Over the past two decades, South Korea has emerged as a global cultural powerhouse, with its cinema reaching unprecedented levels of international recognition. From Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite winning the Academy Award for Best Picture to the worldwide phenomenon of Squid Game, Korean films and series have captivated global audiences. Despite the uncompromising creative talent, behind this success is also a deliberate and sustained public policy strategy that positions culture as a key instrument of soft power.

South Korea’s government’s decision to transform its cultural sector from a “simple” entertainment object into a strategic asset for international influence may be a good subject for policy analysis. After all, through a combination of targeted investment, regulatory reforms, and long-term planning, South Korea has successfully integrated film into its broader foreign policy and economic development goals. At a time when other countries, such as the United States, are adopting more protectionist approaches to cultural industries, South Korea’s model invites reflection: can state-led cultural diplomacy truly shape global narratives — and can other countries follow a similar path?

Historical Background and Cultural Strategy

The roots of South Korea’s cultural strategy can be traced back to the aftermath of the Korean War and, more recently and significantly, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997. Faced with severe economic instability, the South Korean government sought to diversify and modernize its economy. This moment of crisis became a turning point for the country’s approach to culture. Policymakers began to recognize cultural production not just as entertainment but as a valuable economic and diplomatic resource.

In 1998, a landmark agreement with Japan marked a shift in South Korea’s cultural landscape. While the country began lifting its decades-long ban on Japanese cultural imports, it simultaneously focused on strengthening its domestic industry to ensure that Korean audiences would still prioritize national content. This dual approach of limited cultural openness combined with heavy investment in local content laid the foundation for Hallyu, or the Korean Wave.

During this period, the government increased funding for the arts, created institutions like the Korean Film Council (KOFIC), and introduced policies that favored local cinema, such as screen quotas. These efforts were part of a broader strategy to assert cultural sovereignty, foster national pride, and expand Korea’s influence abroad through soft power. By the early 2000s, Korean films were no longer just popular domestically, they were also being exported across Asia and gaining critical attention in Western film festivals, paving the way for the global cultural presence we see today.

Public Policies and Institutional Support for the Film Industry

One of the most important elements in South Korea's cinematic success story is the role played by deliberate, consistent public policy. The Korean Film Council (KOFIC), established in 1973 and restructured in 1999, became the central body for overseeing the development and globalization of Korean cinema. Funded by both public and private sources, KOFIC provides financial support to domestic productions, supports international distribution, and helps foster co-productions with other countries.

Some of the key measures included:

• Screen quotas mandating that theaters reserve a number of days per year for domestic films.
• Tax incentives and subsidies for film production, infrastructure, and talent development.
• Film schools and training programs to nurture a skilled workforce.
• Support for international film festivals to promote Korean films abroad.

These policies were coordinated as part of a broader national vision that recognized the creative industries as vital to economic growth and global competitiveness.

In addition, public broadcasting networks and major conglomerates (chaebols) invested heavily in media and entertainment, creating a synergistic ecosystem between private and public actors. This allowed South Korean cinema to expand its reach beyond national borders while maintaining a strong domestic foundation.

Soft Power and Global Impact

South Korea’s strategic use of cinema exemplifies how culture can serve as a tool of soft power, the ability to shape preferences and influence global audiences through attraction rather than coercion. Korean cinema, with its distinct narratives, high production values, and social relevance, has contributed to building a positive image of South Korea worldwide. This is a smart way to sell a commercial of your culture, roots, stories and creativity, bringing international prestige. This cultural diplomacy has complemented the country's economic and political diplomacy, enhancing its global profile and attractiveness.

Films like Parasite, Oldboy, and Burning, as well as popular dramas distributed via global platforms like Netflix, have not only generated revenue and critical acclaim but also created cultural affinity. South Korea’s global reach has extended beyond entertainment to fashion, food, tourism, and education, all benefiting from the growing interest sparked by its media exports — without directly mentioning the major phenomena of K-pop and K-beauty, but acknowledging their huge impact on the Korean economy and through its soft power.

In the context of international relations, the success of Korean cinema also challenges traditional paradigms of geopolitical influence, showcasing how a relatively small nation can punch above its weight by strategically investing in culture. The Korean case prompts a timely question: in an era of rising nationalism and protectionism, can soft power strategies based on open cultural exchange still flourish? And can they be replicated by others?

Contrasts and Tensions: The Case of the USA and Tariffs on Foreign Films

In stark contrast to South Korea’s open and proactive cultural strategy, recent developments in the United States signal a shift toward cultural protectionism. Current USA President Donald Trump has proposed a 100% tariff on foreign films, citing the need to protect American jobs and the domestic entertainment industry. This proposal raises concerns about the potential consequences of insulating one of the world’s most dominant cultural exporters, Hollywood, from international cultural exchange.

While the U.S. has long benefited from the global reach of its entertainment industry, this move reflects a broader trend of economic nationalism that may hinder cross-cultural dialogue and cooperation. Hollywood’s global success is built on accessibility and international appeal, yet heavy tariffs on foreign content risk triggering retaliatory measures and narrowing the diversity of cultural expressions available to American audiences.

This moment invites a comparison between two models: South Korea’s approach of promotion through strategic public investment versus the United States’ tendency toward protectionism and market dominance. While Korea used public policy to elevate its cultural products globally, the U.S. seems to be moving in a more insular direction, not necessarily by design but as a potential consequence of its current policies, which may limit international film exposure and cultural exchange. 

Not that the comparison is entirely symmetrical, given the differing scales and histories of their industries, but it does raise some important questions for this debate. In South Korea’s case, targeted public support has helped amplify the global appeal of its cultural outputs, seen in emotionally nuanced storytelling, polished aesthetics, and a compelling fusion of modernity with traditional values. These traits have contributed to the perception of Korean cultural products as both relatable and aspirational, enabling their wide adoption across diverse audiences. In contrast, by narrowing access to foreign cultural content, the U.S. risks diminishing the mutual enrichment that comes from openness and potentially undermining its own cultural influence over time.

Indeed, these implications extend beyond economics. Culture is a powerful diplomatic asset, and closing off borders to foreign media can undermine soft power and international goodwill. As countries grapple with how to protect local industries in an age of globalization, the balance between cultural preservation and openness will remain central to the evolution of public policies on media and culture.

Lessons and Limitations: Can the Korean Model Be Replicated?

South Korea’s success in leveraging cinema as soft power offers a compelling case study, but its replicability in other national contexts is far from guaranteed. The Korean model was shaped by a unique confluence of historical, political, and economic factors that may not be easily transferable.

For one, the model requires political continuity, sustained public investment, strong cultural infrastructure, and a consolidated creative industry. South Korea’s long-term commitment, through institutions like KOFIC and stable public-private partnerships, allowed it to nurture talent, build production capacity, and consistently promote its content abroad. Not all countries possess the institutional strength or the strategic vision to follow a similar path.

Moreover, several obstacles exist in other contexts. These include political instability, lack of funding, censorship, and a devaluation of culture as a public good. In some countries, cultural sectors are treated as peripheral or are constrained by ideological controls, making it difficult to foster the kind of creative freedom and innovation that define Korean cinema.

That said, elements of the Korean approach, such as targeted support, international cooperation, and branding culture as a national asset, can offer valuable lessons. Countries with emerging creative industries might find inspiration in how Korea integrated cultural policy into its development and diplomacy agendas.

Ultimately, the guiding question remains: Is the South Korean model unique or can it serve as a blueprint for others? The answer likely lies somewhere in between. While its full replication may be difficult, its principles can inform diverse strategies for nations seeking to harness culture as a source of both identity and influence.

Culture, Policy, and the Future of Soft Power

South Korea's rise as a cultural powerhouse offers a compelling illustration of how public policies can play a decisive role in shaping and projecting soft power. Far from being a mere byproduct of market dynamics or artistic ingenuity, the global success of Korean cinema reflects a deliberate and strategic use of state support to cultivate cultural assets as instruments of international influence.

In this context, South Korea stands as an emblematic and provocative case in the field of cultural diplomacy. Its experience challenges traditional assumptions about the sources of global influence, proving that a nation’s narrative power can be constructed through long-term planning, institutional support, and an openness to global engagement. As Korean films, music, and media continue to captivate audiences worldwide, they also carry with them the values, aesthetics, and stories that shape perceptions of Korea as a modern, dynamic society. These include themes such as class inequality, social mobility, and generational tensions, powerfully rendered in works like Parasite (2019) and Minari (2020), or intergenerational tension and the personal costs of modernization like in Burning (2018), as well as an ability to blend high production value, emotional storytelling, and genre innovation, as seen in Train to Busan (2016) or Decision to Leave (2022). These cultural exports present Korea as a society that is both deeply rooted and globally attuned, capable of producing narratives that resonate across borders.

In an era marked by trade tensions, symbolic disputes, and a resurgence of nationalism, the future of culture in international relations demands renewed attention. Will states embrace the transformative potential of cultural exchange, or retreat into protective silos that limit creative dialogue? The South Korean model invites not only admiration, but also critical reflection on how nations can use culture not only to entertain, but to build bridges, assert identity, and foster mutual understanding on the global stage.

References

Jin, D. Y. (2016). New Korean Wave: Transnational cultural power in the age of social media. University of Illinois Press. 

Kim, J. (2022). Korean cultural industry policies from 1993 to 2021 [Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University]. Summit. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/21538

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs. books.google.com/books

Wilson Center. (2021, February 25). Paving the path for soft power: Crucial moments in South Korea’s cultural policies. www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/paving-path-soft-power-crucial-moments-south-koreas-cultural-policies

Reuters. (2025, May 4). Trump orders 100% tariff on foreign-made movies to save 'dying' Hollywood. www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-announces-100-tariff-movies-produced-outside-us-2025-05-04/

Reuters. (2025, May 13). Robert De Niro calls for protest against 'philistine' Trump as Cannes opens. www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/robert-de-niro-calls-protest-against-philistine-trump-cannes-opens-2025-05-13/

Shoard, C. (2025, May 13). Robert De Niro attacks Trump in Cannes speech: ‘This isn’t just America’s problem’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/may/13/robert-de-niro-trump-cannes-speech

~ The views represented in this blog post do not necessarily represent those of the Brandt School. ~