The purpose of this research is to fill the vacuum created by the tendency of bias towards China among the curators of Korean museums who plan exhibitions focusing on Balhae, and to share with researchers in the countries concerned various supplementary research materials that could deepen their understanding of the history of Balhae. These materials are based on analyses of the details of exhibitions about Balhae held in a particular Russian museum and the characteristics of and changes in the museum's operational policy. Thus, this research focuses mainly on the permanent and special exhibitions held by the Far East History Museum and Reserve, whose collection represents the archaeological achievements of Russia regarding the history of Balhae. The first part of the research focuses on the layout of the exhibitions presented by the museum and the museum's operational policy. It reveals that the museum's permanent exhibitions follow a diachronic arrangement of the local history, while the first and second special exhibitions featured exhibits that were selected from the collections of the Russian Academy of Sciences and arranged according to specific themes. It also examines the museum's policy for operating the exhibitions, focusing on the operational rules, the human resources deployed to run them, and the related educational and PR programs. The second part of the research examines such issues as local politics, economy, education and culture related to the exhibitions on Balhae's history, and connects them to the background and development of the exhibitions. This study reveals that the permanent exhibitions were intended to promote historical awareness of the local area by museum visitors, particularly those who visited the exhibitions while the city was hosting important events such as international summits. It also reveals that the museum's first special exhibition led to the promotion of Korea-Russia cooperation on exchanges in the fields of culture and tourism, whereas the second special exhibition involved no PR efforts or related events, which was probably due to the changes that have occurred in the relationship between Russia and its neighboring countries since then. The final part of the study focuses on the characteristic features of the exhibition narratives, and compares school textbooks on local history and history books for general readers with the contents of the exhibitions. The analysis of the narratives based on the development of time shows that the history of the Mohe (or Malgal) tribes has been combined with that of Balhae, while they are treated separately in school textbooks. As regards political history, the narrative was largely focused on officials in Balhae's central government rather than on Mohe warriors in the border areas. The maps of Balhae presented in the exhibitions highlight the importance of accumulating empirical data. As for the exhibition of material cultures, this study suggests that the museums should obtain more archaeological floral and faunal remains related with agriculture and hunting. It also points out that the narrative on the theme of foreign relations deals with the archaeological relics of Unified Silla together with those of the Turkic tribes. As for the theme of philosophy and culture, the narrative focused on the state ceremonies and rituals of Goguryeo, a theme that has attracted little attention among Korean academic circles and which consequently requires further study. In conclusion, this study is meaningful in that it suggests a number of research topics regarding the development of exhibitions and exhibition narratives about the history of Balhae by a prestigious Russian museum that specializes in this subject.
With the advent of knowledge-based society, the revitalization of technological innovation type SMEs, termed "inno-biz" hereafter, has been globally recognized as a government policymakers' primary concern in strengthening national competitiveness, and much effort is being put into establishing polices of boosting the start-ups and innovation capability of SMEs. Especially, in that the inno-biz enables national economy to get vitalized by widening world markets with its superior technology, and thus, taking the initiative of extremely competitive world markets, its growth and development has greater significance. In the case of Korea, the government has been maintaining the policies since the late 1990s of stimulating the growth of SMEs as well as building various infrastructures to foster the start-ups of the SMEs such as venture businesses with high technology. In addition, since the enactment of "Innovation Promotion Law for SMEs" in 2001, the government has been accelerating the policies of prioritizing the growth and development of inno-biz. So, for the sound growth and development of Korean inno-biz, this paper intends to offer effective management strategies for SMEs and suggest proper policies for the government, by researching into the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability as the primary business resources on business performance in Korean SMEs in the light of market information orientation. The research is carried out on Korean companies characterized as inno-biz. On the basis of OSLO manual and prior studies, the research categorizes their status. R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and technological innovation system are categorized into technological innovation capability; product development capability, manufacturing capability and marketing capability into technology commercialization capability; and increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. Then the effect of each component on business performance is substantially analyzed. In addition, the mediation effect of technological innovation and technology commercialization capability on business performance is observed by the use of the market information orientation as a parameter. The following hypotheses are proposed. H1 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence business performance. H1-1 : R&D capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-2 : R&D capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-3 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-5 : Technological innovation system will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-6 : Technological innovation system will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2 : Technology commercializing capability will positively influence business performance. H2-1 : Product development capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-2 : Product development capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-3 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-5 : Marketing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-6 : Marketing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H3 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence market information orientation. H3-1 : R&D capability will positively influence information generation. H3-2 : R&D capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-3 : R&D capability will positively influence information response. H3-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information generation. H3-5 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-6 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information response. H3-7 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information generation. H3-8 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information diffusion. H3-9 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information response. H4 : Technology commercialization capability will positively influence market information orientation. H4-1 : Product development capability will positively influence information generation. H4-2 : Product development capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-3 : Product development capability will positively influence information response. H4-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-5 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-6 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information response. H4-7 : Marketing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-8 : Marketing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-9 : Marketing capability will positively influence information response. H5 : Market information orientation will positively influence business performance. H5-1 : Information generation will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-2 : Information generation will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-3 : Information diffusion will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-4 : Information diffusion will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-5 : Information response will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-6 : Information response will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H6 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology innovation capability and business performance. H7 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology commercializing capability and business performance. The followings are the research results : First, as for the effect of technological innovation on business performance, the technology accumulation capability and technological innovating system have a positive effect on increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development, while R&D capability has little effect on business performance. Second, as for the effect of technology commercialization capability on business performance, the effect of manufacturing capability is relatively greater than that of merits for new technology and/or product development. Third, the mediation effect of market information orientation is identified to exist partially in information generation, information diffusion and information response. Judging from these results, the following analysis can be made : On Increase in product competitiveness, directly related to successful technology commercialization of technology, management capability including technological innovation system, manufacturing capability and marketing capability has a relatively strong effect. On merits for new technology and/or product development, on the other hand, capability in technological aspect including R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and product development capability has relatively strong effect. Besides, in the cast of market information orientation, the level of information diffusion within an organization plays and important role in new technology and/or product development. Also, for commercial success like increase in product competitiveness, the level of information response is primarily required. Accordingly, the following policies are suggested : First, as the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability on business performance differs among SMEs; in order for SMEs to secure competitiveness, the government has to establish microscopic policies for SMEs which meet their needs and characteristics. Especially, the SMEs lacking in capital and labor are required to map out management strategies of focusing their resources primarily on their strengths. And the government needs to set up policies for SMEs, not from its macro-scaled standpoint, but from the selective and concentrative one that meets the needs and characteristics of respective SMEs. Second, systematic infrastructures are urgently required which lead technological success to commercial success. Namely, as technological merits at respective SME levels do not always guarantee commercial success, the government should make and effort to build systematic infrastructures including encouragement of M&A or technology trade, systematic support for protecting intellectual property, furtherance of business incubating and industrial clusters for strengthening academic-industrial network, and revitalization of technology financing, in order to make successful commercialization from technological success. Finally, the effort to innovate technology, R&D, for example, is essential to future national competitiveness, but its result is often prolonged. So the government needs continuous concern and funding for basic science, in order to maximize technological innovation capability. Indeed the government needs to examine continuously whether technological innovation capability or technological success leads satisfactorily to commercial success in market economic system. It is because, when the transition fails, it should be left to the government.
Korea's business is composed of a few large-sized enterprises (which can be abbreviated as LSE) and a majority of small-sized enterprises (SSE). Although there has been a growing recognition of the need for the development of medium-sized enterprises (MSE) which can serve as a link between SSE and LSE, as yet there has not yet been a consensus on the definition, characteristics and the function of the MSE in Korea. Nowadays, the world is being globalized, and Japan and China are in competition to ne a great economic power. While East Asia is experiencing rapid changes, promoting MSE which can secure flexibility and efficiency through covering up the limitation of LSE and SSE is needed in order to respond the global market which is being specialized. The features of MSE in Japan can be listed as follows. First, the MSE in Japan is developing the company through getting into niche markets which are hard for major companies to enter rather than developing markets in order to compete against major companies directly. While MSEs are endeavoring to build the business firmly in the domestic market, they can possess special and competitive technical skills through trials and errors; so that they can get a chance develop their business through independent business system rather than putting their effort to compete against major companies. Second, from the MSEs with competitive edge in the market, there are many contributions to the national exportation. Those MSEs produce in domestic and maintain the quality of high price products which need cutting-edge technology, while they relocate the low and middle priced goods to the country where manufacturing costs are low, so that they can maintain the price competitiveness. Third, the industrial structure in Japan is formed from dual structure between major companies and small sized companies. In other words, in Japan's industrial structure which are composed of subcontract structure, this dual structure has taken a major role of small sized companies' growth and manufacturing businesses' international competitive power. Forth, MSE in Japan adopt a strategy of putting their value on qualitative scale growth rather than quantitative scale growth. In this paper, the case of Japanese MSE is analyzed. Along with its long history of Industrialization, Japan has a corporate environment where the SSEs can develop as a MSE and later a LSE through a full-support system. Among its SSEs, there are a number of world class corporations equipped with a large domestic market, win-win cooperation with the LSEs and an independent technology development. It can also be observed that these SSEs develop into MSEs with sustainable growth potentials. This study will focus on the condition under which the MSEs of Japan have been developed, and how they have survived the competition between SSEs and LSEs. Through this study, this paper attempts to offer solutions to Korea's polarization between the SSE and LSE, while providing the basis for SSEs revitalization. In general, if both extremities phenomenon deepen between LSE and SSE, there are possible fears of occurring disutility in national economy by the monopolization of LSE. For that reason, enterprise group, which can make SSE or MSE compete LSE in some area and ease the monopoly and oligopoly problem, is needed. This awareness has been shared for ages long. Nevertheless, there is no legal definition for MSE in Japan, and there is no definition about the enterprise size or unified view of MSE between scholars, but it is defined differently by each of academical person or research institution and study meeting. For that reason, this paper will organize the definition of MSE in Japan, and then will propose the characteristics of the background which has made MSE secure competitiveness and sustainable growth in global market. This study focus on that because through this process, the positive change to the awareness of MSE can be proposed in Korea and to seek the policy direction for building institutional framework which can make SSE become MES. Through this way, the fundamentals for SSE to become MSE can be managed and some appropriate suggestions which will be able to make MSE enter the global market in the future can also be proposed. Due to these facts, this study is very important and well timed task. In a sense of this way, this study will examine the definition and role of MSE in Japan. after this examination, this study will deal with the status, special feature, and promotion policy for MSE. Through this analysis of MSE in Japan, the foundation which be able to set the desirable role model for MSE in Korea can be proposed. Also, the political implication which is needed to push ahead to contribute to creating employment and economic growth through sustainable growth of MSEs in economic system of Korea can be offered through this study. It has been found that Japan's MSE functions as an indispensable link among various industrial structures by holding a significant position in employment rate, production and value added. Although the MSEs took up less than 1% of the entire number of businesses with 2700 manufacturing firms and 7000 non-manufacturing firms, its employment ratios are about 15%, while taking about 25% of the manufacturing industry's exports. In industries such as machinery and electronics which is considered Japan's major industry, the MSEs showed a higher than average ratio of manufacturing exports and employment rate. It can be analyzed that behind Japan's advantageous industries, close and deeply knit MSEs exist. Although there are no clearly stated policies geared towards the MSEs by the Japanese government, various political measures exist such as the R&D Project and the inducement of cooperation between enterprises which gives room for MSEs to participate in the SSE policies. In relation to these findings, the following practical measures can be considered in order to revitalize Korea's MSEs: First, there is a need for a legal definition of MSE and the incentives to provide legal support for its growth. Second, if a law to support the MSEs is established, it could provide a powerful inducement for the SSE to grow as a MSE, rather than stay as a SSE. Third, there is a need for a strategy of MSEs to establish a stable base in the domestic market and then advance to the global market with the accumulated trial and error and competitiveness. Fourth, the SSE themselves need the spirit of entrepreneurship in order to make the leap to a MSE. Because if nothing is to be changed about the system on the firms that grew, and the parts of the past custom was left to be managed alone, confusion and absence of management can take place. No matter how much tax favors the government will give and no matter how much incentive there could be through the policies, there are limits for industries to higher the ability to propagate. And because of that it is a period where industries need their own innovative skills to reform their firms.