한국·UAE의 문화 소프트파워가 도시 이미지 형성에 미치는 영향 : ?수도와 문화중심도시를 중심으로? = The Influence of Cultural Soft Power on City Image Formation in the Republic of Korea and the United Arab Emirates: A Comparative Study of Capital Cities and Cultural Hub Cities

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to comparatively analyze the influence of cultural soft power on city image formation by examining the capital cities and cultural hub cities of the Republic of Korea and the United Arab Emirates （UAE）. Today, cities are emerging as strategic actors that embody national competitiveness and cultural influence, going beyond their traditional role as administrative districts or physical spaces. Accordingly, cultural assets, cultural infrastructure, and cultural attractiveness possessed by cities function as key resources in shaping urban identity and city image. However, previous studies have mainly focused on soft power at the national level, city branding, or tourism image, while comparative urban-level studies on how cultural soft power operates in the process of city image formation remain relatively limited. Based on this research gap, this study integrates Joseph S. Nye’s theory of soft power and Simon Anholt’s City Brand Hexagon model. Cultural soft power is conceptualized in three dimensions: cultural assets, cultural infrastructure, and cultural attractiveness. Anholt’s City Brand Hexagon model is reconstructed into a City Image Hexagon model in accordance with the purpose of this study. Accordingly, city image is analyzed through six components: perceived status, spatial image, perceived opportunity, perceived cultural vitality, social image, and perceived living environment. As a research method, this study adopts literature-based qualitative research. The research subjects are Seoul and Abu Dhabi as the capital cities of Korea and the UAE, and Gwangju and Dubai as cultural hub cities. Data were collected from domestic and international academic literature, policy materials, statistical data, official reports, international city indices, and cultural institution materials. In addition, the reliability of the analysis and the validity of interpretation were enhanced through triangulation by cross-checking literature, policy materials, statistical data, and field observation data. The findings are as follows. First, cultural assets were found to have the greatest influence on the formation of perceived status and spatial image among the components of the City Image Hexagon. Second, cultural infrastructure was analyzed as having an important influence on the formation of perceived cultural vitality and perceived living environment. Third, cultural attractiveness was found to affect perceived opportunity, social image, and perceived cultural vitality. Fourth, both capital cities and cultural hub cities formed positive city images through cultural soft power, but differences were found in the ways in which cultural soft power operated. The significance of this study is as follows. First, it extends the concept of soft power, which has mainly been discussed at the national level, to the urban level and suggests the possibility of further research on urban cultural soft power. Second, it expands the analytical framework of city image studies by reconstructing the City Image Hexagon model in order to explain the relationship between cultural soft power and city image in an integrated manner. Third, by comparing the capital cities and cultural hub cities of Korea and the UAE, this study confirms that cultural soft power contributes to city image formation in different ways depending on city type and developmental context. In conclusion, cultural soft power is not determined simply by the possession of cultural resources. Rather, it is transformed into city image depending on how a city interprets its cultural assets, how it enables cultural experience through cultural infrastructure, and how it connects with external actors through cultural attractiveness. Therefore, future urban policy needs to move beyond approaches centered on physical development and economic growth and shift toward the integrated use of cultural assets, cultural ecosystems, international cultural exchange, and digital cultural platforms. Such an approach will serve as an important foundation for strengthening the unique identity of cities while realizing international competitiveness and sustainable urban development.

Keywords: Cultural Soft Power, City Image, Capital City, Cultural Hub City, Urban Identity, Korea, UAE, Seoul, Abu Dhabi, Gwangju, Dubai

목차 (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT ⅵ
• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구배경 및 목적1
• 제2절 연구방법 및 구성6
• 제2장 이론적 배경9
• 제1절 문화 소프트파워10
• 1. 문화 소프트파워의 개념 10
• 2. 문화 소프트파워의 특징 13
• 제2절 도시 이미지 15
• 1. 도시 이미지의 개념 15
• 2. 도시 이미지 육각형 모델19
• 3. 문화 소프트파워와 도시 이미지 상관관계 22
• 제3절 수도와 문화중심도시23
• 1. 수도 문화 소프트파워23
• 2. 문화중심도시 문화 소프트파워 25
• 제4절 선행연구 27
• 1. 문화 소프트파워 연구 27
• 2. 도시 이미지 연구 28
• 3. 문화 소프트파워와 도시 이미지 관계 연구 30
• 4. 문화중심도시 연구31
• 5. 한국·UAE 도시 비교 연구33
• 제5절 한국·UAE 도시 이미지 형성34
• 1. 수도: 서울 34
• 2. 수도: 아부다비 37
• 3. 문화중심도시: 광주 40
• 4. 문화중심도시: 두바이43
• 제3장 분석 설계 47
• 제1절 분석 대상 47
• 제2절 분석 자료49
• 제3절 분석 틀 54
• 제4장 분석 결과 56
• 제1절 문화 소프트파워 분석 56
• 1. 문화적 자산 56
• 2. 문화 인프라 58
• 3. 문화 흡인력 60
• 제2절 도시 이미지 육각형 모델 분석63
• 1. 인지된 위상 63
• 2. 공간 이미지 65
• 3. 기회인식 68
• 4. 문화적 활력 인식 71
• 5. 사회적 이미지 73
• 6. 생활환경 인식 76
• 제3절 문화 소프트파워와 도시 이미지의 영향 분석78
• 1. 문화적 자산과 도시 이미지 영향79
• 2. 문화 인프라와 도시 이미지 영향79
• 3. 문화 흡인력과 도시 이미지 영향80
• 4. 문화 소프트파워와 도시 이미지의 통합모형81
• 5. 도시 유형별 영향 차이 83
• 제4절 도시 문화 소프트파워 발전 및 정책 비교84
• 1. 한국·UAE 수도 비교 84
• 2. 한국·UAE 문화중심도시 비교 87
• 제5장 결론 및 시사점90
• 제1절 연구 결과 요약 90
• 제2절 시사점 92
• 1. 학술적 시사점 92
• 2. 정책적 시사점 95
• 3. 실천적 시사점 99
• 제3절 연구의 한계 및 향후 연구 방향 101
• 참고문헌 103