신정부 출범 후, 경제선진화의 기치 아래 실용, 경쟁, ‘business freindly' 등의 표제어가 유행이다. 실용주의가 이념이나 당위적 가치론과 무관한 것이 아니거니와, 정체성을 다지고, 가치와 관점의 균형을 도모하는 일이 소홀하게 되는 것은 아닌지 우려된다. 타협의 산물인 동시에, 타협을 위한 가치적 단서와 함께 그 방법까지 제시하면서 타협을 명령하는 헌법은 숙고의 수단 및 설득의 수사학(rhetoric)으로서 매우 효율적이고 효과적이다. 시장이 경제의 일부이고 또 경제가 사회의 일부라고 한다면 ‘경제선진화’는 결코 가치중립적인 과제가 아니다. 가치적 정치경제규범인 헌법의 공통어로 최소한 필요한 만큼 숨을 가다듬으면서 우리 사회와 경제의 기준점과 지향점을 검토하고, 그 도정을 짚어본다. 문제제기의 출발점은 현행 헌법에서 경제헌법의 전면폐지를 주장하는 성급하고 과격한 개헌론의 기본인식과 논거이다. 사실상 이미 퇴출된 ‘자율시장의 신화’에 대한 교조적인 믿음은 원천적으로 토론의 대상이 될 수 없지만, 그 본질과 성격에 대한 이데올로기적 해명은 건강한 대화와 타협을 위해서 필요하다. 또한 현행 헌법상 경제기본조항이라고 할 수 있는 제119조를 비롯한 경제조항들을 폐지하라는 주장과 그에 대한 반론의 타당성과 설득력은 제119조의 규범적 구조와 통제 및 행위규범으로서의 효용에 대한 면밀한 검토를 거쳐 판정될 수 있다. 말하자면 경제체제에 관한 헌법정책적 담론과, 경제정책에 대한 헌법적 수용 또는 통제의 기준, 즉 제119조를 비롯한 경제헌법규정의 해석론의 맥락에서 그 용량과 탄력도에 대한 정확한 인식이 선행되어야 한다. 본 논문의 결론은 현행 헌법상 경제체제는 원천적으로 기준점이 상당한 정도로 우측으로 이동되어 설정되어 있고, ‘원칙과 예외 형식’으로 규정된 제119조는 좌우 불균형의 비대칭적인 구도로 이해되는 점에서 충분히 시장친화적이라는 것이다. 개정의 필요성 자체는 은 늘 열려있는 개헌공론장의 의제로 상정될 수 있지만, 적어도 현 시점에서 성급하게 용도폐기의 진단을 내릴 정도로 중대한 결함을 갖고 있지는 아니하다. 실패가 있다면 그 근원은 우선 정부와 헌법운용의 실패에서 탐색되어야 한다. 헌법의 실패에 대한 성급한 예단은 자제되어야 한다. 게다가 앞으로 제반 환경과 분위기도 시장친화적인 흐름에 순행할 것으로 예상된다. 요컨대, 현행 (경제)헌법은 경제살리기와 경제선진화를 가로막는 장애물이 아니라, 오히려 그에 필요한 기회와 공간, 그리고 추동력을 충분히 제공할 수 있는 효용을 지니고 있다.

Some advocates of a laissez-faire economy, who view our current economic constitution as faulty and pernicious with the faith in 'the myth self-regulating market', are persistently calling for the abolition of most of economy-related articles, including the fundamental provision of the Article 119, which write: (1) The economic order of the Republic of Korea shall be based on respect for the freedom and creative initiative of enterprises and individuals in economic affairs. (2) The state may regulate and coordinate economic affairs in order to maintain a balanced growth and stability of the national economy, to ensure proper distribution of income, to prevent domination of the market and abuses of economic power and to democratize the national economy through harmony among the economic agents. The self-confident conservative economic theorists, who think themselves as the champions of privatization, deregulation, and liberation of the global marketplace, keep repeating their impetuous and extreme arguments which are supposedly based on the 'assumption of the market supremacy'. They insist so far that we should have a much more liberal economic constitution in order to overcome our current economic crisis and find a solution of the structural drawbacks in our economic system. There are three main points in the debate about the utility of the economic constitution. To begin with, this essay doubt that the utopian view of free market based on laissez-faire make sense in a modern complex society. We have interests, as R. H. Coase decribes, not in the market, where two individuals exchange nuts for berries on the edge of the forest, but in the real market, on whose working the legal system have constitutive influences of managing and controlling. Secondly, I ask whether the insistence on the abolition of economic constitution, especially the Article 119, is merited, what action is merited as the effective rhetoric of the persuasion at all, and how they can possibly commit to realization of their assumption. Whether those mythical creeds could be asserted or not, the point is that all such propositions are not to be on the agenda in the public forum with regard to the amendment of the constitution. Thirdly, this essay offers not the definitive verdict in the debate about the necessity of the revision of the constitution, as the legal and political judgements play a part along with theoretical analysis. However, I hope to say here much about the necessary and sufficient conditions of the agreement or compromise. As a result, there are not enough conditions to justify the amendment. Our economic constitution is undoubtedly not perfect. But at the least in light of the current situation, there is every reason to believe that the utilities of the economic constitution as justifying or controlling rules and principles are still remaining both in terms of the optimal mixing of economic systems and the good policymaking. It can credibly commit to offer the guidelines, reasons and methods for the democratic deliberation, which is sure to be indispensable for the advance of our economy.

Some advocates of a laissez-faire economy, who view our current economic constitution as faulty and pernicious with the faith in 'the myth self-regulating market', are persistently calling for the abolition of most of economy-related articles, including the fundamental provision of the Article 119, which write: (1) The economic order of the Republic of Korea shall be based on respect for the freedom and creative initiative of enterprises and individuals in economic affairs. (2) The state may regulate and coordinate economic affairs in order to maintain a balanced growth and stability of the national economy, to ensure proper distribution of income, to prevent domination of the market and abuses of economic power and to democratize the national economy through harmony among the economic agents. The self-confident conservative economic theorists, who think themselves as the champions of privatization, deregulation, and liberation of the global marketplace, keep repeating their impetuous and extreme arguments which are supposedly based on the 'assumption of the market supremacy'. They insist so far that we should have a much more liberal economic constitution in order to overcome our current economic crisis and find a solution of the structural drawbacks in our economic system. There are three main points in the debate about the utility of the economic constitution. To begin with, this essay doubt that the utopian view of free market based on laissez-faire make sense in a modern complex society. We have interests, as R. H. Coase decribes, not in the market, where two individuals exchange nuts for berries on the edge of the forest, but in the real market, on whose working the legal system have constitutive influences of managing and controlling. Secondly, I ask whether the insistence on the abolition of economic constitution, especially the Article 119, is merited, what action is merited as the effective rhetoric of the persuasion at all, and how they can possibly commit to realization of their assumption. Whether those mythical creeds could be asserted or not, the point is that all such propositions are not to be on the agenda in the public forum with regard to the amendment of the constitution. Thirdly, this essay offers not the definitive verdict in the debate about the necessity of the revision of the constitution, as the legal and political judgements play a part along with theoretical analysis. However, I hope to say here much about the necessary and sufficient conditions of the agreement or compromise. As a result, there are not enough conditions to justify the amendment. Our economic constitution is undoubtedly not perfect. But at the least in light of the current situation, there is every reason to believe that the utilities of the economic constitution as justifying or controlling rules and principles are still remaining both in terms of the optimal mixing of economic systems and the good policymaking. It can credibly commit to offer the guidelines, reasons and methods for the democratic deliberation, which is sure to be indispensable for the advance of our economy.

economic advancing, economic constitution, amendment to the Constitution, economic system and policy, burden of argument