Industrial heritage, different social powers and public policy in East Asia: a comparison of typical cases in China and Japan

Abstract

East Asian countries frequently consider how to balance diversified social power relations through policy formulation and implementation when developing public policies on industrial heritage. In terms of industrial heritage transformation and renewal, the Chinese and Japanese governments have developed two distinct models. In general, the Chinese government favors real estate projects, whereas Japan favors tourism projects. However, the examples used in this article, Hanyang Steel Factory and Tomioka Silk Mill, demonstrate a more complicated situation. First, these two cases can be viewed as two distinct cultural markets cultivated under the leadership of the government. From the perspective of policy design, although both are in line with their respective national conditions, each has its own advantages and disadvantages, requiring the continuous optimization of preservation policy. Second, the responsibilities that the government should bear in the process of transforming industrial heritage sites should have boundaries, and there should be closer cooperation between the government and the private sector. Finally, there is a similarity between the two models: worker gentrification has not been achieved through the transformation of industrial heritage, and the loss of local workers from the community will hinder the sustainability of the inheritance and dissemination of regional industrial culture.