규제의 정당성에 대한 모색: 시장실패의 치유 vs. 거래비용의 최소화·경감

초록

This study attempts to clarify the theoretical justifications of government intervention in Korea. After giving a general overview of the trend of theories that attempt to explain the reasoning behind government regulations, the study compares the core concepts of the theories of new classical economics with new institutionalism. The emphasis of the study lies upon reasons for government intervention from the perspective of contrasting two aspects—curing market failure and minimizing transaction costs. From all 204 established and tightened regulations, 32 regulation examples, passed as drafted by a Regulatory Reform Committee, were selected. As a result of this analysis, out of the 32 examples selected, only 8 were regarded to be justified by market failure. Furthermore, it was confirmed that there are many regulations in which minimization/reduction of transaction costs was a reasonable justification. This leads us to the conclusion that the majority of regulations recently established or tightened were not implemented with the intention of curing market failures, but on the basis of reducing transaction costs. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the need to pay closer attention to minimizing and reducing transaction costs as the grounds for introducing government regulations. Hence, the study proposes that studies and analyses regarding future regulation reform concentrate on defining transaction costs and developing theories and techniques for the confirmation and evaluation of the alternatives for minimizing/reducing transaction costs.

키워드