My research aims to explore possible ideological conflicts between North and South Korean upon the reunification of the Korean peninsula, and to come up with ways of resolving them. This task requires investigation into the ideologies which have dominated North and South Korea in the past half a century. One major presupposition of this paper is that it is not correct to conceive ideological conflicts purely as arising from confrontation between capitalism and socialism. The rationale behind this presupposition is that both North and South Korea reformed and revised socialism and capitalism in their own ways. In particular, South Korean society in its 60`s and 70`s can be characterized by its peculiar ideology of developmental state, the so-called Eushin, while North Korea has been permeated with the ideology of Juche and its variants up to now. For this reason, this paper focuses on the comparison between Eushin and Juche. The major point that this paper tries to make is that there are many similarities between the two ideologies, despite the traditional understanding to the contrary. More specifically, a few alleged characteristics of the South Korean economy which have been pointed out after her economic crisis in 1977 are similar to the ways in which the North Korean economy have been developing. First, both South and North Korea have relied on the state for their economic growth (or breakdown). In both parts of the peninsula, state intervention has been comprehensive. The state has sometimes served as a substitute for price mechanism, has played the leading role in providing infrastructure for the economy, and has encouraged or forced economic agents to participate in the process of economic growth in the way it has defined. With regard to the last role of the state, leaders of both North and South Korea have often adopted similar methods, e.g. picking out and praising some exemplary, and inducing others to imitate or emulate them. In this regard, as World Bank pointed out, leaders or bureaucrats have taken the place of market or price mechanism. Moreover, due to the military confrontation, people in both Koreas have incessantly been objects of mobilization. More concretely, North Koreans have pretended to work for the purpose of liberation of the Southern half, whereas South Koreans were eager to export their commodities as if they were waging war. Furthermore, the goal of economic development has been self-reliance for quite a while even in South Korea. Second, not only in North Korea but also in South Korea have functioned incentive systems which do not rely purely on self-interest, but partly on morality, duty, communitarian values, although there are differences in degrees between the two Koreas. In South Korea, the latter have taken such forms as appeals to patriotism, slogans of live and let live, love of neighbours and community and so forth. One might retort that all these are no more than self-interest in disguise. However, I believe that, at least part of these motivations have been really working in South Korean as well as North Korean society. Even now, few South Korean business men dare to come out in the public and to declare that "I do my business purely for profit. For this reason, economic activities tend to be based on long-term relationships both in North and South Korea. This seems to be true of transactions between labour and management, between firms and banks, between big firms and small firms, and between firms and consumers. In particular, one of the basic phenomena which have appeared in South Korean economy seems to be a gift exchange or social exchange rather than economic exchange. This also tells us that South Korean capitalism is akin to Japanese capitalism. Needless to say, these possible similarities do not allow us to underestimate ideological differences between the two Koreas. We need to investigate how these differences are embedded in the above-mentioned similarities. However, my researches seem to suggest that ideological conflicts upon reunification may be alleviated by communitarian values that two Korean societies have had in common. This suggestion may hold not in the transitional period after reunification, but also in the process towards reunification of the peninsula. However, it is another question how to make the supposed communitarian value and system feasible in the face of the trend of globalization. I intend to investigate this question in my future research.