정책수단으로서 행정규제와 규제세

The purpose of this paper is to compare regulations and tax as a means of sharing cost, and identify what means meets the justice. As a cost-sharing means, administrative regulations and tax may look alike, but they are different. They are same in that both of them are all means used by the government to levy social cost, but they are different depending on whether the cost is levied by restricting activities or financially, and whether the principle of responsibility is applied, or the principle of capability is applied to decide the degree of cost sharing. When we compare regulations and tax, we should differentiate between the case where society bears the cost, and the case where interested parties bear the cost. As an example of the former, I used an analogy of military draft system and recruiting system. Draft system, or mandatory military service, can be compared to regulations, and recruiting system to tax. To illustrate the latter, environmental regulations and regulatory tax can be compared. The examples for those are operation restriction of vehicles, and transport tax and motor fuel tax, respectively. In this comparison, economic value criteria such as efficiency and fairness can be used. The reason being is that the likelihood of error is small as they have a long tradition of being used as criteria to compare social systems. Based on this assumption, it is questionable if it is violating our constitution to use an inferior system instead of a superior system. To be more specific, we need to ask ourselves whether we can find it unconstitutional without doubt if a system is against efficiency and fairness, whether efficiency and fairness have any relationship with other criteria to judge unconstitutionality (if they are compatible with each other or not), or what values efficiency and fairness have and how they function in our constitution.