중앙헤럴드  시작페이지설정  즐겨찾기추가
Herald 500 Cover Campus News News Culture Archive English broadcastiong
최종편집 : 2019.10.10 목 18:58
NewsSocial & Political Desk
The Public Concept of Land Ownership, Can It Be Added to the Constitution?
Jeong Ye-rim  |  aiq0524@cau.ac.kr
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
승인 2019.09.15  23:32:31
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn

[What Is the Public Concept of Land Ownership?]

Theoretical Background of the Public Concept of Land Ownership

           ‘The Public Concept of Land Ownership’ means that one’s land ownership and disposal can be restricted for the public good. The origin of the public concept of land ownership is quite old. Adam Smith’s ‘Theory of National Wealth’ and Karl Marx’s ‘Theory of Capital’ had warned about the concentration of wealth caused by private land ownership. Based on this, Henry George stated that poverty and inequality in wealth persist despite the development of production technology because the increase in wealth leads to the increase in land price, which benefits only the owners of the land. And he studied the factors of land price increase in his book ‘Progress and Poverty.’ In this book, ‘Land Area Single Tax’ was provided by him, which means a system that levies taxes on the land where economic benefit is earned without production activities. Henry regarded land as a free object given by nature and considered it a violation of natural law to demand monetary consideration through private ownership of land. This idea is the very beginning of the concept of the Public Concept of Land Ownership. The core logic of this idea is that the increase of land price is not caused by one’s ability to produce, but by the development of society, so the benefit the land owner earned from his land with no effort should be included in the tax.

   
 

History of Korean Public Concept of Land Ownership

           In Korean Society, the Public Concept of Land Ownership has been discussed for a long time. The beginning was the Lee Seung-man administration(1952~60)’s ‘Farmland Reform.’ Considering that most of the farmers were peasants, the Act on Farmland Reform was introduced by Lee Seung-man. It was to limit the size of land that could be owned by individuals and redistribute the farmland among farmers after the government buys it. Unrealized due to the Korea War, the Act on Farmland Reform marks the beginning of discussions over the Public Concept of Land Ownership in national policy. Discussions of public land ownership continued with Park Jung-hee administration(1972~79)’s plans for a ‘Green Belt’ which limits urban development in certain areas to prevent reckless urban expansion, but it was not used properly at that time either. The Noh Tae-woo administration(1977~93)’s ‘Three Laws on the Public Land Exemption(the Housing Ownership Upper Limit Act, the Land Excess Tax Act, and the Development Profit Recovery Act)’ were also not successful. The Housing Site Ownership Upper Act restricts the amount of land that people can own so that all people can own land evenly. The Land Excess and Benefit Tax Act allowed landowners to return all land price gains from external factors such as development projects to taxes. And the Development Gains Recovery Act, like the Land Excess and Benefit Tax Act, collects 50 percent of land prices that have risen since development projects. Otherwise, land tax rates of comprehensive real estate system by Noh Mu-hyun administration(2003~08), which forces a high tax rate for people who own a lot of land has only continued to proceed.

Of course, none of these earlier public land ownership policies were met with bipartisan support. Rather, whenever these policies appeared, rival parties turned into fiercely opposed factions and only the comprehensive real estate tax system was implemented properly. The ‘Three Laws on the Public Land Exemption’ were limited, as they harmed private land ownership too much. Therefore, the court declared those laws unconstitutional. Only the theoretical framework of the public land ownership-related laws remains now. The lack of public land ownership policies is also closely linked to the economic situation of Korea that time. Before Korean IMF crisis, the real estate speculation problem was serious. The introduction of the public land ownership was obviously essential, as reconstruction plans and massive capital movements were common in large groups which resulted in higher land prices. After the Korean IMF crisis, the government had to weaken legal sanctions of real estate investment in order to revitalize the market. As a result, the public land ownership system has been forgotten gradually. The failure to maintain the public land ownership system due to economic crisis made it more difficult to enact public land ownership policies in Law.

The Stance of Moon Jae-in Government in the Public Land Ownership

           As mentioned earlier, policies regarding the public land ownership have been implemented by all governments, but those policies take a long time to go in effect. This is because there is a strong opinion that it infringes on private property rights. So recently, Moon Jae-in administration(2017~)’s trial has directly tried to reflect the concept of public land ownership in the Constitution. They decided to add the contents of the public land ownership in the Constitution. According to the full text of the constitutional revision announced by the government on March 22, 2018, Article 122 of the current Constitution was revised to Article 128 to reinforce the public land ownership. Article 128 Paragraph 2 states that the State may impose special restrictions or obligations as a law only if it is necessary for the public nature and reasonable use of the land. The government has the constitutional treaty that contains the concept of public ownership of land to facilitate the establishment of the policies. If the legal basis of the public land ownership system is established, the public land ownership will be able to respond much more efficiently in terms of budgeting and policy authorization. Unfortunately, this constitutional amendment was rejected of a lack of quorum.

   
▲ https://star-profile.tistory.com/82

[Controversy over the Public Concept of Land Ownership]

If the Public Concept of Land Ownership Is Introduced, Will the Private Property System collapse?

           The public land ownership limits an individual's property right for the public good. That is why it goes against the private property system, which allows individuals to own their capital produced by themselves. In addition, as there are no clear standards for how to apply the public land ownership, it makes people who own a lot of land feel anger about losing their land. According to the Noh Tae-woo administration's the Housing Site Ownership Upper Act, a single household who owns lots of land in a major city had to pay a levy if they owned more than 662m2 of land, limiting the size of land that could be owned by an individual in principle. Some say that the private property system will collapse due to the concept of the public land ownership because of such restrictions on individuals' property rights. However, the opposition forces for the public land ownership underscore the fact that Henry George, who advocated the public land ownership, also supported the private property system. As a result, the fact is derived that the concept of public ownership of land is not a concept of denying the private property system but a system that best achieves the intention of the private property system. Supportive parties argue that it can be a solution to solve the polarization of wealth and a good supplement to the private property system because it prevents concentration of production means due to the sophistication of capitalism and values the profits earned by pure labor. This argument stems from the point that land is not considered capital. Opposition parties countered that if individuals' property rights are threatened by the government, it would be highly against the ideology of capitalist society and possibly turn wealth into a communist state that distributes wealth, while proponents say that it can be resolved through the public land ownership.

   
▲ http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Free_Enterprise.htm

Is There No Public Concept of Land Ownership Abroad?

           Opponents disagree the amendment on the grounds that there is no public concept of land in constitutions overseas. According to Park Dong-woon, professor of economics at Dankook University, Zambia is the only country that has a public concept of land ownership in its constitution, He worries that specifying the public land ownership in the Constitution will become not an exception to the system, but a legal interpretation of it as a natural right. The opposite parties argue that the government is distorting the part of the conflict between the classes that should properly reflect the opinions of the people. On the other hand, proponents refute the idea, citing examples where many advanced countries officially use the concept of the public land ownership. Examples include "average authority" of Article 142 of Taiwan's Constitution, Article 15 of Germany's Constitution, Article 25 of the Republic of South Africa's Constitution, Article 12 of Austria's Constitution and Article 10 of Ireland's Constitution. The clash of opinions between the two depends on how the Constitution states the public concept of land ownership. It can only be interpreted as a public concept of land, but contents of each clause vary from country to country. Thus, the opposing view that it is impossible to compare the constitutional concept of public land ownership in Korea with those overseas because the Korean Constitution directly mentions that individuals can limit their ownership of land, and the pro-government view that the concept of public land ownership has already been made into a constitutional clause in many countries continues to clash.

 

   
 
< 저작권자 © 중앙헤럴드 무단전재 및 재배포금지 >
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
트위터 페이스북 미투데이 요즘 네이버 구글 msn 뒤로가기 위로가기
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
자동등록방지용 코드를 입력하세요!   
확인
- 200자까지 쓰실 수 있습니다. (현재 0 byte / 최대 400byte)
- 욕설등 인신공격성 글은 삭제 합니다. [운영원칙]
이 기사에 대한 댓글 이야기 (0)
 
신문사소개기사제보광고문의불편신고청소년보호정책개인정보취급방침이메일무단수집거부
06974) 서울특별시 동작구 흑석로 84 중앙대학교 310관(100주년기념관) B201호 중앙헤럴드 | 전화 02-881-7363
명칭 : 중앙헤럴드 | 인터넷총괄책임자 : 편집국장 | 게시판총괄책임자 : 편집국장 | 청소년보호책임자 : 편집국장
중앙헤럴드의 모든 콘텐츠는 저작권법의 보호를 받은바, 무단 전재와 복사, 배포 등을 금합니다.
Copyright 2019 중앙헤럴드. All rights reserved. mail to webmaster@cauon.net