Cultural development is something you can plan for, not just inherit
As delegates gathered in Beijing for the annual Cultural Forum, researchers unveiled a new framework for measuring what makes a city culturally alive — one that places Beijing, New York, and Shanghai at the summit, while signaling that Seoul, Shenzhen, and Chengdu are reshaping the geography of global artistic influence. The Beijing Index on Urban Culture & Arts Development, produced by Xinhua Index Research Institute, evaluates ten cities across six dimensions ranging from heritage and talent to governance and innovation. More than a ranking, the index reflects a deeper shift: cultural authority is no longer the exclusive province of Western capitals, and the question of who shapes the world's artistic imagination is being asked anew.
- A new index challenges the long-held assumption that cultural power flows primarily from New York, London, and Paris — Asian cities are now measured as originators, not imitators.
- The ranking exposes real tensions in how cities cultivate culture: Beijing merges ancient heritage with technology, New York relies on capital and infrastructure, and Shanghai bets on streamlined governance to reduce bureaucratic friction for artists.
- Tokyo's animation dominance, London's heritage-to-economy model, and Seoul's entertainment-technology fusion each represent distinct and competing blueprints for cultural relevance in the 21st century.
- China's strategic hand is visible throughout — by framing cultural development as measurable, comparable, and improvable, Beijing positions itself as a thought leader in global cultural policy, not merely a participant.
- The index lands as an open question: whether this multipolar cultural framework will translate into genuine cross-city collaboration and policy change, or remain an aspirational map of a world still taking shape.
In late September, as delegates convened in Beijing for the annual Cultural Forum, researchers introduced a new instrument for understanding urban cultural vitality. The Beijing Index on Urban Culture & Arts Development — produced by Xinhua Index Research Institute alongside the Beijing Federation of Literary and Art Circles — ranks ten global cities across six dimensions: cultural resources, soft power, economic value, innovation capacity, governance quality, and talent retention.
Beijing, New York, and Shanghai lead the ranking, each through a distinct logic. Beijing draws on deep historical heritage and a growing ability to fuse tradition with advanced technology. New York's strength is capital-driven — its Broadway ecosystem alone draws millions annually and sets global benchmarks for cultural and artistic value. Shanghai's distinction lies in governance innovation, including a digital platform that reduced bureaucratic friction for cultural institutions, suggesting that systems matter as much as resources.
Tokyo anchors itself in animation and digital creativity, with its annual Anime Japan event drawing exhibitors from thirty countries. London demonstrates how heritage preservation can be converted into sustained economic value — a model the index suggests other cities can study and adapt.
Perhaps the index's most significant signal is the emergence of Seoul, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi'an among the top ten. Their inclusion marks a genuine shift: the global cultural conversation is becoming multipolar, with non-Western cities now shaping international artistic trends as originators.
Underlying the entire exercise is a strategic ambition. By framing cultural development as something measurable and improvable — a matter of policy and planning rather than historical accident — Beijing positions China as a contributor to global cultural thinking. Whether this framework will influence real policy decisions, or how cities might actually learn from one another across these dimensions, remains an open and consequential question.
In late September, as delegates gathered in Beijing for the annual Cultural Forum, researchers unveiled a new way of measuring what makes a city culturally vital. The Beijing Index on Urban Culture & Arts Development, created by Xinhua Index Research Institute and the Beijing Federation of Literary and Art Circles, ranks ten cities worldwide across six dimensions: the cultural resources they possess, their soft power, economic value generated by culture, capacity for innovation, quality of governance around the arts, and the talent they attract and retain.
The index identifies Beijing, New York, and Shanghai as the global leaders—cities that have become sources and benchmarks for cultural and artistic innovation worldwide. But the ranking also signals a shift in the geography of cultural influence. Alongside the established powers of Tokyo, London, and Paris, the index names Seoul, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi'an as emerging forces reshaping the global cultural landscape.
Beijing's position at the top reflects what the index describes as distinct advantages in overall cultural development. The city's abundance of historical and natural heritage places it among what researchers call "global civilization highlands." But Beijing's ranking also acknowledges something newer: the city's growing ability to merge traditional culture with advanced technology in ways that break through conventional boundaries.
New York's strength, by contrast, lies in capital-driven cultural production. The Broadway performing arts ecosystem draws millions of visitors annually and has established the city as a value benchmark for global culture and art. Its cross-cultural influence remains prominent, the index notes, because money and infrastructure have created conditions where artistic work can flourish at scale.
Shanghai represents a different model entirely. The index highlights the city's governance innovation—specifically a digital platform that streamlined cultural administrative approvals and improved efficiency in culture-related bureaucracy. This suggests that cultural vitality depends not just on resources or talent, but on the systems that allow artists and institutions to operate without unnecessary friction.
Tokyo's ranking emphasizes its dominance in animation and digital creative industries. By combining artificial intelligence with animation creation, the city has become a major global source of animation intellectual property. The annual Anime Japan event draws exhibitors from thirty countries and regions, demonstrating how a city can anchor itself in a specific cultural form and build global reach around it.
London's inclusion reflects its success in a particular kind of cultural work: preserving local history and heritage while converting that preservation into economic value. The index suggests this is a learnable model—that other cities can study how London has managed the balance between conservation and commercialization.
The emergence of Seoul, Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Xi'an signals that cultural influence is no longer concentrated in Western capitals or Japan. These cities represent different pathways: Seoul's entertainment and technology sectors, Shenzhen's role as a creative hub, Chengdu's cultural traditions, and Xi'an's historical significance. Their inclusion in the top ten suggests that the global cultural conversation is becoming genuinely multipolar, with non-Western cities now shaping international artistic trends as originators, not just consumers or imitators.
The index itself reflects a strategic move by Beijing to position China as a contributor to global cultural thinking. By measuring cities across dimensions like governance and talent retention, the research frames cultural development as something that can be studied, compared, and improved—a matter of policy and planning, not just historical accident or market forces. As the index concludes, cities are now pooling consensus around inheritance, mutual learning, and innovation to advance what it calls the modernization of humanity. What that means in practice—how cities will actually collaborate, what they will learn from each other, whether this framework will influence real cultural policy—remains to be seen.
Citas Notables
Cities such as Beijing are now pooling consensus in inheritance, mutual-learning and innovation to co-promote modernization of the humanity— Beijing Index framework
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Beijing need to rank itself alongside New York and London? Isn't that a bit defensive?
Not defensive—strategic. The index isn't really about proving Beijing is better. It's about saying: here are the dimensions that matter in cultural cities, and here's how different cities excel in different ways. Beijing gets to define the conversation.
So it's a framework, not a scorecard.
Exactly. By measuring governance, talent, innovation, soft power—not just museums or theaters—Beijing is saying cultural development is something you can plan for, not just inherit.
What about those emerging cities—Seoul, Shenzhen, Chengdu? Are they actually becoming cultural powers, or is this just diplomatic inclusion?
Both, probably. Shenzhen genuinely has become a creative hub. Seoul's entertainment industry is real. But naming them in the same breath as London and Paris also signals that the West doesn't own this conversation anymore.
Does the index actually change anything? Will cities use it to make policy?
That's the real question. If Shanghai's digital platform for cultural approvals was inspired by studying other cities, then yes—this kind of benchmarking can matter. But it only works if cities actually look at what others are doing and adapt it.
What's the thing nobody's saying out loud here?
That cultural soft power is now as important as military or economic power, and everyone knows it. This index is just making that competition explicit and measurable.