163
not get the academic attention they deserve. A recognition of their sociological significance will pose a different set of questions in the study of industrial entrepreneurship. A central issue in the field of Japanese industrial growth, for example, has been the supply of modern entrepreneurs from the traditional samurai class. Most researchers, in my view, are preoccupied with determining the extent of samurai participation in industrial leadership (See Hirschmeier 1964; Yamamura 1974). It should not be surprising to find that the samurai's performance as entrepreneurs was lacklustre if their industrial importance lay elsewhere. Their strict code of honour, their willingness to observe regulations, and their devotion to service most probably qualified them to become loyal and competent industrial bureaucrats instead of leaders. Similarly, in the comparative studies of Chinese and Japanese modernization, the differences in their traditional class structure have been noted. Both structures were hierarchical, but the Japanese one was 'feudalistic' in the sense that class boundaries were rigid and impermeable, whereas the Chinese one did not bar individual mobility. From this difference, observers usually deduce implications for capital accumulation. Since the status of merchant in Japan was hereditary, it facilitated the formation of mercantile capital. Chinese merchants, on the other hand, would urge their sons to become officials and convert their wealth into land to gain gentry status, thus commercial capital as well as talent were dissipated (Levy 1955). But the different stratification system might also have far-reaching consequences for the emergence of a stable and dedicated middle managerial stratum in the two societies. My hypothesis is that the pervasive ambition to move up the social ladder in Chinese society tends to deny the Chinese industrial entrepreneurs dependable executives. I cannot fully substantiate this idea here. Let me simply suggest some of the likely consequences of this hypothesized absence of a dedicated managerial stratum in the Hong Kong cotton spinning industry. This deficiency does not necessarily hamper the overall vitality of the industry. Rather, it can create its own kind of dynamism. One spinner, B22, attributed the success of Hong Kong textile industry to the prevalent desire for self-employment:
Japanese and South Korean workers are very obedient. But
163
not get the academic attention they deserve. A recognition of their sociological significance will pose a different set of questions in the study of industrial entrepreneurship. A central issue in the field of Japanese industrial growth, for example, has been the supply of modern entrepreneurs from the traditional samurai class. Most researchers, in my view, are preoccupied with determining the extent of samurai participation in industrial leadership, (See Hirschmeier 1964; Yamamura 1974). It should not be surprising to find that the samurai's performance as entrepreneurs was lack-lustre if their industrial importance lay elsewhere. Their strict code of honour, their willingness to observe regulations, and their devotion to service most probably qualified them to become loyal and competent industrial bureaucrats instead of leaders. Similarly, in the comparative studies of Chinese and Japanese modernization, the differences in their traditional class structure have been noted. Both structures were hierarchical, but the Japanese one was 'feudalistic' in the sense that class boundaries were rigid and impermeable, whereas the Chinese one did not bar individual mobility. From this difference, observers usually deduce implications for capital accumulation. Since the status of merchant in Japan was hereditary, it facilitated the formation of mercantile capital. Chinese merchants, on the other hand, would urge their sons to become officials and convert their wealth into land to gain gentry status, thus commercial capital as well as talent were dissipated, (Levy 1955). But the different stratification system might also have far-reaching consequences for the emergence of a stable and dedicated middle managerial stratum in the two societies. My hypothesis is that the pervasive ambition to move up the social ladder in Chinese society tends to deny the Chinese industrial entrepreneurs dependable executives. I cannot fully substantiate this idea here. Let me simply suggest some of the likely consequences of this hypothesized absence of a dedicated managerial stratum in the Hong Kong cotton spinning industry. This deficiency does not necessarily hamper the overall vitality of the industry. Rather, it can create its own kind of dynamism. One spinner, B22, attributed the success of Hong Kong textile industry to the prevalent desire for self-employment:
Japanese and South Korean workers are very obedient. But
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.