본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

목차보기

목차

대만·조선총독부의 초기 재정 비교연구 : '식민제국' 일본의 식민지 통치역량과 관련하여 / 文明基 1

I. 서론 - 식민지시대의 대만과 조선: 유사한 통치방식과 상이한 통치효과 1

II. 대만총독부의 초기재정(1895~1906): 재정독립의 조기 실현 5

III. 조선총독부의 초기재정(1910~1919): 〈재정독립계획〉의 실현? 9

IV. 대만/조선총독부의 재정규모와 재원확보 전략 13

V. 결론 - 식민지 재정사의 각도에서 본 '식민제국' 일본의 식민지 통치역량 21

[요약] 23

초록보기

Korea and Taiwan has both experienced the rule of Japanese Imperialism, but their attitude on the Japanese Occupation since 1945 differed. This article tries to explain one of the main causes for the difference from the financial point of view. During the occupation, Taiwan Sotokufu successfully reached the goal of financial independence earlier than expected, whereas Chosen Sotokufu never succeeded in that goal except for one year(1919). What made this difference occurred? There are a lot of reasons, but this difference most importantly resulted from the difference of the state-society relationship of the two societies, and the difference also was drived from the size of the colony itself.

Colonial period Chosen was larger than Taiwan 6 times in area, and 3~4 times in population, and Japanese central government supported Taiwan Sotokufu financially enough to reorganize taiwan society according to its will and expectation, successfully suppress Taiwan society's resistance. But In Korea, Chosen Sotokufu could not expect enough financial support from the central government because of the central government's limited financial ability, and in result Chosen Sotokufu could not extract revenues from Korean society needed to construct huge scale infrastructure which could be helpful to govern Korean society.

I think that is the main reason the Sotokufu system of Taiwan fairly succeeded, whereas the Sotokufu system of Korea proved to be a general failure. And this point might explain part of the reasons Korean Society sustained so strong Anti-Japanese Attitude since 1945. Tatao Yanaihara, The famous economist and a clearheaded observer on colonial policy, also admitted that direct governorship of Japan (like Sotokufu system) could not be said to be successful at least in Korea. And I think the reason Japanese Imperialism has persisted on applying direct governorship to Korea still need to be answered.