[
    {
        "id": 209921,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1983",
        "page_number": 180,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "158\n\nthemselves in the 1940s. They are not professional managers. If they are professionals, they can argue and agree even if their opinions differ. But as owners themselves, if I am the founder, then my idea is the idea.\" \n\nThis view was supplemented by others' remarks such as 'there are large companies and small companies. The small ones do not want to be under others' control'; 'thirty-three mills have thirty-three managing directors, and who will give up?' This fierce insistence on entrepreneurial independence and autonomy is a likely cause for the stark contrast between Chinese industry and its Japanese and Western equivalents - the rarity of oligopolistic groupings such as the Zaibatsu, the cartels, and the trusts in Chinese industry. \n\nAutonomy \n\nDavid C. McClelland has extended his studies on achievement motivation to the Chinese case (1963: 6-17). Apart from methodological problems, his investigation is marred by the unsatisfactory questions that guide his research. The meaningful question, I think, is not whether the Chinese are keen to achieve or not, but what targets they are striving for and what kind of individual cost-and-benefit calculations are involved. Various studies on Chinese economic values and conduct point to a common feature: self-employment is at a premium. A small Hong Kong industrialist expressed this vividly when he was reported to say that 'a Shanghainese at forty who has not yet made himself owner of a firm is a failure, a good-for-nothing' (King and Leung 1975: 34; see also Sit, Wong and Kiang 1979: 297-310; Olsen 1972: 291; Ryan 1961: 20-31). Since most of these studies are concerned with Chinese businessmen operating firms of limited scale, it is possible that such a preference is engendered by the structure of small industry. Therefore, the attitude toward self-employment among the spinners who were large employers will help to decide whether the autonomy value is prevalent throughout Chinese industry. In my interviews, I put forth the following hypothetical situation: \n\n'Let's assume that during the earlier part of your career, you had the options of becoming either the senior executive \n\nPage 180\n\nPage 181",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209933,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1983",
        "page_number": 192,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "170\n\nGlassburner, Bruce, and James Riedel. 1972. “Government in The Economy of Hong Kong\", Economic Record 48, No. 1: 58-75.\n\nHeilbroner, Robert Louis. 1964. \"The View From The Top: Reflections on a Changing Business Ideology\". In The Business Establishment, ed. by E.F. Cheit, New York, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1-36.\n\nHirschmeier, Johannes. 1964. The Origins of Entrepreneurship in Meiji Japan. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.\n\nHo, Ping-ti. 1962. The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368-1911. New York and London, Columbia University Press.\n\nHong Kong Cotton Spinners Association. 1973. \"Annual Reports of The General Committee\". Hong Kong, The Association, mimeographed.\n\nKing, Ambrose Y.C., and Davy H.K. Leung, 1975. \"The Chinese Touch in Small Industrial Organization\". Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Social Research Centre, occasional paper.\n\nLevy, Marion J., Jr. 1955. “Contrasting Factors in The Modernization of China and Japan\". In Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan, ed. by S. Kuznets, W.E. Moore, and J.J. Spengler, Durham, Duke University Press, pp. 496-536.\n\nMcClelland, David C. 1963. \"Motivational Patterns in Southeast Asia with Special Reference to the Chinese Case\". The Journal of Social Issues 19, No. 1: 6-19.\n\nMannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.\n\nMarx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. (1888) 1967. The Communist Manifesto. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.\n\nMayer, K. 1953. \"Business Enterprise: Traditional Symbol of Opportunity\". British Journal of Sociology 4, No. 2: 160-180.\n\nMiners, Norman, 1981. The Government and Politics of Hong Kong. Hong Kong, Oxford University Press.\n\nNichols, Theo. 1969. Ownership, Control, and Ideology: An Inquiry Into Certain Aspects of Modern Business Ideology. London, George Allen and Unwin.\n\nOksenberg, Michel. 1972. \"Management Practices in The Hong Kong Cotton Spinning and Weaving Industry.\" Paper read at seminar on Modern East Asia, Columbia University.\n\nOlson, Stephen M. 1972. \"The Inculcation of Economic Values in Taipei Business Families\". In Economic Organization in Chinese Society, ed. by William F. Willmott, Stanford, Stanford University Press, pp. 261-296.\n\nOwen, Nicholas C. 1971. \"Economic Policy in Hong Kong\". In Hong Kong: The Industrial Colony, ed. by Keith Hopkins, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press.\n\nPan, F.K. 1974. \"The Simple Truth of Management and Maintenance”, a lecture delivered on 21st June, Hong Kong.\n\nRyan, Edward, 1961. \"The Value System of a Chinese Community in Java\". Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.\n\nSeider, Maynard S. 1974. \"American Big Business Ideology: A Content Analysis of Executive Speeches\". American Sociological Review 39, No. 6: 802-815.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    }
]