Shifting meanings in changing contexts: the role of the creative city in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei

Abstract

This paper probes the underlying motives behind the adoption of the ‘creative city’ policies in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei. It argues that while the global appeal of the creative city is commonly attributed to urban entrepreneurialism, this reason alone is insufficient in explaining the so-called ‘cultural turn’ in these three cities, because none of them ascribe to the conventional format of the post-industrial ‘entrepreneurial’ city. In order to identify other major forces driving the adoption of creative city initiatives in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei, this work delves into the ways in which the idea of the creative city is reworked within the context of global city making. The study found that in addition to urban entrepreneurialism, the inherited cultural policy agenda, which largely stems from national interests, also plays a significant role in directing (and changing) the ‘global cultural city’ making process. By looking into different roles attached to the ‘imported’ policy discourse of the creative city in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei, this study not only contributes to the understanding of urban cultural policies within the Chinese-speaking world and East Asia more generally, but also lends some insights to the developing field of cultural policy mobility.

Keywords:

• Creative city
• global city making
• cultural policy mutation
• Shanghai
• Taipei
• Hong Kong

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Professor Kate Oakley at the University of Leeds for her insightful comments and a thorough read of the earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank my reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions.

Notes

1. Different terms such as ‘creative city thesis’, ‘creative city policy model’, ‘creative city (policy) discourse’ and ‘creative city (policy) script’ are often used in literature, sometimes interchangeably, to refer to the idea of the creative city and the debate that surrounds it. The central focus of this study is to examine the rationales for the adoption of the creative city policies rather than the conceptual development of the term per se. Therefore, no particular distinction is made between these terms in this paper.

2. A widening use of symbolic and aesthetic practices in urban and regional development policies has also been referred to as ‘culture-led urban regeneration’ (Miles and Paddison 2005), the ‘cultural turn’ (Zukin 1995), and the ‘creative turn’ (Pratt 2009). In this paper, they are seen as manifestations of the same discourse, epitomised by the rise of the ‘creative cities’, in which urban cultural policies are recognised by policy-makers as ‘useful’ to the city’s promotion, regeneration and economic growth.

3. Henceforth, the terms ‘creative city’ and ‘cultural city’ are used interchangeably. These terms along with other similar labels such as ‘cultural capital’ and ‘cultural and creative metropolis’ are symptomatic of culture-led urban development.

4. While in his latest book Florida acknowledged the limitations of his original approach (see Florida 2017), this acknowledgement was long overdue considering that his original ideas have been widely adopted and followed in cities across the globe since as early as 2002.

5. Further research is needed to confirm this proposition.

6. It is worth noting that policy mutation is a two-way process: just as policies are affected and transformed by the policy-making sites at both borrowing and lending ends, these sites, in turn, are also altered in a deeply cross-referential manner as ‘new policy world-views’ (Peck 2011b, 794; original emphasis; see also Prince 2010; Peck and Theodore 2012). While it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider this aspect of mutation, the author addresses the implications of the creative city policies on the adopting sites elsewhere (Karvelyte, forthcoming).

7. It is worth noting that while these strategies may look good on paper, they are often detached from reality. The case of Hong Kong’s most ambitious and most controversial cultural landmark – West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) – exemplifies this point. A handful of studies conducted on the WKCD suggest that contrary to the government’s claims, the primary driving force of this project was neither the quality of life of the local community nor talent cultivation, but rather a global race for the attention of media and investors (see Ku and Tsui 2008; Lui 2008; Raco and Gilliam 2012).

8. The budget data were obtained from the Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DBAS) of the TCG, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) of the Government of the HKSAR, and the Shanghai Municipal Finance Bureau (SMFB). The data for Shanghai until 2009 were not publicly available.

9. Unless stated otherwise, all values provided regarding public expenditure for culture and the arts do not include public spending on sports.

10. Except for the 2006–2008 data for Shanghai, this data exclude the expenditure on sports. The funding provided by the central government in China and Taiwan to support national cultural objects, programmes and activities is also not included.

11. In Hong Kong, tourism accounts for 5% of total GDP (CSD 2013).

12. Henceforth, some interview quotations were translated from Chinese.