|
|
|
| Integration and Symbiosis: on the Coordinated Development Index of the Cultural Industry along the “Belt and Road” |
| XIANG Yong1, LI Jin-sha2 |
1. Institute of Cultural Industry, Peking University, Beijing, 100871;
2. College of Art, Peking University, Beijing, 100871 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The “Belt and Road” initiative and practice provide opportunities for China to promote the development of export-oriented cultural industry. With previous theories of industrial development and investment and trade evaluation, the results of the researches on the evaluation system of urban cultural development, and the five key elements of cultural gene proximity, cultural trade smoothness, cultural construction complementarity, cultural exchange closeness, and cultural support compatibility considered, we can build a set of scientific evaluation index system to provide reference to the countries along the“Belt and Road” in decision-making in the exchange and cooperation of cultural industries. Specific evaluation and comprehensive ranking are made among the countries along the“Belt and Road” in accordance with the evaluation index system. The study points out that integration and symbiosis is essential to the prosperous coexistence of the countries along the “Belt and Road”, and the necessary guideline and goal for pro-moting the “Belt and Road” Initiative. China should attach importance to the outcomes of its cooperation with countries in Central and Eastern Europe, ASEAN, and the CIS, and enhance all-round cooperation and development with them. For West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia, we should size up the situation, try cultural exchanges and industrial cooperation, and seek cooperation opportunities for the future. China should comprehensively promote industrial cooperation with Russia, attach importance to infrastructure cooperation with Thailand and Poland, and strive to promote cultural exchanges with the UAE and Singapore, so as to promote the comprehensive cooperation in cultural industry with countries along the Belt and Road.
|
|
Received: 15 March 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] (美)迈克尔·波特.国家竞争优势[M].李明轩,邱如美译.北京:中信出版社,2007.212-234.
[2] (英)阿诺德·汤因比.历史研究[M].刘北成,郭小凌译.上海:世纪出版社,2005.82.
[3] Keohane R O,Nye J S.Power and Interdependence in the Information Age[J].Foreign affairs (Council on Foreign Re-lations),1998,77(5):81-94.
[4] (美)萨缪尔森·亨廷顿.文明的冲突[M].周琪等译.北京:新华出版社,2012.135-136.
[5] Florida R.The Rise of the Creative Class[J].Washington Monthly,2002,35(5).
[6] 胡惠林. 文化产业理性发展的尺度——构建具有路标导向的中国文化产业发展指标体系[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014,22(4):82-87.
[7] 祁述裕, 殷国俊.中国文化产业国际竞争力评价和若干建议[J].国家行政学院学报,2005,(2):50-53.
[8] 向勇,白晓晴,李尽沙.中国城市文化力发展评价指标体系研究[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2018,(4):51-59.
[9] Litvak I A,Banting P M.A conceptual framework for intern-ational business arrangement[J].Marketing and the New Science of Planning, America Marketing Association,1968,(1):460-497.
[10] Zhu J,Xingmei X,Miying L,et al.Global Report on Inte-rnational Trade and Investment Risk Indexes Of 100 Countries(ITIRI 2006)[J].China’s Foreign Trade,2007,(23):39-43.
[11] 王元京,叶剑峰.国内外投资环境指标体系的比较[J]. 经济理论与经济管理,2003,(7):14-21.
[12] “Five Connectivity Index”Research Group of Peking University.World Premier of The Belt and Road Initiative:2018 Report on Five Connectivity Indexes at Taihe Civilizations Forum[EB/OL].https://ocean.pku.edu.cn/info/1165/3077.htm,2019-11-08.
[13] 中外城市竞争力研究院.2018一带一路投资成果最显著国家排行榜[EB/OL].http://www.gqfgi.com/Ch/NewsView.asp?ID=1210&SortID=22,2019-11-08.
[14] 顾春光,翟崑.“一带一路”贸易投资指数:进展、挑战与展望[J].当代亚太,2017,(6):4-23.
[15] 段学芬,王悦,雷鸣.中国城市创意指数指标体系构建研究[J].学术界,2013,(11):70-84+315.
[16] 胡惠林,王婧.中国文化产业发展指数报告[J].中国文化产业评论,2012,(2):3-21.
[17] 张剑光,张鹏.中国与“一带一路”国家的贸易效率与影响因素研究[J].国际经贸探索,2017,33(8):4-23.
[18] 王洪涛,周莉.中国与东盟文化贸易的竞争性与互补性研究[J]. 学术论坛,2015,(11):129-135.
[19] 林明华,杨永忠.中国创意产业发展的影响因素及策略研究[J].华东经济管理,2012,26(8):19-23. |
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 37 
