Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2023
Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program
Several modes of urban entrepreneurialism, variously composed of central-local, state-market, state-civil society, and domestic-international relations, have been apparent since the 1970s. Drawing inspiration from East Asian developmental states, we argue that it is under the most recent mode of urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 that the urban sources of exports and national economic development have been most fully mobilised by states. We illustrate this export of urban expertise with the case of South Korea’s International Information and Telecommunication Technology Program (ITTP), offered by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), which trains future ICT and city leaders from developing countries. We trace the history and effects of the ITTP through original empirical research involving interviews and a survey of graduates from the program. The ITTP is revealing of state intrapreneurialism in the export of sector-specific urban expertise with effects on national brands, new markets and the formation of new institutions. The case of the ITTP is one among a variety of means by which East Asian states in particular have projected urban expertise internationally. It also points to these states’ struggle to coordinate institutions involved in, and generate consensus around, national models of urban expertise to be exported.
AcutoM (2010) High-rise dubai urban entrepreneurialism and the technology of symbolic power. Cities27(4): 272–284.
2.
AcutoM (2013) City leadership in global governance. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations19(3): 481–498.
3.
AgnewJ (1994) The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy1(1): 53–80.
4.
AronczykM (2013) Branding the Nation: The Global Business of National Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BaruchY (1999) Response rate in academic studies-A comparative analysis. Human Relations52(4): 421–438.
6.
BayırbagMK (2010) Local entrepreneurialism and state rescaling in Turkey. Urban Studies47(2): 363–385.
7.
BrautigamDXiaoyangT (2011) African Shenzhen: China’s special economic zones in Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies49(1): 27–54.
8.
BrennerN (2009) Open questions on state rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society2: 123–139.
9.
BrennerNTheodoreN (2005) Neoliberalism and the urban condition. City9(1): 101–107.
10.
BrennerN (2003) Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies10(4): 297–324.
11.
BriggsA (1961) The Welfare State in historical perspective. European Journal of Sociology2(2): 221–258.
12.
ByunKKimM (2011) Shifting Patterns of the Government’s policies for the Internationalization of Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education15(5): 467–486.
13.
CardulloPFCesareDKitchinR (eds), (2019) The Right to the Smart City. Bingley, UK: Bingley Emerald.
14.
CarrollTJarvisD (2017) Asia after the Developmental State. Cambirdge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
ChangK-S (2019) Developmental Liberalism in South Korea: Formation, Degeneration, and Transnationalization. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
ChenXMMiaoJTLiX (2019), China-Led Globalization? Understanding and Making Policy for Risk in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Parkville, VIC: University of Melbourne.
17.
ChengAT (2022) Reinventing the industrial land use policy in democratized development states – A comparison of Taiwan and South Korea. Land Use Policy112: 105857–105859.
18.
ChoiY-SWrightDS (2004) Intergovernmental relation (IGR) In Korea and Japan: phases, patterns, and progress toward decentralization (Local Autonomy) in a trans-pacific context. International Review of Public Administration9(1): 1–22.
19.
ChongA (2009) singapore and the soft power experience. In: CooperAFShawTM (eds), The Diplomacies of Small States. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 65–80.
20.
ChoudrieJPapazafeiropoulouALeeH (2003) A web of stakeholders and strategies: a case of broadband diffusion in South Korea. Journal of Information Technology18(4): 281–290.
21.
ColombC (2012) Pushing the urban frontier: temporary uses of space, city marketing, and the creative City discourse in 2000S Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs34(2): 131–152.
22.
CoxM (2017) The rise of populism and the crisis of globalisation: brexit, trump and beyond. Irish Studies in International Affairs28(12): 9–17.
23.
DattaA (2015) New urban utopias of postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography5(1): 3–22.
24.
DavidsonKCoenenLAcutoM, et al. (2019) Reconfiguring urban governance in an age of rising city networks: a research agenda. Urban Studies56(16): 3540–3555.
25.
DemmersJJilbertoAEHogenboomB (2004) Good Governance in the Era of Global Neoliberalism. Londo, UK: Routledge.
26.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
27.
ExworthyMHalfordS (1998) Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
28.
FeldmanMPFrancisJ (2001) ‘Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters', Complexity and Industrial Clusters - Dynamics, Models, National Cases. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
HarveyD (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography71(1): 3–17.
32.
HollandsRG (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?City12(3): 303–320.
JessopB (1999) Narrating the future of the national economy and the national state: remarks on remapping regulation and reinventing governance. In: SteinmetzG. (ed), State/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 378–405.
35.
JessopB (1990) State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
36.
JonasAWardK (2002) World of regionalisms: towards a US–UK Urban and regional policy framework comparison. Journal of Urban Affairs24(4): 377–401.
37.
JonesMR (1997) Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space29(5): 831–864.
KangDParkMJ (2017) Competitive prospects of graduate program on the integration of ICT superiority, higher education, and international aid. Telematics and Informatics34: 1625–1637.
40.
KeatingM (1998) The New Regionalism in Western Europe: Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
41.
KimHMMiaoJTPhelpsNA (2020) International urban development leadership: Singapore, China and South Korea compared. In: Park ShinSHoon HyunBKangHS (eds), Exporting Urban Korea?. London: Routledge, pp. 131–145.
42.
LauermannJ (2018) Municipal statecraft: revisiting the geographies of the entrepreneurial city. Progress in Human Geography42(2): 205–224.
43.
LefèvreC (1998) Metropolitan government and governance in western countries: a critical review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research22(1): 9–25.
44.
LiYWuF (2012) The transformation of regional governance in China: the rescaling of statehood. Progress in Planning78(2): 55–99.
45.
LinkANLinkJR (2009) Government as Entrepreneur. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–208.
46.
MacLeodGGoodwinM (1999) Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human Geography23(4): 503–527.
47.
MazzucatoM (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector. Kindle Edition. Myths, London: Anthem Press.
48.
MazzucatoM (2016) From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation23(2): 140–156.
49.
MiaoJT (2018a) Parallelism and evolution in transnational policy transfer networks: the case of Sino-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP). Regional Studies52(9): 1191–1200.
50.
MiaoJT (2018b) Knowledge economy challenges for the post-developmental state: Tsukuba Science City as an in-between place. Town Planning Review89(1): 61–84.
51.
MiaoJTPhelpsNA (2019) The Intrapreneurial State: Singapore’s Emergence in the Smart and Sustainable Urban Solutions Field. Territory, Politics, Governance7(3): 316–335.
52.
MiaoJTMaclennanD (2019) The rhetoric–reality gap of cities’ success: learning from the practice of Scottish cities. Regional Studies53: 1761–1771. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1597970
53.
NorthDC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 4.
54.
NyeJS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. (New York, NY: PublicAffairs).
55.
O'RiainSean (2004) The Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network States in the Global Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
OngAihwa (2007) Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers32(1): 3–8.
57.
OsborneDGaeblerT (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
58.
OttoD (1996) Nongovernmental organizations in the united nations system: the emerging role of international civil society. Human Rights Quarterly18: 107–141.
59.
OwenKA (2002) The Sydney 2000 Olympics and urban entrepreneurialism: local variations in urban governance. Australian Geographical Studies40(3): 323–336.
60.
PahlR (1975) Whose City?: And Further Essays on Urban Society. New York, NY: Penguin.
61.
ParkB-G (2013) State rescaling in Non-Western contexts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(4): 1115–1122.
62.
ParkSHShinHBKangHS (eds), (2020) Exporting Urban Korea? Reconsidering the Korean Urban Development Experience. England, UK: Routledge.
63.
PeckJTickellA (2007) Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking Thatcherism. In: LeitnerHPeckJSheppardES (eds), Contesting neoliberalism. Urban frontiers. New York, NY: Guildford, pp. 26–50.
64.
PhelpsNAMiaoJT (2019) Varieties of urban entrepreneurialism. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 304–321.
65.
PhelpsNA (2009) Gaining from Globalization? State extraterritoriality and domestic economic impacts—the case of Singapore. Economic Geography83(4): 371–393.
66.
RhoS-YLeeSJ (2010) History and context of public administration in South Korea. In: BermanEMoonMChoiH (eds), Public Administration in East Asia. Boca Raton, MA: CRC Press, pp. 329–354.
67.
SaxenianAL (2002) Transnational communities and the evolution of global production networks: the case of Taiwan. Industry and Innovation9(3): 183–202.
68.
SchaaperM (2009) Measuring China’s Innovation System: National Specificities and International Comparisons. Paris, France: OECD, pp. 1–99
69.
SchindlerSKanaiJM (2019) Getting the territory right: infrastructure-led development and the re-emergence of spatial planning strategies. Regional Studies55: 40–51. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1661984.
70.
ScottAS (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–327.
71.
ShinHParkSHSonnJW, et al. (2015) The emergence of a multiscalar growth regime and scalar tension: the politics of urban development in Songdo New City, South Korea. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy33: 1618–1638.
72.
ShinHB (2016) Envisioned by the state: entrepreneurial urbanism and the making of Songdo City, South Korea. In: DattaAAbdulS (eds), Mega-Urbanization in the Global South: Fast Cities and New Urban Utopias of the Postcolonial State. London, UK: Routledge.
73.
ShinK-HTimberlakeM (2006) Korea’s Global City. International Journal of Comparative Sociology47(2): 145–173.
74.
SlaughterSLeslieLL (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–276.
75.
SonnJW (2010) Contesting state rescaling: an analysis of the South Korean State’s discursive strategy against devolution. Antipode42(5): 1200–1224.
76.
SpringerSBirchKMacLeavyJ (2016) The Handbook of Neoliberalism. London, UK: Routledge.
77.
UttamJ (2019) Beyond Neo-liberalism: analyzing the ‘post-developmental state’ in South Korea. International Studies56(4): 236–254.
78.
VallerDPhelpsNAWoodAM (2012) Planning for growth? The implications of localism for ‘Science Vale. Town Planning Review83(4): 457–488.
79.
WatanukiJ (1973) Some Reflections on the Typology of Nation-Building in Asia. Tokyo: Sophia University.
80.
WilliamsP (1978) Urban Managerialism: a concept of relevance?Area10(3): 236–240.
81.
WilsonD (2017) Enrepreneurialism. In: JayneMWardK (eds), Urban Theory: New Critical Perspectives. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 122–133.
82.
Woo-CumingsM (1999) The Developmental State. London, UK: Cornell University Press.
83.
WoodA (1998) Making sense of urban entrepreneurialism. Scottish Geographical Magazine114(2): 120–123.
84.
WoodABrockT (2015) Urban entrepreneurialism. In: WrightJD (ed), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 795–799.
85.
WuF (2015) Planning for Growth: Urban and Regional Planning in China. London, UK: Routledge.
86.
WuFPhelpsNA (2011) Post-)suburban development and state entrepreneurialism in Beijing’s outer suburbs. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space43: 410–430.
87.
YeohCHowNgeeWPZhangY (2014) Refocusing the lens: Singapore’s Private Enterprises in China. Research Journal of Economics and Business Studies3(3): 11–17.
