A COMPLEX MARRIAGE OF BUSINESS, POLITICS, AND CULTURE

A COMPLEX MARRIAGE OF BUSINESS, POLITICS, AND CULTURE

Hong Kong has been a country known for being characterized by the manufacturing economy. This country runs short of the natural resources and therefore, its citizens have been of great assistance in that they provide human capital. Human capital aids in the development of the country’s economy (Kong, 2006). Owing to the intense need to develop its economy, Hong Kong among other Asian countries has discovered cultural industries. Cultural industries in Hong Kong stand as a knowledge-based strategy of dealing with the economy (Kong, 2006). Culture is an essential social aspect and it is usually explained in the manner with which human beings interact with each other. Further, it can also be described in relation to the agreed-upon norms that human beings in a specific region adhere to. The cultural industry may, therefore, showcase the use of human culture in an economically productive manner (Copic, Uzelac, Primorac, Jelincic, Srakar & Zuvela, 2011). The film sector stands as an import cultural industry in Hong Kong. It significantly relates to social networks and trust relations. The trust relations and social networks may possess either some importance or limitations to cultural sector development in several ways. They enable financial and relationship facilitation while offsetting risk; however, structural hole and legislative inability limit its performance.

Social networks are of great importance and offer international facilitation to the development of Hong Kong cultural sector. The Hong Kong film industry producers and directors state that the social networks have stood as a significant pillar in industrial development. Social connection is crucial in the success of any cultural industry (Kong, 2006). Since the cultural industry is based on the availability of people’s groupings, the ability to avail such a grouping is vital. Having this knowledge, the leadership of the Hong Kong film industry seeks to create a connection between the country and stakeholders in other countries. For instance, Robert has profoundly helped the industry in finding international connections. Robert is a producer of films who traces his origin in Taiwan but based in Hing Kong. Since he is known in Taiwan as well as in Hong Kong, Robert helps in creating a connection between the film stakeholders in Hong Kong and those in Taiwan. Robert’s frequent travels in Taiwan helps in the discussion of scripts as well as signing artists (Kong, 2006). The film industry is very competitive in Hing Kong. However, its players believe that due to the experience that Robert possesses, and his connection with the people of Taiwan, they are in a position to deal with the competitiveness.

The connecting effect of social networks also brings together the producers and consumers of cultural content. The cultural industry cannot suffice only through production but also with the consumption of the content.  The connectedness between Hong Kong and other nations through social networks has facilitated the sale of cultural content to its consumers. Here, the consumers also double as customers. According to Kong (2006), the sale of cultural content and more so that of the film industry has been achieved through the intermingling of people from different countries. China provides a market for the Hing Kong cultural industry leading to its development. As Gonzalez, Llopis & Gasco (2014) argue the social networks provide a platform for sharing the consumer’s interests and emotions to the producer. These emotions and interests are crucial to the producer in that they get to know how to design their content to fit the needs of the consumer. For instance, China and Hong Kong are in a great transition on matter pertaining to cultural production. The transition also leads to the transformation of livelihoods (Ooi, 1995). The social networks will facilitate the needs of cultural consumers from China and Hong Kong. This facilitation is achieved in that two nations are closely connected to the cultural industry.

Close social networks are essential in offsetting risks associated with the cultural industry. Like any other, the cultural industry is prone to risk which may slow its development. Therefore, it becomes of great vitality to unveil strategies to help reduce the risks. One of the strategies that the cultural industry utilizes to reduce risk is through social networks. According to Kong (2006), social networks help reduce risk through the art of clustering. Clustering, there increases learning and innovation capacity. Clustering brings together different players in the cultural industry where different parties find an opportunity to learn about their fellows. Sometimes clustering ay brings together different firms with mutual interests. The coming together of the firms facilitates the to join hands and work for a common goal (Kong, 2006).  There is a high possibility for cultural firms to circumvent risks when they locate proximately. It becomes even better when the closely located firms are connected using professional social networks. In Hing Kong, clustering is more eminent in the interaction between Hing Kong and Pearl on the southern side of China (Kong, 2006). When stakeholders made a comparison involving the internal and external clustering in Hing Kong, they found the latter more effective than the former (Kong, 2006). It is in the external clustering that social networks become of great importance. External clustering offers a vast focus region that lays different firms to showcase their cultural productions. Copic, Uzelac, Primorac, Jelincic, Srakar, & Zuvela (2011) suggest that clustering provides a channel for products and service diversification. Here, the production of different cultural products facilitates business in that when one service fails to tackle the market, the other one does.

Social networks contribute significantly to the financing of the cultural industries in Hing Kong. Financing is crucial for the success of any industry. Its adequacy sometimes may not be achieved through the sole sponsorship of the major stakeholders. When the state of financing the cultural industry reaches to the point where the major stakeholders are not in a position to provide financial facilitation, social networks become useful. In Hong Kong, the process of sourcing for financial facilitation may occur through crowdfunding (Aznar, 2014). In crowdfunding, the people who are in the social networks share amongst their followers the financial need that the cultural industry has. They may later share the amount that each individual has contributed towards the support of the initiative, a move that tends to prompt others to participate (Aznar, 2014). Crowdfunding can, therefore, be a strategy that acts to influence people to participate in a common goal. According to Kong (2006), social networks serve to facilitate the interconnection of people towards meeting the industry’s financial needs. The social network in Hong Kong, traverses several geographical boundaries to help obtain some financial support for the film industry. Through social networks, the entire nation gets knowledge of the needs of the cultural industry to the people of goodwill who, in turn, provide some support.

The financial role of social networks through international socialization cannot be overemphasized. The Hong Kong film industry benefits significantly from the capital that it gets from interpersonal attachments at diverse levels. Kong (2006) argues that seeking help from within Hong Kong is not usually as effective as those sourced from abroad. At this stage, therefore, international relationships through social networks become of great importance.  In a nutshell, the social network provides both local and international socialization. The socialization then profoundly plays a significant role in influencing people to support the cultural industry either through sale or voluntary personal contribution.

Social trust plays an essential role in managing risk in Hong Kong cultural sector. A high risk thrives in the Hong Kong cultural sector. The risk may come about since most of the players work on projects that run for a short time. Further, some of the players are self-employed; with self-employment, there is a high chance of job insecurity (Kong, 2006). Most of the people engaging in the cultural industry in the self-employed forms may join in the informal networks but fail to gain support from the trade unions. The failure to have a trade union to attach with has resulted in these players having high personal risk. At this level, it may become difficult for them to proceed with their activities without an association; this is the time that social trust becomes of importance. Kong (2006) states that social trust and solidarity are essential for the success of the cultural industry at a personal level. Different personnel in the cultural sector join in groups and stand in solidarity for their excellent. However, great emphasis is put on the importance of each other’s trust. When there is social trust among individuals in the cultural industry, there is a tendency for risk distribution. The distribution of risk allows for the sustainability of the cultural industry.  Trust becomes even more critical in that with it, and institutional support may not be much needed. Risk management and goes hand in hand with trust negotiation, and both help in destroying the industrial boundaries. In a nutshell, the trust that brings people together is essential in the distribution of risk and fits well with informal collaborations. This trust also facilitates innovation and creativity among the members, something that aids in the industry’s development.

The cultural industry in Hong Kong is facing a lot of risks and risk-related challenges. To overcome them, the dynamics of the industry focus on mutual trust between the players. Despite the long history that the cultural industry in Hong Kong possesses, it has proved challenging to evade risk without having to use social trust strategies (Kong, 2006). The government also attempts to play its part by facilitating the formulation of policies that address the challenges of space and funding. However, it has not reached to the point of completely coping with the challenge of risk and has, therefore, turned to encourage the cultural industry players to exercise trust. Social relations and networks also play an essential role in enhancing trust in the cultural industry. A cooperative behavior that finds its bases on trust proves to be effective in managing risk related to the cultural industry. Copic, Uzelac, Primorac, Jelincic, Srakar & Zuvela, (2011), denotes trust as one of the recipes to a developed cultural industry. It is through trust that the majority of sponsors and donors in the cultural industry find a reason to continue facilitating cultural production. The trust showcased by the players in the industry encourages the donors and facilitators leading them to view it relevant to support the projects. In most of such sponsorship, the sponsors majorly ask for an already performing project; this, however, hinders some of the needy individuals and projects.

The social networks may face the structural hole challenge hence limiting their effectiveness. Organizations in the cultural sector do not only possess tight connections between different actors all the time. There comes a time when the social structures which form as a result of the socially provided networks emerge ineffectively. This ineffectiveness is an excellent limitation for the social networks that seek to see a development in the cultural industry (Arco, 2015). Further, trust problems may occur as a result of the structural holes. Some of the social networks have a provision for informational benefits. The informational benefits sometimes may fail in the trust developed between the members that make up the organization. A loss of trust between the members of the cultural organization may cause regrettable consequences to the relationship between the organization and the financial facilitators (Copic, Uzelac, Primorac, Jelincic, Srakar & Zuvela, 2011). In other terms, the social network hitches that cause a challenge in the trust are a limitation of a social network in cultural industry development — the structural hole issues in this case cause internal or external trust issues.

The social network cannot also legislate policies that can help develop the cultural industry. Strong social relations are essential in the development of the cultural industry. The social network may need to formulate policies to guide and control how the cultural industry takes place to make its outcomes more profound. However, the social network cannot legislate, an activity that only the government can perform (Kong, 2006). Without legislation, the social network may not be able to put control in the scope of the activities that it can perform for the betterment of the cultural industry. Also, the lack of legislation by the social industry may not enable the private sector to promote private investment in the cultural industry (Copic, Uzelac, Primorac, Jelincic, Srakar & Zuvela, 2011).

In a nutshell, social networks and trust are essential in the cultural industry development. Hong Kong is an excellent example of a nation that practices social networking and trust to enhance the effectiveness of the cultural industry. Interpersonal connection is vital in the cultural industry. The fact that social network plays an essential role in enhancing interpersonal connection renders its significant cultural industry development. Secondly, like any other corporate or social venture, the cultural industry faces all types of risks. However, with social trust, the industry can maneuver about the risks. However, there is a limitation on the effectiveness of social networking and trust. The limitation is due to a structural hole and failure for the social network to legislate and formulate policies to guide it.

References

Arco, C. (2016). Inter-organizational networks in the cultural and creative industries: a social network analysis of the foundation Giorgio e Isa de Chirico.

Aznar, J. (2014). Are the social networks any use to the culture industry? ACE digital culture ANNUAL REPORT

Copic V., Uzelac A., Primorac J., Jelincic D, Srakar A. & Zuvela A., (2011). Structural and Cohesion Policies Culture and Education Encouraging Private Investment in the Cultural Sector. Directorate-General for Internal Policies Policy Department B:

González-Ramírez, R., Llopis, J., & Gascó, J. L. (2015). Social networks in cultural industries.

Kong, L. (2006). The sociality of cultural industries: Hong Kong’s cultural policy and film industry. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 61-76.

Ooi, V. (1995). The best cultural policy is no cultural policy: cultural policy in Hong Kong. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1(2), 273-287.