Value Foundations of Cultural Industry Typologies: International and Russian Practice

The article is dedicated to the study of the value foundations of key typologies of cultural industries. The subject of the research is the axiological foundations (value systems) that determine the principles of construction and the structure of key typologies of cultural industries. By comparing international and Russian classifications of cultural industries, competing "cultural logics" are identified – stable paradigms of legitimization that determine which practices are recognized as significant in the field of culture. The focus is not on the external form of classification schemes, but rather on the conflict between value systems that prioritize economic efficiency, cultural heritage, or the principle of diversity, as well as the specifics of their hybridization in the Russian context. The study traces how these principles materialize in specific classification solutions, how they compete or synthesize within national and international cultural policy systems. A comparative analysis of international and Russian classification models is conducted through the lens of the concept of "value dominants." The scientific novelty lies in the abandonment of traditional sectoral comparisons in favor of identifying axiological systems that determine the structure of classifications. As a result, three value dominants are highlighted: canon and heritage, economic efficiency, and cultural diversity; the hybrid nature of the Russian model is revealed as a synthesis of managerial rationality with elements of international approaches, combining goals of economic efficiency and the preservation of traditional state regulation in the field of culture; an analytical tool is proposed for deconstructing hidden value foundations in the field of cultural policy. The practical significance of the work consists in providing analytical tools for optimizing cultural policy mechanisms, allowing for the identification and correction of value biases – both towards economic reductionism and towards inflexibility and isolation from contemporary processes – and contributing to the establishment of a more balanced, culture-centered strategy for the development of cultural industries.