중국의 지역 균형 발전과지역 문화산업 육성 전략

Abstract

This article aims at examining the characteristics of thepromotion strategy of regional culture industries the Chinesegovernment has implemented as a part of solutions to regionaldisparities, and the problems that have occurred in the process ofits practice. As the statistics indicate, cultural industry in Chinahas achieved a growth rate far exceeding that of GDP over thepast decade, and in turn, contributed to regional development to aconsiderable degree. As a solution to regional disparities, however,the Chinese promotion strategy of regional culture industries andthe process of its implementation render many demerits thatsuggest serious problems in contrast to the apparent quantitativegrowth. First, by the Chinese government’s delimitating the category ofcultural industry too broad, the promotion strategy of culturalindustries in many regions disclosed the tendency to concentrate on peripheral or annexed sectors-such as culture-industrymanufacturing-instead of core sectors of cultural industry. Second,the Chinese government’s differentiation strategy by regionsencouraged ‘development’ fever of cultural resources each regionretains, and many provincial governments implemented theircultural resource development in connection with real estatedevelopment. Third, the culture-industry policy of the Chinesecentral government assigned the new task of regional developmentto provincial governments, and this conduced to over-competitionbetween regions. The promotion strategy of regional culture industries based onthe regional resource advantage, in regard of a solution to regionaldisparities at least, is not likely to give satisfactory results. Aboveall, unless the central government disproportionately allocatesstrong policy measures, the budget in particular, in favor ofparticular regions, regional culture industries are destined to runinto free competition, and accordingly, the eastern regions with theabsolute advantage in terms of culture-industry related resourcessuch as man power, capital, technique, industry scale and marketswill gain predominance. On the other hand, policies related with cultural industry needto be conceptualized, not by the unilinear logics of ‘development’but from the perspective of so-called ‘sustainable development’. Thefundamental power for sustainable development of cultural industryis creativity and renovation, and thus the state policies should putemphasis on continuously creating the opportunities with whichcreativity and renovation play their roles all over the value chainsof cultural industry. For the change of policy keynote in thisdirection, among others, a new model for the policy evaluation that suits to the peculiarity of culture industry is necessitated, becausethe policy formulation and implementation is absolutely influencedby the policy evaluation. So, if the evaluation model for industrypolicies that presupposes clear-cut input and output is supposed tobe applied to cultural industries untouched, it is actuallyimpossible to formulate and implement policies that reflect thepeculiarity of cultural industry.