In the years before Beijing's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organisation, Chinese negotiators worked hard to ensure entry did not weaken the barriers around a domestic media industry seen as a vital support for the country's ruling Communist party.

These days, however, China is taking the initiative to liberalise the media market partially, allowing state newspapers to tap international capital markets and foreigners to control cinema chains.

And this month, Beijing will allow international media groups to have a direct role in generating content for television, perhaps the most sensitive media sector of all, with rules permitting joint venture TV production companies. The rules, drawn up by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (Sarft) and the Ministry of Commerce, reflect the view that foreign skills and cash are needed to help China's media industry develop compelling content and become a force for economic growth.

“If China's radio and television sector is to develop, it must develop in a competitive environment,” says Sarft official Zhu Hong. “We must open the door wider and let some private and foreign capital in. If we don't, there is no way we can grow strong.”

The new rules, likely to be publicly announced this week, put into effect a high-level decision to open the sector that was made public in February and which is matched by a similar opening of the film production sector.

“The regulations are really going to give a very good opportunity for international media companies like News Corp to work with strong local production companies to create new innovative content,” says Jamie Davis, China head of News Corp's Star TV.

Some in the TV industry say trade officials are not pleased by the decision to open a market they laboured so hard to protect, but the rules aim to balance attracting foreign involvement with making sure overseas investors are limited to a supporting role.

Political concerns aside, few in Beijing believe state broadcasters, that for decades saw themselves mainly as propaganda arms of the state, are ready for full-scale competition.

Under the rules, foreign companies can hold up to 49 per cent stakes in production ventures, which must have initial capital of at least $2m, or $1m in the case of animation companies.

Local partners can be privately owned, but must be existing holders of a production licence.

The green light for co-operation with private companies is likely to be well received, says Marcia Ellis, counsel at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison's Hong Kong office.

“There are these more nimble, flexible private television programme production companies that are starting to have a real force,” Ms Ellis says.

Under the rules, foreign partners must be “specialised radio or TV ventures”, a requirement aimed at ensuring the liberalisation brings in expertise that will help the local industry although an indirect role for non-media investors may be possible.

Some investors may be disappointed, however, by the requirement that the joint ventures have their own logo and so cannot simply be used to promote the brand of a foreign shareholder.

“This is a major concern of media companies,” says Ms Ellis. “For a lot of them, what they really want in China is brand building.”

Foreign interest in TV and radio production will be fuelled by the remaining barriers on broadcasting in China.

The “landing rights” of channels run even by favoured companies such as News Corp and Viacom are restricted to hotels, approved housing compounds and areas in southern Guangdong Province and officials say they have no plans for any dramatic widening of access to the market.

Indeed, the new rules make clear the limits on foreign involvement in Chinese TV: news production is explicitly banned and ventures must make an annual report on their programming to Sarft.

But Wang Changtian, head of Enlight Media, China's largest private television production company, says the regulations are a real step forward.

“These new rules show that there are now only two forbidden zones in Chinese television: you cannot own a TV channel . . . and you can't do current affairs and news,” he says. “That is progress.”