ISSN 2409-7616

Zeldner A.G., Osipov V.S.



UDC 334.723

Zeldner A.G.1 (Moscow, Russian Federation) – E-mail:, Osipov V.S.2 (Moscow, Russian Federation) – E-mail:

1Institute of Economics RAS

2MGIMO University

Abstract. The problem of research. In this paper, a comparative analysis of Russian state-owned corporations and South Korean chaebols from the management perspective is carried out. The authors note the great similarity of these organizations not only in the management mechanism, but also in the goals of functioning and development strategies. The results of the analysis and conclusions are presented, from which it follows that the Russian authorities clearly used the experience of the chaebols of South Korea to grow national champions, and, consequently, Russia has the opportunity to identify problem areas in the management of chaebols and avoid them in the development of state corporations. Research methods. The paper uses a comparative method of analysis, structural and institutional methods. The comparative method allowed the authors to measure the management structures of chaebols and state corporations, to identify differences in property rights. The structural method revealed the similarity of the construction of chaebols and state corporations. The institutional method made it possible to identify the economic mechanism of the activities of chaebols and state corporations. All three methods used showed how state corporations lose to Chaebols. Conclusions. The study showed that both Chaebol and state-owned corporations are closely connected with the government in terms of financing and determining the development strategy. At the same time, chaebols are formed according to a linear-functional and divisional type with a predominance of cross-ownership of blocks of shares and nepotism in determining the heads of enterprises of one chaebol. State corporations are more similar to the Soviet ministries of the late period, formed according to the linear-functional and divisional type. Chaebols are controlled by owners, and control over the activities of state corporations is blurred between internal audit commissions, audit companies and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, without a clear definition of the areas of control.

Keywords: chaebol, state corporation, corporate governance, ownership structure, economic mechanism.


  1. Borisova D.D., Anokhina M.E. Management models: “KEIRETSU” AND “CHAEBOL” on the example of the companies “MITSUI”, “SUMITO” AND “HYUNDAI” Innovation and investment, 2017, no. 10, pp. 215-217. (In Russian) URL:
  2. Bratarchuk T.V., Alekseev A.Yu., Karpukhin I.M. The role of state regulation in the formation and development of Korean TNCs. Municipal Academy, 2021, no. 1, pp. 157-170. (In Russian)  URL:
  3. Belaya E K. Policy of the Republic of Korea to promote international development in Asia. Scientific papers of the North-Western Institute of Management of the RANEPA, 2018, vol. 9. no. 2 (34), pp. 24-36. (In Russian) URL:
  4. Evseev V.O. A new model of social development. CITISE, 2016, no. 3 (7), pp. 4. (In Russian)  URL:
  5. Zeldner A.G., Osipov V. S. State corporations: an attempt to restore the system of sectoral management. Problems of management theory and practice, 2019, no. 7.  6-16. (In Russian) URL:
  6. Zeldner A.G., Osipov V.S. The role of state corporations in the innovation process. Problems of management theory and practice, 2020, no. 4, pp. 6-16. (In Russian) URL:
  7. Korneev K.A. Geopolitical and economic prerequisites for Japan’s participation in international associations at the present stage. Bulletin of the Peoples ‘ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Political Science, 2021, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 215-224. (In Russian) URL:
  8. Koshkin A.P., Evseev V.O. Problems of political management in the process of interstate integration. Questions of political science, 2018, vol. 8, no. 8 (36), pp. 301-310. (In Russian) URL:
  9. Motina A.A., Reshetko N.I. Investing in the economy of South Korea: a great opportunity or a risky venture? Economics and entrepreneurship, 2019, no.  № 5 (106), pp. 467-471. (In Russian) URL:
  10. Ozhereleva T.A. Structural analysis of control systems. State Councilor, 2015, no. 1 (9), pp. 40-44. (In Russian) URL:
  11. Poleshchenko K.N., Razumov V.I., Ryzhenko L.I. The space of innovations: a structural analysis of the problem area of innovation activity. Innovations, 2010, no. 11 (145), pp. 34-38.  (In Russian) URL:
  12. Podoba Z.S., Titova A.M. Chaebol as the basis of the export-oriented economy of the Republic of Korea. Asia and Africa today, 2018, no. 3 (728), pp. 33-40. (In Russian) URL:
  13. Sutyrin S.F., Korgun I.A. The Republic of Korea in the international trade system. Saint Petersburg, International banking Institute, Department of the World Economy Publ.,2009. 32 p. (In Russian) URL:
  14. Sukhanov I.A. Export support system in South Korea. Power and management in the East of Russia, 2020, no. 1 (90), pp. 42-51. (In Russian) URL: URL:
  15. Fedorovsky A.N. The phenomenon of Chebol. The state and big business in the Republic of Korea. Moscow, ID Strategy Publ., 2008, 86 p. (In Russian) URL:
  16. Shcherbakov G.A. National innovation system of the Republic of Korea (formation and current state). Economics and management: problems, solutions, 2020, vol. 6, no. 12 (108), pp. 110-116. (In Russian) URL:
  17. Hasung Jang, Hyung-cheol Kang, Kyung Suh Park. Determinants of Family Ownership: The Choice between Control and Performance. Center for Economic Institutions Working Paper Series. CEI Working Paper Series. N2005-5. Tokyo, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University Publ., 2005.

For citation:

Zeldner A.G., Osipov V.S. Russian state corporations and South Korean chebols: general and special. CITISE, 2021, no. 3, pp.323-331. DOI: