Oil shaped global power in the 20th century. Data replaces that role in the 21st.
Artificial intelligence does not run on ideology. It runs on information — vast, structured, constantly updated streams of digital activity that have become the basic input of modern economies. Algorithmic sophistication matters. But the scale, reliability, and governance of data often matter more.
Yet major powers continue to differ on a fundamental question: Is data primarily a strategic resource to be mobilized?
Or a civil right to be protected?
China and the United States have answered differently. For South Korea — positioned between them technologically and geopolitically — prolonged ambiguity carries risks.
Two Models, Two Logics
Beijing has articulated its position clearly. Data is treated as a factor of production, alongside land, labor, capital, and technology. In 2024, China became the first major economy to allow certain corporate data holdings to be classified as intangible assets on balance sheets.
State-supervised data exchanges have emerged. In some cases, data has even been used as loan collateral.
Part of this reflects fiscal pressures, especially among debt-burdened local governments. But it also signals a broader policy direction: data is viewed as national infrastructure, subject to cataloguing, valuation, and centralized governance.
The United States has followed a different path. American firms pioneered the world’s most advanced data-driven business models — in advertising, e-commerce, cloud computing, search, and social media. These platforms derive much of their value from behavioral and transactional information.
Yet under existing accounting standards, data remains largely absent from corporate balance sheets. It shapes revenue and market capitalization, but is rarely recognized as a formal asset.
The result is a striking paradox: the world’s most data-intensive economy largely avoids codifying data’s economic status.
These differences influence corporate behavior. Chinese technology firms operate within a state-guided framework that aligns data use with national objectives. American firms rely more heavily on private innovation, moderated by competition law and privacy regulation.
One emphasizes coordination. The other prioritizes markets.
South Korea fits comfortably into neither model.
It lacks the global scale of U.S. platforms and the centralized authority of China’s system. Yet it possesses important strengths: advanced digital infrastructure, high connectivity, technologically sophisticated consumers, and a globally significant semiconductor industry.
Its AI sector is expanding. Its data ecosystem is maturing. But growth without policy clarity creates vulnerabilities.
South Korea’s starting point should be a pragmatic one: data functions both as an economic resource and as a personal right. Overemphasizing either dimension risks unintended consequences. Excessive commercialization weakens privacy. Overly restrictive protection can limit innovation.
Sustainable governance requires institutional balance, not rhetorical compromise.
First, clarify legal status. Data is not merely a byproduct of digital activity. It is an industrial input. At the same time, it is closely linked to individual autonomy and dignity. Legal frameworks should reflect this dual character through clear ownership principles, enforceable privacy rules, and transparent standards for consent and secondary use.
Second, modernize accounting practices.
When data materially contributes to enterprise value, investors deserve greater transparency. This does not require adopting China’s valuation model. But standardized disclosure, governance reporting, and risk assessment would reduce informational gaps. Capital markets function more effectively when major intangible assets are visible.
Third, adopt a strategic public data policy.
Government agencies hold vast datasets in healthcare, transportation, education, environment, and industry. With appropriate anonymization and security safeguards, responsible data sharing could strengthen domestic AI development.
Data utilization and privacy protection need not be mutually exclusive if governance mechanisms are robust.
Fourth, balance sovereignty with cooperation.
Data flows are global; regulations are national. South Korea cannot isolate itself digitally, nor can it relinquish regulatory authority. Aligning selectively with European privacy standards and American innovation practices may offer a practical middle ground.
Fifth, integrate data governance into AI policy.
AI systems depend on data quality, diversity, and accountability. Competitiveness requires access. Credibility requires ethics. Effective AI governance must address both.
China has demonstrated strategic coordination. The United States has demonstrated entrepreneurial dynamism.
South Korea’s comparative advantage lies in disciplined balance.
The familiar phrase that data is the “new oil” may sound overstated, but it contains insight. Oil, too, was once poorly measured and weakly regulated. Only after legal and market frameworks matured did it become a stable foundation of national power.
Data appears to be approaching a similar stage. Korea’s technology champions remain in a formative phase. Opportunities are significant. But uncertainty is costly.
Clear legal definitions, credible disclosure standards, strategic public data management, balanced international engagement, and ethical oversight are not policy luxuries. They are structural requirements for long-term competitiveness.
Technology itself is neutral. Governance is not.
The contrast between Washington and Beijing does not demand that South Korea choose sides. It requires that it define its own model.
Is data a commodity to be mobilized or a right to be protected? In practice, it is both. Institutionalizing that duality — rather than oscillating between extremes — will determine whether South Korea merely adapts to the data age or helps shape it.
History rarely rewards hesitation at moments of structural transition. Countries that define their assets early tend to define their futures more successfully.
*The author is an AJP columnist.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.