대불황과 정치

목차

1. 머리말

2. 대불황과 동시대인의 견해

3. 왕립위원회와 최종보고서의 문제점

4. 의회토론의 한계

5. 진단과 처방, 그리고 통과의례

본문내용

추측을 가능케 한다. 더욱이 보고서의 내용을 파악하지 않은 상태에서는, 이 진단과 처방의 메커니즘은 무력해질 수밖에 없다. 의회 토론 곳곳에서 드러난 각료들의 책임회피 증후군 또한 의원들의 식견 부족 못지 않게 부정적인 영향을 끼쳤을 것이다.
그렇다면 1885-6년 의회를 중심으로 이루어진 불황에 관한 진단과 처방을 어떻게 평가할 수 있을까. 그것은 올바른 진단도, 생산적인 처방도 낳지 못한 전형적인 예산낭비에 지나지 않았는가. 그러나 산출의 측면도 중요하지만, 그 과정 또한 중요하다. 왕립위원회의 구성, 조사활동, 보고서 제출, 의회 토론으로 이어지는 이 일련의 과정은 무엇을 산출했는가 라는 문제를 넘어서 일종의 통과의례라고 할 수 있다. 불황에 대한 우려감이 높아지고 사회 분위기가 그런 우려를 증폭시키고 있을 때, 왕립위원회의 활동과 그에 뒤이은 일련의 과정은 이 우려의 언어를 흡수하고 정화하는 역할을 떠맡은 셈이었다. 영국 의회의 진단과 처방의 관행은 오히려 그 의례를 통하여 사회적 불만을 흡수하고 긴장을 푸는 사회통합의 메커니즘이기도 했던 것이다.
/Abstract/
The Great Depression and British Politics
Lee, Young-Suk
In 1885 the British Parliament appointed the 'Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade and Industry' in order to investigate the economic conditions of Britain. The Commission submitted the Final Report which consisted of the report signed by majority and the one by the minority.
Views on the depression in the two reports are different from each other. The majority of commissioners thought that the depression was nothing but a case of simple trade cycle, but the minority saw the depression dated from long structural factors. The former represents for the view of commissioners believing in free-trade ideology and the latter is likely to express the pessimistic view on the economic future of Britain.
This article aims to investigate how much the report of the Commission had an effect upon the parliamentary debates trying to settle the economic slump. Hansard's Parliamentary Debate at that time shows that the parliamentary members did not discuss actively on the content of the report and the depression. Parliamentary mechanism for the diagnosis and prescription on the economic condition did not produce a good result. That was caused from the several factors such as the change of regime, Ireland question and the optimistic conclusion of the Commission.
It is a disappointment to see the easygoing attitudes of parliamentary members and ministers on policy debates in spite of the fact that they have been the leading part of diagnosis and prescription in the policy-making process. They did not examine the report carefully, and they had no intention to prepare any new policy. They might not be interested in the economic problems and might not have any ideas on the national economy in general.
How shall we estimate the process of diagnosis and prescription operated in the parliament? Was it nothing but the typical budget dissipation which did not resulted in right diagnosis or productive prescription? We should take the serious view of its process and its output as well. The process that was connected with the appointment of the Commission, the inquiry of the Commission, its report and parliamentary debates was not only a mechanism for the real prescription of policy making, but a passage rite for the social integration. The rite was the means to reflect the languages of economic tension and discontent, and the means to raise the social integration.

키워드

대불황,   정치,   동시대인