INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC POLICYInternational Conference on Public Policy

Cultural policy: analyzing its challenges and developing lessons for public policy

Chairs

Discussant : Professor Guy Saez, Sciences Po Grenoble

This panel is focused on the promising intersection between the field of cultural policy analysis and the policy analysis approach. Showing the analytical and empirical relevance of the combination of these two fields is one of the main goals of this panel. We understand cultural policy as a moment of convergence and coherence between, on the one hand, representations of the State’s potential input with regards to art and culture’s role within society, and on the other hand, the organization of a public action (Urfalino, 2004).

Read more

We invite the submission of proposals for papers on the following topics:

1. Comparative cultural policy:
Public policy analysis has contributed to the renewal of comparative policy studies (Maillard and Smith, 2004). Likewise, we consider that particular characteristics of the cultural policy domain may also help to enrich this debate. We will focus on comparative works, whether cross-national (Audet and Saint-Pierre, 2011; Poirrier, 2011), case-oriented or variable-oriented (Ragin, 1987), intersectorial, diachronic, between geographic areas or institutional arrangements, etc.

2. Cultural policy and policy change:
We welcome communications focusing on evolution, historical development and significant changes in cultural policies and proposals that analyses these issues applying well-established frameworks of policy change analysis but also other disciplines (sociology, economy, anthropology, etc.). We look forward to papers which address causes and consequences of policy change produced by whether endogenous and exogenous factors, structural factors (economic and political crisis), models of governance (new public management), etc.

3. Policy formulation, management and evaluation:
In this axis, we solicit contributions focusing on the cultural policy process, including agenda-setting, alternative specification, decision-making, implementation and evaluation. We also welcome proposals focusing, among other issues, on profiles of policy actors (policy-makers, practitioners), processes of professionalization of these actors, the role of cultural users/publics in policies formulation and implementation, analyses of the impact of cultural policies in a broad sense, etc.


76.1 Session 1

Thursday 27th June, 13h30-15h30, Room 15 IEP

From ‘European cultural heritage’ to ‘cultural diversity’: the changing core values of European cultural policy Oriane Calligaro,
PDF - 4.2 Mb

PDF - 4.2 Mb

This paper proposes to analyse how a new value – diversity – was placed at the core of the EU cultural policy in the last decade. Cultural diversity was already presented as a European value in EU policies but its definition changed. Until the 1990s, it mainly referred to diversity of national cultures within a European cultural unity; the category has been then incrementally extended to encompass diversity within the European societies due to migratory flows and multi-ethnic populations. My aim is to determine how deep social changes and the necessity to re-think the conditions of cohesion between European citizens prompted a shift in the conceptual background of EU cultural policy. “European cultural heritage” was originally the backbone of this policy, which has been criticized for its promotion of an essentialist and exclusionary definition of Europe through top-down initiatives. I will show that the introduction of “cultural diversity” as new pivotal value of European culture had also consequences in terms of policy: “intercultural dialogue” became the buzzword in recent EU cultural initiatives and is now presented as the best operating mode to promote and defend cultural diversity and to make citizens actors of this process. I will investigate the evolution of this new category. It appeared in the EU vocabulary in the 1990s as a tool to facilitate communication with its Mediterranean neighbours, perceived as geographical and cultural Others. In 2005, the EU recognised the necessity of an internal intercultural dialogue taking into account the coexistence within its member states of diverse – and not strictly European – cultural heritages. These conceptual and policy changes, which reflect a crucial evolution in the EU’s representation of the body of European citizens, will be explored through an examination of EU official documents and cultural programmes and through interviews with EU officials in charge of cultural policy.

New orientation in Cultural Policies in Turkey: Between European stakes and Public-Private Partnerships Füsun ÜSTEL, fustel superonline.com, Jean-François POLO, jean-francois.polo sciencespo-rennes.fr

In the 2000’s years, modern art institutions have flourished in Istanbul. New museums have been created (most of them private), new art galleries have emerged, biennials or fairs of modern art or designs have attracted a growing number of visitors, consumers, art merchants, and many new projects are still in development. Private cultural foundations and business holding have increased their roles in the culture fields, not only in the culture industries production but also to support culture festivals and events. On the other hand, the public culture policy which had been so long state-orientated in order to build a national identity seems to withdraw from the contemporary arts and culture production to focus on the conservation of the cultural heritage, and especially the Islamic and Ottoman artifacts and to use culture as a means to develop international tourism. In 2004, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) has enacted two laws to encourage private investments in the cultural arena. Alongside the state, it is also important to mention the growing role played by the local authorities in the culture field which gained since 2000s new financial means and fiscal resources to define and develop culture local policies.
How is it possible to handle these current changes? What are the deep meanings of this new partnership between public and private culture actors? To what extent the European Union membership agenda for Turkey (despite the slowdown of the last five years in the negotiation process) has an impact on this collaboration? To what extent the huge urban planning projects in cities such Istanbul could strengthen these trends of liberalization in the culture fields?
The proposal will examine this new process crossing an historical perspective and sociological surveys upon the changes which affect the current Turkish cultural policy.

“Making cultural policy a ‘national’ stake: the political centrality of cultural policy under François Mitterrand’s presidency” Vincent Martigny, vincent.martigny sciences-po.org

This paper focuses on Cultural policy and policy change in France in a historical perspective. It explains how and why cultural policy has emerged as a political symbol of François Mitterrand’s first mandate between 1981 and 1988 and as a key instrument of the Socialist electoral and ideological strategies. I will argue that the growing significance of cultural policy on the Socialist political agenda can be explained by the identification of culture to French national identity. Through this, the paper outlines an often-underestimated – yet central – dimension of cultural policy, i.e. the promotion of the French nation through the defence of its culture and artists.
I will first expose the socialist party’s strategy during the 1981 presidential campaign, which goal was to frame an original policy proposal, distanced both from the Communist Party and the Right. I will analyse the political agenda of François Mitterrand with regards to the role of culture in the definition of French national identity both before and after his election. I will particular focus on the ways he presented the Socialist party as particularly dedicated to the defence of national culture and artists, and therefore as the party of ‘True France’, versus a ‘Giscardienne’ Right accused of betraying national culture.
In order to illustrate this argument, I will then particularly examine two public policy frameworks that were developed in the 1980s: the ‘Exception culturelle’ (‘Cultural exception’) and the ‘droit à la difference culturelle’ (‘Right to cultural difference’), which can be coined as an early form of French multiculturalism. The paper will explain how these two policy trends, seemingly different, have come to embody one of the most original legacies of the Socialist presidency.

Making cultural policy in Switzerland Lisa Marx, lisa.marx unige.ch
PDF - 219.6 kb

PDF - 219.6 kb

The importance of both state and non-state actors in the different phases of policy formulation and implementation is one of the basic premises of policy analysis. Depending on the chosen analytical angle, their interests, ideas, beliefs, resources, strategies, organizational structures and/or interactions with each other shape policy decisions, outputs and outcomes. In order to analyze any given policy – including cultural policy – a precise knowledge of its actors is thus essential.
This paper will focus on the historically federalist and subsidiary cultural policy in Switzerland, which has been profoundly reshaped in the last 15 years, and more specifically on the processes and actors of cultural policy formulation. After several unfruitful initiatives by cultural interest groups, a constitutional article on arts and culture was finally introduced during the general revision of the Swiss constitution in 2000, followed by the first federal law on culture in 2009. Beyond the federal level, several cantons have also proposed and/or adopted new laws on culture since 2000, at the initiative of either the administration or artists’ movements.
These multiple and simultaneous processes of policy formulation can be conceptualized as new arenas, into which different types of actors (artist unions, economic interest groups, cultural institutions, political parties and state actors from different levels) enter to participate, in which they ally themselves with or oppose other actors in order to form coalitions and influence cultural policy at the cantonal or federal as it is being written.
Our comparative analysis of consultation submissions, press articles as well as other documents linked to the administrative and legislative process at the national level and in selected cantons allows us to show different framing and networking strategies employed. It also nuances the preponderant place traditionally attributed to economic interest groups in literature on the Swiss political system, which can be explained by the particularities of the cultural sector.


76.2 Session 2

Friday 28th June, 10h45-12h45, Room 19 IEP

The political economy of cultural sector employment in the German states Markus TEPE M.A., markus.tepe uni-oldenburg.de, Pieter VANHUYSSE, Vanhuysse euro.centre.org

Re-election seeking incumbents in liberal democracies have powerful incentives to attract votes by manipulating the public policies at their disposal, for instance by timing public employment expansion during election periods, by implementing ideologically valued policies for their electoral base, or by signaling their ability to do so. This paper aims to investigate the strategic manipulations of cultural sector employment in the case of the 16 German states between 1992 and 2011. The research questions are: (1) Partisanship: Does the ideological composition of state-level governments affect changes in the size of cultural sector employment – and if so, in which German states? (2) Electioneering: Do state governments strategically time increases and cutbacks in cultural sector employment – and if so, which states primarily? (3) How do these manipulation strategies differ across four different types of cultural sector workers? (4) On the demand side of politics, do cultural sector workers hold sector-specific partisan attitudes on which incumbents can build their employment strategies?

Implementing public policy for culture in Portugal:A controversial issue Carlos VARGAS, vargascarlos live.com.pt, Patrícia OLIVEIRA, patriciaoliveira observatoriopolitico.pt
PDF - 841.8 kb

PDF - 841.8 kb

In recent years, in Portugal, the concepts of modernization and innovation have been serving as referential meanings for the successive governments that aimed (among other objectives) to perform a transformation and consequent modernization of the State’s central administration. In 2006, this was the context for the socialist government, headed by José Sócrates (XVII constitutional government), to announce the merging of São Carlos National Theatre (the Portuguese opera house) and the National Ballet of Portugal into a single organization, a company funded with public capitals but under private management. This new company, designated OPART, EPE [Artistic Production Organization, Public Management Organization] began its course of action in May 2007; since the very beginning, it was targeted by a massive public contestation which met great impact in the national press. With this analysis, we will search to establish that the organizational patterns in common were imposed – in these last two examples – by the active participation of society which gave origin to an indirect and more distant governmental involvement. We will also try to establish that these patterns introduced a factor of fundamental stability into the organizations, which is not to be overlooked if we take into account that a minister of Culture in Portugal holds this position, in average, for a period of two years. Then, how can we explain the intense controversy over this merging with the systematic involvement of several figures who tried to condition the governmental public action by using the media? How does a public policy survive when its leaders alternate so rapidly? Where may we find the ruling power if its headquarters are constantly vacant?

The implementation of an international policy tool seen by non-state actors: The Convention on Diversity of Cultural Expressions Antonios Vlassis, antonios.vlassis gmail.com

The implementation of international norms for cultural industries rises since the early 1990s. The Convention on Diversity of Cultural Expressions (CDCE), adopted by UNESCO in 2005 and entered into force in 2007, has so far received the membership of 125 States and of the European Union (EU) and it is seen as a main tool of the international public policy on cultural industries. The CDCE recognizes the specificity of cultural goods and services, allows States to pursue cultural policies for the diversity of cultural expressions. In addition, the CDCE encourages the active participation of civil society for achieving the CDCE objectives and it strengthens international cultural cooperation through the exchange of expertise and through the setting up of an International Fund for Cultural Diversity.
On the one hand, given that the sociopolitical building of CDCE is based on the implication of several actors (Vlassis 2010), the implementation process seems to get an impact on many actors beyond the natural recipients of an international policy tool, namely the States. On the other hand, the CDCE implementation seems to be very interesting because it is a fragmented process involving policy actions beyond the normative frame of the CDCE (Vlassis 2011).
Furthermore, an abundant literature on the filed of International Relations aims to focus on the influence of the international public policy on the behavior of States and the impact of non-state actors on the process building of international policy tools. However, the scope of these studies does not seek to explore the role of non-state actors on the implementation process and the way that an international policy tool influences their policy agenda.
I argue that any implementation of an international policy tool brings about changes on the preferences of the recipients (Smith and Petiteville 2006; Lascoumes and Le Galès 2010). In order to explore the dynamics of the CDCE implementation, my proposal focuses on two key actors and on the meaning they give to their involvement. It concentrates on the International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity and on the global association Cities, Local and Regional Governments. My proposal has three main objectives: a. Assess the degree of changes resulting to the behavior of the two actors through the implementation of the CDCE; b. Point out how the two actors seek to use the CDCE, by interpreting its provisions and by including new challenges (intellectual property rights, sustainable development and culture, cultural rights) in the CDCE implementation process; c. Explore the consistency of their strategies and their ability to act in common and with other stakeholders.