What is Cultural Policy - Research Paper Example

Cultural Policy: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth as an Aspect of Cultural Policy Abstract Culture is a concept, practice, and process. Different elements of the society understand culture in a different way in the contemporary dynamic and multicultural environment. These understandings of the dimensions of culture determine the implementation of cultural policy. The structures and institutions related to cultural policy determines the actual challenges of its implementation. There are several actors and sectors involved in cultural fields because of its economic and political dimensions. The roles of cultural institutions unavoidably interweave in time and space owing to the varied territories of cultural policy. This paper focuses on sustainable development and economic growth as an aspect of cultural policy. Key Words: Cultural Policy, Culture, Sustainable Development, Economic Growth Sustainable Development and Economic Growth as an Aspect of Cultural Policy Introduction Culture has both a human and societal dimension, which represents a subjective to collective dimension respectively. The human dimension describes people, their production, and productive participation. There is a need to value cultural policy as a public policy for culture. Culture has a public value as seen in government intervention in the arts and cultural sphere. Apart from the government, there are several other actors who determine or a have stake in the provision of culture and shape cultural policy. In the contemporary society, nation states have different governmental and institutional traditions that define their structures for cultural policy-making and delivery. In addition, different countries have contradictory background meanings of arts and culture and intentions in cultural policy. Cultural policy-making presents both economic and political dimensions (Gray, 2007, pg. 204), which present both an intrinsic and extrinsic value. This results in tensions between the cultural value and economic value of cultural policy. Currently, there is a shift towards cultural and creative diligence in cultural policy-making, but regrettably, it makes it problematic to justify cultural support. Culture in cultural policy also has roles in social inclusion and civic structure and this characterizes its dimensions as a theory and as a practice (Belfiore, 2002, pg. 100). This discussion explores cultural policy from a political dimension, and realistic methods to promote policy coherence, the delivery of government objectives, and sustainable development in the cultural sector. The role of arts and culture in a democratic society need utmost consideration (Harsell, 2013, pg. 1). The move by the United States government to cut public funding in the arts and culture sectors seek to balance budgets and monetary discipline. In addition, it means America will continue to lag being Europe in various sectors of art (Zolberg, 2014). According to critics, the economy faces depression, and in consequence, there is need for cuts on cultural sectors that do not support the economy. Arts and culture funding are vulnerable to additional cuts because the government seeks to balance budgets and reduce deficits. Unfortunately, this fragment and weakens the arts and culture policy. The same scenario is evident in Europe after the effects of the financial crisis on the existing models of governance of the European cultural sector. Current social, economic and political systems are unreliable because of the structural crisis in the current century riddled with depression and financial instability (Bonet and Donato, 2011, pg. 4). Cultural actors and social stakeholders seem not to understand the future implication of these changes in the cultural sector. Bonet and Donato (2011) mention that the reverse is true because this can also be an opportunity to restructure the culture sector at a policy and organizational level. Improvement of the governance and management models in the cultural sector can help persuade government and relevant authorities on their stance to cut spending in the sector. Cuts in government spending on the cultural sector may eliminate weak cultural sectors and leave only strong cultural sectors. For that reason, the society should not plainly see it as a negative factor in the cultural sector. The current economic crisis not only presents economic and political challenges, but it also has plenty of social consequences. The ongoing debate among cultural professionals, community academicians, and cultural management educators, on the impact of the economic calamity on the contemporary models of organization of the European cultural sector highlight the need to strengthen cultural sectors before complaining of government cuts (Bonet and Donato, 2011, pg. 5). In consequence, cultural organizations must surmount some of their conventional limitations if they are to survive the crisis. It is an opportunity for weak actors in the cultural sector to modify their structural models in lieu with the current economic situation. Cultural policies serve an imperative role in the development of significant welfare policies. Public expenditure increases as the government continues to build and invest in more galas, museums, libraries, theatres, and films. Obviously, government policies directly and indirectly determine the expansion of such facilities (Selwood, 2002, pg. 1). Public funding is a direct effect, while public policies and the regulatory system indirectly affect the cultural sector. For instance, employment opportunities determine the access to jobs in the cultural sector. Young professionals, independent organizations, and projects promoting untried works and artists suffer the most in terms of employment opportunities. As result, there is no advancement in the artistic and intellectual side of civilization (Mulcahy, 2010, pg. 319). Similarly, established organization shut down because of the situation in the labor market that result from government policies. Businesses have to reduce costs and this involves retrenchment of workers, or contracting them on a freelance basis. Public participation in demonstrations against these conditions is pitiable as compared to public support of the education and health sector. A large section of the populace does not see it as an integral factor of social development (Bonet and Donato, 2011, pg. 7). In the end, the government does not show the much-needed initiative to promote policies that promote survival of the culture sector. Cultural organizations can ensure sustainability of the cultural sector in these tough economic times through two reliable strategies. The first strategy is partnership plan for drawing private donations and sponsorships. Private donors and sponsors can come in place of the government to revive and sustain the cultural sector. Even so, this strategy has not been effective in recent years because they also face the brunt of the financial crisis. The second one involves marketing strategies and cultural programming to improve income in such areas as museums and box offices. This strategy has a better impact than the first one, although private consumption continues to fall as the financial crisis persists. Eventually, each cultural organization has to adopt its own strategies to adapt in the market and learn to survive without funding (Dallaire & Colbert, pg. 7). Traditional arts of cultural policy fail to attract as much attention as innovative cultural processes attract most attention and funding. This means that cultural sectors must adopt new strategies to encourage funding and application of relevant cultural policy (Oakley, 2009, pg. 404). Currently, cultural policy at all levels of governance now encompasses a broader suite of concerns separate from those traditionally related to the arts and the creative sector (Stevenson and Rowe, 2010, pg. 250). For that reason, there is a need of involvement of art practitioners and all other actors in the policy-making process. Jane Woddis (2014) supports this in the remark that the role of practitioners is integral to understand cultural policy development (Woddis, 2014, pg. 500). There are diverse negative economic, personal social consequences that may result from the collapse of the cultural sector. Firstly, young people invest many resources, in terms so money, energy, and time, in the education sector, which often involves arts schools and universities and grants. The waste of money invested in the educative process results in economic consequences for students, parents, the government, and private investors. In lieu to this, it is essential to understand that cultural policy is changing. Currently, interest has grown in the creative industries as a form of modernization and economic drive (Throsby, 2010). At a personal level, the lack of opportunities to develop the skills they acquire in learning institutions demoralizes a person. Such people often result in other occupations in the cultural sector that is not in their area of specialization. In the end, they may fail to perform accordingly, and their skill goes to waste. Finally, social consequences are evident in the lack of social cohesion (Belfiore, 2004, pg. 184), identity misperception, and the most devastating of all, unemployment. Established organizations are unable to expand and absorb new members and ideas into their legislative framework. These social problems inadvertently affect the functioning of the society and require immediate government measures and policy coherence to minimize their impact. Culture is a pillar of sustainable development. Sustainable development involves ecological, economic, and human/social dimensions (Dallaire & Colbert, pg. 7). A 1995 report entitled “Our Creative Diversity” by the World Commission on Culture and Development recognized culture as the fourth element of sustainable development (7). Culture contributes to human development and social order through economic growth. Cultural tourism and jobs in the cultural sector have economic significance because they generate revenue. It enhances social ties in communities through participation in cultural activities. In addition, cultural elements such as artwork, graffiti, and urban design have transformed neighborhoods, and contributed to the beautification process of cities. The application of diverse cultural elements in the contemporary society consolidate culture it as the fourth element of sustainability. Sustainable development requires relevant authorities and intellectuals who educate in cultural management programs to develop a global capacity, and ensure that their policies are beneficial to the current society, without hampering the existence of the future. There is a need for change in policy in terms of crisis (Jessop, 2015, pg. 336). The function of culture in policy analysis demands that policy analysis studies and training should consider cultural factors in order to facilitate policy analysis processes (Geva-May, 2002, pg. 244). Climate change, terror attacks, and economic depression are example of recent crises that the global society faces. The change does not necessarily have to come from the government, but it can also result from formal and informal institutions that can present a historical, rational, or sociological approach (Schmidt, 2011, pg. 107). For instance, historical characteristics of buildings and their environs comprise approximately 15% of property values in the Netherlands (Ruijgrok, 2006, pg. 206). Schmidt adds that major policy transformations are only achievable through words and actions, rather than just mere thoughts. From an economic viewpoint, cultural policy may be either explicit or implicit (Throsby, 2009). Some economic policies, such as labor market policy and macroeconomic policy, have a concealed cultural function, and for that reason, meet the criteria of implicit cultural policy (Throsby, 2009, pg. 180). An example of an explicit cultural policy is a policy that supports a public museum or one that promotes multiculturalism. Implicit cultural policies, on the other hand, are policies that have a non-cultural rationale because of its inconsequential cultural effect. They are implicit because the effect on culture is often not deliberate, or it may just mildly touch on some aspects of culture (Jeremy, 2009, pg. 142). Most educational policies that involve student exchange programs between universities have unintended cultural effects. However, real change can only occur through the institution of explicit policies, by both government and non-government authorities, which directly affect culture and promote its sustainability. All actors who participate in culture must understand cultural policy and know when and where to intervene and ensure its sustainability. Apart from that, it is essential to reduce ambiguity in terminologies that create confusion during policy formulation and the description of the economic implication of cultural sectors. Terms like ‘creative industries’ must have a clear definition that is aligned to government policies, and in consequence, cultural policy (Lee, Oakley, and Naylor, 2011, pg. 290). Following recent technological advancements, the internet is a powerful tool of promoting culture and cultural policy advocacy. The internet can serve several roles for cultural purposes in both a direct and indirect manner. Reading an online article is a direct manner, while online shopping for cultural goods is an indirect manner. In addition, the media can take up cultural stories to promote cultural participation and highlight areas that require policy intervention. Cultural policy has hit the headlines in several news outlets such as British national TV, which provide an insight on the level of cultural participation in different countries. For instance, it lists Italians as good visitors of art galleries and culturally aware people, while Brits are ‘more cultural’ than both the French and the Italians (Bell and Oakley, 2014, pg. 4). Although it may promote a stereotypical thinking, it provides a platform to address cultural concerns and encourage participation in cultural activities such as reading, visiting museums, and purchase of cultural goods. The rationale of a cultural policy depends on factors such as time, place, and political context. Cultural sectors, such as creative industries, have the ability to provide employment opportunities and generate revenue. National governments and international organizations such as the United Nations and EU are aware of culture as an integral factor of economic growth (Bell and Oakley, 2014, pg. 5). Even so, according to UNESCO’s 2013 Creative Economy Report, the society cannot assume that development of culture sectors and institution of cultural policy will improve economic growth (Bell and Oakley, 2014, pg. 5). According to Bell and Oakley, there are different economic models from separate cultural activities. Similarly, the cultural sector has other forms of value rather than the economic purposes that national governments and city authorities prioritizes. It is difficult to measure the value of culture, and this is a main reason why culture is undervalued (Belfiore and Firth, 2014, pg. 3). In lieu to this argument, Adair Turner (2012) argues that the financial crisis is not the reason that there are cuts in the culture sector. The cuts and improper cultural policies started even before the financial crisis when political decisions switched the natural recipient of policy from the society, to commercial organizations (Bell and Oakley, 2014, pg. 7). Culture is no longer about intrinsic values for the society, but it is now a commercial enterprise to complete market transactions. Evidently, financial constraints are pushing cultural policy towards being an economic regulation, and this is obviously undesirable. In conclusion, sustainability in the cultural sector depends on government and cultural policy. Unaccommodating policies will deny young people and new organizations opportunities to ensure sustainability of the cultural sector. A strategic enhancement of the governance and management models, and trans-sector and international cooperation, are some of the ways to prevail over these challenges. Actors must make choices, draw boundaries, and enforce structures before the situation worsens and becomes irreversible. Cultural policy not only applies at the cultural level, but it also encompasses economic and social considerations. The current evidence-based approach of governance and policymaking is injurious to various cultural sectors and there is a need for urgent reforms through sustainable cultural policies. List of references AHEARNE, J., 2009, “Cultural policy explicit and implicit: a distinction and some uses”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol.15 (2), pp.141-153 BELL, D. and OAKLEY, K., 2014, “Cultural policy” London, New York: Routledge, Chapter 2. BELFIORE, E., 2002, “Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK”, International journal of cultural policy, 8(1): 91-106. BELFIORE, E., 2004, “Auditing culture: the subsidized cultural sector in the New Public Management”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol.10 (No.2). pp. 183-202. ISSN 1028-6632 BELFIORE, E. and FIRTH, C., 2014, “The future of cultural value, Commissioner Day 2: How Do We Value (And Undervalue) Culture?”, 02 April 2014 – Regent’s University, London. BONET, L., DONATO, F., 2011, “The Financial Crisis and Its Impact on the Current Models of Governance and Management of the Cultural Sector in Europe,” ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, Vol. 1(1), 4-11. DALLAIRE, G. & COLBERT, F., 2012, “Sustainable Development and Cultural Policy: Do They Make a Happy Marriage?” ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management and Policy: 6. DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT (2003), Strategic Plan 2003-2006. GEVA-MAY, 2002, “Cultural Theory: The Neglected Variable in the Craft of Policy Analysis”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 243-265. GRAY, C., 2007, “Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2007 HARSELL, D. M., 2013, “My Taxes Paid for That?! or Why the Past Is Prologue for Public Arts Funding”, PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(01): 74-80. JESSOP, B., 2015, “Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies”, Critical Policy Studies 3 (3-4), 336-356, 2009 LEE, OAKLEY, AND NAYLOR, 2011, “The public gets what the public wants’? The uses and abuses of ‘public value’ in contemporary British cultural policy”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 17, Issue 3, 2011. MULCAHY, K., 2010, “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches”, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, Volume 35, Issue 4, 2006 OAKLEY, K., 2009, “The disappearing arts: creativity and innovation after the creative industries”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol.15 (4), pp. 403-413. RUIJGROK, E., 2006, “The three economic values of cultural heritage: a case study in the Netherlands”, Journal of Cultural Heritage 7(3):206–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2006.07.002 SELWOOD, S., 2001, “The UK cultural sector: profile and policy issues”, London, Policy Studies Institute STEVENSON, D. & ROWE, D., 2010, “Convergence in British Cultural policy: The Social, the cultural and the economic”, Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, Vol.40, pp.248-265 THROSBY, D., 2009, “Explicit and implicit cultural policy: some economic aspects”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol.15 (2), pp. 179-185 THROSBY, D., 2010, “The Economics of Cultural Policy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3, p. 32-56 WODDIS, J., 2014, “Arts practitioners in the cultural policy process: spear-carriers or speaking parts?” International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 20, Issue 4, 2014 ZOLBERG, V. L., 2014, “A cultural sociology of the arts”, Current Sociology, October 3, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0011392114551652. Read More