9 research outputs found
λΆλμ μ¬κ±΄ : νλμ€ μ μΉμ¬μ μ νκΈ° (1886-1889)
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(μμ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μμμ¬νκ³Ό,2004.Maste
μ€λμ£Όμμ κ²½μ μ νμ, 1756~1776
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (λ°μ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : μμμ¬νκ³Ό, 2017. 2. μ΅κ°μ.μ€λμ£Όμλ 18μΈκΈ° μ€λ° νλμ€μμ λ±μ₯ν κ°νμ κ²½μ μ¬μμ΄λ€. ν΅μ, λ£¨μ΄ 14μΈ μ¬ν νλμ€μμ μ κ°λ λ€μν ννμ κ°νμ¬μμ κ³λͺ½μ¬μμ΄λΌκ³ ν΅μΉνλλ°, μ€λμ£Όμλ κ²½μ λΆμΌμμ λ±μ₯ν κ°νμ¬μ κ°μ΄λ° νλλ‘ λ³Ό μ μλ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ€λμ£Όμλ λ¨μν κ³λͺ½μ¬μμ ν λΆλΆμΌλ‘λ§ νμ λμ§ μμλ€. 무μ보λ€λ λΉλμΈλ€μ΄ μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό μ¬λ κ³λͺ½μ¬μκ³Ό ꡬλΆνμ¬ μκ°νκ³ , μ¬μ§μ΄λ κ·Έκ²μ λ°νκ±°λ μ λμ μΈ μ¬μμΌλ‘ κ°μ£ΌνκΈ°λ νλ€. κ²°κ΅ μ€λμ£Όμλ κ·Έκ²μ΄ λ±μ₯ν λμ λͺ©μ κ³Όλ λ³κ°λ‘ κ³λͺ½μ¬μμ λ³Έλ₯λ‘λΆν° μ΄ννμ¬ κ°μμ€λ μλ©Ένλ μ΄λͺ
μ κ²ͺκ² λμλ€. λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμ 무μ λλ¬Έμ μ€λμ£Όμκ° μ΄μ²λΌ λ
νΉν μμ¬μ κ²½λ‘λ₯Ό λ°κ² λμμΌλ©°, κ·Έλ¬ν μ€λμ£Όμμ μμ¬κ° νλμ€μ¬μ λ¨κΈ΄ μμ·¨λ 무μμΈμ§ μ΄ν΄λ³΄λ κ²μ λͺ©μ μΌλ‘ νλ€.
μ€λλ μλ μ¬μ ν λλ€μμ μ¬λλ€μ μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό λμ
μ€μ¬μ£Όμμ ν λ³μ£Όλ‘ νμ
νλ€. κ·Έ ꡬ체μ μΈ λ΄μ©μ΄ 무μμ΄λ μ΄μ¨λ λμ
μ΄ μ€μνλ€λ μ¬μμ΄ μλλλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄λ¬ν νΈκ²¬μ μ΄λ―Έ λΉλμλ κ°κ³ νλ€. λ¬Όλ‘ μ€λμ£Όμ κ²½μ μ΄λ‘ μ체μ μ΄λ¬ν νΈκ²¬μ μ‘°μ₯ν λ§ν κ·Όκ±°κ° μ‘΄μ¬νλ κ²μ μ¬μ€μ΄λ€. μμμ°μ μ€μ§ λμ
μμλ§ κ°λ₯νλ€λ μ£Όμ₯μ΄ λ°λ‘ κ·Έκ²μ΄λ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μ€λμ£Όμλ λμ
μ€μ¬μ£Όμλ‘ νμλ μ μμ λ§νΌ λ¨μνμ§ μλ€. μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό μ λλ‘ μ΄ν΄νκΈ° μν΄μλ μ€λμ£Όμμλ€μ΄ μμ°ν λ¬Ένλ€μ λν νκ³ νμ λ
ν΄λ§μΌλ‘λ λΆμ‘±νλ©°, μ€λμ£Όμκ° νμ±λκ³ μλΉλλ©° λ
Όμλμλ μμ¬μ λ§₯λ½μ λν λ©΄λ°ν κ³ μ°°μ΄ νμνλ€.
λ³Έ λ
Όλ¬Έμμλ μμ¬μ λ§₯λ½μ ν΅ν΄ μ€λμ£Όμμ λ³Έμ§μ μ΄ν΄νκΈ° μν΄ ν¬κ² λ κ°μ§ λ°©ν₯μμ μ€λμ£Όμμ μ κ·Όνμλ€. 첫째, μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό μΌλ€μ κ²½μ μ¬μκ³Ό λμΌμνμ§ μκ³ , μΌλ€, νλ₯΄κ³ , λ―ΈλΌλ³΄κ° μνΈμμ©νμ¬ λ§λ€μ΄λΈ 볡ν©μ μΈ κ΅¬μ±λ¬Όμ΄λΌλ κ΄μ μ΄λ€. μ΄ μΈ μ¬λμ μ§μ μΌλ‘λ μ΄λ°μ¬λ‘κΈ°μ μΌλ‘λ ꡬ체μ νλμ€μ λ§₯λ½μμ λ³Ό λ λ§€μ° μ΄μ§μ μΈ μ νμ μΈλ¬Όλ€μ΄μλ€. κ·ΈλΌμλ λΆκ΅¬νκ³ μ΄λ€μ΄ μ€λμ£ΌμλΌλ λ¨μΌν λ²μ£Όλ‘ λ¬ΆμΌ μ μμλ€λ κ²μ, μμΌλ‘ μ€λμ£Όμμ μ΄λ€μ μ°κ²°μμΌμ€λ§ν κΈ°μ‘΄μ μ¬μμ λ§₯λ½μμλ μ°Ύμλ³Ό μ μλ μλ‘μ΄ ν΅μ¬μ μ΄λ
μ΄ μ‘΄μ¬νλ€λ κ²μ μλ―Ένλ€.
λ°λ‘ μ΄ ν΅μ¬μ μ΄λ
μ μ°ΎκΈ° μν΄ λ λ²μ§Έ μ κ·Ό λ°©λ²μ΄ νμνλ€. μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό μ€λμ£Όμμ λ°λνλ μ¬μκ°λ€μ λν λΆμμ ν΅ν΄ μ κ·Όνλ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄λ₯Έλ° λ°μ€λμ£Όμ λ
Όμμ΄ λ°κ°λ£¨μ μμ΄ μΌμ΄λλ λμ λλμ μΌλ‘ λ²μ΄μ‘λ€. λ°μ€λμ£Όμμλ€μ κ³‘κ° μμΉμΌλ‘ μΈν μλ νλμ΄ λΉμ μ¬λ¬΄μ΄κ°μ΄μλ νλ₯΄κ³ μ μ€λμ£Όμ μ μ±
κ³Ό μ°κ΄λ κ²μ΄ μλλκ³ κ³΅κ²©νμλ€. μ¦, νλ₯΄κ³ μ 곑물거λμμ ν μ μ±
μ΄ λͺλͺ 곑물 μμΈλ€κ³Ό λμ§μ£Όλ€μκ² μ 리ν μμ₯ μν©μ μ‘°μ±νμ¬ μΈμμ μΈ κ³‘κ° μμΉμ λ³μλ€λ κ²μ΄λ€. μ΄μ λν΄ νλ₯΄κ³ λ±μ μ€λμ£Όμμλ€μ 곑물거λμμ νκ° κ³‘κ° μμΉμ κ°μ Έμ¨ κ²μ΄ μλλΌ, μ λΆκ° 곑물 μμ₯μ μΈμμ μΌλ‘ κ°μ
ν΄μ€λ κ΄νμ΄μΌλ§λ‘ 곑물 μ ν΅ μ§μμ μ곑μ λ³μ κ³‘κ° μμΉμ λΆλ¬μ€λ μ£Όλ²μ΄λΌκ³ λ°λ°νμλ€.
νλ©΄μμΌλ‘λ μμ₯μ μμ¨μ±μ μ΄λ μ κΉμ§ 보μ₯ν΄μΌ νλλλ₯Ό λλ¬μΌ λ
ΌμμΌλ‘ 보μ΄μ§λ§, λ°μ€λμ£Όμμλ€μ΄ μ€λμ£Όμλ₯Ό 곡격νλ μ§μ§ ν΅μ¬ λ
Όκ±°λ μ€λμ£Όμκ° κ²½μ λ₯Ό λ
μμ μΈ μ²΄κ³λ₯Ό κ°λ λ
립λ μμμΌλ‘ κ°μ£Όνλ€λ κ²μ΄μλ€. λ€μ λ§ν΄ μ μΉκ° κ²½μ μ μμμ κ°μ
νλ κ²μ μμ²λ΄μνλ μ€λμ£Όμμ λ°μ μΉμ±μ 곡격νμλ κ²μ΄λ€. κ·Έλ¬λ μμ€μ μΌλ‘ λ°μ€λμ£Όμ λ
Όμμ λ
μμ μμμΌλ‘μμ κ²½μ λ₯Ό 본격μ μΌλ‘ κ³΅λ‘ μ μ₯μ κ°μΈμν€λ κ²°μ μ κ³κΈ°κ° λμλ€. 곑물거λμμ νλ₯Ό λΉλ‘―ν νλ₯΄κ³ μ κ°νμ μ±
μ λΉμ₯μλ μ€ν¨λ‘ λμκ°μ§λ§, νλ νλμ€νλͺ
μ κ°ν μμ λ‘ λμ΄μλ¬κ³ κ²°κ΅ κ΄μ² λμλ€. μ컨λ μ€λμ£Όμλ λμ
μ€μ¬μ£Όμκ° μλλΌ κ²½μ μ£Όμλ₯Ό λ³Έμ§λ‘ νλ μλ‘μ΄ κ²½μ μ¬μμ΄μμΌλ©°, μ΄λ₯Ό λλ¬μΌ λ
Όμμ νλμ€μ μμ¬μμ κ²½μ κ° νμνλ κ²°μ μ μΈ κ³κΈ°κ° λμλ€.Physiocracy is a reformist economic thought that emerged in France in the mid-18th century. Generally, various forms of reformist thought developed in France after the death of Louis XIV are called Enlightenment ideologies, and Physiocracy can be seen as one of the Enlightenment ideas emerging in the economic field. However, it was not just a part of the Enlightenment. Above all, contemporaries thought of Physiocracy as separating from other Enlightenment ideas, and even considered it as antagonistic or hostile. In the end, Physiocracy was separated from the mainstream of the Enlightenment, apart from the purpose of its emergence, and was suddenly destined to perish. The purpose of this thesis is to examine what makes Physiocracy take such a peculiar historical path, and what its legacy has left in French history.
Today, the vast majority of people still view Physiocracy as a variation of agricultural centrism. Whatever the specifics, it is the idea that agriculture is important anyway. These prejudices were already strong at that time. Of course, it is true that there is a basis for promoting this prejudice in the theory of the economics of Physiocracy. That is the claim that produit net is possible only in agriculture. However, Physiocracy is not simple enough to be reduced to agricultural centrism. In order to gain a good understanding of Physiocracy, it is not enough to simply read the textbooks produced by Physiocrats, and it is necessary to scrutinize the historical context in which Physiocracy was formed, consumed, and debated.
In this thesis, to understand the essence of Physiocracy through the historical context, it has been approached in two major directions. First, it is a viewpoint that Physiocracy should not be identical with Quesnays economic ideas, but should be considered a composite composition of Quesnay, Turgot, and Mirabeau in its interaction. These three men were very heterogeneous figures, intellectually and ideologically, in the context of the ancien rΓ©gime France. Nonetheless, the fact that they could be tied to a single category of Physiocracy means that there is a new core idea that would connect them to Physiocracy and can not be found in the context of existing ideas.
A second approach is needed to find this very core idea. This approach to Physiocracy is based on analysis of philosophe who oppose it. The so-called anti-physiocracy debate has been widespread during the guerre du blΓ©. The anti-physiocracy philosophe attacked if the food riots caused by the rise of grain price were related to the physiocratic policy of the then-current contrΓ΄leur gΓ©nΓ©ral, Turgot. In other words, the liberalization policy of grain trade in Turgot has created a favorable market situation for some grain merchants and large landlords, resulting in an artificial rise of grain price. On the other hand, Turgot and other Physiocrats respond that liberalization of grain trade did not lead to a rise in the price of grain, but that the governments artificial involvement in the grain market interfered with grain circulation, leading to a rise in grain price.
On the surface, it seems to be a controversy over the extent to which market autonomy should be guaranteed, but the real key argument of anti-physiocratic aggression against Physiocracy is that it sees the economy as an independent territory with its own system. In other words, it attacked the anti-politics of Physiocracy that block the intervention of politics in the sphere of the economy. However, paradoxically, the anti-physiocratic debate became a decisive opportunity to imprint the economy as an independent domain in the field of public opinion in earnest. The liberalization of grain trade, as well as the other reform policy of Turgot, failed immediately, but later revived and realized as a reform agenda of the French Revolution. In short, Physiocracy was a new economic idea based on economism rather than agrarianism, and the controversy over it became a decisive momentum for the economy to be born in French history.I. μλ‘ : μ€λμ£Όμλ 무μμΈκ°? 1
II. : μ€λμ£Όμ κ²½μ μ¬μ 20
1. κ²½μ λΆμμ μμ¬μμ λ³Έ μ€λμ£Όμ 20
2. μ€λμ£Όμ κ²½μ μ¬μμ μμ λ€ 33
1) κ°μ 33
2) κ²½μ ν 36
3) μ€λμ£Όμ: μμ°λ²μ 체κ³? 43
4) μμ°κ°μΉμ€ 48
5) κ°μΉλ‘ 53
6) μμ κΆ 56
7) μ‘°μΈλ‘ 60
8) κ²½μ μ±μ₯λ‘ 63
9) μλΉλ‘ 67
III. μ€λμ£Όμμ μΈ μ£Όμ 72
1. λ°°κ²½ 72
2. μ€λννμ μΌκ±°λ 82
1) μΌλ€: κ³λͺ½λ μ€μμ£Όμμ 82
2) νλ₯΄κ³ : κ²½μ μ£Όμμ μμ μ£Όμμ 101
3) λ―ΈλΌλ³΄: μ 기체μ 곡νμ£Όμμ 127
IV. λ°μ€λμ£Όμ λ
Όμ 155
1. λ°κ°λ£¨μ μ 155
1) λ°κ°λ£¨μ μμ μ κ° 155
2) μλνλμ λν μμ¬μ ν΄μ 167
3) νλ₯΄κ³ μ μμ μ£Όμ 172
2. λ°μ€λμ£Όμλ‘ 182
1) λ°μ€λμ£Όμ λ΄λ‘ μ μ¬λ¬ μ νλ€ 183
2) λ§λΈλ¦¬ 188
3) κ°λ¦¬μλμ λ€μΌλ₯΄ 194
4) κ·ΈλΌμ¬λ 198
5) ν¬λ₯΄λ³΄λ€ 202
6) 루μ 205
V. κ²°λ‘ 209
μ°Έκ³ λ¬Έν 219
Abstract 254Docto