The Case of Korea

7/28/2019 The Case of Korea

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-case-of-korea 1/17

SPAEF

THE CULTURAL ROOTS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUREAUCRACY: THE CASE OF KOREAAuthor(s): YONG HYO CHO and YOUNG SUP KIMReviewed work(s):Source: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (WINTER, 1993), pp. 509-524Published by: SPAEFStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861565 .

Accessed: 31/01/2012 11:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration

Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861565?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861565?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spaef



THECULTURALOOTSOFENTREPRENEURIALUREAUCRACY:THECASEOF KOREA

YONG HYO CHOSan Francisco tateUniversityYOUNG SUP KIMHanyang niversity

INTRODUCTION

Korea'sdrive or conomic evelopment,egun nthe1960s,hasusheredthenation nto therankofnewlyndustrialized ountries

(NICs) bytheend of the 1980s. In less thanthreedecades, theKoreaneconomyhathadremained subsistence arm conomy ormanymillenniawas transformed nto a formidable industrialeconomy.t is also noteworthyhatKorea's economic uccess doesnot stand lone among ts East Asianneighbors. orean economicdevelopment haressome similaritiesnspeed and dynamicswithJapan,Taiwan,Singapore, ndHong Kong althoughheextent ndthe ubstantiveetails f their conomic hanges re various.

Another trikingimilarityntheEast Asian economic successcasesis thefact hat he tatehasplayed significant,fnotdecisive,role in leading the economic developmentdrive. The state-ledeconomicdevelopmentmodel smoreapparentnKorea because itwas the authoritarianegimefoundedupon a militaryoup d'etatthat ed the economicdevelopmentffort hiletheregime'sviola-tionof human ightsndpolitical reedomwas a constantource ofdomestic olitical onflictnd nternationalontroversy.

To put tdifferently,t was theentrepreneurialureaucracynpartnershipithmaginativendaggressiveusinessmennd skilledand dedicated labor thathas made it possible for the Korean

economyoachieve a rapidandmassivedevelopment. he entre-preneurial ureaucracyoesnotmerely efer o a careerbureaucra-

cythatparticipatedn economicdevelopment rograms, ut thetermsused morebroadlyndlesspreciselyodescribe hepolitical



(510) FAQ WINTER 1993

leadership, rimarilyresidentialeadership, oliticalappointees,and the career civil ervicewhoworked ogether s a governmentteam nthedevelopmentftheeconomy.

The significancef Korea's entrepreneurialureaucracys thattheexecutive eam has served as the engine n transforminghetraditionalconomy, hichhaspracticallyot had thebenefit f theIndustrial evolution,nto a modern ndustrialconomy. hus,thecentral uestionposedhere s: What s thecultural ackgroundhat

has contributedo this nprecedentedhange?Whatare theculturalforces hathavetriggered suddenand drastic hiftnthe role ofgovernmentnd publicofficials? he shiftwas from he role ofcontrol ndoppressionf thepeopleto that f service o thepeoplethroughhedevelopment f theeconomy, husfreeing hepeoplefrom he fearofstarvationhathas been a recurringhreat o themthroughoutistory.

What s theentrepreneurial ureaucracy?What has the entre-preneurial ureaucracy one forKorea's economicdevelopment?Whatcultural haracteristicsre likely o have contributed o the

rise of theentrepreneurialureaucracynd its success? These aretheprimary uestions he authors re interestednexploringn thisarticle.However, t mustbe realized that a preliminaryesearchtheyhave conducted o prepare his rticle s fartoo inadequateto.meetthis hallenge ullys posedbythesequestions, ut t s hopedtobe adequatefor reakinghegroundnaddressinghis ssue.

In this rticle he authors irst efine ntrepreneurialureaucra-cy.Second,theywillhighlighthe role ofentrepreneurialureaucra-cy nKorean economicdevelopment. hird, heywill dentifyhecultural haracteristicshat re considered ignificantor he rise ofentrepreneurialureaucracyndwillattempto clarifyhe connec-tionbetween hetwo.

CONCEPT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUREAUCRACY

When we think fentrepreneurs,e think f businesspioneerswho have established ew business mpiresntheprocessof indus-trializationuch as HenryFord,JohnD. Rockefeller,heMêlions,theCarnegies,nd theHarrimansnthecase of theAmerican xpe-

rience.Entrepreneurialpirits a critical lement f entrepreneur-ship.The entrepreneursct out ofconviction,otout of assurance fsuccess.Thispopular mageofentrepreneurss undoubtedly partofthe characteristicsfentrepreneurialureaucracy. ut thisterm



FAQ WINTER 1992 (511)

does nothave oneagreed-uponefinition.Although he authorsdecided to use the term entrepreneurial

bureaucracy," ther uthors nthisnascentresearchtopicuse theterm"public entrepreneurship"nd "public entrepreneur." heconceptrefers othto entrepreneurs an individual nd entrepre-neurshipas an institutionalphenomenon. Bellone and Goerl(1989:2-3)defines hat:

entrepreneursre

innovative,uture

riented,calculated"risk akers

and profitmaximizers ho,bytheir ctions, re some of the most crea-tiveproblem olvingndividualsnsociety.

Balloneand Goerlsuggesthat hisdefinitions a synthesisf entre-preneurships a subtypef Max Weber's charismaticuthorityndSchumpeter'sconomic ntrepreneurship.

Lewis (1980:9), nhispioneering ork, efines heconceptof apublic ntrepreneurs:

a personwho createsor profoundlylaboratesa public organization oas to altergreatly he existingpatternof allocation of scarce publicresources. uchpersons rise and succeed norganizationalnd politicalmilieuswhich ontaincontradictorymixesofvalues received from he

past.Public ntrepreneursharacteristicallyxploit uchcontradictions.

Lewisstudied hreeAmerican eaders as exemplaryases of entre-preneurial uccess: AdmiralHymanRickoverfordevelopingthenuclear ubmarine rogram; .EdgarHoover for reating nationalpolice nthe form ftheFBI; andRobertMoses forexpandingheauthorityorpublic erviceshielded rom oliticalnterference.

In viewof the conceptsofpublic entrepreneurs ound n theliterature nd theobservation fbehavior ofentrepreneurial u-reaucrats, he authors findthatentrepreneurial ureaucrats arecharacterizeds:

1 change riented;2. innovative;3 • taskoriented;

4 . optimisticntheir erspectiveoward hefuture;5 . breaking ut oftheconfines froutine nd taking isksbygoing eyond heroutine;

6 • seeking igher alues; nd



(512)PAQ WINTER 1993

Ö

líCQ

ioHQ

Wtí

Stu

faootí

I8

•o ; s ;; cu -h :

: , ^ ¡ tar*j ; a ■ -

- I C i -H -H : -H C *C« -h ¡ TJ tC ¡ +J O : i-- : fr« 'H J) | (j -h ■C0: '~> ' O O i* t^-i *J -V 73•« ; c; GJ '! î ¡-i ao ;t s¡<-» ; s > ; w rio; 6 S 4-> 'S *)•H : -H ^ i 2 Of ! -H 3 C i (3 CT3 • +J Ci 4J iîC 1(0 O il : 0»es ; 3 m i n ! n « ; w c -h ; > -^tt : O ~ i ^ •;-h £ : -h c fri ti frih !^c

~I w ¡ fr«u :t3uo ; - • o

I I I 'i : i '

! ' i !I I I ! ! -s

rH I i i Id)CJ 0) ! i i fri H•h c ro i w ! -h rtfri -h a> : c ! tar ; or co S3 +JÎ.P W-H CI

¡C0»0

(U ai 3 C C ¿A -H C ! -H T3 -HC >OÌO -Hflj +¿0 ■ 4->W -P0) -H fri i -h J4 g (d-HTJ

■+i C« (O

fr, 4-> fri rit »H +> 0) 0) -H 0) Na d tí o <p o -h ü v w >. fri ha) > c i or B 3 c i 'üocco

*J C > ¡ W ; CO (Ö 10 O-H ! (d ¿ fi «' QC CO) rt ¡ -^ Ä ¡WfriUi iOBOfriOw -h .2 i <t-> !friü ! rt Û- C ! « U E O «

1 ! i I

' i ' i

i : ; II ; ;

: C '■ i &i o ; : ;-<: -H i u ' 'jz; *J :

O : I 03v i d -h ¡t.♦i ! > : > : : O)•* ¡ •'-i d o . -o«3 '*-> : JC ^ , dfri ! O ; 0) O ! Oí

' +* ' B■JD : fri ¡-h



PAQ WINTER 1993 (513)

8*HwDÜE

C C;i T3 !

■ o -ai o;! 0> I î -H O * "H!

+-> ■ : ; *-> -p d: &w *>;i C | > , O W W CO

! -H | : | -H tjl 2C C C 4->ti i -p . ' *j ci i o (d m

! o '■ c ;.

w di -p q] -hi "O i a> j a) a) i -h w d •- fi •

C -P taf !>> T3 Di d) Q) O3 -H "

Irte u c t< i -h -h u u ^ ^ si No> o -h oj i +j v o» -h cm di co*■>w ¡--PO) ! d u w > o u' i <| owo> ce i w- iö o>tijccöi»n -h

I (0 ^ iT3 O -H ¡OJO) JSO)HQ)rrüja & l(( UH C S-i +■>W fH M «H •

! uní.. 3 'dioj i O -H 3 55 Û 3! 0)j| i *H >Lh Q, fe! Li

¡ i I a»-H 3 - a.i ! I a> o a ^ oí ci j ! T3 U' C OC- * (d

i ' ! O .Cl X -H O »Oj -H¡ ; j V Oí w « *h 3; .fi

! I j-Hj W 4J ü

! i ! »O-HjM 0>j -H

- w! -H

i ! <P <M| Cj 0) CDj•O i ! ; -H <M|

O d • ft > «ni a» ; i 3 js < fci-H oI ^j ! OJ ! ! W «DiO! «J V

i C i > ! i C H >. X CÖ >»«u Q> -H or ! ! o oi *h¡ íh ;*! +jC "H ! W C i I ü os! cd! C • • eö! •-«

a» o ! .¡ä w -H I > -H ¡ h¿+j o o a»> *J ' <D i 0) id *J ! -<h +J ed Hl -h! . - >4 o! >0)CÍ^ IJ-iüC!^ü-Hph!o -h

ä -h : *i :ßt-> n o ! 0)o fe! 0) . sU^ :3 ¡OOC ! O '** ! <*->0) • 2 TÎed o : «m ; u «M -H ¡aa ! cd^Töjc^-oja)

i ! ! i ■ g . >, c; ! ; ; o» co - o •

: ; i i c x edito -*' <d ••I ; o» ^!o5 o '-' ! u ü¡ - » fe' *i Oi

; 0) •• O O) -2• ! : <M a) m! • c mi ! ÛJ O í-l « " <' i ; U 3 T3I 0) "4' >■; : ! i-» 'Hi +- Q). "tj C

'■. : o» o a c ti cd si c id]0) o. o) <; ¡ H -h oí! cj U-: x ~: ! '

: Oí .> : ;

! «-> : . Qj : ..

ü ! g : -3 . cr0) i Cí 0 3 'Ja ti or *J ü

O> W : Of C -H (hE ti O

;d *- 3

: -H 0> ti'JE ^ O

«j a : a'o d

' w



(514) FAQ WINTER1993

7 motivatedor chievements.

Some orall of these raits haracterizeublic ntrepreneursntheUnitedStates and entrepreneurialureaucratsn Korea.However,heres a distinctifferencenthe cale f ntrepreneurialconcerns etween orea and theUnited tates. ublic ntrepre-neursntheUnited tates eem obe concerned ith functionalchange fpublic rganizationr itsoperationalubstance.n con-

trast,heentrepreneurialureaucratsf Koreatook othemselvesthe asks fcreatinghepublicnstitutionsoaddressheproblemsofeconomic rowths well s the ask frestructuringheentirenationalconomyndmodernizingt.

TYPOLOGY OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUREAUCRACY

Bellone nd Goerl 1989:8)classifiedublic ntrepreneurshipinto hree ypes:1) policyntrepreneurship;2) economic ntre-preneurship;nd (3) civic ntrepreneurship.he three ypes f

entrepreneurshiprecharacterizeds follows:I. Policy Entrepreneurship

A, New policy directionB, Creation of new agenciesC, Better servicesD, Creation of new servicesE, Implementation of policies

II. Economic EntrepreneurshipA. New revenue generation plans (in-

cluding user and development fees)B. Cost cutting schemesC. PrivatizationD. Load sheddingE. Municipal leasingF# New budget systems rewarding sav-

ingG. Public/private partnershipsH. Local economic development plansI. Public investmentsJ. Public enterprisesK, Marketing and selling of public

services



FAQ WINTER1993 (515)

III. Civic EntrepreneurshipA. Co-production of public servicesB. Volunteer bureausC. Co-termination in policy

design/evaluation of publicservices1. citizen budget committees2. neighborhood conciliation/

mediation services3. citizen planning and reviewcommittees

D. Civic education.

Theentrepreneurialureaucracys the uthorsse the oncept erecombineshepolicyndeconomicntrepreneurshipnthepublicsector.nFigure theyttemptodistinguishhe ntrepreneurialbureaucracyromhe raditionalureaucracy.

KOREAN BUREAUCRACYANDECONOMIC GROWTH

What ctuallyas the ntrepreneurialureaucracyonefor heeconomic evelopmentfKorea?The period uring hich ntre-preneurialureaucracyasplayed pivotalole n Korea's conom-icdevelopmentovers earlyhree ecades, he1960s, 970s, nd1980s ndthe enureftwopresidents-Parkhung ee andChunDoo Hwan.

Economic evelopmentasthepolicy riorityor othpresi-dents nd

theyxerted

trongnfluenceneconomic

evelopmentpolicy. owever,heir nowledgefeconomics,he engthf enureinoffice,nd eadershiptylemade significantifferencenthedegree f directnvolvementneconomic olicy ecision-makingbetweenhe wo residents.residentarkwas hands-oneaderneconomicolicy ecisions hile residenthundelegatedmuch fthe uthorityothe enior fficialsftheeconomic ureaucracy(Chung,989).

Nevertheless,henature f theeconomicureaucracynstruc-ture, ersonality,ndproceduress well s in tsmission,as been

creatednd set under hedirectionfPresidentark.Fornearlytwenty ears noffice, is administrationreatednstitutionsoreconomic evelopmentuch s theEconomic lanningoard, heInner abinet ftheBlueHouseSecretariesor conomic ffairs,




research rmsof thegovernmentikethe KoreaDevelopmentnsti-tute KDI), and thebankingnstitutions.

In brief,what has the economic bureaucracydone fortheeconomicdevelopment f Korea? The centralroles included: 1)policy lanning;2) capital ormation;3) credit llocation;4) prior-ity etting f ndustrialnvestment;5) public enterprises; nd (6)technicalupport.

It was the economic ureaucracynderPresident arkthat niti-

ated thefive-yearconomicdevelopment lans n 1961 that ctuallyguidedand encouragedthepublic sector and private ctionsforindustrialevelopment.ythetimePresident ark was assassinatedin 1979, hefourth ive-yearconomicdevelopment lan continuedunderPresidentChun.According o a seminalstudy f economicpolicy-makingnderPresident ark,thepolicyformation rocesswas characterizeds pragmatism,articularism,entralization,ndopennessJones ndSakong, 980).

The government as instrumental orcapital formation incemostforeign apitalobtainedthroughoan required government

guarantee.Thus,theforeignoan was practicallyhe same as thecapital reated ythegovernment.urthermore,overnmentontroloverthecreditmarketwas decisive.Jones nd Sakong (1980:102)write:

Governmentnterventionn thecreditmarket s notconfinedto the

powerto set interest ates ndprovide llocation uidelines.Much more

importantsthepowerfordirect iscretionarynterventionnthealloca-tionprocess.This followsfrom wo institutional actors.First,both

special-purposend commercial anks have been public enterprisesn

the sense thatgovernmentontrolled nternal ecision-makinghroughthepowerto appoint top management.econd,all foreignoans (saveshort-termuppliers' redits)mustbe subjected o governmentpprovalandguarantee.

The government as developed and managed a large variety fpublic enterprises irectly.More than one hundredmajor publicenterprisesre undergovernmentontrol,ncludinguchkey ndus-tries s electric ower, teel and iron, ommunicationystems,ele-

visionnetworks,nd railroads. he role of thesepublic nterprisesssignificantnthegrowthfeconomy.Finally, hegovernmentstablishedhepublicly unded esearch

and service rganizations.ncluded mong hebestknown esearch




organizationsreKDI for conomic olicy esearch nd KAIST(KoreanAdvancednstituteor cience ndTechnology)or cien-tific ndtechnologicalesearch ndeducation. OTRA (KoreaTradePromotionorporation) asestablishedopromoterade,specificallyxport,ithoreignountries.

Thisbriefly ighlightsome salient oles of entrepreneurialbureaucracynKorean conomicevelopment.

CULTURAL ROOTSKorea s an old nation ithomplexulturalraditionsnd his-

torical ackground.t s notpossibleo dentifyne or a few omi-nant ulturalariables hich anexplainherise fentrepreneurialbureaucracynthe econd alf fthe20th enturynKorea.But tseemsworthwhileoexplore possibilityodevelop culturalhypothesiss MaxWeber1958)did nrelatinghedevelopmentfcapitalisticconomyntheUnitedtateswith heProtestantthic fthe arlierettlersnthenew ontinent.

Oneexercise ere s anopen-endedearch o dentifyorea'sunique ulturallementshatwould ave ontributedothemakingofentrepreneurialureaucracy.hesearchwill ocus n a few ul-tural lementsf Korea nddiscuss heir ossible ontributionsotheriseofentrepreneurialureaucracy.hey nclude:1) culturalpositionndforeignulture;2) the ulturef nterpersonalies; 3)theConfucianulture;nd 4) creativity.

1.Cultureosition ndAcceptance fForeign ulture

Interms f ulturalopography,orean ulturespositioneds amarginalulturenrelation oa centralultures exemplifiedyChina nd ndianAsia. nEurope, rance sconsiderednation fcentralulture is-a-visnglandnd taly eingmarginalultures.Thetwo ulturalositionsresignificantnthedifferencef theirresponseo alien ultures.marginalultureends oaccommodatea foreignulturemore eadily, hereas centralultureends orejecthe oreignultureLee,1983:270-274;erner,958:38-40).

The patternfdiffusionf a foreignulturen therecipient

societysalsodifferentependingnthe ocial tratantowhichhealiencultures firstntroduced. hen hediffusions downwardfromheupper lass f he ociety,he esistancesrelativelyeak,whereas henhediffusions a bottomp process,he esistanceo



(SIS) PAQ WINTER1993

Z

g55

QW ItiŒ 05H D

"Si

E J bu

s*><

<

•H0 4JÜ fO

fO HO-P -H gW TJ g

G r* -H 0) OTJ O 03 W (Dû

m h o a) au05 (/) £ k CO id

G *H

O -H JQ roQ Td - ^

(1)«->Ü WGO) <D(Od) O4-> Ü Gw o (d•H ^ 4->W Q4 M0) -HM G 0)

•H Q)Cn UG 3s

G OO XO ^H id•H .p W 0)

T3 W CO^ S

fd<h

Ä-h rd ü

fHH Q) (d O(d M G MM 3 -H 3

G H V4H0) ^ (d Û U SU




theforeign ulture s strongLee, 1983). This diffusion attern sshownna matrixnFigure

In the case of a matrixa), thenations f central ulture end toresistthe alien culturefirstntroduced t the lower strata of thesociety.A case inpoint s thediffusion f firearmsntroducedbyPortuguesemerchantso China and Japan.The Portuguese ntro-duced firearms o China in 1514 and to Japan in 1542. Japan, amarginal ountry, as quick nadopting he newweapon, develop-

ing t furtherndproducingt themselvesn

large quantities. apanused firearmsn the 1592-1599 nvasion f Korea. China,a centralculture, id notadopt theweapon for tsuse until1629,30 yearsafter heJapanese nvasionof Korea was ended.A contemporarycase in Europe is the French resistanceto the "invasion" f theEnglishanguage.

An exampleofupwarddiffusionfforeignulture s the adop-tionofCatholicismnKorea. Two hundred ears go,whenCatholi-cismwasfirstntroducedya Korean Fatherordained nChina,theconcept f human qualitynd social reformsdvocatedbyCatholi-

cism was attractiveo thelower class of Korean society.However,the court oftheLee Dynasty nd theupperclass regarded t as adangerous hreat o the Confucian radition fthesocial orderandruthlesslyppressed he Western eligion nitially.he earlyhistoryof CatholicismnKorea was thatofpersecutionndmartyrdom.ttook more than one hundredyearsbeforeChristianityas accept-able to thecourt ndupper lassand itbecame thepowerful ehicleto transmitheWestern ulture nd civilization o modernKorea(Yoo, 1970:209).

The generalnature of Korean culture as a marginalculture,morereadily eceptive foutside ulture,s believed ohaveplayeda significantole nthedramatic ise ofentrepreneurialureaucracyin the 1960s. This risesymbolizes he acceptanceofthe Westerneconomic ystem,ncluding echnology,lanning nd management,industrialtructure,ndmarketing.

2. TheCulturef nterpersonalies

Asia ingeneralhas a culturalendencyf"personalism""is-a-vis

the "legalism" f the West as a wayof defining he relationshipbetweenindividuals and groups,especially forbusiness. WhenAmericanbusinessmenome intocontactwithKorean,Chinese orJapanese businessmenforbusinessnegotiations, heAmericans'




overriding oncern would likelybe to sign a "legally bindingcontract." he Asianpartners,n theotherhand,wouldnothurryfor uch a contract ut be more nclined o getto knoweach otherbetter nd establish personalrelationship.his is not an uncom-monexperience or hosewho have had an opportunityo be a partyinan East-Westbusiness ontract.

The interpersonalelationships believed o be even more inti-mate nKoreantradition. his interpersonal elationships much

like"bonding"tartingt the birthnrelation o "mother"nd otherfamilymembersnitiallynd suchrelationshipxtends o thesocial,economic, ndpolitical ealm fprofessionalelationshipater s anadult. The childrearingmethod tself s distinct.When a child isborn,thebabywill sleep, play,and be fed in the bosom of themother.The babywill not be isolated in a cradle or crib as iscommon n the Westernculture.This interpersonal elationshippromotes ntimacynd selectivityn forging riendshipnd teamwork s much s demandingoyaltynd mutual rust. resident arkChungHee was successfuln utilizinghis nterpersonalulture n

buildingheeconomic olicy eam nthe 1960s ndguiding he teamto lead thedevelopmentfforto a dramaticuccess.The interpersonalulturewas moreoften hannotregarded s a

sourceofproblemsnKoreanhistory.tbecame thebasis ofpolitical*cliques and factions nd unceasing nd relentless onflicts o theextent fparalyzinghegovernance ystem. venthewayPresidentParkused this nterpersonalulturefor thepurposeof his teambuildingnd economic evelopmentas beenwidely ndconvincing-lyaccused forhavingaccentuated the inter-regional nimositybetween heYoungnam egionwhichwas specially avored yParkandtheHonamregion argelyxcluded rom isteam.

In the UnitedStates, "networking"s preferrednprofessionalrelationship.hisconcept ncourages eaching ut,accommodatingthebreadth nddiversity,ndmaintainingherelationshipunctionalandtemporary.ncontrast,hepersonal elationshipfKoreantradi-tion s a "line-making"n theprofessional elationshipnstead ofnetworking.hispersonal ine-makingncourages xclusive elation-ships nstead f nclusive ndaccommodatingelationshipsfdiversi-ty. t loses a universalpprovalwhile njoying loyalpartisanship.

3. TheConfucian ulture

Although hepervasiveness aries,Confucianisms a cultural




foundationommonmong orea, aiwan, ingapore, ongKong,andJapan.t s noaccident hat ll theseAsianeconomic owersshare hecommonulturaleritage. pparently,hina s encour-agedby he uccess ftheneighboringountriesftheConfucianheritage hen t articulatests mbition or conomicmoderniza-tion.

For more han500years,Koreanculturewas dominated yConfucianism.he Confucian eritages believed o have made

strongontributionso thedevelopmentftheentrepreneurialbureaucracynthe 1960s.Nevertheless, e have to admit hatConfucianismasusuallyeenblamed or eeping oreaunderhegrip feconomicndtechnologicalackwardness.hedynamicsfConfucianismasharnessedyPresidentark obuild productivebureaucracyoserve s the nginefeconomicevelopment.onesandSakong1980:48) escribehe elationshipfConfucianismndthe conomicureaucracy:

The Confucianculturalheritage nculcatesa value systembased on

"correct"uperior-subordinateelationshipsf the sort conduciveto asmoothly perating ierarchy.urther,heprestige ttached o govern-mentwork, he stress on education and the competitivemerit-basedselection rocedurensureCivilService uality.

A partof economicsuccess ofKorea (and East Asia ingeneral) is at-tributableo a cultural ompatibilityith ffective ierarchicalrganiza-tion. n any vent,nmoving romRheetoPark, hebureaucracy as not

simply eoriented nd somewhat eorganized utshifted o theforefrontofeconomic ecision-makingffort.

A part f his onfucianulturesalsomanifestedy he iteraticultureSonbiMoonwha) f Korea.The literatiulture espectsintellectualccomplishments.owever,he ntellectualsreregard-edas "uncompromising"nd unpractical."ut hepositiveontribu-tion f he iteratiulture ay efoundnthat tmotivateseople'sbehavior otoutofthe alculationfmaterialainbutout oftheTightnessf uch ommitment.imply,hisConfucianubculturemay ossiblyavemotivatedhebureaucraticlite obe entrepre-

neurialnbuildingnew conomyor henation. hisnonmaterialmotivations evenmore videntor abor han or heothers. heKoreanaborforce uringhe1960s nd1970swas theHerculeanforcehat rove ptheproductivityf he conomyta breathneck




speed despite eingnotoriouslynderpaid.1What can be observed oday nEast Asia and Korea is thatthe

Confucian xecutivesre highlyntrepreneurialn business s wellas in government.he relationshipetween he Confucian ultureand entrepreneurialureaucracys notcompletelyelf-evidentndoften ontradictory.evertheless, strong elationships suspectedinthepossibilityhat heConfucian ulturehas become a positiveforce or henew ndustrialismndthegovernmentfficacyn lead-

ingthe ndustrialization

ffortsindicated reviously

nthis ection.The need to specifyhenexusof the Confucian ulture nd entre-

preneurshipn thepublic ndprivate ectorsmerits serious tten-tion n futureesearch.

4.Creativity

It is uncertain hether orean culture an be considered s oneofencouragingndrewardingreativityr not.Butit s certain hatcreativity s a part of Korean culture. The Hangul (Korean

alphabet),movablemetal ypeforprinting,ronclad warships,ndcaladons are someoftheKorean inventions.More than150yearsbeforeGutenberg1400-1468),movable metaltypewas used forprintingnKorea.

To builda new ndustrialconomy fa global significanceroman agrarian ubsistenceconomyt was undoubtedly ecessary orthepeople to be creative.The creativepotentialof the Koreansseemstohavesurfaced nderthestimulus f theeconomicdevel-opment rive fPresident arkChungHee.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe economicdevelopment f Korea in the1960s,1970s,and

19809swas led bythegovernmentnpartnership ith hebusinesscommunitynd the labor force.The economicbureaucracywaslargely onstructedyPresident arkas a vehicle to carry uthisvision f economic evelopment.hebureaucracy asentrepreneur-ial inthe classic enseoftheterm. t initiated heplansfornationaleconomicdevelopmentndvirtuallyllocatedcapitalto finance he

development rogramsnd

projects.By virtueof allocatingthecapital, hebureaucracy ractically etermined hepriorityf thedevelopmentrogramsndprojects,husdetermininghich orpo-rationwouldreceivehowmuch fthecapital ofinancewhat pecific




productionacilities.In addition, hegovernmentndertook he task ofestablishing

extensiveublic nterprisesndrunninghem.Also important asthegovernment'sunding esearch nd developmentn supportofeconomic olicy apacityndtechnologicaldvancement,

The authorshave searched he cultural ootsbehindthe suddenrise ofentrepreneurialureaucracy nd itsmiraculous uccess inbringingbout the economicmodernization. he Korean culture,

being marginalne, sreceptivefforeignulture omparedwithcentral ulture. he marginal ulture f Korea helpsto explainthespeedydiffusion f the Western conomicsystem nd process in-cluding echnologynKorea.

The "Personal ulture," hich smuch ikea bondingnintimacy,permanence,nd selectivity,lso helpsto explain heteamwork fthe economicbureaucracyenteringroundPresident arkforthepursuitf economic evelopment.

The Confucian ulturalheritage s possibly mostpromisingculturalroot to account forthe sudden rise of entrepreneurial

bureaucracy. he Confusionmphasis n hierarchical elationship,education, nd prestige fgovernment ork s a powerful ulturalheritage.This culturaldynamics ould have been firedup bythecharismaticoliticaleader,President ark, o motivatend capaci-tate thebureaucracy. he political eadership eems to have servedas a catalystoconvertheConfucianultural eritage,ongconsid-ered a negative orce gainst ocial progress,nto a dynamicnflu-encetocapacitate hebureaucracyor ntrepreneurialeadership.

These cultural ariables ndothers ertainly rovide ome of thenecessary onditions orthe rise of

entrepreneurialureaucracyn

the1960s, uttheyrenotnecessarilyufficientonditions or t.In viewofthecommon xperienceharedbysomeselectedEast

Asian countriesntheirConfucian ultural eritage nd thesuccessofeconomic evelopment,heConfucianulturemay ndeedbe heldfor promising ariabletounravel hecultural oots ofthe entre-preneurial ureaucracy. s notedpreviously,heConfucian xecu-tives re entrepreneurialnmanaging heeconomyfromboththepublic ndprivateectorsnKoreaandelsewherenEastAsia.

NOTES1.On theculture fnonmaterialisticotivationnKoreantradition, usefuldiscus-

sion is available inLee, K.T. (1983:38-39). In a journal ofa nineteenth entury




ChristianMissionary,nAmerican,atches heessenceof theuncalculatingatureof Korea's culturentherelationshipf work nd pay.The missionary itness nPusanthat workerwas hiredbya familynd he worked wholeday.When theworkwascompleted,heemployeewas offered heday'swagewhichwas less thanhe had expected.He walkedawaywithout aking hewage. As themissionarydiscovered, ersonalhonorwas more mportanto t Korean worker hanthe in-

sulting ay. Unfortunately,he authors re unableto trace thebook wheretheyfound hat tudymany ears go.

REFERENCES

Bellone,C.J. nd G.L. Goerl 1989). "PublicEntrepreneurshipnd Responsibilityna Democratic ociety." aperpresented t the 1989NationalConference f theAmerican ociety orPublicAdministration,iami.

Chung,C.K. (1989). "Presidential ecision-Making ndBureaucraticExpertise."GOVERNANCE 2:267-292.

Heady,F. and Colleagues (eds.) (1962). COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PUBLICADMINISTRATION. AnnArbor:UniversityfMichigan ress.

Jones,L.P. and I. Sakong (1980). GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, AND ENTRE-PRENEURSHIP IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: THE KOREAN CASE.

Cambridge: arvardUniversityress.

Kissinger,HA. (1957). NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND FOREIGN POLICY. NewYork:Harper.

Lee, H.B. (1966). THE ROLE OF HIGHER CIVIL SERVICE UNDER RAPIDSOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHANGE. Honolulu:East-WestCenter.

Lee, K.T. (1983).THE KOREAN MENTALITY. Seoul: ShinwonMoonwhasa.

Lerner,D. (1958).THE PASSING OF TRADITIONAL SOCIETY. Glencoe: FreePress.

Lewis,E. (1980). PUBLIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP: TOWARD A THEORY OFBUREAUCRATIC POLITICAL POWER. Bloomington: ndiana UniversityPress.

Weber,M. (1930, 1958). THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OFCAPITALISM. New York:Charles cribner's ons.

Yoon,T.L. (1970).THE KOREAN vol 1:209. eoul:Hyonamsa.

Documents

The Case of Korea