A Comparative Study on Cultural Industry Investment and Financing in China and The United States

Haobo Lian

doi:10.62051/c5f1yq10

Authors

Haobo Lian

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/c5f1yq10

Keywords:

Cultural industry; Investment; Financing; China; United States.

Abstract

The paper examines the investment and financing strategies employed in the cultural industries of China and the United States. By analyzing the regulatory frameworks, funding sources, and financial processes in each country, we aim to uncover the challenges and opportunities facing the cultural sector. The comparative analysis reveals key insights that can inform future development in both regions. The cultural industries in China and the United States are integral to their economies, contributing significantly to GDP and employment. The governments of both countries have prioritized investment and support for the cultural sector, launching programs aimed at fostering cultural exchange, developing creative enterprises, and preserving cultural heritage. However, differences in regulatory frameworks, funding sources, and investment patterns can impact the competitiveness and sustainability of cultural enterprises. This study seeks to provide a comparative analysis of investment and financing in the cultural industries of China and the United States to shed light on the distinct tactics and techniques used to promote cultural development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Ajayi-Nifise, A. O., Tula, S. T., Asuzu, O. F., Mhlongo, N. Z., Olatoye, F. O., & Ibeh, C. V. The role of government policy in fostering entrepreneurship: a USA and Africa review. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(2), (2024) 352-367.

[2] Carter, M., & Egliston, B. Fantasies of virtual reality: Untangling fiction, fact, and threat. MIT Press (2024).

[3] Tula, S. T., Ofodile, O. C., Okoye, C. C., Nifise, A. O. A., & Odeyemi, O. Entrepreneurial ecosystems in the USA: A comparative review with European models. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(2), (2024) 451-466.

[4] Colonnelli, E., Li, B., & Liu, E. Investing with the government: A field experiment in China. Journal of Political Economy, 132(1), (2024) 248-294.

[5] Yuan, Z., Yu, X., Jiang, Y., Sun, J., Liu, Z., & Li, B. Current status and governance of data assets monetization in the global maritime industry: A comparative study of the United States, Europe, and China. Ocean & Coastal Management, 251, (2024) 107078.

[6] Bouchmel, I., Ftiti, Z., Louhich, W., & Omri, A. Financing sources, green investment, and environmental performance: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Environmental Management, 353, (2024) 120230.

[7] Sissoko, C. Is financial innovation market-driven or bank-driven? The case of private equity in the 1980s (2024).

[8] Usman, F. O., Kess-Momoh, A. J., Ibeh, C. V., Elufioye, A. E., Ilojianya, V. I., & Oyeyemi, O. P. Entrepreneurial innovations and trends: A global review: Examining emerging trends, challenges, and opportunities in the field of entrepreneurship, with a focus on how technology and globalization are sha** new business ventures. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 11(1), (2024) 552-569.

[9] Mun, H., Kim, Y., Ceran, Y., & Lee, C. H. Entrepreneurial Emotional Bias from Mass Shootings: Evidence from Kickstarter. Information & Management, (2024) 104009.

[10] Bargoni, A., Ferraris, A., Bresciani, S., & Camilleri, M. A. Crowdfunding and innovation: a bibliometric review and future research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(4), (2024) 1109-1133.