GaWC Research Bulletin 469

This Research Bulletin has been published in Urban Geography, (2018), online.

doi:10.1080/02723638.2018.1477297

Please refer to the published version when quoting the paper

Introduction

Over the past decades, inter-city networks in the modern economy have become a focus of research in geography and urban studies. Many scholars have shifted their attention from the internal attributes of single cities to the external connections between pairs of them (Beaverstock et al., 2000; Ward, 2010). A general recognition is that increasing globalization and digitalization have integrated the world’s major cities into an overarching, worldwide economic system. Cities have become the ‘basing points’ for the operation of transnational corporations, the ‘organizing nodes’ of global capitalism, and the ‘gateways’ to link their home regions and countries into the world economy. As a consequence, the significance of cities in the new economic system, as well as the features of their local industrial structure and spatial configuration, is increasing shaped by how they are positioned in the wider urban system and connected with each other (Brenner and Keil, 2006; Friedmann 1986; Sassen, 1991; Scott, 2012; Taylor and Derudder, 2016). From this theoretical perspective, a large amount of empirical studies- often cited as the global or world city research- has emerged to investigate the functional differentiation between cities and to measure the inter-city networks at various spatial scales (Derudder et al., 2010; Hall and Pain, 2006; Hanssens et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2017; Taylor and Derudder, 2016; Yang et al., 2017; Zhang and Kloosterman, 2016; Zhao et al., 2015).

While the early work on modern urban networks¹ has largely concentrated on a particular economic sector – namely advanced producer services – and on the network structures of their intra-firm organizations, recent literature starts to emphasize the importance of incorporating more pluralistic perspectives and methodologies. One major reflection is that since cities are always a complex mixture of diverse economic activities and ‘spaces of flows’ (Castells, 1996), a bias in the selection of industrial sector for analysis may has devalued the significance of some cities in their national as well as the global economic and urban system (Robinson, 2002). Informed by this point of view, a pile of studies have emerged to look at the urban networks generated by other types of economic activities, such as non-governmental organizations (Taylor, 2004), energy industry (Martinus et al., 2015), maritime services (Jacobs et al., 2011), and media related industries (Hoyler and Watson, 2013; Krätke and Taylor, 2004; Mould, 2008; Watson, 2012a), etc. On the other hand, with a trend of industrial disintegration and fragmentation in the digital era, the production tasks of many economic sectors are increasingly completed through the collaboration of multiple, specialized firms (and non-firm actors), rather than through the internal organization of individual firms (Storper and Christopherson, 1987). Inter-firm linkages thus represent another highly important generator of inter-city relationships. This industrial change has inspired some scholars to give more attention to the inter-firm networks of relevant actors (Lüthi et al., 2010; Pan, et al., 2017; Yeh et al., 2015). Together, these follow-up studies have enriched our understanding of the contemporary patterns of global urbanization.

Building on these former contributions, in this paper we attempt to further advance the research on urban networks by offering a pilot study of the inter-city networks created by an important cultural industry sector – the motion picture industry – based on the case of mainland China. As one of the first few sectors that transformed into a post-Fordist production system, the motion picture industry has received consideration attention in economic geography literature since the 1980s (cf. Coe, 2001; Currah, 2006; Storper and Christopherson, 1987; Vang and Chaminade, 2007). However, little work has been conducted to systematically investigate the industrial organization of this sector from an urban network perspective. By looking into the project-based, inter-firm co-production networks of the motion picture industry, our study makes an effort to integrate the insights from these two theoretical traditions (i.e., urban network research and economic geography) to shed more light on the patterns and functions of both local clusters and trans-local networks in the new cultural economic activities. In addition, through exploring the changing network patterns of a fast growing and restructuring sector against China’s special institutional context, the paper also contributes to the understanding of the evolution of modern urban networks in a transitional economic context.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we briefly introduce the organizational and geographical changes of the motion picture industry in the past several decades and review the recent development of this sector in the Chinese context. After that, we elaborate on the methodological underpinning of this study. In section four, we present a detailed analysis of the shifting inter-city film production networks within and beyond mainland China, and discuss its major implications. In the last section, we provide a conclusion of the paper and put forward some questions for further investigation.

Changes in the organizational structure and geographical pattern of film production

With the transformation of the capitalist system and the growth of disposable consumer income, cultural and creative economic activities have become one of the most dynamic sectors in the world economy (Amin and Thrift, 2007; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005; Scott, 2012). Among all cultural economic sectors, the motion picture industry perhaps is one of the most ‘visible’ and pervasive sectors (Johns, 2010). While the origin of film can be traced back to the late 19th century, the organization of this industry has experienced fundamental changes in the past half century. For much of its history, film production was very approximate to the classical Fordist mass production model (Scott, 2002). In the United States, for instance, the motion picture industry used to be dominated by a small group of major studios. Each of these studios had vertically integrated a wide range of activities across the production, distribution and exhibition of films. The actual work of filmmaking was undertaken within these studios as a mass production process (Bordwell et al., 1985). Through controlling market outlets, securing labour on long-term contracts and adopting continuity scripts, these large studios were able to rationalize their production activities and maximize efficiency (Stoper and Christopherson, 1987). As such, the technical and organizational configuration of film production was featured by a relatively large scale and a high degree of standardization and routinization (Scott, 2002).

However, since the 1950s, especially after the recession of the early 1970s, the film production system has been fundamentally restructured. The changes in institutional environment (e.g. the Paramount antitrust decision) and the advent of television generated a dramatic increase in competition, uncertainty and instability in the motion picture industry, which led to a breakdown of the studio-based mass production system (Storper and Christopherson, 1987; Scott, 2002). To cut down costs and reduce potential risks, the major studios outsourced much of their productive capacity and engagements to a wide range of subcontractors, including both smaller firms and freelancers, and themselves focused on more complex activities like financing and deal-making. The production of films was no longer completed within a single studio but, instead, organized with a different mix of specialized firms and other actors. As such, the old studio system was replaced by a new contract- and project-based system, where ‘most projects are distinctively different from the previous ones and hence their competitiveness relies on their capacity to create in a short period of time a new project team with different competencies’ (Vang and Chaminade, 2007: 407). With the springing up of flexibly-specialized firms and freelance agents, the vertically-integrated studio system gradually transformed into a vertically-disintegrated production complex (Scott, 2002).

Geographically, this structural transformation has brought two fundamental changes. On the one hand, since the new production system is composed by ‘a transactions-intensive congeries of small and specialized but complementary firms’, it has reinforced the centripetal forces that hold the entire production complex together and the agglomerative tendency towards major film production clusters (e.g., Hollywood) (Scott, 2002: 959). On the other hand, however, with the penetration of new information and communication technologies (ICT) into all stages of film production and distribution (Currah, 2006), many firms have also chosen to relocate part or all of their functions from the traditional film industry centers to some formerly periphery locations (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico), stimulated by the generous subsidies and regulatory incentives offers there (Christopherson and Rightor, 2010; Coe, 2001; Scott and Pope, 2007). The purpose of such re-location could be either to take advantage of the lower labour and production costs in receiving destinations (economic runaways), or to search for ‘scenic and artistic effects deemed essential for the achievement of specific aesthetic goals’ (creative runaways) (Scott and Pope, 2007, p.1365). As a result, the spatial organization of the motion picture industry is now characterized by both densely clusters of localized producers and extensive trans-local, project-based cooperative networks.

The motion picture industry therefore represents a typical case of the emerging project ecology (Grabher, 2002; >Watson, 2012b) and new organizational structure in cultural and creative economies- a topic that has been widely discussed in recent economic geography and urban studies research (Christopherson, 2002; Johns, 2010). While existing literature has shed some light on the intricate natures of cultural and creative industries’ project-based production system, most of them tend to focus on the organization and operation of some specific project works, often within a particular industrial complex, rather than the more general, inter-city relations that generated by the actors involved in them (Mould, 2008).Through participating in the same joint projects and collaborating with each other, firms have created many communicating channels for the exchange of products, capital, information and knowledge between each other, therefore strengthening the linkages between the places where these firms are located (Bathelt et al., 2004). As such, the information of film projects provides an alternative way to explore the city-based, inter-firm production networks that precipitated by an important industrial sector. In addition, through comparing the patterns of inter-firm collaboration within and across individual cities, it is possible to generate a more in-depth understanding of the functioning of both local clusters and trans-local ‘pipelines’ (ibid.) in cultural and creative industries, which could advance the relevant theory in economic geography literature.

In what follows we will conduct a pilot, systematic analysis of the film production networks based on the case of China. Since the early 2000s, the motion picture industry in mainland China has experienced dramatic growth and profound restructuring (Zhang and Li, 2018). In less than 15 years, it has transformed from a small film consumer into the second largest film market (with nearly 7 billion USD box office revenues in 2015) in the world, and is expected to overtake the United States in the near future (China Daily, 2016). Meanwhile, the number of feature films produced in China has increased sixfold from 100 in 2002 to 686 in 2015 (CFDEA, 2016; CFYP, 2003). Apart from the staggering growth rate, two other features have also made mainland China an interesting case for exploration. First, rather than following a typical ‘Fordist – post-Fordst’ developmental trajectory, the motion picture industry in China has been transforming from a state-dominated into a market-oriented system. Until now, the sector is still heavily regulated by the state, with a strong protection against foreign films and strict censorship on film production and exhibition (Zhang and Li, 2018). Second, the industry has demonstrated a high degree of financialization over the past few years. Financial capital has infiltrated into all segments of film production process, from scripting to filming and to post-production. Financial returns have also become a major concern of most film projects (Liu, 2016). These special institutional and industrial contexts offer us an opportunity to explore the evolution of industrial organization and production networks of the motion picture industry in a transitional economy. In the next section, we will first give a brief introduction to the data and method we used in this study.

Data and method

In this paper we use the information of film projects to explore the inter-city networks that created by the motion picture industry in China. Since each film represents a project, firms participating in the making of the same film could communicate with each other and thus contribute to the generation of trans-local connections. Therefore, through measuring the direction and strength of linkages between pairs of collaborative firms, we could get a surrogate measurement of the connections between the cities where these firms are located. Our analysis focuses on two different years: 2002 and 2016 respectively. 2002 is the year that the Chinese central authority started to introduce the market-oriented reform to the motion picture industry (Deng, 2011). Therefore, a comparison of the evidences at these two different stages could offer a more comprehensive picture of the changing network patterns of this transitional industrial sector. The analysis proceeds in two steps:

Selecting Film projects and Film Producers

First of all, to build the inter-city networks of China’s motion picture industry, the data of firms participating in the same film projects were collected. The 2002 data were collected from the China Film Yearbook (CFYP, 2003). From this yearbook we could identify all the domestic films (100 in total) exhibited in China in 2002, as well as the information of all the producers that participated in 92 film projects. The 2016 data were collected from the website ‘China Box Office’, which is operated by the ‘Entgroup’ – a big Chinese data consultation company in the media and entertainment industry.² This website listed all the films exhibited in mainland China in 2016 and the producers participated in the making of these films. Since there were over 600 Chinese films exhibited in 2016, to reduce the complexity of data collection and analysis, we focused on the top 100 films in terms of box office revenue. The box office of these films ranged from 3.39 billion RMB to 9.4 million RMB. Therefore, it can be argued that these 100 films offered a good representation of the mainstream film market and film production capacity in mainland China. We then identified the locations³ of the firms participated in these film projects, using information collected from their official websites, combined with internet searching results. Only two firms did not have such information, which were excluded from the analysis.

Creating the Urban Network Matrix

To transform the linkages between cooperated firms into the urban networks in our concern, we adopted a social network analysis method. The basic idea is: Two cities could be linked with each other if they both have firms participating in the same film project. The more collaborating firms they have, the stronger linkage tends to exist between them. Therefore, the connectivity between pairs of cities, as well as the importance of each city in the overall film production network, could be deduced from the number of firms in these cities and the features of their inter-connections.

NC_xy= Ʃ_i=1V_xi · V_y1(where V_xi is the number of firms in city x participating in the film project i, and x≠y).

In this equation, the contribution of each firm to the film project and the (potential) linkage between each pair of them are assigned with equal importance. This is a simplification of the real world situation. However, it is an unavoidable choice (which most work on urban networks has to face) since there is no extra information available on the specific roles that individual firms have played and the type of interactions existing between them in these film projects.

The gross network connectivity of a city (GNC_x), which indicates its importance within the overall urban network, is calculated as:

This generated two matrixes containing the connectivity between each pair of cities in 2002 and 2016 respectively.

In some cases, more than one firm from the same city may participate in a project, which indicates the possibility of local collaboration. Therefore, in addition to inter-city connection, we also measure internal connection within single cities based on the number of indigenous collaborating firms.

IC_x = Ʃ_i=1((n - 1) + (n - 2) + ... + 1) (where n is the number of firms in city x participating in the film project i, and n＞1).

Through comparing cities’ internal connectivity with their external connectivity, we could explore whether film producers in China tend to collaborate more with their local counterparts or to build distant cooperative relations with non-local ones. This could enrich our understanding of the weight of geographical proximity and trans-local networks in the formation of inter-firm collaboration in cultural and creative industries. The next section presents our major findings.

Mapping the inter-city networks of film production in China

Profiles of Film Projects

Out database contains 92 and 100 film projects in 2002 and 2016 respectively (Table 1). Through comparing the profiles of these projects, a general observation is that collaboration between firms, especially firms in different locations, has become an increasingly popular way to organize production in China’s motion picture industry. In 2002, among the 92 film projects, 66 (or 72 percent) were organized with the participation of multiple producer and 49 (53 percent) involved producers from different cities. In comparison, by 2016, 98 of the 100 films are produced through the collaboration of different firms, and 92 of these co-production projects are organized through inter-city collaboration. In addition, the average number of producers participating in each project has also increased from 2.0 to 7.4. These changes reflect a fact that with the commercialization of China’s motion picture industry, film production in China has become an increasingly complex and fragmented process, which requires the inputs from a variety of producers with different resources, expertise and competences. On the surface, this trend of change looks similar to the structural transformation that has happened in the US motion picture industry since the 1950s.

Cities and Connectivities

We first analyze the connectivity of individual cities in China’s film production network. Figure 1 outlines the gross network connectivity of all cities that participated in film production in mainland China in 2002 and 2016, and Table 2 lists the specific scores of the top 20 cities. A comparison between two years reveals two interesting findings. First, the film production network in mainland China has greatly expanded during the observation period. In 2002, there were 27 cities participated in the production of the 92 films. However, the network connectivity (53) of Beijing was much higher than that of all the other cities, which demonstrates that the film production capacity was highly concentrated in the capital city at that time, contributing to it a nearly monopolistic status in China’s motion picture industry. By 2016, the number of cities participating in film production has increased to 46. Meanwhile, the average network connectivity of each city has also risen sharply from 4.8 to 91.2. Although Beijing still holds an obvious advantage, the gap between it and the other cities, especially Shanghai, has been narrowed. These changes indicate a dispersion of the motion picture industry across mainland China, as well as the fast growth of film production capacity in many second- and even third-tier cities in the country. We speculate that this industrial expansion might be a joint outcome of an increasing domestic demand on film consumption, the permeation of financial capital to the film sector, and an uprising boosterism on the motion picture industry among many local governments across the country (Zhang and Li, 2018).

Figure 1. Connectivity of cities in the film production network in mainland China, 2002 (above) and 2016 (down)

Table 2. Top 20 cities in mainland China by the ranking of network connectivity, 2002 and 2016

The second finding is that the major locations of film production in mainland China have substantially altered. In 2002, all of the top 20 connected cities were either the municipalities directly under the central government or the capitals of their respective provinces with only one exception- Shenzhen (Table 2). The film production capacity of these cities was largely a heritage from the past planned economic system (Zhang and Li, 2018). All cities, apart from Beijing, had only one or two film producers, most of which were established either by the national cultural ministries (e.g. the State Film Administration) or by the local governments (normally the local Bureaus of Cultural Affairs) in the late 1970s and the early 1980s (Deng, 2011, p.34). Within a highly centralized regulatory system, these state-owned or state-sponsored film establishments tended to co-locate with their competent authorities. Therefore, cities with important administrative status and functions (e.g. provincial capitals) became the key nodes in the network of film production at that time.

By 2016, there are some remarkable changes in the geography of film production in China, which reflect the transition of the industry from a state-led into a market-oriented system. On the one hand, cities in the economically-advanced eastern coastal area have experienced a dramatic growth in film production capacity and an obvious improvement in network connectivity (Figure 1). These not only include cities which already established a film production base in the early 2000s (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Shenzhen and Guangzhou), but also several newly emerged film production centers, such as Jinhua, Wuxi, Jiaxing and Ningbo. These four cities are only the tertiary - or even quartus-tier cities in China’s national urban system, and none of them are important administrative or cultural centers in their respective regions. Their advantage lies in the possession of several huge, national-famous film & TV production bases or studios,⁴ which are established with the participation of both private enterprises and local governments (Yu, 2012). These unique assets have attracted a large number of film producers, especially those focusing on shooting and post-production activities, to locate in these cities. The location and network patterns of the motion picture industry display certain particularities as compared to that of producer services (cf. Zhao et al., 2015).

In contrast, cities in the western and northeastern part of China, such as Hohhot, Urumchi, Taiyuan, Changchun, Shenyang, Harbin etc., have failed to expand their former bases in film production. All of these cities have dropped out of the top twenty by 2016. This is arguably attributed to the disadvantageous location and the relatively slower rate of economic growth of these cities in recent years, which have reduced their attraction to film producers (Zhang and Li, 2018). However, there is one exception - Khorgos. This northwestern border city (between China and Kazakhstan) did not have any film producer in 2002, but ranks sixth among all cities in terms of network connectivity in 2016. The main reason that leads to a boom of film producers in Khorgos is the city’s special tax relief policies. Due to its unique location and ‘cross-border free trade zone’ status, Khorgos has received a special support from the central government that allows it to provide favorable income tax policies for enterprises. It is estimated that firms registered in Khorgos could reduce their taxes by about 50 percent (Xi’an Evening News, 2017). This approximate ‘tax heaven’ status has allured many film companies to register in Khorgos and, accordingly, transformed it from a small border city into an important node in China’s motion picture industry. The rise of Khorgos is an epitome of the impacts of financialization on China’s film sector (Dong, 2017).

Networks and connections

Connections within Mainland China

Now we turn to the connections between pairs of cities, starting with the profiles within mainland China. Figure 2 depicts the evolution of the inter-city film production networks within mainland China between 2002 and 2016. In 2002, there were only 32 inter-city connections, the average value of which was only less than 1.7. Nearly two thirds of all connections involved film producers located in Beijing. The strongest connection was the one between Beijing and Xi’an, followed by four pairs of linkage between Beijing and Guangzhou, Jinan, Hangzhou and Hohhot respectively (Table 3). This network pattern reflects a relatively low level of cooperation between producers in different locations, as well as the dominance of the capital city Beijing in China’s film production network in the early 2000s.

Figure 2. Inter-city film production network in mainland China, 2002 (above) and 2016 (down)

By 2016, the inter-city film production network in mainland China has substantially improved. Not only more cities are incorporated and more connections (221) generated, but also the average intensity of each connection (7.9) has significantly increased. The advantage of Beijing is still permanent. All but two cities have connected with it, including the top five connections (Table 3). However, on the other hand, there have also emerged some important connections bypassing the capital city, such as those linking Shanghai and Tianjin (58), Shenzhen (31), Khorgos (24) and Hangzhou (23) etc. This indicates the formation of some minor film production centers (above all, Shanghai), which starts to weaken (but far from challenge) the monopolistic status of Beijing in China’s motion picture industry. Another interesting finding is that distance does not seem like an important factor that shapes the direction of inter-city cooperation. Apart from a few exceptions in the Yangtze River delta (e.g. Shanghai-Hangzhou, Shanghai-Nanjing, Shanghai-Wuxi), most inter-city connections are long-distant ones that span across the country (Figure 2). It implies that most local film producers in China tend to collaborate with those leading operators located in the major industrial centers, such as Beijing and Shanghai, rather than with their nearby counterparts.

It should be noted that what we have observed may be not just an expansion of inter-city film production networks in mainland China, but also a diversification of networking mechanisms. For instance, rather than directly participating in the actual film making process, some firms now may get involved in a film project by simply providing inputs in capital or technological forms (e.g. ICT) (Liu, 2016). This organizational transition of the film production system could offer a shortcut for cities with no previous film production experience to join the industry, which further facilitate the proliferation of minor film production locations.

Global Connections

Table 4 lists the global cities⁵ that are connected with mainland Chinese cities through the film production network. In 2002, there were only four such cities, among which Hong Kong was the one where most connections existed. The connectivity of Hong Kong (19) was even much higher than that of all mainland cities except Beijing (Table 2), which means that most producers tended to collaborate with Hong Kong firms rather than with their mainland counterparts. As a major film production center in East Asia- the ‘Hollywood of the East’, Hong Kong had established a large motion picture industrial cluster with a complete production chain during the British colonial period. Since the 1990s, mainland filmmakers began to collaborate with Hong Kong-based producers to get access to their expertise in commercialism, advanced technologies and cinematic skills (especially in action films), as well as financial resources. Meanwhile, attracted by the lower operating costs, excellent shooting locations, growing market demands and a new wave of artists in the mainland, Hong Kong-based firms were also inclined to engage in such co-production projects (Lim, 2006). As a result, Hong Kong became an important source of inputs for the mainland’s infant film industry, especially after its hand-over to the Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Apart from Hong Kong, the global connections of China’s film sector were rather limited in 2002. All other three overseas cities- Tokyo, Prague and Vienna- were connected with Chinese cities via only one film project, reflecting the occasional cooperation between Chinese and foreign filmmakers.

Table 4. Connectivity of global cities with cities in mainland China, 2002 and 2016

By 2016, the global connections of China’s film industry have expanded to nine cities (Table 4). Hong Kong is still the city where most connections exist. However, while the gross connectivity of Hong Kong with mainland cities has substantially improved – an indication of the strengthening cooperation between the filmmakers in two regions, it is overshadowed by Shanghai (twice as much as Hong Kong) and followed by Tianjin closely (Table 2). This change reflects the improvement of film production capacity in mainland China as well as the relatively decline of Hong Kong’s film industry in recent years. Los Angeles ranks after Hong Kong but with a much lower connectivity. Hosting the most famous global film production center - the Hollywood, Los Angeles has a concentration of the world’s largest motion picture companies and studios. Many Chinese filmmakers begin to cooperate with these leading film companies to take advantage of their expertise and technology. On the other hand, co-production with Chinese filmmakers is also welcomed by an increasing number of American companies to pass the censorship of the Chinese authority and get into this promising film market (cf. Peng, 2016). As such, Los Angeles has become a new important node in the global cooperative network of China’s motion picture industry. Other two global cities with medium-level connectivity are Taipei – another Chinese city outside the mainland – and Seoul – an important East Asian film center in close proximity to China. The connection between them and the mainland cities reflects the close cultural linkage and economic interaction between the three regions. The rest five cities only have very weak connections with cities in mainland China. In general, the globalization of China’s motion picture industry is still at a relatively early stage.

Connections within and between Cities

In the last section we explore the question of whether most inter-firm collaboration in China’s motion picture industry happened locally (i.e., between producers within the same city) or trans-locally (i.e., between producers located in different cities). Table 5 presents the internal versus external connectivity of cities in mainland China. The analysis shows that trans-local collaboration is much more important than local collaboration for firms to organize film production projects. In 2002, cooperation between local film producers only appeared in eight (30 percent) cities, and only three cities had an internal connectivity higher or equal to the external connectivity. By 2016, while the number of cities with intra-urban cooperation has increased to 18 (39 percent), the strength of their internal connectivity is much weaker than their external connectivity. Even the internal connectivity of Beijing – the city where most local cooperation happens – is only less than 37 percent of its external connectivity. For most cities, the internal connectivity is less than 10 percent of their external connectivity. This outcome further confirms that most film producers in mainland China prefer to rely on long-distant connections than local networks to set up and accomplish film production projects. A possible explanation is that it is relatively easier for film companies to search for resources in their own cities (e.g. local service providers or freelancers), but to access the special assets (e.g. shooting locations, expertise, technology and capital etc.) in distant locations, they need to resort to external partners. As a consequence, most co-production networks are organized at the inter-urban scale. Trans-local ‘pipelines’ seem to have played a more important role than local ‘buzz’ (cf. Bathelt et al, 2004) in the project-based inter-firm cooperation of the motion picture industry.

Conclusion

In this paper, we present a pilot study of the inter-city networks created by the motion picture industry based on the case of mainland China. Combining the perspectives of both urban network and economic geography literature, our study not only advances the research on urban networks by offering some new evidences of the project-based, inter-firm cooperation networks of an important cultural industry sector, but also generates some new insights into the functioning of both local clusters and trans-local networks in the new cultural economic activities. In addition, by comparing the changing network patterns of a fast growing and restructuring industrial sector against China’s special institutional context, our paper also contributes to the understanding of the evolution of modern urban networks in a transitional economic system. The major conclusions can be summarized as follows:

With the commercialization of the motion picture industry, the inter-city film production network in mainland China has substantially improved, which indicates an increasing flexibilization and fragmentation of the film production system and a simultaneous strengthening of collaboration between producers with different expertise and competences. This industrial expansion might be a joint outcome of several co-impacting factors, including the rapid growth of domestic film consumption, the permeation of financial capital into the motion picture industry, and an uprising political enthusiasm for cultural economic activities across the country. In the meantime, while Beijing still maintains a dominant status, the key nodes of the domestic film production network have shifted from the major administrative centers (which used to have a regulatory advantage) to the cities that either have a robust urban economy or possess some unique, location-specific industrial or financial assets. These changes demonstrate a transition of China’s motion picture industry from a state-led into a market-oriented system, which are not identical to the typical post-Fordist industrial restructuring in advanced economies.

Externally, the global connections of mainland China’s motion picture industry have also expanded (although only to a limited extent), driven on the one hand by Chinese filmmakers which aim to take advantage of the expertise and technology in major global film production centers, on the other by overseas companies which desire to enter the promising mainland market. Hong Kong continues to function as the most important source of inputs for mainland China’s motion picture industry, but its influence has relatively declined, not because of the competition from other film centers, but largely due to the increasing maturity of the industry in the mainland. Other global connections are the major film production centers in North America, East Asia and West Europe. In general, the globalization of mainland China’s motion picture industry still proceeds very slowly, which partly results from the country’s unique cultural background and regulatory system. However, given the enormous growth potential of this film market, it is very likely to witness the increasing trans-border cooperation and networking between film actors within and outside mainland China in the near future.

Finally, while both local clusters and trans-local ‘pipelines’ are recognized as important channels for interactive learning and knowledge transferring across firms (Bathelt et al., 2004), the functioning of these two mechanisms may vary according to the type of interaction that is needed. Most film producers (firms) in China tend to rely more on long-distant, inter-city connections (which are often more formal) than locally-based collaborative networks to set up and accomplish film projects, so they could access the special assets (e.g. shooting locations, expertise, technology and capital) in remote locations through each other. The local networks, we suppose, may play a more important role in establishing the cooperation between firms and other agents (e.g. freelancers and local service suppliers) in the same place. If this is the case, we may need to re-evaluate the functioning of clusters (‘buzz’) and networks (‘pipelines’) according to the type of actors and interactions that are in concern.

While our study has generated some new insights into the urban networks in the modern economy, it also raises some questions which deserve further investigation. First, the paper has outlined a general picture of the film production network in mainland China and has identified the major nodes within this network. However, the exact form and content of connection between these places have remained concealed. For instance, is there any division of labour between film producers located in different cities? How does it shape the specialization of individual cities as well as the way they integrate into the national and global motion picture industry? Second, the study has focused on firms as the major unit of analysis. However, as mentioned above, there are also other agents, such as freelancers, service providers and policy makers, which also actively participate in the process of film making in various ways. The interaction between these different agents, the local and trans-local networks they resort to, and the power exercised by them through project-based work are still only sparsely explored. To answer these questions, more in-depth work with first-hand information and an agent-based perspective probably is needed in future research.

REFERENCES

Amin, Amin, & Thrift, Nigel (2007). Cultural-economy and cities. Progress in Human Geography, 31(2),143-161.

Bathelt, Harald, Malmberg, Anders, & Maskell, Peter (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56.

Beaverstock, Jonathan V., Smith, Richard G., & Taylor, Peter J. (2000). World-city network: a new metageography? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 123-134.

Bordwell, David, Staiger, Janet, & Thompson, Kristin (1985). The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. New York: Columbia University Press.

Brenner, Neil, & Keil, Roger (eds.) (2006). The Global Cities Reader. London: Routledge.

Castells, Manuel (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

CFDEA (China Film Distribution and Exhibition Association). (2016). Chinese Film Market Review. Beijing, China Film Press (in Chinese).

CFYP (China Film Yearbook Press). (2003). China Film Yearbook. Beijing, China Film Yearbook Press (in Chinese).

China Daily. (2016). China to overtake US to become world’s largest film market. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2016-01/11/content_23027359.htm.

Christopherson, Susan (2002). Project work in context: regulatory change and the new geography of media. Environment and Planning A, 34(11), 2003-2015.

Christopherson, Susan, & Rightor, Ned (2010). The creative economy as “Big Business”: Evaluating state strategies to lure filmmakers. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(3), 336-352.

Coe, Neil M. (2001). A hybrid agglomeration? The development of a satellite-Marshallian industrial district in Vancouver’s film industry. Urban Studies, 38(10), 1753-1775.

Currah, Andrew (2006). Hollywood versus the Internet: the media and entertainment industries in a digital and networked economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 439-468.

Deng, Xiangyang (2011). A Research on Chinese Film Industry Development based on the Analysis of Market Structure. Doctoral dissertation, Changsha: Hunan University (in Chinese).

Derudder, Ben, Taylor, Peter J., Ni, Pengfei, Anneleen, De Vos, Hoyler Michael, Hanssens, Heidi,… Yang, Xiaolan (2010). Pathways of change: shifting connectivities in the world city network, 2000-08. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1861-1877.

Dong, Shaohua (2017) Khorgos: Will the small border town become ‘China’s film capital’. XinJiang Daily, 2017-07-03(008) (in Chinese).

Friedmann, John (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69-83.

Grabher, Gernot (2002). The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Regional Studies, 36(3), 245-262.

Hall, Peter, & Pain, Kathy (eds.) (2006). The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe. London: Earthscan.

Hanssens, Heidi, Derudder, Ben, Van Aelst, Stefan, & Witlox, Frank (2014). Assessing the functional polycentricity of the mega-city-region of Central Belgium based on advanced producer service transaction links. Regional Studies, 48(12), 1-15.

Hesmondhalgh, David, & Pratt, Andy C. (2005). Cultural industries and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 1-13.

Hoyler, Michael, & Watson, Allan (2013). Global media cities in transnational media networks. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104(1), 90-108.

Jacobs, Wouter, Koster, Hans, & Hall, Peter (2011). The location and global network structure of maritime advanced producer services. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2749-2769.

Johns, Jennifer (2010). Manchester’s film and television industry: project ecologies and network hierarchies. Urban Studies, 47(5), 1059-1077.

Krätke, Stefan, & Taylor, Peter J. (2004). A world geography of global media cities. European Planning Studies, 12(4), 459-477.

Lim, Kean F. (2006). Transnational collaborations, local competitiveness: mapping the geographies of filmmaking in/through Hong Kong. Geografiska Annaler: Series B. Human Geography, 88(3), 337-357.

Liu Qingzhen (2016). A study on the role of financial capital in China’s film industry transformation. Journalism and Mass Communication Monthly, 2016 (1), 43-48 (in Chinese).

Liu, Xingjian, Neal, Zachary, & Derudder, Ben (2012). City networks in the United States: a comparison of four models. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), 255-256.

Lüthi, Stefan, Thierstein, Alain, & Goebel, Viktor (2010). Intra-firm and extra-firm linkages in the knowledge economy: the case of the emerging mega-city region of Munich. Global Networks, 10(1), 114-37.

Martinus, Kirsten, Sigler, Thomas J., Searle, Glen, & Tonts, Matthew (2015). Strategic globalizing centers and sub-network geometries: A social network analysis of multi-scalar energy networks. Geoforum, 64, 78-89.

Mould, Oli (2008). Moving images: world cities, connections and projects in Sydney’s TV production industry. Global Networks, 8(4), 474-495.

Pan, Fenghua, Bi, Wenkai, Lenzer, James, & Zhao, Simon (2017). Mapping urban networks through inter-firm service relationships: The case of China. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3639-3654..

Peng, Weiying (2016). Sino-US film coproduction: A global media primer. Global Media and China, 1(4), 295-311.

Robinson, Jennifer (2002). Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), 531-554.

Sassen, Saskia (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Scott, Allen J. (2002). A new map of Hollywood: the production and distribution of American motion pictures. Regional Studies, 36(9), 957-975.

Scott, Allen J. (2012). A World in Emergence: Cities and Regions in the 21st Century. Cheltenham and New York: Edward Elgar.

Scott, Allen J., & Pope, Naomi E. (2007). Hollywood, Vancouver, and the world: employment relocation and the emergence of satellite production centers in the motion-picture industry. Environment and Planning A, 39(6), 1364-1381.

Storper, Michael, & Christopherson, Susan (1987). Flexible specialization and regional industrial agglomerations: the case of the US motion picture industry. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1), 104-117.

Taylor, Peter J. (2004). The new geography of global civil society: NGOs in the world city network. Globalizations, 1(2), 265-277.

Taylor, Peter J., & Derudder, Ben (2016). World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis (2nd). London: Routledge.

Vang, Jan, & Chaminade, Cristina (2007). Cultural clusters, global–local linkages and spillovers: theoretical and empirical insights from an exploratory study of Toronto's film cluster. Industry and Innovation, 14(4), 401-420.

Ward, Kevin (2010). Towards a relational comparative approach to the study of cities. Progress in Human Geography, 34(4), 471-487.

Watson, Allan (2012a). The world according to iTunes: mapping urban networks of music production. Global Networks, 12(4), 446-466.

Watson, Allan (2012b). Sociological Perspectives on the Economic Geography of Projects: The Case of Project‐Based Working in the Creative Industries. Geography Compass, 6(10), 617-631.

Xi’an Evening News. (2017). Why do film companies prefer to go to Khorgos? Available at: http://epaper.xiancn.com/xawb/html/2017-03/05/node_62.htm.

Yang, Xiaolan, Derudder, Ben, Taylor, Peter J., Ni, Pengfei, & Shen, Wei (2017). Asymmetric global network connectivities in the world city network, 2013. Cities, 60, 84-90.

Yeh, Anthony G.O., Yang, Fiona F. & Wang, Jiejing (2015). Producer service linkages and city connectivity in the mega-city region of China: A case study of the Pearl River Delta. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2458-2482.

Yu, Shu (2012). An investigation of the current status of Chinese film and television cities. Chinese Film Market, (09), 37-39 (in Chinese).

Zhang, Xu, & Kloosterman, Robert C. (2016). Connecting the ‘workshop of the world’: intra- and extra-service networks of the Pearl River Delta city-region. Regional Studies, 50(6), 1069-1081.

Zhang, Xu & Li, Yajuan (2018). Concentration or deconcentration? Exploring the changing geographies of film production and consumption in China. Geoforum, 88, 118-128.

Zhao, Miaoxi, Liu, Xingjian, Derudder, Ben, Zhong, Ye, & Shen, Wei (2015). Mapping producer services networks in mainland Chinese cities. Urban Studies, 52(16), 3018-3034.

NOTES

^*Xu Zhang, Department of Regional Planning and Management, Wuhan University of Technology, China, x.zhang86@hotmail.com

^**Yajuan Li, Department of Tourism Management, Central China Normal University, China, yajuan.li@mail.ccnu.edu.cn

^***Yanbin Yuan, Department of Regional Planning and Management, Wuhan University of Technology, China

1. Here we mainly refer to the research focusing on the economic connections between cities. Of course, there are also studies looking at other types of inter-city connection, such as infrastructure networks or airline flows.

3. Arguably, the locations of producers cannot capture all the process of film production, since a lot of shooting activities are often completed in real-life locations with unique landscapes. However, these locations represent the places where the most important actors, capital, technologies and talents are concentrated, which make them the creative, management and control center of the motion picture industry.

4. These include the Hengdian World Studio in Jinhua, the CCTV Wuxi Movie/TV Base in Wuxi, the China (Zhejiang) International Film & Television Industries Cooperation Experimental Zone in Jiaxing and the Xiang Shan Movie and TV Town in Ningbo.

5. Here we treat two Chinese cities Hong Kong and Taipei as global cities since they have rather distinct institutional contexts compared to that in mainland China.