Skip to content

Culture, Tourism, and Soft Power
in China's 15th Five-Year Plan

The plan's culture section is not decorative. It links ideology, public culture, digital content, tourism, heritage, creative industries, and international communication.

Culture in China’s 15th Five-Year Plan is not a decorative chapter after the “real” economy. It is treated as ideology, public service, creative industry, tourism economy, digital content, heritage protection, and international communication.

This matters because the plan’s cultural agenda connects several goals that English readers often separate: social cohesion, public cultural access, content industries, tourism consumption, digital platforms, international soft power, and the state’s narrative capacity.

Culture in China’s 15th Five-Year Plan means more than arts and heritage. The plan wants stronger mainstream values, better public cultural services, a larger cultural industry, deeper culture-tourism integration, more digital cultural products, stronger heritage protection, and more effective international communication.

The agenda has five parts:

PartWhat the plan emphasizes
Values and ideologySocialist core values, mainstream public opinion, media reform, civic morality, and online civilization.
Public cultureLibraries, museums, community spaces, public cultural services, reading, grassroots cultural activities, and heritage protection.
Cultural industriesDigital animation, immersive performance, online shows, short video, micro dramas, online literature, games, audiovisual content, and cultural brands.
TourismCulture-tourism integration, inbound tourism, rural tourism, wellness tourism, industrial tourism, study tourism, and better travel services.
International communicationChinese narratives, global communication capacity, cultural exports, media internationalization, and people-to-people exchanges.

The plan treats culture as both a domestic social system and an international influence system.

The plan starts the cultural section with socialist core values, ideological work, mainstream media, civic morality, and online civilization.

For English readers, this makes the cultural agenda different from a conventional creative-economy policy. It is not only about market growth. It is also about social cohesion, legitimacy, public opinion, and the party-state’s ability to shape narratives.

This is why the plan links cultural development to media reform, think tanks, philosophy and social sciences, youth education, online behavior, and public morality.

The state wants culture to produce meaning, not only entertainment.

The plan also treats culture as a public service. It calls for better public cultural service systems, grassroots cultural activities, city reading rooms, community cultural stations, cultural corridors, public facilities, smart museums, smart libraries, cloud services, national reading, and better broadcast and television networks.

This is welfare policy in cultural form.

Public cultural services matter because they:

  • improve quality of life;
  • support elderly and community activity;
  • shape local identity;
  • create low-cost public consumption;
  • make urban and rural services more equal;
  • support social cohesion.

In the plan’s broader logic, public culture belongs beside education, healthcare, elderly care, and community services as part of everyday modernization.

Cultural industries are part of the consumption economy

Section titled “Cultural industries are part of the consumption economy”

The plan calls for expanding high-quality cultural products and developing cultural industries. It names digital animation, immersive performances, online shows, short video, micro dramas, online literature, online games, online audiovisual content, publishing integration, cultural enterprises, cultural brands, and cultural industrial parks.

This is a large economic field. It connects:

  • domestic consumption;
  • digital platforms;
  • tourism;
  • intellectual property;
  • youth culture;
  • local economies;
  • exports;
  • AI and digital production tools.

The plan also says regulation should guide healthy development in online literature, online games, and audiovisual sectors. That is the familiar Chinese cultural-industry balance: encourage scale and innovation, but keep content and platforms politically and socially manageable.

Tourism is a growth and soft-power channel

Section titled “Tourism is a growth and soft-power channel”

The plan calls for deeper culture-tourism integration and a stronger tourism country. It names red tourism, rural tourism, wellness tourism, industrial tourism, study tourism, theme routes, tourism performances, better public services, safety, market regulation, and inbound tourism convenience.

Tourism matters for several reasons.

Domestically, it supports service consumption, local employment, county economies, cultural heritage, and regional development. Internationally, inbound tourism is a soft-power and people-to-people channel. It is one of the few forms of global contact that can change perceptions through direct experience.

The plan’s inbound tourism language is worth watching because China has been trying to make travel more convenient through visas, payments, transport, and services. Better travel infrastructure can become part of international communication.

The plan calls for a more effective international communication system and a Chinese discourse and narrative system. It mentions overseas communication networks, international discourse power, globalized and market-oriented communication actors, international media capacity, audiovisual international communication, social media platform internationalization, cultural exports, online literature, games, film, animation, exhibitions, cultural export bases, civilization dialogue, cultural festivals, overseas China studies, and area studies.

This is the soft-power section of the plan, but “soft power” alone is too narrow. The agenda includes state media, commercial platforms, cultural companies, digital content, tourism, research, education, and diplomacy.

The open question is whether international audiences find the content persuasive. Capacity is not the same as credibility.

The cultural agenda will show up in platforms, tourism, content regulation, and international programs. Watch:

  • whether inbound tourism becomes easier in practice;
  • whether Chinese games, online literature, animation, short dramas, and film expand overseas;
  • whether cultural regulation supports or restricts creative risk-taking;
  • whether local governments build viable cultural tourism projects or debt-heavy attractions;
  • whether public cultural services improve in smaller cities and rural areas;
  • whether Chinese international communication becomes more market-sensitive and audience-aware;
  • whether AI tools change cultural production and translation.

Because the plan treats culture as public service, social cohesion, ideology, consumption, tourism, creative industry, and international influence.

No, though ideology and international communication are explicit. The plan also covers public culture, tourism, digital content, heritage, and cultural industries.

Tourism supports service consumption, local employment, cultural heritage, regional economies, and international people-to-people contact.

Whether China’s cultural exports and international communication can become credible and attractive to foreign audiences, not only better funded or better organized.