Last updated on August 16, 2024
People usually don’t think of the United States as playing catch up. Many view notion of a “global standard” as a code for Americanization. Much of the discomfort about globalization stems from the same fears. Despite a harsh recession and the steady rise of China, the U.S. remains the preeminent cultural, economic, and military power in the world.
Things were different in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Industrialization after the Civil War changed society rapidly. Immigrants from overseas poured into booming cities and a new wealthy elite rose on the profits of their labor. Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt accumulated vast wealth and power. Overseas, the U.S. began to project power, particularly in the Pacific.
For all the new wealth and power, the U.S. lagged behind Europe culturally. European universities and cultural and educational institutions were centers of new trends and ideas. Consider the following: the British Museum was founded in 1753, the Louvre opened as a museum in 1793, and Humboldt University of Berlin, the first research university, was founded in 1810.
In the late 19th century, the increasingly rich and powerful U.S. looked at the European institutions and decided to create its own competing institutions. The Smithsonian Institution was established in 1846, but did not grow until later in the 19th century. The Metropolitan Museum of Art was founded in 1870 by a group that wanted to create a first-class art museum in the U.S.
Johns Hopkins University was founded on the German research university model in 1876, making it the first such university in the U.S. Throughout the rest of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, civic leaders in major cities worked with philanthropist to build large museums, universities, libraries, and other cultural institutions.
In the wake of World War I, the U.S. became the most powerful nation in the world and Europe began to lose its role as a cultural benchmark. After World War II, the U.S. emerged as a superpower and became the benchmark for others to follow. Europe remains a culinary benchmark as anyone familiar with the rise of Starbucks knows. After visiting Italy, Starbucks cofounder Howard Schultz decided to bring good coffee to America.
What does all of this mean for Korea? Like the U.S. in the late 19th century, Korea, too, has seen massive industrialization and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the newly rich class. And like the U.S., Korea has used other nations as benchmarks.
During the push for economic growth, Japan was the primary benchmark. After the 1997 economic crisis, the U.S. emerged as the primary benchmark in a wide range of areas under the code word “global standard.” During the struggle for democratization, the U.S. was the benchmark for democracy.
Much ink has been spilled about the problems of using the U.S. as a benchmark. The same holds true, of course, for Americans in the 19th century who looked to Europe. Benchmarking is not about borrowing distinct, practical ideas, but about borrowing big ideas.
It is successful when discussed in broad terms and when the commitment to implementation is strong and sustained. Only strong and sustained commitments can stir the will to provide the funds necessary to support them.
The problem in building world-class cultural and educational institutions in Korea is commitment. Efforts often begin with a flourish, often with considerable funding, but tapper off with changes in leadership. Korean leaders do not like to promote their predecessor’s projects. Indeed, they often stop projects entirely and highlight them as examples of their predecessor’s faults.
The effects of changes at the top relates to governance. Institutions need independence to protect themselves from changes in political leadership and to develop expertise among the staff. Frequent changes in staff make it difficult to maintain a commitment to excellence. Staff changes in Korean institutions often come furiously, often forcing successors to learn on the job, which makes it difficult to cultivate expertise.
And then there is money. The most common sources of funding are taxes and donations. As time goes by, many institutions rely more heavily on donations that create an endowment. Large institutions, particularly universities, own large endowments that are invested to produce funds for running the institution.
President Park Geun-hye is interested in promoting culture, but to do so, she should focus on improving the governance of institutions and encouraging Koreans of means to contribute to them. Big ideas and excellence will follow.