경제윤리의 관점에서 바라본자본주의의 미래와 기업의 사회적 책임

The global financial crisis has spurred many researchers to re-examine the nature of capitalism and its role in contributing to financial market instability, destruction of the natural environment,and income inequality. There seems to be a new urgency to remedy the weaknesses of capitalism while retaining faith in market operations. Yet the authors of this study maintain that varieties of capitalism simultaneously coexist in the world, and argue that the global financial crisis was a crisis of one type of market capitalism: Liberal Market Economies (LME). LMEs is built on the principle of free markets and has a special advantage of maximizing economic efficiency compared to coordinated market economies (CMEs) that emphasize stakeholder and welfare equality. However, LMEs have their own limitations and are especially vulnerable to negative externalities. As the financial crisis demonstrated, deregulation plus the careless and greedy behaviour of Wall Street actors can cause catastrophic market failure. While the authors suggest that those actors’behaviour be considered a negative externality, the impact raises questions about the role of social responsibility in efficient market operations. To this point, this paper considers the future of capitalism in light of corporate social responsibility. First, we distinguish between the different types of capitalism and explain the financial crisis through this framework. Second, we discuss the literature and possible avenues down which capitalism could possibly evolve, post-crisis. Finally, we consider how to define social responsibility in the context of a new sustainable capitalism. In response to the failure of Keynesian economic policy to arrest stagflation during the 1970s,neo-liberalism provided a platform for LMEs in the literature and in political economic practice. Since 2009, however, people have started to question the principle of deregulation based on neo-liberal philosophy, and the ability of the market to really operate as an omnipotent mechanism. The financial crisis was surely a case of inefficient resource allocation, i.e. market failure. While we do not make a radical argument that LMEs need to be discarded, we explore the possibility that market failure is indeed a deeply rooted feature of capitalism, and examine remedies for such failures. The system of capitalism has continually evolved and morphed in order to survive (Kaletsky,2010). Taking the evolutionary perspective, we argue that capitalism is a self-adapting system,but that restoration of economic ethics is the key to its next phase of evolution. We first focus on the concept of externality, as the presence of externalities is the most well known reason why markets fail. Neo-classical economists maintain that market failure caused by externalities can be addressed by establishing property rights according to the Coase Theorem. Our discussion questions the feasibility of creating additional markets through property rights allocation of public resources such as clean air and other private externality resources. Instead, we argue that we have to address the problems caused by externality through restoration of economic ethics. Next, we attempt to define economic ethics. Borrowing from Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, a lesser-known but essential precursor to The Wealth of Nations, we examine the role of justice in a sound market economy. Narrowly defining justice as abstaining from doing our neighbor any positive harm, Smith contends that justice is more essential to the existence of society than beneficence, promoting happiness. In this paper, we argue that market agents’failure to abide by moral justice is the root cause of negative externality and resultant market failure in today’s capitalism. We note that the failure of neo-classical economic analyses to account for the virtue of justice is because neo classical economics’ homo economicus principle disregards it. In the neo-classical economic model upon which capitalism is based, economic actors simply equipped with rationality and self-interest have no incentive to internalize externality that causes suffering to other people. We further consider the theoretical challenge of the prisoner’s dilemma to illustrate the limitations of the homo economicus view, and the advantages of a justice-embracing view – the win-win scenario. We finally contend that the neo-classical position, using positive science to take a neutral ethical stance, has effectively crowded out ethical economic behaviour in the economy and in economic discourse. A new, win-win capitalism must reunite ethical justice with economic agency as in the writings of Adam Smith. Finally, we argue that the firm should be no exception in pursuing justice in a win-win capitalism,and justice should define corporate social responsibility (CSR). First, firms have to follow the virtue of justice by voluntarily internalizing negative externalities that they inflict on economic agents outside the firm. We contend that the disgraceful days of the firm as an ‘externalizing machine’ are waning thanks to increased market information about externalities and the contribution of firms to unrestrained resource consumption. Second, the advantages of win-win capitalism for firms should be clear from economic literature. Firm should avoid the risks modelled by the prisoner’s dilemma because they require both external and internal parties’ interoperation to succeed. Firms need to restrain their pure self-interest in order to achieve the greatest gains from economic participation for themselves and all their related parties in the economic ecosystem.