return to the tax on the party that pursues this area. There must be a fair balance between the holding tax and the transfer tax, and I personally think that it is necessary to further strengthen the transfer tax income. The detention tax is also pretty low now. Nevertheless, given retirees' ability to pay taxes, I think it would be undesirable to increase the capital gains tax as well as the holding tax. The basic idea is, as I said, that these financial badets, or badet returns, are more favorable than earned income, which is neither socially productive nor socially productive. desirable.
◇ Type of mobile> Do you insist on social badistance?
◆ Park Sang-in> Of course, yes. But one thing I regret is that things have changed. Because, for a wellness issue, I think the plan that needs a certain amount of income is needed first to increase the social safety net and to make good politics. -be. How to increase revenues after presenting such a plan and on what principle increase revenues? This kind of persuasion is needed first. However, without showing such a big plan, where to set up the tax, I continue to fall into the wrong frame. I am in a setting like this. I believe that it is time to show a big picture of the Chaebol reform, financial reform, labor reform and welfare reform, which will change the economic structure as a whole during the last year. I thought I should do some reform while showing a big picture and persuading people. The other is that the government is too nervous and is hurrying now. I am annoyed at having to pay my economic results in a year and six months. Now, most of our economic problems are structural problems.
◇ Yong Hyung> I think that it is necessary to persuade and practice that the economy can improve if people speak honestly, seek understanding and take such measures of reform.
◆ Park Sang-in> I am not the only minimum wage. As I mentioned, the triggering moment is falling back in the global reform, the reform is also the problem of chaebol reform. There is also a problem of tax reform. Second, the opinions of those who explain the minimum wage may be slightly different. But I think that's the case with me. As I mentioned, there are many problems that come from our economic structure. Past governments have called the so-called. I've talked a lot about the virtuous circle in which jobs are created by export-induced slowdown effects. In fact, it turns out that the increase in exports means that there are not a lot of jobs and that there is not any. water saving effect. So the new government comes in. It's a fractional effect, that is, revenue-driven growth. This, in turn, is not sustainable without the reform of the economic structure. This is why these policies, like income-oriented ideas and chaebol reforms that change the economic structure, must work in harmony. I think that chaebol's reform should have been proactive and that income-led growth and minimum wage increases could have been positive. When we do not make such an effort and do not raise the minimum wage, there are various side effects now. So, you are so excited. So, suddenly, the political orientation is back to the previous government's policy.
◇ Mobile type> You also talked about the problem of irregular employment.
◆ Park Sang-in> That's right. It was a lot of stuff too. I talked about turning non-regular workers into full-time jobs. This is not a solution. It's the same. The problems of full time, shortening of working time, minimum wage, problems and changes in the economic structure must be made in harmony to be effective. However, aside from the policy of changing the structure, I think it does not work because it is only a fractional effect policy. The fact is that it is a policy to change the structure, but we must realize that we are actively working on it. We basically think that there is a problem. I think that it is necessary to cooperate with chaebol reform and labor reform to stay alive even in relation to work. We must be like the chaebol reform, the labor reform. It's like welfare reform and financial reform, so you have to paint a picture. I think the problem facing the Korean economy now is the problem that the government can increase tax expenditures and solve economic fluctuations. It is a structural problem.
◇ Mobile type> But the problem of the transition of irregular and regular workers is not a situation that the government can do in the case of private companies. It's the same. In the case of a public company, I can do it if I have the right to do it, but I do not want to turn the irregular worker into a full-time worker.
◆ Park Sang-in> So it's a question of speed. Essentially, we need to include our non-regular workers, the transition to a full-time job, the pay gap problem, and so on. I think the government should show a road map that gives hope to some people. If the government changes the structure one way or another and the concrete work policy changes in one way or another, your life will change in one way or another. or from another, how young people will finish their studies, how to retire, how can you live through. I think the government should be able to show the plan for this great cycle of economic life. It is the idea that such reforms should be conducted in such a broad context, so how will speed control ultimately work in the roadmap? But I'm not in a hurry now without a big picture. Whether it is about regular or non-regular workers, the problem of reorganizing the system of wages or salary of regular employees, irregular workers or the difference of treatment can be considered a more fundamental problem . In other words, the productivity gap between our conglomerates and the sub-contracting SMEs is very important. One of the reasons for this productivity gap is the unit price, technological deception. There should be a policy to reduce the pay gap by reducing the productivity gap by establishing institutional arrangements to prevent unit price hunt and technology hijacking.
◇ Movable Type> In the past, Roh Moo-hyun said that it was the hardest when he was criticized by the same people. And now many people who support the Moon Jae-in regime criticize progressive intellectuals. Why are you leaving when it is not time to go now? Maybe you should have been involved in promoting such problems, but is not it now? Because the opposition party is opposed to the National Assembly, the law can not be pbaded and it is a difficult situation.
◆ Sang-in Park> If I do not do this now, I'll go in the wrong direction forever I feel desperate that Moon Jae-in's government is not going anywhere choice than to fail. I started to feel hopeless. The presidential approval rating is now approaching 70%, although it is considered low. And the Democratic Party has a rating of almost 50% approval. If people are really ready, I say that. If you have such a resolution that you will eat with your gums without it, there are chaebol reforms and various legal issues, but there are many ways to achieve the same effect without going through the law. If we start doing that, the opposition parties or the chaebols will be forced to participate more transparently and more predictably in the legislative changes. It is very difficult to change this economic structure because of the resistance of vested interests. So this candlelight revolution can not do this fundamental reform unless it's Moon Jae-in's government. This is really a great opportunity, and it's a great chance to reform the system that can change sustainable economic and social regulation by improving the fundamental system of the Korean economic system called the Park Chung Hee Development System. . C & # 39; is.
◇ Type of mobile> Moon Jae-in It can be said that it is the economic policy of the government. Growth driven by income, growth of innovation, fair economy.
◆ Park Sang-in> Three things are actually a very good concept. But the problem is that I think it's too superficial. And now, government officials are starting to talk about the growth of innovation through regulatory innovation and income-based competition. But I think it's a very bad perception, and I think it's theoretically wrong. Basically, there should be a structure in which fair competition can be achieved, not a government-led and private sector-led innovation. Such innovative opportunities can only lead to revenue-driven growth. Institutional reforms in fair competition. That's the socio-economic reform we talked about right now. This must precede or go hand in hand, which can develop through regulatory innovation led by the government, leaving it alone? This is a theory that failed in Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye government, and politics.
◇ Yong Hyung> A Cheong Wa Dae spokeswoman Kim Bum-Kyum will listen to their opinions through a briefing on the 323 names of Jinbo intellectuals. C & # 39; is. Then the truth is that the most important part of criticism is that of economic bureaucrats.
◆ Park Sang-in> People are fundamentally important. Now, I think it is the officials who plan and execute the policy, the Blue House and the ministers of the economy. I think these people should be reformers and capable, and that they can really succeed. In fact, when I look at the economic team, I personally think that it is difficult to give a high score in terms of reform and capacity. He said that he was the first and that he had to change people first. This time, the spokesman said you said that. And if possible, I would like to have a public debate with our representatives, the Blue House or the economic members.
◇ Type of mobile> Yes, I would like to have such an opportunity.
◆ Park Sang-in> Thank you very much.
◇ Type of Notebook> Until now, Park Sang-in was a professor at the Seoul University
Source link
