The author has studied the startup ecosystems of over 80 countries and observed their rise and fall closely. After spending the past month in Korea, the conclusion is clear. Korea's startup ecosystem has great potential, but it is not being fully realized. In the past, government support was a driving force for the growth of the startup ecosystem, but now excessive intervention is hindering autonomous development. As a result of deep public sector involvement, more than any other country, the self-sustaining foundation of Korean entrepreneurs has weakened.

Korea's startup ecosystem is led by the government, not the market. However, there are no successful cases of this model among leading startup nations. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have grown through private innovation and market competition. Korean companies that have made a mark overseas, such as Sandbird and Noom, have increased their chances of success by reducing dependence on the government. As the history of Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK shows, Koreans have excellent global capabilities. The problem is that this dynamism is being suppressed by institutionalized support systems.

According to global startup analysis firm StartupBlink, Seoul's startup ecosystem still shows a significant gap compared to global top 10 cities like Silicon Valley, London, Shanghai, and Paris. The main reason is the low number of active startups (global rank 29). Its global influence (rank 19) is also low. This is because Korean startups active in major overseas investment institutions or accelerators are extremely rare (rank 50). Most companies remain in the domestic market, resulting in a lack of global startups that create significant employment and a small workforce (rank 19).

Despite the massive incentives and public funds invested, Korean unicorns known globally are still few. Government policies continue to treat entrepreneurs as 'subjects of nurturing,' and entrepreneurs look to government grants before customers. This structure extends to investors and incubators, creating an ecosystem where private capital finds it difficult to compete with government funds. Ultimately, excessive protection ties startups to the domestic market, simultaneously lowering consumer satisfaction and innovation levels.

The solution is clear. Boldly reduce cash support budgets and overhaul subsidies and acceleration programs with low growth linkage. Remaining resources should be concentrated on globally oriented companies in fields where Korea has strengths, such as deep tech, hardware, and content. True growth is possible when targeting the global market from the startup's inception. Institutions or programs that cannot survive without government funds should naturally be phased out, and a market-based ecosystem should take their place.

The excessive concentration on Seoul is also a structural problem. Startup activities in Seoul are 50 times that of the average in other domestic cities. Reducing this gap to just one-tenth would form a balanced multi-core structure, significantly strengthening the nation's overall resilience. Public funds should be reallocated to enhance English proficiency, simplify regulations, provide tax incentives, and promote globally. Singapore's example, which demonstrated that a 'simple and reliable system' rather than 'subsidies' is the source of competitiveness, is highly suggestive.

The current Korean startup ecosystem is like a car that knows its destination but does not move. Both the driver and passengers are aware of this, but no one turns the wheel. It is time to take the wheel again. It is time for the government, private sector, academia, and investment institutions to find their places and transition to a market-centered ecosystem. If Korea has the courage to make this transition, global leadership is not far away.

Popular News