According to the mainstream economical explanation:
Added value. These were only ruins of no value until Mr. Bingham "introduced them" to the western market. Now they are attractions.
Example: A Western PR intern earns more than a worker at the luxury automobile plant in the East. It is said because the intern adds more value to the product with fetching coffee than the worker with welding. 👨🏭💸👩💼
Is the added value hypothesis incorrect? I don't think so. Merely overly simplistic.