New plan to rejuvenate culture industry doesn’t tackle tight govt control
By Goh Sui Noi 28 October 2009
Chinese culture took centre stage at this year’s Frankfurt Book Fair, one of the world’s most important literary events, which ended on Oct 18. China sent 100 writers, 300 actors and 700 publishers and traders to the fair, and featured in no less than 612 events in the months leading to and including the fair.
But the mixed reception China received at the fair showed that while it has no problems selling clothes and laptops to the rest of the world, promoting its culture overseas was a different matter.
Mr. Zhao Haiyun, spokesman for China’s General Administration of Press and Publication (Gapp), told The New York Times that instead of focusing on literature, the media at the fair had focused on human rights - and censorship.
Therein lies the problem that Beijing’s latest plan to rejuvenate its culture industries fails to address: that of tight government control over the content of China’s cultural products.
The rejuvenation plan was announced last month, days after China appealed against a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling in August in favour of a US complaint against China’s restrictions on imports of US films, music and books.
Even as China opened up many sectors after it joined the WTO in 2001, its culture industries remained protected.
One reason is that they were weak, organised not as profit-making entities but as administrative units. For example, each government ministry might have its own publishing house. The Chinese were just not ready to compete internationally.
Another reason was the worry over the foreign values that come with foreign content, particularly those deemed unacceptable. In the run-up to China’s WTO accession, an article in the newspaper China Culture warned against cultural colonialism, where developed countries imposed their cultural values on others. However, it added that the solution was not to resist all foreign cultures but to assimilate their essence and ‘make them serve China’s own cultural development’.
As it is, even the local culture industries come under strict control of the government. The Gapp licenses publishers, screens publications and has the power to ban material and shut down organisations that get out of line. The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television has similar authority over radio, television, film and Internet broadcasts.
Even after its WTO accession, China allowed only 20 foreign films a year, the distribution of which had to be done through a Chinese company. Foreign investors could take stakes of up to only 49 per cent in joint ventures in cinema and theatre. Foreign investors were allowed to engage in the retailing of books, newspapers and periodicals only from 2003 and in wholesaling only from 2004.
In the meantime, attempts were made to make the domestic culture industries more competitive. For example, the corporatisation of state-owned publishing houses began in 2002.
In the eight years since China’s WTO accession, however, the local culture industries have clearly failed to catch up with their foreign counterparts.
Of the top 10 movies last year, only two were entirely local. Three were collaborations with Hong Kong and Taiwanese companies and another three were American but with Chinese themes, including Kung Fu Panda and Forbidden Kingdom.
At the Beijing Book Fair in 2005, German publishers sold 600 titles to China while the Chinese sold just one to the Germans. China’s movies and music travel less well than those of the freer Chinese communities of Taiwan and Hong Kong.
The gap between demand and supply is filled amply by the thriving and nimble piracy mill. In 2004, illegal translations of former United States President Bill Clinton’s memoir My Life hit the streets even before the Chinese translation rights were sold. Piracy also stifles the local creative industries.
With foreign firms beating down the door, it has become imperative that more be done to bring China’s own culture industries up to speed. The Chinese see the creative industries as a new area of economic growth as they restructure their economy away from an over-reliance on the manufacture of cheap goods. And as China rises as a global economic and political power, it is also looking to project its soft power through its culture industries.
So it was that in April this year, the Gapp announced that apart from some non-profit publishing houses, all other state-owned publishing outfits will be restructured as market-oriented firms. In addition, 10,000 private publishers, which had hitherto operated in a grey area, will be legalised. State-owned publishers will be encouraged to collaborate with market-savvy private publishers.
And last month, the State Council announced a plan to ‘revitalise’ the culture industries by commercialising the sector - that is, turning cultural troupes, publishing, film production and distribution houses into commercial entities. Measures include lowering the threshold for private and foreign investment in state-owned media companies, tax breaks and setting up a culture industries investment fund.
Other measures include nurturing cultural talents, improving intellectual property rights protection laws and cracking down on piracy. Digital media will be actively promoted. The goal is to nurture local media firms so they can eventually go global - in the mould of Time Warner.
The missing ingredient in this grand plan, however, is the expansion of space for creativity through looser government control. As Professor Zheng Yongnian of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore observed, the government is not ready to give up control of editorial content.
The ‘preconditions for artists and scholars to produce fine work’ are not there, he said. It would take years to establish the right institutional environment for the culture industries to thrive - such as the protection of intellectual property rights, the rule of law, a good education system and freedom of expression.
The latest plan shows China’s ambition to be culturally attractive, but it will take a lot more than just ambition to realise this dream.
2 comments:
Chinese culture a hard sell
New plan to rejuvenate culture industry doesn’t tackle tight govt control
By Goh Sui Noi
28 October 2009
Chinese culture took centre stage at this year’s Frankfurt Book Fair, one of the world’s most important literary events, which ended on Oct 18. China sent 100 writers, 300 actors and 700 publishers and traders to the fair, and featured in no less than 612 events in the months leading to and including the fair.
But the mixed reception China received at the fair showed that while it has no problems selling clothes and laptops to the rest of the world, promoting its culture overseas was a different matter.
Mr. Zhao Haiyun, spokesman for China’s General Administration of Press and Publication (Gapp), told The New York Times that instead of focusing on literature, the media at the fair had focused on human rights - and censorship.
Therein lies the problem that Beijing’s latest plan to rejuvenate its culture industries fails to address: that of tight government control over the content of China’s cultural products.
The rejuvenation plan was announced last month, days after China appealed against a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling in August in favour of a US complaint against China’s restrictions on imports of US films, music and books.
Even as China opened up many sectors after it joined the WTO in 2001, its culture industries remained protected.
One reason is that they were weak, organised not as profit-making entities but as administrative units. For example, each government ministry might have its own publishing house. The Chinese were just not ready to compete internationally.
Another reason was the worry over the foreign values that come with foreign content, particularly those deemed unacceptable. In the run-up to China’s WTO accession, an article in the newspaper China Culture warned against cultural colonialism, where developed countries imposed their cultural values on others. However, it added that the solution was not to resist all foreign cultures but to assimilate their essence and ‘make them serve China’s own cultural development’.
As it is, even the local culture industries come under strict control of the government. The Gapp licenses publishers, screens publications and has the power to ban material and shut down organisations that get out of line. The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television has similar authority over radio, television, film and Internet broadcasts.
Even after its WTO accession, China allowed only 20 foreign films a year, the distribution of which had to be done through a Chinese company. Foreign investors could take stakes of up to only 49 per cent in joint ventures in cinema and theatre. Foreign investors were allowed to engage in the retailing of books, newspapers and periodicals only from 2003 and in wholesaling only from 2004.
In the meantime, attempts were made to make the domestic culture industries more competitive. For example, the corporatisation of state-owned publishing houses began in 2002.
In the eight years since China’s WTO accession, however, the local culture industries have clearly failed to catch up with their foreign counterparts.
Of the top 10 movies last year, only two were entirely local. Three were collaborations with Hong Kong and Taiwanese companies and another three were American but with Chinese themes, including Kung Fu Panda and Forbidden Kingdom.
At the Beijing Book Fair in 2005, German publishers sold 600 titles to China while the Chinese sold just one to the Germans. China’s movies and music travel less well than those of the freer Chinese communities of Taiwan and Hong Kong.
The gap between demand and supply is filled amply by the thriving and nimble piracy mill. In 2004, illegal translations of former United States President Bill Clinton’s memoir My Life hit the streets even before the Chinese translation rights were sold. Piracy also stifles the local creative industries.
With foreign firms beating down the door, it has become imperative that more be done to bring China’s own culture industries up to speed. The Chinese see the creative industries as a new area of economic growth as they restructure their economy away from an over-reliance on the manufacture of cheap goods. And as China rises as a global economic and political power, it is also looking to project its soft power through its culture industries.
So it was that in April this year, the Gapp announced that apart from some non-profit publishing houses, all other state-owned publishing outfits will be restructured as market-oriented firms. In addition, 10,000 private publishers, which had hitherto operated in a grey area, will be legalised. State-owned publishers will be encouraged to collaborate with market-savvy private publishers.
And last month, the State Council announced a plan to ‘revitalise’ the culture industries by commercialising the sector - that is, turning cultural troupes, publishing, film production and distribution houses into commercial entities. Measures include lowering the threshold for private and foreign investment in state-owned media companies, tax breaks and setting up a culture industries investment fund.
Other measures include nurturing cultural talents, improving intellectual property rights protection laws and cracking down on piracy. Digital media will be actively promoted. The goal is to nurture local media firms so they can eventually go global - in the mould of Time Warner.
The missing ingredient in this grand plan, however, is the expansion of space for creativity through looser government control. As Professor Zheng Yongnian of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore observed, the government is not ready to give up control of editorial content.
The ‘preconditions for artists and scholars to produce fine work’ are not there, he said. It would take years to establish the right institutional environment for the culture industries to thrive - such as the protection of intellectual property rights, the rule of law, a good education system and freedom of expression.
The latest plan shows China’s ambition to be culturally attractive, but it will take a lot more than just ambition to realise this dream.
Post a Comment