2009, Vol.18, No.2

Journal of Regulation Studies 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.78

pISSN : 1738-7132
https://journal.kci.go.kr/ksrs2002

The purpose of this article is to construct the sustainable 'Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions' and calculate its fairness indices for evaluating the fairness of subcontracting transaction. First, the fairness concepts are categorized into three types for constructing the fairness evaluation system of subcontracting transaction: 1) procedural fairness, 2) result (outcome) fairness, and 3) mutual interaction (win-win cooperation) fairness. Second, both evaluation sectors (items) and detailed evaluation indicators are drawn from the subcontracting-related laws and win-win (cooperation) agreement and are linked to the concepts of subcontracting transaction fairness. Third, based on these findings, AHP (analytic hierarchy process) analysis is conducted to explore the degree of mutual importance and weight of evaluation sectors and their indicators. Finally, the 'Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions is created. The system includes three evaluation sectors: subcontracting contract conclusion, subcontracting contract execution, and subcontracting win-win cooperation. Also the system has 11 evaluation indicators and 22 detailed measurement indicators. The primary level analysis result of AHP has shown that subcontracting contract execution is the most important sector in the construction, manufacturing, and repair industries, while subcontracting contract conclusion is the most important item in the service industries. The secondary level analysis result of AHP with 11 evaluation indicators has demonstrated that subcontracting price decision and adjustment in the subcontracting contract execution is the most important indicator across all industries. The comprehensive weight and overall ranking results of all evaluation indicators have represented that subcontracting price payment is first, unfair subcontracting price reduction is second, and subcontracting decision and adjustment is third in all industries. The sectoral fairness index (SFI) and the composite fairness index (CFI) are calculated to apply the ‘Fairness Evaluation System of Subcontracting Transactions.'

The substantial efforts and polices are underway to control tobacco consumption in most countries using the ways of increasing prices and taxes and tightening regulations on it. However, these ways should be differentiated depending on GDP levels because the higher GDP countries have relatively the higher level of education and the better awareness of health costs or bad effects from smoking they recon. Using the data of 75 countries, which is collected from Tobacco Control Country Profiles 2003 published by WHO, I find that price control is the best way to decrease tobacco consumption in the lower GDP countries. On the contrary, the regulations such as counter-advertising and sponsorship regulation, youth access limitations, and smoke- free-environment do not seem to be a way to decrease the tobacco consumptions in these lower GDP countries but in the higher GDP countries, Therefore, this study suggests that the government polices to the tobacco consumptions should be changed depending on the level of its GDP: relatively lower GDP countries should place great importance on price while higher GDP countries should give priority to the non-price regulation rather than to price control.

We decompose the social costs in using transport facilities, expecially road facilities, into the internal and external costs. When economic agents drive their cars and use roads, they have to bear the road construction and maintenance costs, which is internal costs. They create air pollution material and greenhouse gases, which are external costs. Until now, Korean government impose fuel taxes on gasoline, diesel, and LPG for transport without considering the social costs. We compare the fuel taxes with the social costs in gasoline, diesel, and LPG. Especially, we compute the external costs per liter or per kilometer as well as the internal costs per liter or per kilometer in gasoline, diesel, and LPG. We use these costs to compare with the fuel taxes of gasoline, diesel, and LPG. In considering environmental external costs such as air pollution damage costs and greenhouse gas costs, the fuel tax rates of gasoline and diesel are above and below each their social costs respectively. The fuel tax rates of LPG are almost similar to its social costs.