Search results

In Chapter 1, a broad overview of the scope of entrepreneurialism in policing and criminal contexts which are broadly positive in nature was developed. In Chapter 2, the scrutiny to cover socio-cultural and organisational barriers to the implementation of entrepreneurial policing are extended. These include police culture, organisational traits such as ‘Machismo’ and ‘Conformism’, the restrictive nature of the police rank structure, the military model of policing, bureaucracy, risk-aversion, anti-entrepreneurialism, anti-intellectualism, the ‘Maverick’ stereotype, and the ‘Questioning Constable’. Many of these elements are of a negative nature and inhibit the implementation of entrepreneurial policing and practices. Also the entrepreneurial organisation and issues such as privatisation, commercialisation, innovation, and technology which also inhibit entrepreneurialism in policing contexts, but which also offer significant opportunities, are considered.

This chapter analyzes how institutional pressures have allowed for continuities as well as brought about changes in modern police organizations in Korea. When facing a legitimacy crisis, the Korean law enforcement system has typically responded with organizational restructuring. Strong myth-building patterns compensate for the lack of moral legitimacy of the police, particularly under authoritarian-military regimes that suppress democratization movements in Korea. Even after seemingly radical organizational changes aimed at placing the police under democratic control, highly institutionalized core structures of the police remain in place. Performance reform after the economic crisis, which was proceeded from reformers’ shared belief in the market-driven solutions, diagnosed the Korean police as a big, inefficient, and self-serving bureaucracy, a diagnosis that eventually caused gradual deterioration in the taken-for-grantedness of policing activities. The internet and social media made the Korean police even more vulnerable to external challenges and a questioning of its legitimacy.

So far, in Chapters 1 and 2, we have explored the scope and power of entrepreneurship in policing and criminal contexts, and in particular, entrepreneurial policing, as well as having examined the inherent cultural and organisational dynamics within the service which make its implementation problematic. In Chapter 3, the author looked at how the philosophy and practice of entrepreneurial leadership has initiated entrepreneurial change in respect of organisational governance; and, in Chapter 4, the author examined the related concept of criminal entrepreneurship and established that there is also an inherent entrepreneurial nature to crime and in particular organised crime. This inherent phenomenon is also present in ordinary disorganised crime. Accordingly, the author developed an enterprise-based ecosystem model of crime and discussed what this means in terms of the entrepreneurial organisational capabilities of the police and in turn how this affects how they interdict serious and organised crime. There is a palpable mismatch. In Chapters 5 and 6, the author turned to further explore how the service can inject entrepreneurial vigour into its structures, philosophies, and everyday practices, processes, and procedures by understanding the mismatch and taking steps to initiate change. In Chapter 7, the author draws the threads of the argument together by discussing the critical need for change and provide suggestions on how to overcome obstacles and difficulties. This will entail reversing the cultures of risk-aversion, anti-entrepreneurialism, anti-intellectualism and by learning to lead entrepreneurially. Policing is a complex social process which changes as a result of social pressures and political changes and accordingly the author briefly examines some important changes brought about by the global Covid-19 pandemic which may change the way the police in the twenty-first century. Finally, the author ends by considering how to move towards a more entrepreneurial future in policing and criminal contexts.