Formation And Development Of Ethnic Entrepreneurship Of Koryo Saram In Kazakhstan

FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP OF KORYO SARAM IN KAZAKHSTAN?

Dr., Prof. German Kim

IDE (Chiba, Japan) Visiting Research Fellow

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of sovereign states opened a new page in the history of the "Koryo saram". Opposite to other ethnic minorities, that have chosen the strategy of leaving the former Soviet Central Asian Republics, the Koreans have stayed but they are again being forced to adapt and this time to the nationalizing states.

The Korean Immigrant communities living scattered over the world are demonstrating one specific feature - their special ability to adapt themselves in the host countries. Koryo saram are, in this sense, a remarkable case. The first generation of Koryo saram tried as fast as possible to settle down on the land of the tsarist empire and later of the Soviet Russia. That generation learned Russian and accepted Orthodoxy, and then a couple of dozen years later quickly abandoned the religion, following the Communist Party line. They ploughed in both direct and figurative senses the virgin lands and prepared them for sowing. The second generation did not have time to taste the first fruits of their labor in the new lands. They were forced to repeat the mission of the previous generation, that is, to adapt after the Deportation of 1937 to the conditions in a new land, namely Central Asia. That generation heroically withstood all the difficulties and created, so it seemed, a solid foundation for the third generation. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the third generation also turned out to be pioneering because they were forced to adapt to the new sovereign states of the post-Soviet area.

The end of the 20^th and beginning of the 21^st cc. for the vast Eurasian space is characterized by a stable interest in the analysis of various aspects of entrepreneurship. The reason is evident - it is during that period that in the post-Soviet states including Russia and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan) there appeared political, economic and legal grounds for market relations, the basis of which was the entrepreneurship. The latter became a topic of research for many scholars.

At the same time in the world scholarly research of the last decade great interest was taken in the paradigm of the ethnic entrepreneurship which is related, first of all, to the international migrations which have embraced millions of people and hundreds of countries in all the continents. On the eve of the 21^st century the Asian continent has turned not only into the arena of the leading world economy players: China, Japan, South Korea and other Asian "dragons" but also of the transnational exchange of labor resources. For instance, from the South Korea which occupies the 11^th place in the rating of the developed countries of the world, every year dozens of thousands people leave for other countries with the aim of achieving success in business, family and personal life. At present in Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan, the number of permanent South Korean residents is around 3 thousand. The South Korea itself in its turn has to receive hundreds of thousands immigrants who help to fight the deficit of labor and are engaged in unqualified work.

In the post-Soviet states of the Central Asia which are on the way to strengthening their national sovereignty on the basis of the so-called titular (autochthon) nations, ethnic minorities found themselves facing the dilemma of competition in the state sector of the economy, big business or occupying niches in the sphere of small and medium enterprises. Some representatives of non-titular ethnoses managed to get a place at the top of the economic Olympus but the majority of ethnic minorities adapted in the low and medium level of business.

Ethnic entrepreneurs need to develop socially meaningful relationships with the ethnic community in order to start a business. To start a business, ethnic entrepreneurs draw on co-ethnics to help them, but these ties are not given. They have to activate their networks for them to become social capital. People come to recognize each other as part of the same ethnic group by defining them as belonging. In other words, people recognize as familiar co ethnics those that share networks. Ethnic entrepreneurs mobilize social capital through ethnic social networks. They will be in an advantageous position to exploit ethnic networks. Those that are established in ethnic networks can do best.

1. Defining Ethnic Entrepreneurship

Ethnic entrepreneurship is a quite new and multidimensional concept; the definition depends largely on the focus of the research undertaken. The critical question arises in the entrepreneurship literature whether entrepreneurs are born or made. The term "entrepreneur" applies to "someone who establishes a new entity to offer a new or existing product or service into a new or existing market, whether for a profit or not-for-profit venture." Entrepreneurs focus on conquering problems, starting new businesses, accepting responsibility and are expecting the recognition and respect from the society and business field according to their success. The entrepreneur may be driven not only by economic motives but also by psychological motives like the desire to innovate and create new products. The level of education is another important variable. Entrepreneurs have many of the same character traits as leaders. The concept of the entrepreneur is associated with three elements: risk bearing, organizing and innovating. It should be noted that the term 'entrepreneurship' is a rather ideal-typical concept. Most business firms are standard operations where the entrepreneur is more a manager than a risk-lover. Consequently, the term entrepreneurship is often too broadly interpreted as the management of a business firm.

In the literature, different concepts and definitions are used to refer to ethnic or migrant entrepreneurship. Changanti and Green (2002) assembled three main identifications given by Waldinger et al. (1990) and U.S. Department of Commerce (1997). Foreign entrepreneurs can be defined such as "immigrant entrepreneurs", "ethnic entrepreneurs" and "minority entrepreneurs". To immigrant entrepreneurs refer people who start their own business just after their arrivals using their individual connection with former immigrants and non-immigrants with a common origin. Ethnic entrepreneurs create "a set of connections and regular patterns of interaction among people sharing common national background or migration experiences." U.S. Department of Commerce defines foreign business owners such as "minority entrepreneurs" who are not of the majority population. In order to understand ethnic or migrant entrepreneurship, previous researches have focused on the past-present and future evaluation of ethnic enterprises. The main questions arisen to evaluate the success and the sustainability of ethnic enterprises are as follow:

-- motivation and orientation

-- labor and capital conditions

-- customer relationships

-- gender and generation differences

-- cultural differences

-- break-out strategies

Ethnic entrepreneurship is a firm part of any migration, most obviously observed in the United States, where the foreign born have been overrepresented in small businesses. The history of ethnic entrepreneurship in the USA also explains why research in this subject has its roots there. An early and very prominent theory suggested that ethnic businesses are an obvious reaction to blocked opportunities in the labor market, which in many instances still holds true today. Europe, on the contrary, was at the turn of the century an emigration continent and remained very homogenous until after World War II, when large labor forces were needed by ever-growing industrial companies. Initially, the immigrants came as a temporary workforce, fulfilling jobs which required no skills and which could easily be replaced by a succession of sojourners.

Ethnic economy is a conceptually developed topic of the western sociological discussion. There are several classifications of theoretical approaches to the analysis of this phenomenon; the variants of the most widespread approaches can be found in works by Ivan Light and Roger Waldinger. The modern concepts of ethnic economy originate mainly from the contention that immigrants, belonging to the minority in the host country, encounter a particular situation which is disadvantageous, on the one hand (as the position of any minority). On the other hand, immigrants have additional resources which are usually called "ethnic". According to Light and Rosenstein, ethnic resources are those, which are based on the identification of a person with ethnic community.

"Ethnic" resources not only allow immigrants to find dwellings, to settle down etc., but also determine their economic strategies. This phenomenon is defined as "ethnic economy": "the economy is ethnic because its personnel are co-ethnics." It is supposed, that the people, as representatives of ethnic minority, have an opportunity to be united on the basis of the common ethnicity and to be engaged in joint business activity. This also implies that they trust each other, just because they belong to the same ethnic group. The trust based on the shared ethnic identity allows them to establish "ethnic" social (economic) networks, facilitates the information circulation within these networks, reduces probable transactional costs connected with mistrust (for example, the activity of middlemen in the role of guarantors in business, becomes excessive). Thus, the existing concept of "ethnic economy" rests to a considerable extent upon the concept of ethnicity, and proceeds from the ethnic belonging of individuals involved.

The business entry decision has had a strong impact on the development of theories in ethnic entrepreneurship. Much attention has been given to the question whether cultural or structural factors influence the business entry decision and therefore are responsible for the rise of ethnic entrepreneurship. Supporters of the culturalist approach believe that immigrant groups have culturally determined features leading to a propensity to favor self-employment. The structuralist approach, on the other hand, suggests that external factors in the host environment, such as discrimination or entry barriers on the labor market due to education and language deficits, push foreigners into self-employment. More recent approaches, which attempt to combine these two perspectives, show that a differentiated view is necessary to understand this complex phenomenon. Today, a gradual shift away from the stereotypical ethnic-run corner shop towards more diversified sectors can be observed. Even though these types of self-help firms persist, new sectors such as computers, global trade, leisure and recreation management, real-estate agencies and cultural enterprises are developing as well.

Our research suggests the "understanding" definition of "ethnic entrepreneurship", as an economy involving individuals, who subjectively consciously pattern their economic behavior on their own ethnicity, subjectively comprehended, and on the ethnicity of those with whom they cooperate. On the basis of this approach, we try to argue the existence of "ethnic entrepreneurship" in the diasporic (not immigrants!) milieu which we investigated.

2. Data and Methodology

The research was carried out in the places with relatively big numbers of ethnic Koreans. I have been able to cover around two thirds of selected cities and towns of the Central Asia.

-- Almaty (city) and Karatalskii rayon (countryside) in Kazakhstan;

-- Tashkent (city) and Tashkent province (countryside) in Uzbekistan.

-- Bishkek (city) and Bishkek province (countryside) in Kyrgyzstan

The important methods of the project research were as follows:

а)?The comparative analysis of the general and particular in development of the Korean ethnic business in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan;

b)?The interdisciplinary approach which includes the historical, sociological and political science approaches.

The main research methods are observation of the phenomenon under consideration, questioning of general respondents and problem-oriented interviews with the people engaged in ethnic entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union and the modern Central Asia. It is necessary to use other auxiliary methods such as: descriptive, comparative, statistical, diachronic, synchronic, combined, typological etc.

The materials for the research are of a complex nature. They include:

-- Statistical data on labor activities of Koreans in the Soviet period and post-Soviet Central Asia

-- Mass media and web materials

-- Interviews with officials, leaders of Korean communities, ethnic Korean NGOs, Korean businessmen

-- Secondary sources such as dissertations, books, monographs and articles on ethnic Entrepreneurship

3. Review of Literature

Literature related to the object of the study and is divided into 3 main blocs and in the first of them are publications on the theoretical concepts of ethnic business. To the second belong the studies of ethnic aspects of the business among Korean Communities in the USA, Korean Residents in Japan and other countries. Next block is the biggest one because we have a voluminous literature on history and recent life of Central Asian Koreans. In the third recently emerging block of literature are the works of Russian sociologists, ethnographers and economists who just started to analyze appearance, organization and functioning of ethnic business (entrepreneurship) in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other big cities.

Ethnic entrepreneurship as a specific way of organizing and conducting business by migration ethnic communities within a quantitatively dominating environment of another nation have been considered in the works by Light I., Bonacich E., Karageorgis S., Waldinger R., Aldrich H., Ward R., Jones Т., McEvony D., Schwarz Т, Velleman P. and others. Here one must bear in mind that formation and development of ethnic entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union was different from Western models. That is why Western concepts of ethnicity and business correlation should be extrapolated to the empirical field of the Soviet reality only after critical analysis of the imported ideas.

Ethnic aspects of the business among Korean Communities in the USA are considered in a number of publications by Kim Hyung-chan, Kim Illsoo, Kim Kwang Chung, Kwak Tae-Hwa, Min Pyong Gap, Yu Eui-Young and in the recent monographs by Park Kyeyoung and Yoon In Jin. About peculiarities of entrepreneurship of Korean residents in Japan are the works of Abe Kazuhiro, Kajimura Hideki, Lee Changsoo, George De Vos, Mitchell Richard H, Lee Kwang-Kyu, Sonia Ryang, H. Wagatsuma, E. Wagner Edward, Yoshika Masuo, Fukuoka Yasunori and others.

During the Soviet period ethnic entrepreneurship was not a subject of any scholarly research. Some fragmentary notes about specific business activities of the Soviet Koreans can be found in a number of works by native and foreign authors. A closer interest to this issue has been lately demonstrated by some journalists and scholars from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and South Korea.

Modern Russian sociologists, ethnographers and economists have just started to analyze emergence, organization and functioning of ethnic business (entrepreneurship) in Moscow, St.Petersburg and other big cities. In Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries of the post-Soviet space researches devoted to the analysis of this topic have not yet been carried out which only accentuates the importance of the present project.

For the understanding the ethnic entrepreneurship of Koreans in the FSU (Former Soviet Union) there is a necessity to know their background. There is a various literature on the history, culture, language of Koryo saram from the Russian empire period until now. A number of works by Russian authors appeared at the time of the first migration of Koreans to the Russian Far East. In certain of the these works, authors paid attention to factors underlying the mass immigration, and also the social , economic and legal conditions of the new arrivals to the Maritime region. Since interest in the Korean influx was dictated primarily by pragmatic rather than purely academic considerations, it is not surprising that counted among the ranks of the first authors are statesmen from the Tsar's administration in the Far East, as well as officials, military men, writers and publicists.

After a long silence of the Stalinist period a new turn in the studies of the Soviet Koreans began from the end of 1980s. "Perestroika and Glasnost" initiated by Gorbachov provoked a boom of interest of all peoples in their roots. During a decade there were printed many more publications about Koreans in the FSU than had appeared in the previous fifty years. There are concrete reasons for this increased interest in Koryo saram. First of all, Gorbachev's "Democratization and "Glasnost'" gave access to formerly secret archival documents and permitted the re-evaluation of the history of deported peoples including Koreans. Secondly, these events laid the bases for an ethnic renaissance when members of all nationalities in the former USSR became interested in their roots and history. Thirdly, opening of Korean cultural centers offered a formal organizational structure for the study of the Diaspora's history. Fourthly, the government of the Republic of Korea, South Korean academic institutions, foundations, societies, and associations helped to stimulate this research by sponsoring the collection, copying, and publishing of archival material and books as well as financed language study, international seminars and conferences, and research trips to Seoul for Koreans from the former USSR.

As a result the main stages in the historical development of Soviet Koreans, their ethnic culture, professional performing arts, language, education etc. have been sufficiently explored and studied. However, all numerous publications remained primarily descriptive and mostly general in approach.

The foreign historiography boasts definite achievements in terms of the research into the social and economic, national and cultural life of Koreans in Russia and the former USSR. Almost all the authors drew on historical, ethnographical and linguistic works of Soviet scholars. Some of the works of the foreign scholars, however, have inaccuracies and mistakes of an empirical character, suffer from narrowness of source bases, and are less theoretical than they should be, while the works of other authors are frequently tautological. It is also impossible to deny the existence of the fundamental divergence between certain of the views, appraisals and conclusions of foreign scholars.

There still remains much virgin territory to explore in terms of studies of more specific topics with more theoretical pondering. There needs to be done more concrete and focused research on various aspects of the history of Koryo saram, and the present day life of the Diaspora. Furthermore, academic analyses are needed which can help to form actual goals for the future political, socio-economic, and ethnic development of Koryo saram and attempt to make prognoses concerning the topical problems and optimistic or pessimistic prospects of the Diaspora in the ethno nationalizing states of the post Soviet Central Asia in the 21^st century.

4. Collapse of the Soviet Union and Entrepreneurship of Koreans in Kazakhstan

With its large territory and relatively small population (16 mil.), Kazakhstan is the most sparsely populated of the former Soviet republics. It possesses huge reserves of petroleum, natural gas, and other important natural resources. It also produces 20 percent of the coal of the former Soviet Union. The country's large agricultural sector (that accounts for almost 40 percent of the net material product and employs about 26 percent of the labor force) is centered around grain and livestock. Kazakhstan's economy was geared to the production of raw materials, both agricultural and mineral, for shipment to Russia. Kazakhstan has been dependent on the other former Soviet republics, particularly Russia, for most of its machinery and consumer goods.

Rising prices, falling demand, and disruptions of traditional trade ties have contributed to a sharp contraction of Kazakhstan's economy over the first half of decade after the Soviet Union collapsed. Between 1991 and 1993, the GDP fell almost 25 percent and industrial output declined by 28 percent. The economy has been hit by even greater declines in 1994. Forced out of the ruble zone in mid-1993, Kazakhstan issued its own currency, the tenge, in November 1993. An initial exchange rate was set up at 5 tenges to 1U.S. dollar. However, high inflation and uncertainty over the stability of the currency have contributed to a sharp depreciation of the tenge, which, by September 1995, declined in value since its introduction to 60 tenge per one U.S. dollar. Wages and, especially, pensions did not keep pace with the rapid change of economic environment putting the bulk of the population and government decision makers in increasingly difficult straits. According to some estimates, minimum wage and social benefits fell to about one-fourth of 1991 levels, and as much as 20 percent of the population could be in serious poverty.

Kazakhstan's economy is now larger than those of all the other Central Asian states combined (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan). According to Kazakhstan Government forecasts, the economy is expected to expand at an average annual rate of 9.5 percent in real terms from 2007 to 2011 because of both foreign investments and increasing oil exports. At a time of record-high energy prices, rising oil exports are expected to increase private consumption, boost retail sales and construction.

Kazakhstan was the first to pay off its debts to the International Monetary Fund in 2000 following economic reconstruction (seven years ahead of schedule), the first to obtain a favorable credit rating, the first to implement financial institutions approaching Western standards of efficiency and reliability and the first to develop and introduce a nationwide fully funded pension program. Besides rising oil revenues, one of the key elements in Kazakhstan's economic success has been its ability to attract foreign investment, which in 2001-2003 surged to 13 percent of GDP and is currently running at almost ten times the rate of its neighbors. In validating the structural reforms carried out by the Kazakh government the European Union formally recognized Kazakhstan as a market-based economy in October 2000, while Washington accorded Kazakhstan similar recognition in March 2002.

From 2000-2007, the Kazakhstan economy enjoyed an extended period of very rapid growth, with real GDP growth averaging 10 percent annually. The expansion was underpinned by the development of the oil sector, prudent macroeconomic policies, structural reforms, and increased access to global financial markets. As a result, real per capita incomes have doubled since 2000 and social indicators have improved.

In the first quarter of 2007 Kazakhstan's GDP increased more than 10 percent while output grew 11 percent in the manufacturing industry and 19 percent in machinery and equipment production. The nominal wages of Kazakh citizens increased 26 percent in the first quarter of 2007 alone. Kazakhstan's state statistics agency reported that in 2007 the country's GDP reached $104.5 billion. The U.S. State Department in 2005 estimated Kazakhstan's Gross Domestic Product at $125.3 billion, its GDP per capita income at $8,300. Highlighting the discrepancies between foreign and indigenous statistics, in 2006 Kazakhstan's Statistics Agency calculated the monthly income level of the lower middle class to be 35,000 tenge ($290) per month, for an annual salary of $3,480. Despite the disparities, however, the incontestable fact is that after a period of economic turmoil immediately following independence, incomes in Kazakhstan have not only stabilized but consistently risen over the last decade.

Kazakhstan has become the first country in the CIS to feel the impact of the American Mortgage Crisis. The main causes of the problem are the huge foreign debts of Kazakh banks and the increasingly lopsided trade balance. But according to domestic and western expertise economic growth is expected to remain relatively subdued. Real GDP is forecast by the IMF to grow by 5 percent and 6.25 percent in 2008 and 2009 respectively. The current account is projected to move into surplus in 2008 following the large deficit last year, due to higher oil and commodity prices and much slower import growth.

One of the first and highest priorities of Kazakhstan's government in the years immediately following independence was to privatize state property, which began in 1993. As the program picked up pace it was then extended nationwide, with the government privatizing trading companies, food suppliers and other services. Most importantly for the nascent middle class, as part of a parallel process, the mass privatization of apartments created a private housing market. The ambitious program three years later saw private companies account for around 80 percent of the economy, while private ownership of agricultural production soared to 97 percent. According to official estimates, Kazakhstan's GDP grew by about 13 percent in 2001, the highest rate among the former Soviet republics.

A notable Western criticism of Kazakh economic reforms is the Heritage Foundation According to the Index criteria for 162 countries of the world, Kazakhstan rates as "moderately free", ranking 78. The report gave Kazakhstan 56.5 for "Business Freedom," 86.2 for "Trade Freedom," 80.1 for "Fiscal Freedom," 84.7 for "Government Size," 71.9 for " Monetary Freedom," 30 for "Investment Freedom," 60 for "Financial Freedom," 30 for "Property Rights, 26 for "Freedom from Corruption" and 80.0 "Labor Freedom."

In Kazakhstan the reforms of economic system and formation of the new class of entrepreneurs and businessmen, stand in contrast to events in the other post-Soviet "stans" - Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. While in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR Kyrgyzstan was initially regarded by many Western analysts as the most reformist post-Soviet republic in moving swiftly towards Western-style political and economic infrastructures, it is in fact Kazakhstan that has emerged as the most progressive regional economic reformer.

5.?Changes in Occupations and Social Structures

During the Soviet period a numerically large group of scientific, pedagogical intelligentsia and workers of art and culture was formed in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. As regards the number of academic workers and university lecturers - Candidates and Doctors of Sciences Koreans held one of the leading positions among other nationalities. Koreans were widely represented in such professions as school teachers, medical doctors, in art and culture.

Many Koreans were officers in the Ministry of Internal Affairs but only an inconsiderable number of young Koreans chose a military career as there used to be some covert limitations in choosing a career. It is well-known that during the Stalin era there existed "Berufsverbot" on both official and everyday levels - the so-called "ban on professions" based on ethnicity principle; thus only few Koreans were engaged in railroad, air or sea transport. A number of professions referred to peculiar ethnic niches, for instance, shoemakers were mostly Armenians, watchmakers, jewelers and tailors were Jews. Among Soviet Koreans also there were certain preferences regarding professions; especially depending on the gender - many Korean women were engaged in factory and individual dress-making.

The collapse of the USSR negatively affected the economical and socio-political cooperation between the former Union republics and led to the establishment of sovereign states on the post-Soviet territory. The socio-political conditions of diasporas in the post-Soviet period in the former Soviet republics acquired new qualities( as compared with the Soviet period) caused by the internal policies of their home states. This policy was different in every single post-Soviet state and affected socio-political and migration activity of the population. At the same time it is possible to trace a number of common trends in the transformations in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations affecting internal political processes in the post-Soviet states:

-- Vague legal status of a Diaspora;

-- Domination and priority of ethnic identification of a title-nation in the state

ideology;

-- Accent on the priority role of a title-nation in the state-building process;

-- Narrowing of the functional space of the Russian language;

-- Administrative approach to a wider use of a title-nation language;

-- Transfer of all paperwork into the state language in the Central Asian states;

-- Renaming of administrative units, settlements, geographical names, personal names

from Russian into state languages;

-- Revision of the history of relations with Russia and the Russian people;

-- Politization of national mass media;

-- Use of ethnic factor for political purposes

The above-mentioned trends are making the position of ethnic minorities including Koreans even in the relatively stable countries of the CIS uncertain and their socio-psychological state - discomforting.

The analysis of the social composition of the post-Soviet Koreans encounters certain objective difficulties: lack of any systematized empirical materials as in the state statistical reports Koreans were included in the section "and others" and so far there has not been any special ethno-sociological research regarding them. Thus changes in the social and occupational composition of Koreans have not so far become a topic of any independent research and there is a need to fill this gap. The materials of the First Census in Kazakhstan contained questions related to the population employment which allows making a preliminary analysis on the national scale. According to the 1999 Census data about 30% of all Koreans or 38% of the population at the age of 15 and older were occupied in the sphere of economy and on the whole in the republic this indicator was 27, 9% and 39,1% correspondingly. A lower second indicator for Koreans can possibly be explained by the fact that in the age group of 15-24 among Koreans there is a considerable number of schoolchildren and students.

By regions this indicator for Koreans varies from 23,5% in Kzylorda oblast' and 25,8% - in South Kazakhstan to 37,5% - in Astana city and 38,0% - in Mangistau oblast'. The employment rate directly depends on the region and place of residence, i.e. in labor excessive Southern regions it is lower than the average and in the North, West, East and the Central part of the country it is higher. The highest employment rate is in Astana, the new capital and it is the case for all ethnoses. When Astana was made a new capital of Kazakhstan there appeared vacancies in many institutions and correspondingly opportunities for career-making. To the new dynamically-developing capital moved a lot of young energetic people from other regions in order to make business which looked more attractive and profitable for them there. Relatively low employment rate in Almaty is explained by a more considerable share of older age people as compared to Astana.

Out of the total number of employed in the republic top managers of all levels comprise 8,3%; for Koreans it is 17,3%, Kazakhs - 7,9%, Russians - 9,3%, and the leading position is occupied by Jews - 27,5%. These figures themselves are of little meaning as it is important to know what particular spheres are meant. As is known, Kazakhs as representatives of the title-nation dominate at all levels and in all branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The key positions in the economy, mass media, education, science and culture are also occupied by representatives of the "titular nation". However, proceeding from the fact that the total number of Koreans is less than one per cent of the population one can make a conclusion that they are sufficiently widely represented at the leading positions for example:

-- Kim Yuri Alekseyevich - Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

-- Ni Vladimir Vasilyevich - Administrator of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan at the Economic Management Department of the President and Government

-- Kim Georgi Vladimirovich - Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan

-- Sher Raisa Petrovna - Deputy of Mazhilis ( lower chamber) of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan

-- Кim Afanasiy Grigoryevich - Deputy Minister of Sports, Youth and Tourism

-- Кan Viktor Petrovich - Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs

Koreans were promoted Generals. The rank of Major General of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was given to Tskhai Boris Alexandrovich , Major General of Justice , State Counselor of III class was awarded to Khegay Arkadiy Yurievich .

In 2007 in Kazakhstan elections to the Central and local bodies of power were held, and Koreans turned out to be well-represented on all levels there. Totally 20 Korean deputies were elected in the country, among them: Tskhai Yuri Andreyevich, President of the AKK was appointed Senator of the Parliament and Tsoy Viktor Yevgenievich, Chairman of the Board of the construction company " Ak Aul", Chairman of the Public foundation "Social Consortium of the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan" was elected a deputy of the Mazhilis. Ten Koreans became City Maslikhat deputies, six - district and two - of oblast' Maslikhats.

Among Koreans in Kazakhstan there are owners of small and medium size companies and firms or heads of some state departments and institutions of no priority importance. On the whole, if we sum up shares of top managers and main specialists, it will turn out that at least two thirds of those employed occupy leading positions in the places of their employment. If we distribute the employed Korean population by their occupation, the majority of them is in the sphere of services, housing and communal sphere, trade - 17,5% and agriculture -12,2%; in the industry, construction, transport and communications - 7,6%.

The transfer from the planned socialist system of economy to the market economy, privatization of the state sector, reforms of the socio-political system created new possibilities for private entrepreneurship in the post-Soviet period. A layer of businessmen had been formed which during a short period of time acquired experience in private businesses and covered the way from the so-called commercial kiosks (stalls) and small retail trade to big corporations and financial-industrial groups. Changes in the social structure, professional composition and finally in financial and property status of Koreans reflect a common trend which is characteristic of all post-Soviet population. Among Koreans like in the society as a whole we can observe three asymmetrical, as regards the number, social layers: well-to-do, middle class and low-income people.

A professional middle class is beginning to emerge in Kazakhstan. While estimates vary, according to some analysts it constitutes 25 percent of the total population, representing people who consume 50-80 percent of the financial value of all goods sold in Kazakhstan. Analysts further divide this group into two sections, a lower middle class, with individual annual incomes of $6,000-9,000, (an estimated 70 percent of the stratum,) and the "upper" middle class, with annual individual incomes of $9,000-15,000, (30 percent of the total group.) According to official Kazakh statistics, salaries increased by 21 percent in 2001 and by 12 percent in 2002 and have consistently risen each year since.

The principal criterion used by analysts to define Kazakhstan's middle class is not the nature of labor, professional association or property, but income level. Other Kazakh experts give figures on the extent of the group as ranging between 18 percent and 60 percent of the population. In Kazakhstan, approximately 50 percent of the population lives in urban areas, and this is where the middle class is concentrated. As noted above, in 1998 Kazakhstan adopted an economic reform that impacted every citizen, a pension reform program based on the Chilean model, which introduced private pension funds. By 2004 nearly six million people, accounting for almost eighty percent of the economically active population, were participants in the program.

5.?Ethnic Consolidation and Community Organization

During the Soviet period, the State suppressed all attempts made by ethnic communities to self-organize; such attempts by deported Diasporas were especially suppressed. Korean immigrants transferred their centuries-old tradition of the rural community, including its structures and functions, to the Russian Far East. In Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Koreans formed independent collective farms preserving some features of their former communities - for example, one-man management and respect for the leader, councils of elders with advisory functions, general participation in official holidays, and also ceremonies celebrating life milestones. The community organization was characterized by group labor activity and collective use of land, buildings and premises, and equipment and tools.

In Soviet cities there could not be any chinatowns or koreatowns like in Los Angeles where Koreans live compactly. Without such compact living arrangements, life in large cities weakens relations not only within ethnic communities, but within families, finally leading to stronger individualism. In rural areas, even people living on the opposite ends of a village communicate, but in cities, tenants of the same apartment building hardly know each other. In addition, Koreans have never been united by a common religion, as was the case with Soviet Germans and Jews, for whom churches and synagogues played significant roles.

During the last decade in the post-Soviet countries, dozens of Korean associations, unions and centers were established and officially registered. The main priorities for such associations are as follows: renewal of the Korean language, national customs and traditions; study of Korean history; development of traditional Korean culture, arts and literature; protection of the legal rights and interests of Korean Diasporas; strengthening friendship among nations; development of international cultural and economic ties. Over these years, the associations have organized Korean language instruction programs; festivals of ethnic culture and art, including exhibitions of Korean artists; and published books on the history of the Koryo saram. The Korean Diasporas and their leaders are very loyal to the ruling regimes in their respective countries of residency, and therefore, the associations are cultural rather than political.

The first Korean cultural centers were established almost simultaneously in Tashkent, Almaty, Moscow, and other cities with substantial numbers of Koreans who were also potential intellectual leaders. The constituent congress for the VASK (Vsesoiuznaia Assotsiatsiia Sovetskikh Koreitsev, or the All-Union Association of Soviet Koreans) was held in Moscow (19.02.1990). At the second VASK congress, held in Almaty (29.02. 1992, the organization decided to change its name to MKKA (Mezhdunarodnaia Konfederatsia Koreiskikh Assotsiatsii, or the International Confederation of Korean Associations) in accordance with the sociopolitical sequels of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The pace of formation of the new Korean organizations was uneven. In some cases, as in Uzbekistan, it took more than two years from the formation of the inaugural groups to the date of official registration. There were several reasons for such delays. First, local officials were reluctant to solve questions related to the registration of social groups; they preferred to wait for instructions from higher-ups. Red tape and bureaucratic inertia led to a number of critical articles in the press about the registration of the Korean centers. Second, many local officials interpreted the "Korean question" in their own way and acted according to this understanding rather than following the letter of the law - a characteristic feature of the Soviet administrative practice. Third, interference by local authorities in the registration of Korean cultural centers was largely related to opposition to Korean groups and to complaints and protests at the local level. Finally, the delay can be explained by the fact that from the very beginning, everyone involved in the Korean social organizations -especially members in outlying areas - lacked experience with the workings of the Soviet system. Once formed, all Korean organizations throughout the USSR declared as their primary mission and highest priority the revival of the Korean language, culture, traditions and customs. We assume that this narrow focus was not a coincidence, as their basic goals reflected the interplay of several factors. First, the notion of "revival" was characteristic of the perestroika period in general. All the reforms of that period proceeded under the slogan of "reviving" something that had been lost. Second, in spite of the fact that the laws about social organizations granted the right to form any and all sorts of organizations (with the exception of extremist organizations), in practice the registration was not so much a matter of simple "declaration" or "filing" as it was of obtaining permission to exist. Third, the theme of cultural revival among ethnic minorities was less risky not only to the power structure, but also to the Koreans themselves. Fourth, insofar as Koreans in the USSR did not constitute a proper "nation" in the strict sense of the word -a republic or other territory with an official language of administration -but only an ethnic group, they based their primary identification on their national culture: language, customs, rituals, traditions, cuisine, songs, dances, etc. These folkways were what comprised the ethnic identity and self-consciousness of the Koryo saram. In other respects, the Soviet Koreans were no different from other citizens of the USSR. It was only natural that under changed conditions that allowed new possibilities for ethnic self-realization, the Koreans turned to those ingredients in their collective consciousness that distinguished them from others to resolve questions of group identity. At this point in time, the Korean collective identity recognized no other distinctions. Lastly, Koreans did not yet regard themselves as subjects of political activity during the formative period of their new organizations - their political consciousness had not yet awakened.

From its very inception, the Korean movement could not avoid confrontations among its various organizational components. Representatives of the academic and nomenklatura intelligentsia - particularly scholars and social scientists - gained the upper hand in the struggle for initial leadership of the Korean cultural centers and associations. One particularly telling feature of this leadership stratum was its inclusion of representatives of the ideological disciplines (philosophy, scientific Communism, history of the Communist Party of the USSR, etc.) closely related to the Party's nomenklatura. There are several reasons for the predominance of social science faculty in the leadership of Korean associations in the former USSR. To begin with, their ties to the Party and its government organs gave them access to the power needed to quickly resolve organizational questions related to the establishment of Korean cultural centers. In addition, these same ties also allowed them to lobby on behalf of the Korean centers. Furthermore, their professional specialization and work experience in Party organs meant that the professors were better grounded in the preparation of statutory documents, conceptualization of cultural centers, and management of organizational work. Finally, since these faculty members were already organic elements of the Party-state system, their role as leaders of such questionable associations as cultural centers was agreeable to the organs of power.

The changes began with the leadership of the Korean associations, and here we do not simply mean new faces. Leadership positions passed not only to representatives of a new generation, but to representatives from a different profession, namely business. The change in leadership from academics to businesspeople was also a natural development. The age of the professorial leaders had become apparent in the results of the activities of their associations. Second, the academics' lack of business savvy showed in the deplorable financial basis of the Korean cultural centers. In addition, the age and conservatism of the former leaders made it hard for them to change their customary work habits. Even more important for the Korean movement was the integration process in Kazakhstan. The size of the Korean population in that region is significant, as is its role in the development of Korean culture and the overall Korean movement in the former USSR.

In recent years, the Kazakhstani regional Korean societies and the leadership of the central organization have carried out an ambitious plan of work. Among other successes of the AKK, is the consolidation of all various Korean groups in Kazakhstan. The ties between the center and the regions have been strengthened, as well as the relationships between businesspeople and the academic and cultural intelligentsia. Moreover, the goal of reviving Korean language and culture has been made a priority, both in the regions and in the center. Over the past four years the regional, city and oblast' centers and branch chapters have worked to awaken ethnic consciousness. Finally, the AKK has helped to raise the professional and political profile of the Korean Diaspora.

6.The Entrepreneurial and Business Success of Koreans in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan's development as a rising petro-state from the debris of the collapse of the USSR in 1991 is Central Asia's leading success story. During the post-Soviet years Koreans have achieved considerable success in business which was conditioned not only by legal and social-economic prerequisites common for the country population but also by other reasons.

Firstly, education, professional experience and organizational skills allowed them to occupy some niches in the private sector of the economy. Koreans are also noted for their hard work, persistence, communicative skills, ability to get on well with different people - all these traits are necessary in the new business relations.

Secondly, at the initial stage Koreans had some advantage as they had already possessed some starting capital made during the Soviet time by their seasonal agrarian activities.

Thirdly, a part of Koreans who managed to keep their leading positions in state institutions and other enterprises got a possibility to participate in the process of privatization of those enterprises.

Fourthly, establishment of diplomatic relations with the South Korea, dynamic development of economic ties between the two countries created favorable conditions for setting up joint companies and partnership relations between compatriots.

Fifthly, Koreans living in big cities are mostly engaged in urbanized types of entrepreneurship. Only a small part of Koreans are engaged in farming.

Sixthly, a number of Koreans were able to create and head big companies with multi-national staff, some of them numbering several dozens thousand of workers. For instance a very powerful in the 1990s semi-state corporation "KRAMDS" headed by Viktor Cho; "KAZAKHMYS" company - Vladimir Kim, a group of companies controlled by Yury Tzkhai, "BANK CENTERCREDIT" - Vladilav Li, "KASPIISKY BANK" - Vyachslav Kim, construction corporations "KUAT" - Oleg Nam, "VEK" - Yuri Li; AK AUL - Viktor Tsoy; the three giants of Kazakhstan home electronics trade - "SULPAK" - Andrey Pak, "TEKHNODOM" - Eduard Kim, "PLANETA ELEKTRONIKI" - Vyacheslav Kim etc.

The richest Korean of the world is a citizen of Kazakhstan. Vladimir Kim heads "Kazakhmys", the world's tenth-largest copper producer. It has 16 copper mines across Kazakhstan. The Group had a wildly successful London offering in October 2005. In less than two months Kazakhmys joined the FTSE 100 index of Britain's biggest companies. A descendent of Koreans forced by Stalin to move to Kazakhstan, Kim joined Kazakhmys during Khazakstan's early 1990s privatization and eventually raised his stake to about 45% today. Net Worth: $5.5 bil.

Table 1. The Forbes Rating of Kazakhstani Billionaires, 2007

Rank	Name	Citizenship	Age	Net Worth ($bil)	Residence
214	Vladimir Kim	Kazakhstan	47	4.7	Kazakhstan
334	Alijan Ibragimov	Kazakhstan	54	3.3	Kazakhstan
428	Timur Kilibaev	Kazakhstan	41	2.7	Kazakhstan
428	Dinara Kulibaeva	Kazakhstan	40	2.7	Kazakhstan
677	Nurzhan Subkhanberdin	Kazakhstan	42	1.8	Kazakhstan
1062	Bulat Utemuratov	Kazakhstan	NA	1.0	Kazakhstan

Koreans in Banking Business. The JSC Bank Caspian is in the top 10 banks of Kazakhstan with assets exceeding KZT 269 billion (USD 2.2 billion) and consolidated shareholders equity of KZT 41 billion (USD 341 million). The Bank maintains its leading position in consumer lending serving its retail and corporate clients via 147 branches and service offices and over 500 points of sale. SME and consumer loans make up more than half of the Bank's loan portfolio.

As of 1 October 2007 the major shareholder of the Bank (96,08 % placed shares) is a banking holding CASPIAN GROUP B.V. (Amsterdam, Kingdom of Netherlands), rated with ВВВ by Fitch. Baring Vostok Capital Partners, investment fund and Vyacheslav Kim, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Caspian Bank, hold 51% and 49% of the shares in Caspian Group B.V. respectively. BVCP is a member of Baring Private Equity Partners International, a $2.5 billion global private equity group with affiliates in Asia, India and CIS. Vyacheslav Kim is one of the most successful retailers in Kazakhstan. Prior to Caspian Bank he was a co-owner of retail stores network of `Planeta Electroniki' (`Electronics Planet') and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of JSC Caspian Investment Holding. His main target in Caspian Bank is to create the best retail bank in Central Asia.

A very important role in establishing of "JSC Bank Caspian" belongs to Tskhay Yuri, who organized purchase of the bank by joint efforts of Korean businessmen of Kazakhstan, Russia and South Korea. He used to be the Chairman of the Board of the bank. In 2002 the head of the bank became Igor' Kim, a young banker from Russia, born in Kazakhstan. At present I.Kim is the owner and big shareholder of a number of banks in Russia and Kazakhstan. His total assets amount to $1,5 billion.

In the shareholders register of the bank as of April, 2006 the following shareholders owning and more percent of shares are registered: Kogay М.B.-9,87; Khegay L.A.-9,29; Li Yu.V. -8,87; Kim R.U. -8,29; Kim A.E. - 8,28; Tsoy Т.М. -7,92; Kim L.S. -7,39; Tsoy A.Yu. - 7,35; Kim V.S. - 7,22; Tskhay Yu.A. - 5,88 and Company "PALIXOL BUSINESS LTD" - 5,44. These data are sufficient to understand why "Caspian Bank" is called the Korean bank in Kazakhstan.

"SC Bank CenterCredit" is the sixth largest bank in Kazakhstan in terms of assets and total deposits, which as at 31 December 2007 equaled KZT 880,424 million and KZT 313,444 million, respectively. Operating structure of the Bank was composed of 207 branches throughout Kazakhstan, as well as four local subsidiaries concentrated in brokerage, asset management, leasing and pension collection services. In addition, BCC has a well-developed alternative channel distribution network including internet banking, 303 ATMs and a call center. Shareholders of JSC Bank CenterCredit signed share purchase agreement with Kookmin Bank of Korea, whereby the latter will acquire a 30.0% stake in Bank CenterCredit and further will achieve a controlling stake of 50.1% or more in BCC. The Chairman of the Management Board is Vladislav S. Lee, who is one of the principal shareholders of the Bank.

As it has already been mentioned, Korean businessmen managed to occupy top places in the ratings of largest companies in the spheres of construction, electronics and home appliances selling. However, the majority of Koreans remain small and medium businesses owners.

Small and Medium Size Enterprises of Koryo saram. Kazakhstan became the first country to sign a joint development agreement directly with the US Government, known as the Program for Economic Development, which will fund the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at increasing levels per year in terms of programs focused on entrepreneurial and economic development in Kazakhstan. Thereby the USAID and the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) have now begun to jointly fund projects such as the Kazakhstan Small Business Development Project, which will provide assistance to business support providers that in turn will strengthen and build SMEs (Small and medium enterprises). And, during January 2007 Kazakhstan became the first Central Asian country to become accepted in to the GEM

As of October 1, 2006 data of the Statistics Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan reports 823156 small business entities are registered, yet the agency also reports that only 48739 are active enterprises. The Statistics Agency also reports 168130 legal entities and 116550 operating entities. Despite the fact that the number of small businesses during 2006 grew by 22.7% from 2005, still the number of actively operating small business entities is rather small and constitutes only 29%. In Kazakhstan, the primary reason for this lack of strong growth in entrepreneurship is a coinciding lack of knowledge and experience in creating new business. The highest entrepreneurial activity continues to be noted in the trade sector, where 341632 entities are registered with a total of 533181 employees. As of this time, there has not been a sufficient level of innovation to counter the downturn in production. The share of small business (small business and households) in the GDP of the republic amounted to 35.2% in 2006. The number of registered small business entities amounted to 739122 in 2006, 569127 of them are operating, which constitutes 77%. An analysis of regional small business within Kazakhstan indicates by the number of registered entities that Almaty is undoubtedly ahead of the rest of the country - 35 %, followed by Astana - 9.1 %, and then South-Kazakhstan region - 9.1 %. An industry analysis regarding the development of small business within Kazakhstan indicates that the trade sector still shows the highest level of entrepreneurial activity - 45.8% of entities with the number of 161 500 workers, construction follows - 13.8%, industry - 10.9 % .

The number of companies established in the former capital in early 1990s by representatives of the Korean diaspora was about one thousand. For the past years many of them have either disappeared or changed their names which makes analysis of their activities complicated. At the same time new companies were established, the total number remaining nearly the same in early 2000s.

Table 2.?Private Companies and Enterprises Owned or Run by

Koreans, Almaty, 1998-2003.

Total by districts of Almaty	State institutions, societies, cooperatives of apartments owners etc.	Private companies	Heads - women	Heads - men
Almalinskii district - 308	45	201	62	246
Bostandykskii district - 246	47	199	66	180
Zhetysuiskii district - 160	16	144	39	121
Auezovskii district - 161	23	138	37	124
Turksibskii district - 92	19	73	16	76
Medeuskii district - 211	26	185	52	159
Total - 1178	176	940	272	906

Calculations made by German Kim on the basis of the data of the Department of Statistics of Almaty, 2003.

Thus out of 1,178 enterprises and institutions of the state sector and private entrepreneurship Koreans mostly owned private companies - 940 or 78,8% of all leading positions. Korean women are widely represented as top managers - 272 women which comprises 23% of the total number on the whole in Kazakhstan. All labor-active population at the age of 16-60 comes to 60 thousand people or about 60% of the total number of the population. In Almaty with a big number of schoolchildren, students and retired people the share of actually employed is lower than the average national rate. Hypothetically of the 20 thousand Korean population in Almaty less than half is employed. Thus among all employed Koreans in Almaty about 12-15% occupy leading positions whereas in Kazakhstan on the whole this figure is higher - 17, 3%.

Korean entrepreneurs occupy strong positions at the Kazakhstani market in the following branches: finances and banking, construction, whole sale and retail trade, production and sale of home appliances ad electronics, rendering of medical, legal, consulting services, services to the population and leisure.

The available data of the Department of Statistics of Almaty allow us to consider distribution of Korean leaders by types of their production activities. As an example one of Almaty districts was chosen - Bostandykskii, where 246 Koreans head different state enterprises and private companies in such branches as:

-- trade - 79

-- commodities production -16

-- architecture and construction - 26

-- education - 9

-- catering - 5

-- publishing and advertising business - 7

-- computers, repairs and software - 11

-- public health - 5

-- public organizations and foundations - 5

-- services - 23

-- leisure and entertainment - 8

-- real estate business -10

-- science and research activities -11

-- legal services and security - 8

-- tourism, transport, installation of equipment etc. - 23

The district data confirm our supposition that Koreans are noticeable in the sphere of commerce, construction, rendering of services, science and education. Probably in other districts of Almaty the results will be different but the general picture of Korean entrepreneurship is evident.

Small business has already become a rather powerful sector in the development of economy of modern Kazakhstan; however, appropriate governmental support is needed to the specificity of this sector of economy. The question Kazakhstan must grapple with what is appropriate government support, as the private sector generally creates economic growth. Today small business has a number of branches and regional associations, qualified to protect and voice the entrepreneurs concerns, provide input into developing laws and regulating acts through advisory councils. An extensive system of training and consulting in the area of small entrepreneurship has been created in the country, however, not every beginning-entrepreneur is able to succeed in these courses, therefore, the government should provide such an opportunity for them through its development institutes.

Conclusion

The world practice of running business has demonstrated that the effect of an ethnic factor in modern enterprises can be traced only in small and medium businesses. In bigger organizations the influence of the ethnic factor is lower or non-existent, which is partially confirmed by our research. In Kazakhstan Koryo saram were able to adopt the specificity of entrepreneurship in the transition period from the planned economy to the market. Korean businessmen managed to determine economic niches for themselves and to achieve stable competitiveness. As compared to Kazakhstani Koreans, Koreans in other republics of the post-Soviet Central Asia found themselves in a disadvantageous position; however, they are also achieving great success in entrepreneurship within the limits of existing possibilities and legislation.

Ethnic entrepreneurship undergoes successively three stages in its development. The first stage - "ethnic consolidation" of diasporic co-ethnics is characterized by their readiness to create and maintain their ethnic networks. At this stage for representatives of a diaspora it is typical to preserve their culture and language, customs, traditions and other elements of their ethnicity. The second stage - "bloom of ethnic entrepreneurship" manifests itself in a rapid development of their so far undisclosed business potential. Ethnic entrepreneurs define spheres of their activities which are usually represented by weakly protected or free economic niches. The third stage -"stabilization" of the position of ethnic entrepreneurs, when entrepreneurship acquires the character of stable business.

For nearly ten years the economy of Kazakhstan has been undergoing the period of sustained growth, in its context entrepreneurship including what we call ethnic entrepreneurship has also been rapidly developing. Koryo saram in Kazakhstan created hundreds of small private companies based on family principle. However, those companies as opposed to similar immigrant companies on the USA provided services, produced and sold goods not only to their ethnic clientele but to the peoples of Kazakhstan. That is the set of ethnic components and participation in diasporic entrepreneurship of Koryo saram is different than that of an immigrant community entrepreneurship. During the primary period of "wild privatization", "spontaneous capitalism", lack of any legal basis and legal nihilism it was entrepreneurship that started to develop very quickly with all inherent risks, need to reorganize and novelties in activities. At present in Kazakhstan the entrepreneurship is gradually acquiring the features of what is called business in the West.

Annex

Number of the Korean Population in Kazakhstan. 1999, 2004, 2005

	Oblast (provinces)	Census 1999	For January, 1, 2004	For January, 1, 2005
	Republic of Kazakhstan	99 665	100 235	100 973 (+ 738)
1.	Akmolinskaya	1 489	1 360	1 337 (-23 )
2.	Aktyubinskaya	1 383	1 358	1 349 (-9 )
3.	Almatinskaya*	17 488	16 669	16 765 (+ 96)
4.	Atyrauskaya	2 600	2 616	2 636 (+ 20)
5.	Zapddno-Kazakhstanskaya	731	749	737 (-12 )
6.	Dzhanbylskaya	14 000	13 188	13 090 (-98 )
7.	Karagandinskaya	14 097	13 511	13 518 (+ 7)
8.	Kostanayskaya	4 160	3 987	3 987
9.	Kzylordindkaya	8 982	8 091	7 966 (-125 )
10.	Mangustauskaya	716	681	698 (+ 17)
11.	Yuzhno-Kazakhstanskya	9 780	9 997	9 917 (-80 )
12.	Pavlodarskaya	1 013	962	995 (+ 33)
13.	Severo-Kazakhstanskaya	534	498	495 (-3 )
14.	Vostochno-Kazakhstanskaya	1 574	1 521	1 479 (-42 )
15.	City of Astana	2 028	3 530	3 657 (+ 127)
16.	City of Almaty	19 090	21 517	22 347 (+ 830)

* In bold are indicated areas with the steadily growth of Koreans

Annex

Distribution of Koreans in Kazakhstan by Occupation (elder than 15 years)

	Occupied population	Percentage
		Heads of all levels	Experts of a highest level of qualification	Experts of an middle level of qualification	Office employees	Workers of sphere of services, trade and related kinds of activity	Qualified employees in agriculture	Qualified workers of the industrial enterprises, constructions, communications, handicrafts etc.	Operators of machineries, mechanics etc	Unskilled workers
	Total number of persons	Shares of occupied persons in the total population
1	2	3		4	5	6		7			8	9	10	11	12
Republic of Kazakhstans	29842	30,0		17,3	18,4	10,1		2,1			17,5	12,2	7,6	7,2	6,5
Akmolinskaya	487	32,7		20,3	18,1	10,9		2,7			9,7	9,9	7,0	10,3	8,4
Aktyubinskaya	449	32,5		19,4	19,6	11,8		2,7			14,3	6,9	6,5	8,9	8,0
Аlmatinskaya	5259	30,1		10,6	11,7	8,2		1,2			16,1	31,1	5,1	6,2	8,1
Аtyrauskaya	718	27,6		16,3	19,2	10,9		2,4			19,9	3,1	7,7	11,6	7,1
Vostochno-Kazakhstanskaya	558	35,5		21,1	21,0	9,0		2,0			16,8	7,3	6,6	7,5	7,0
Zhambylskaya	3992	28,5		9,9	15,2	9,4		2,0			22,9	21,5	5,8	7,3	5,1
Zapadno-Kazakhstanskaya	200	27,4		20,5	20,0	10,5		0,5			15,0	9,5	9,0	9,5	5,0
Karagandinskaya	4736	33,6		19,2	20,0	10,3		2,5			14,1	2,2	14,9	10,0	5,9
Коstanaiskaya	1219	29,3		16,1	12,1	11,1		2,2			21,7	9,6	9,2	8,0	8,9
Кzylordinskaya	2110	23,5		12,3	22,6	14,7		3,2			14,7	8,0	8,7	9,3	6,0
Мangistauskaya	272	33,0		21,7	20,1	10,3		2,6			17,6	0,7	11,0	9,2	5,1
Pavlodarskaya	368	36,6		24,7	21,7	10,9		2,4			12,5	2,2	14,4	5,4	5,2
Severoe-Kazakhstanskaya	186	34,8		25,8	16,7	15,1		3,2			7,5	7,0	5,9	8,6	7,5
Yuzhno-Kazakhstanskaya	2522	25,8		12,7	19,2	10,3		2,2			22,5	15,1	5,8	5,4	6,2
City Astana	761	37,5		27,9	22,9	12,6		2,2			15,5	0,9	5,4	4,5	6,4
City Almaty	6005	31,5		27,4	23,2	9,5		2,2			17,6	3,2	4,9	4,7	6,3

Annex

Koreans -Deputies of the Central and Local Bodies of Kazakhstan. 2008

	Name	Position	Name of body
1	Chwe Jury A.	President АКК*	Deputy of the Senate of Parliament RK
2	Tsoj V.E.	Chairman of " Social Consortium АPК"	Deputy Mazhilis of Parliament RK
3	Nam O. Y.	Chairman of Board of directors SK " КUAT "	Almaty city Maslikhat**
4	Shin B.S.	General Girector of JSC "Almatyinzhstroy"	Almaty city Maslikhat
5	Kim A.F.	Director of Company "Bakhus-Astana "	Astana city Maslikhat
6	Kim V.F.	Director of State company "Zhetysu-Vodokanal"	Taldykorgan city Maslikhat
7	Li V.L.	Director of the agricultural Company "Shygys-Karatal"	Karatal rayon Maslikhat
8	Kotova L.E.	Director of the high school	Karatal rayon Maslikhat
9	Em L.H.	Businessman	Каrasay rayon Maslikhat
10	Kan E. V.	Doctor of city hospital	Теkeli city Maslikhat
11	Sin V.A.	Businessman	Ili rayon Maslikhat
12	Kim V. Yn.	Director of the Company " НОММ "	Karaganda oblast Maslikhat
13	Tsaj B.A.	Secretary of Rayon Maslikhat	Abajskiy rayon Maslikhat, Karaganda oblast
14	Tsaj V.L.	Director of Zhezkazgan polytechnic college	Satpaev city Malslikhat, Karaganda oblast
15	Kan R.A.	Director of the Company "Avtotranssignal"	Taraz city Maslikhat
16	Kim S.	Businessman	Taraz city Maslikhat
17	Tkhay K.V.	Vice-President of Zhubanov University, Chairman of Aktyubinsk branch of AKK	Aktobe city Maslikhat
18	Tskhe V.A.	Director of the Company "Kaztsinkmash"	East Kazakhstan oblast Maslikhat
19	Pak M.V.	Businessman	Burlinskiy rayon Maslikhat, Zapadno-Kazakhstanskaya oblast
20	Khan E.V.	Director of the "Ecology ",Chairman of Severno-Kazakhstan branch of AKK	Petropavlovsk city Maslikhat

The data received from АКК, June, 2008.

* Leaders of AKK

** Maslikhat - local council of representatives (deputies)

Annex

Kazakhstan GDP Growth Rate, 1997-2008.

Source: International Monetary Fund - 2008 World Economic Outlook

*expected rate

Annex

Data of Enterprise in the Register of the Kazakhstan Agency for Statistics*

Code ОКPО	30937342
Name	"OPTIMUM" Company Ltd.
Date of registration	26.03.1996
Body issuing Registration	Department of JUSTICES Kokschetau oblast (province)
Registration number	420-1935-ТОО
Date of renewal of registration	22.02.2001
Body of renewal of Registration	Department of JUSTICES Kokschetau oblast (province)
Number of the Certificate of renewal of Registration	3211-1902-ТОО
Index	475000
Legal address	CITY OF KOKSHETAU, Gorky street, 21, Apt 17
Actual address	CITY OF KOKSHETAU, Gorky street, 21, Apt 17
Phone	5-22-95
Fax	---
Director	PAK ERIK SENHOVICH
Basic activity	51709 - Wholesale trade in wide assortment of the goods
Activity	Actively working
Type of the enterprise	Small Enterprise
Number of employment	< = 5
Form of Property	Enterprise without foreign investments
Legal form	Ltd.
Place of activity	Akmolinskaya oblast
Social security code	361800036579
Sector of economy	Private (individual)
Country - partner	NO

Proved by: Saifutdinova Zh.N. (3272 42-42-72, July, 23, 2003

*As one sample of 1775 companies owned by Koreans in Kazakhstan

? This research has been supported financially by the POSCO TJ Park Foundation's Research Grants for Asia Studies, 2008.

In the past, both in the academic literature and the vernacular, the term "Soviet Koreans" was used to refer to all Koreans living in the USSR, but the Koreans referred to themselves as either Koryo saram or Choson saram interchangeably. Nowadays the term Koryo saram is preferred. Recently in South Korea two variants of the name, Koryoin and Koryo saram, have become most commonly used in regard to post-Soviet Koreans.

See: Kim German. Culture and Language of Koryo Saram. Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, 1993,N. 6, рр. 125-153; Ким Г.Н. Коре сарам: историография и библиография. [Kim G.N. Koryo saram: Historiography and Bibliography]. Алматы:Казак университетi, 2000, pp. 324; Oka Natsuko. (2001). The Korean Diaspora in nationalizing Kazakhstan: Strategies for survival as an ethnic minority. In G. N. Kim & R. King (Eds.), The Koryo Saram: Koreans in the former USSR. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin [Special Issue], 23,105-106.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur.

Schumpeter J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.)

Drucker P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper and Row, New York, NY; Zoltan A. and Audretsch D.B. (2003). Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, Springer.

Chaganti R, Greene P G, (2002). Who are ethnic entrepreneurs? A study of entrepreneurs' ethnic involvement and business characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 126-143

Butler J S, Greene P G, (1997). Ethnic Entrepreneurship: the continuous rebirth of American entrepreneurship, in Entrepreneurship 2000. Eds. D L Sexton, R W Smilor. Upstart Publishing, Chicago, IL, pp. 267-289.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997.

Baycan-Leven et al. (2005-2010). Diversity and ethnic entrepreneurship: Dialogue through exchanges in the economic arena. - http://esshra.tubitak.gov.tr/sunumlar/levent.pdf.

Waldinger R., Aldrich H., Ward R. (1990a) Opportunities, Group Characteristics, and Strategies // R. Waldinger et al. (eds.). Ethnic Entrepreneurs. Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies. Newbury Park, L., New Delhi: Sage, P. 13-47.

Light, I., and Bonacich, E. (1988). Immigrant Entrepreneurs. University of California, Berkeley; Light, I., Im, J., and Deng, Z. (1991). "Korean Rotating Credit Associations in Los Angeles." Amerasia 16, 35-54; Light I., Karageorgis S.(1994). The Ethnic Economy // N. Smelser, R. Swedberg (eds.). The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, P. 646-671.

Waldinger R. (1986).Through the Eye of the Needle: Immigrants and Enterprise in New York's Garment Trades. N.Y.; L.: New York University Press.

Light, I., and Rosenstein, C. (1995). Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne New York.

Light I., Karageorgis S.(1994). The Ethnic Economy // N. Smelser, R. Swedberg (eds.). The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, P. 649

Masurel E, Nijkamp P, Tastan M, Vindigni G, (2005). 'Motivations and Performance Conditioins for Ethnic Entrepreneurship' - Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI (2001) - 048/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.

Freitas, M.J. (2003), The LIA Report. http://www.liapartnership.org/en/liareport/oreword06.htm

Бредникова О., Паченков О.В. Этничность "этнической экономики" и социальные сети мигрантов. Экономическая социология. 2002. Т. 3. N 2. С. 74-81.

See: Ким Г.Н. (1995). Корейцы за рубежом: прошлое, настоящее и будущее. - Алматы: Гылым.

Kim German N. and Ross King (Eds.) The Koryo Saram: Koreans in the Former USSR. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin. Vol. 2&3, 2001, 189 p.

Back Tae Hyeon. The Social Reality faced by Ethnic Koreans in Central Asia. - German Nikolaevich Kim and Ross King (Eds.) The Koryo Saram: Koreans in the Former USSR. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin. Vol. 2&3, 2001, pp. 45-89; Lee Geron. Notes of an Observer of the Earth Love of Koreans. Bishkek, 2000, 467 in Russian; ???, ? ??? ??, 2004 ?????? ??? ????.?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???????.

Snissarenko A. Die Aserbaidschanische Gemeinde in St. Petersburg. Selbstbehauptung und Abwehrstrateigien aserbaidschanischer Zuwanderer.- Post-sowjetische Ethnizitaeten. Ethnische Gemeinden in St.Petersburg und Berlin/Potsdam. Berliner Debatte Wissenschaftsverlag / Hg.: I .Oswald, V.Voronkov. M., 1997.

Kasera S., Katz B. Kazakhstan: Economic Policies Before and After the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis. http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~sk1759/Kazakhstan.pdf.

Kaser M. Stabilization and Reform: Experience of Five Central Asian States. http://imf.org/external/np/eu2/kyrgyz/pdf/kaser.pdf

Report No. 21862. Republic of Kazakhstan Country Assistance Evaluation. February 20, 2001. Document of the World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/oed/transitioneconomies/caes/kazak_cae.pdf

Ibid.

Wall Street Journal 2008, Index of Economic Freedom. http://www.heritage.org/Index/

See: Kho, Songmoo. (1987). Koreans in Soviet Central Asia (Studia Orientalia, Vol. 61). Helsinki; Ким П.Г. Корейцы Республики Узбекистан. Ташкент, 1993; ???, 1996???? ???- ?????????:???; Ли Г. Н.. Корейцы в Кыргызстане. Бишкек, 1998; ??? ?. ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???, 2002; Пак Б.Д., Бугай Н.Ф. 140 лет в России. Очерк истории российских корейцев. М. ИВ РАН, 2004

Пак А.Д. Демографическая характеристика корейцев Казахстана. Алматы, 2002

Kim German. Socio-Demographic parameters of Koreans in the sovereign Kazakhstan. Proceedings of the International Conference "Корейцы в России, радикальная трансформация и пути дальнейшего развития", Москва, Фонд Горбачева, 2007, с. 8-42

Daly J.C.K. (2008). Kazakhstan's emerging middle class. http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs

See: Annex

Toxanova A.N. The Country of Kazakhstan. Barriers of Entrepreneurship and Support for Entrepreneurship European Economic Commission. June 18-19, 2007 Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unece.org/ceci/ppt_presentations/2007/eed/tox_e.pdf

Daly J.C.K. (2008). Kazakhstan's emerging middle class. http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs

German Kim. (2004). Koryo Saram in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russia. - World Diasporas Encyclopedia. Kluwer, 2004, pp.985-993

Khan, V. S. (1998). The Korean minority in Central Asia: National revival and problem of identity. International Journal of Central Asian Studies, no.3, pp. 66-77.

Kim, G. N., & Khan, V. S. (2001). Korean Movement in Kazakhstan: Ten Years Later // The Koryo Saram: Koreans in the Former USSR. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin. Vol. 12, No. 2. - New Haven: East Rock Institute, pp. 114-140; Бугай Н.Ф., Сим Хон Ёнг. Общественные объединения корейцев России. Конституционность, эволюция, признание. Москва-Сеул., Новый Хронограф, 2004.

Content-analyze of the newspaper "Koryo Ilbo", 1995-2007

Vladimir Kim. http://globalbusinessleaders.org/WebPage/LeaderBio.aspx?leaderCd=l003&levelcd=c02r024

http://aol.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires

http://www.bankcaspian.kz/

http://www.fedpress.ru/lib/persons/person_568.html

http://www.kase.kz/emitters/scan/csbn/csbnp_2005.pdf).

Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring) Consortium, as a result of assistance provided through USAID's and GOK's Kazakhstan Small Business Development Project.

Content-analysis of the newspaper "Koryo Ilbo", 1995-2007

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Kim German (kazgugnk@yahoo.com) Обновлено: 16/03/2011. 138k. Статистика. Статья: Казахстан Иллюстрации: 3 штук.		Ваша оценка:

Kim German: другие произведения.

Formation And Development Of Ethnic Entrepreneurship Of Koryo Saram In Kazakhstan