Cultural Industries, Asian Countries, and Economic Impact
This post presents a scholarly review of the thesis by Heming Zhang (2024) titled “The Analysis and Comparison of the Economic Effects for the Cultural Industry in Typical Regions of China, Japan and South Korea based on the Input-Output Table.” Zhang’s dissertation, thus, offers a rigorous comparative analysis of the economic effects of cultural industries across three East Asian regions—Hangzhou (China), Kyoto (Japan), and Seoul (South Korea). By employing input-output (IO) models, the study evaluates economic impacts through coefficients of specialization, influence, and sensitivity.
Zhang’s work offers a comprehensive analysis of cultural industries by examining their role not only as economic drivers but also as crucial elements for cultural preservation and social cohesion. The dissertation combines classical cultural theories with modern quantitative techniques to reveal how these industries influence regional economic structures, contribute to cultural identity, and inform governmental policy decisions. In doing so, the study bridges interdisciplinary perspectives, drawing on theoretical frameworks from scholars such as Adorno and Horkheimer (2002) and Throsby (2001).
Cultural Aspects
The thesis highlights how each region defines and classifies cultural industries differently, reflecting their unique cultural heritages and modern adaptations. For example, China’s inclusion of traditional arts and digital media, Japan’s blend of traditional crafts and UNESCO frameworks, and South Korea’s focus on Hallyu (Korean Wave) and digital content. This aligns with Throsby’s (2001) notion of cultural industries as encompassing both traditional and commercial elements. However, the author might not have deeply explored how globalization affects local cultural identities, which is a common critique in cultural economics (Hesmondhalgh, 2013).
Zhang underscores that cultural industries across the three regions reflect unique cultural identities. While China’s classification includes traditional arts (e.g., calligraphy) alongside digital media, Japan’s adherence to UNESCO’s Framework for Cultural Statistics (2009) emphasizes preservation, as seen in Kyoto’s traditional textiles and museums. In contrast, South Korea’s focus on globalized digital content (e.g., K-pop, film) illustrates how globalization homogenizes or hybridizes local cultures, a tension noted by Shim (2006) in critiques of Hallyu’s global dominance.
The analysis of Cultural GDP in Kyoto (2% of regional GDP) reveals a paradox: despite UNESCO-aligned policies, traditional sectors like textiles struggle to modernize, echoing Nagasawa’s (2016) argument that standardized frameworks may overlook indigenous cultural dynamics. Comparatively, Seoul’s digital-centric model exemplifies “creative destruction,” as proposed by Schumpeter (Caballero, 2010), where innovation eclipses traditional forms, raising questions about cultural sustainability.
At its core, the dissertation situates cultural industries within a broader historical and societal context. Zhang discusses the evolution of the concept—from its origins in critical theory, as outlined by Adorno and Horkheimer (2002), to its contemporary redefinition as an engine of cultural and creative expression (UNESCO, 2009). This analysis highlights how regions with a rich cultural heritage—like Kyoto—leverage traditional arts to sustain a unique cultural identity while also adapting to modern creative trends. By comparing the varying definitions and classifications of cultural industries in China, Japan, and South Korea, Zhang underscores that cultural production is not homogenous but is instead deeply influenced by local histories and traditions.
Economic Aspects
The use of input-output models to measure economic impacts (like influence coefficients) is well-founded in economic literature (Miller & Blair, 2009). The findings that Hangzhou’s cultural industry is transitioning from secondary to tertiary sectors and Seoul’s dominance in digital content reflect broader economic trends in East Asia. However, the thesis could benefit from discussing how these economic shifts relate to regional development policies, such as China’s Five-Year Plans or South Korea’s government support for Hallyu, as noted by Park (2008).
Zhang’s use of IO tables to quantify economic linkages is methodologically robust, drawing on Miller and Blair’s (2009) foundational work. Key findings include Hangzhou’s shift from manufacturing (e.g., wood products) to tertiary sectors (e.g., IT services), reflecting China’s “12th Five-Year Plan” (2011–2015) emphasis on innovation. Similarly, Seoul’s high local manufacturing rates in broadcasting and gaming align with Park’s (2008) analysis of South Korea’s state-led cultural exports.
However, the thesis underutilizes comparative metrics like employment elasticity or productivity. For instance, Kyoto’s traditional textile sector employs 8,007 workers but contributes minimally to Cultural GDP, suggesting inefficiencies that Qu et al. (2020) attribute to underinvestment in automation. Additionally, while Zhang notes Seoul’s reliance on exports, the analysis omits discussions of trade barriers or intellectual property issues, which Saeji (2024) identifies as critical to Hallyu’s resilience.
Methodologically, Zhang employs the calculation of specialization coefficients, influence and sensitivity coefficients, and forward linkage effects using the Ghosh inverse matrix—to quantify the multiplier effects of cultural sectors on regional economies. This quantitative approach not only validates the economic significance of cultural industries but also provides policy‐makers with actionable insights into resource allocation and industrial upgrading.
Policy Aspects
Government policies play a significant role, such as China’s strategic promotion of cultural industries and Japan’s alignment with UNESCO standards. The mention of South Korea’s challenges due to political decisions (e.g., THAAD deployment affecting cultural exports) ties into Saeji’s (2021) analysis of political vulnerabilities in cultural industries. However, the thesis might underemphasize how political structures (e.g., central vs. local governance) influence cultural policies, a point raised by Ibata-Arens (2014) in the context of Japan’s regional strategies.
Government policies emerge as pivotal drivers. China’s strategic categorization of cultural industries as a “pillar” economy mirrors Webster et al.’s (2011) observation of top-down industrialization. Conversely, Japan’s adoption of UNESCO standards reflects a bid for global cultural legitimacy, yet Kyoto’s middling national COS ranking (43rd) reveals disparities between local and national priorities, a tension Ibata-Arens (2014) links to fragmented governance.
South Korea’s cultural policies, particularly post-1997 financial crisis deregulation, enabled Hallyu’s rise but also exposed vulnerabilities, such as geopolitical tensions. Zhang’s focus on 2015 data—peak Hallyu—sidesteps recent challenges like China’s “Korea ban” (Saeji, 2024), limiting the analysis of political risk in cultural economies.
The work also explores the political ramifications of cultural industry development. For example, in Hangzhou, strategic government interventions—such as incorporating cultural innovation into the city’s broader economic planning—demonstrate how political leadership can harness cultural assets to drive economic transformation.
Social Aspects
The social implications include job creation and cultural preservation. The employment data in Kyoto shows traditional sectors like textiles remain vital, which supports O’Connor’s (2000) argument about cultural industries sustaining heritage. However, the thesis doesn’t fully address social equity issues, such as access to cultural resources or the digital divide in Seoul’s tech-driven sectors, which Kang et al. (2023) highlight.
The thesis highlights employment as a social benefit, with Kyoto’s traditional sectors sustaining heritage crafts and Seoul’s digital industries creating tech jobs. However, it neglects equity issues, such as gender disparities in South Korea’s entertainment sector (Hwang et al., 2018) or rural-urban divides in China’s cultural resource distribution.
Zhang’s Cultural GDP framework, while innovative, overlooks non-monetary social impacts, such as cultural identity or community cohesion. O’Connor (2000) argues that reducing culture to economic metrics risks marginalizing intangible values, a critique applicable to the study’s reliance on IO models.
Thus, Zhang emphasizes that cultural industries contribute to urban vibrancy and community cohesion by promoting both the preservation of traditional practices and the adoption of new digital platforms. This duality reflects broader societal debates about the commodification versus the authentic preservation of culture, a discussion echoed in Hesmondhalgh’s (2013) analyses of contemporary cultural economies.
Connections to Scholarly Literature
Zhang effectively engages UNESCO’s cultural frameworks and Throsby’s (2001) economic theories but could integrate broader debates. For example, Faler’s (1974) analysis of industrialization’s cultural costs contrasts with Zhang’s optimistic view of Hangzhou’s tech transition. Similarly, Hesmondhalgh (2013) critiques the commodification of culture, which resonates with Seoul’s export-dependent model but is unaddressed. Additionally, discussing the limitations of input-output analysis in capturing intangible cultural values (Smith, & Campbell, 2017) would strengthen the critique.
Zhang’s dissertation is firmly embedded within and extends the existing scholarly dialogue. By integrating perspectives from Throsby (2001) on cultural economics, UNESCO’s (2009) standardized frameworks, and Yamada’s (2002) linkage models specific to Japanese cultural contexts, the study situates itself at a crossroads of economic theory and cultural studies. This interdisciplinary synthesis is particularly valuable for understanding how cultural industries not only generate wealth but also reinforce political strategies and social narratives in an increasingly globalized world.
Critical Evaluation and Future Directions
Zhang’s thesis provides a valuable comparative lens on East Asia’s cultural industries. While comprehensive, the thesis focuses on economic metrics, potentially overlooking qualitative cultural impacts. Future research could incorporate ethnographic data or case studies to explore how cultural industries affect community identity and social cohesion. Also, comparing more regions or including rural areas might provide a fuller picture of cultural economies in East Asia.
While input‐output analysis provides a clear picture of economic interdependencies, it may underrepresent the symbolic and identity-forming roles of cultural industries. Future research could expand upon Zhang’s findings by incorporating qualitative case studies or mixed-method approaches that more fully account for these subtleties, especially as digital technologies continue to reshape both production and consumption in the cultural sector.
Conclusion
Overall, Zhang’s dissertation makes a significant contribution by elucidating the complex interplay between culture and economy in East Asia. It offers a nuanced perspective serving as a valuable resource for scholars and policy-makers interested in the sustainable development of cultural industries.
References
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press.
Caballero, R. J. (2010). Creative destruction. In Economic growth (pp. 24-29). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Faler, P. (1974). Cultural aspects of the industrial revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, shoemakers and industrial morality, 1826–1860. Labor History, 15(3), 367-394.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries (3rd ed.). Sage.
Hwang, H., Oh, I., & Lopes, P. (2023). The international strategy for Korean pop music: what makes K-pop listed on Billboard Hot 100?. Asia Pacific Business Review, 29(5), 1349-1368.
Ibata-Arens, K. (2014). Japan’s new business incubation revolution. In Handbook of East Asian Entrepreneurship (pp. 145-156). Routledge.
Kang, E., Hwang, H., Li, X., Yoo, J., & Park, Y. (2023, February). The Digital Divide in the Post-corona Era: Focused on Social Participation. In Future of Information and Communication Conference (pp. 311-324). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009). Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
Nagasawa, T. (2016). The reception of American science fiction in Japan. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature.
O’Connor, J. (2000). The definition of the ‘cultural industries’. The European Journal of Arts Education, 2(3), 15-27.
Park, K. A. (2008). The growth of cultural industry and the role of Government: The case of Korea (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Saeji, C. T. (2024). Making icons: the rise of the K-pop adjacent industries. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 25(6), 874-895.
Shim, D. (2006). Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, culture & society, 28(1), 25-44.
Smith, L., & Campbell, G. (2017). The tautology of “intangible values” and the misrecognition of intangible cultural heritage. Heritage & Society, 10(1), 26-44.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press.
UNESCO. (2009). Culture 360. UNESCO Publishing.
Webster, D., Muller, L., & Cai, J. (2011). The emerging cultural economy in Chinese cities: early dynamics. International Development Planning Review, 33(3), 343-369.
Yamada, K. (2002). The linkage model of cultural industry [Unpublished manuscript].
Zhang, H. (2024). The analysis and comparison of the economic effects for the cultural industry in typical regions of China, Japan and South Korea based on the input‐output table [Doctoral dissertation, GSISS, Yokohama National University].
[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Chat, DeepSeek (February 25, 2025).]
[Support the Open Culture Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs,]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (February 25, 2025). Cultural Industries, Asian Countries, and Economic Impact. Open Culture. Retrieved April 19, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13d92