초록 close

이 논문에서는 학제적 연구를 추구하는 한국문화경제학회가 향후 자신의 정체성을 유지하며 지속적인 발전을 위한 방안을 「국제문화경제학회 모델」과 「일본문화경제학회 모델」과의 비교분석을 통해 찾는다. 아울러, 이 논문에서는 대화의 상속이라는 관점에서 문화경제학을 접근하면 인류의 문화유산과 문화의 가치에 눈뜬 인간과 조우하게 된다는 것을 주장한다. 그러한 과정에서 존 러스킨 사상이 학제적 연구의 좋은 소재임을 제시하는 동시에, 특히 문화경제학의 새로운 접근방식 (Throsby, Klamer, Ikegami등의 연구)과 러스킨 사상과의 관련성을 규명하는 것이 향후 연구주제로 부상하게 될 것을 전망한다.


The paper starts from asking for what is the identity for the Korean Association for Cultural Economics (KACE), which was founded in 1997 for the interdisciplinary approach to culture and economy. In the end of 2008, the Korean journal (Review of Cultural Economics) earned a position as the publicly recognized journal by the Korean Research Foundation. It’s now good chance for us to re-consider the future development direction of the Association. For the aim, firstly, the paper compares three models of the worldwide associations for cultural economics (Association for Cultural Economics International, Japan Association for Cultural Economics, Korean Association for Cultural Economics). Through the comparative analysis, we try to find out the operating characteristics of the three journals, and then to derive implications for the Korean Association. Secondly, the paper insists that it need to be approached cultural economics rhetorically. From a viewpoint of succeeding conversations, especially, we do encounter persons who show special interests on the value of culture. In the conversations, it may be asserted that contemporary cultural economists including Arjo Klamer may be debtors of John Ruskin. Lastly, the paper insists that John Ruskin can be a suitable subject for the interdisciplinary approach to culture and economy, and also shed lights on in recovering ethics in Korean (cultural) economics in the near future.


The paper starts from asking for what is the identity for the Korean Association for Cultural Economics (KACE), which was founded in 1997 for the interdisciplinary approach to culture and economy. In the end of 2008, the Korean journal (Review of Cultural Economics) earned a position as the publicly recognized journal by the Korean Research Foundation. It’s now good chance for us to re-consider the future development direction of the Association. For the aim, firstly, the paper compares three models of the worldwide associations for cultural economics (Association for Cultural Economics International, Japan Association for Cultural Economics, Korean Association for Cultural Economics). Through the comparative analysis, we try to find out the operating characteristics of the three journals, and then to derive implications for the Korean Association. Secondly, the paper insists that it need to be approached cultural economics rhetorically. From a viewpoint of succeeding conversations, especially, we do encounter persons who show special interests on the value of culture. In the conversations, it may be asserted that contemporary cultural economists including Arjo Klamer may be debtors of John Ruskin. Lastly, the paper insists that John Ruskin can be a suitable subject for the interdisciplinary approach to culture and economy, and also shed lights on in recovering ethics in Korean (cultural) economics in the near future.