Academic Approaches to Cultural Policy - Essay Example

? Cultural Policy Cultural Policy Topic 2: Academic approaches to cultural policy Question (a) What ought to be the proper focus for cultural policy, the “arts”, “culture”, “national heritage” or the “creative industry”? The question as to what should be the proper focus for cultural policy is a prominent factor addressed by political institutions both in Britain and in other countries. Cultural policy focus remains an issue of contentious debate among policy makers. Notably, policymakers have a challenge to determine the primary focus for cultural policies (Mcguigan, 2004, p. 64). It is remarkable that cultural policies should achieve set objective of society empowerment through avenues as employment provision. Social policies should equally promote the integration of diversity in cultures in the society. Cultural policies should promote equality among members of the society. All the objectives of most cultural policies are entangled in diverse focus points. Policymakers, therefore, should identify the challenge of formulating cultural policies that bring together. Promoting equality, for instance, would require focus on national heritage and culture. Achieving empowerment among the community members would call for focus on the creative industry. Attaining the objective of promoting cultural diversity in the society would require focus on arts. Since attaining all these is imperative, cultural policies should provide a framework of integration and promoting them. Policymakers should not single out the focus sectors, whether arts, national heritage, culture or creative industry. Instead, they should formulate cultural policies that ensure the attainment of benefits from all focus points. The case of UK cultural policy is an illustrative framework to integrate all focus areas (Lewis & Miller 2008, p. 7). The culture, media and sport department in the UK aims at improving the citizens’ quality of life through formulation of an inclusive cultural policy that addresses all the concerns and areas of focus. It targets to elevate the economy by promoting employment to citizens through its support to the creative industry. The department has an aim of making the UK an exciting destination for visitors and businessperson through the protection of culture and preserving national heritage (Great Britain, 2006, p. 184). This involves its support to preserving the national heritage as one of the vital areas. It encourages investments in cultures through funding pioneering projects through the support of forty-four agencies including public entities. Cultural policy is an approach to policymaking for promoting culture and art in the society (Craik, 2007, p. 42). Adopting an academic approach to cultural policy is an effective strategy to ensure their effectiveness in promoting culture and heritage. Legal frameworks that govern a society or country’s culture and art are vital components of cultural policy. Setting up institutions mandated to promote culture and art in a society or country is a vital aspect of cultural policy. Fostering cultural diversity in a country or society is an important role of the government and its policy formulation departments and agencies. Every country has its unique and diverse cultures that promote creativity. There are diverse approaches to cultural policy as adopted by different countries. It also provides for proper quality assurance in the management of culture and heritage. Policies should focus on guiding concepts of evaluation of the required standards. Evaluation is imperative in ensuring scrutiny for spending and quality in the deliverance of services to the public. Policies should promote the administration of culture. Reformist adjustments to cultural policy promote proper financing of culture to achieve social inclusion. Policies should aim at providing funding to failing organizations to enhance their potential. Policies should provide enhanced used of digital technology to in promoting culture. The initiative launched in 2010 by the Arts Council England to promote its arts to the citizens is an example of policy provisions that embrace reformist adjustments. The definition of culture does not have limits on the areas of focus. Policymakers, therefore, should consider an inclusive and all-encompassing cultural policy that promotes the integration of diversity. It should accommodate all the areas of focus equally and in a sustainable manner. Cultural policies should have provisions for promoting arts and culture. Policymakers should ensure that cultural policies work to promote social inclusion among members of the society. Cultural democracy entails inclusion of diversity in relation to cultural issues. Cultural policymakers should consider the need to ensure diversity in the society and promotion of social inclusion as a vital focus point. Considerations of the role of ethnic minority cultures are an essential for policymakers. It is significant to consider culture as a subject that reflects an array of diversity. Addressing cultural policy should provide opportunity for widespread celebration of culture among citizens. Cultural policy should support capacity and excellence in culture. All these contribute to the focus points that policy makers must consider in formulating social policies. References Top of Form Top of Form Craik, J 2007, Re-Visioning Arts and Cultural Policy Current Impasses And Future Directions, Acton, A.C.T., ANU E Press. Great Britain, 2006, Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage: Third Report Of Session 2005-06, London, Stationery Office. Lewis, J., & Miller, T 2008, Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader, Malden: MA, Blackwell Pub. Mcguigan, J 2004, Rethinking Cultural Policy, Maidenhead, Open University. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Topic 3: Media ownership Question (b) The communications act 2003 brings interests of all as citizens and consumers to the fore. According to the secretary of state in the DMCS, Tessa Jowell, one of the widely appreciated advantages of the communications Act 2003 is its importance in bringing interests of all as citizens and consumers. Jowell’s assertion is justifiable based on the diverse advantages that citizens and consumers derive from the implementation of the communications Act 2003. The DMCS has twenty-four sponsored bodies mandated to implement different jurisdictions and mandates such as the implementation of the Act (Great Britain, 2006, p. 1). Act is commendable since its provisions ease development of the telecommunications industry. The Act promotes the growth of the telecoms industries in the UK while addressing the interests of citizens. It provides for effective deregulation hence rendering the telecoms market competitive and open. A competitive telecoms market promoted by the Act encourages innovation and advancement. Regulations in the communications industry in the UK address the balance between the needs of everyone and all citizens. It promotes projects aimed at expanding the coverage of mobile infrastructure in the UK. This is beneficial to the citizens and consumers in the UK. The Act provided for setting up Ofcom as the independent regulator of all communications in the UK. It is the central competition authority in the UK. Ofcom protects the interests of citizens in diverse ways. In February 2013, the authority awarded licenses for 4G mobile communication channels. This was at the interest of citizens and consumers, equally. Enhancing the quality and access of mobile phone services promotes development that is beneficial to consumers and citizens, equally. The Act promotes access to media by the disabled in the UK. The Act mandates Ofcom with the role of ensuring access to simple materials for use diverse groups of people including the disabled. Enhancing access to media and technology among the disabled is among the extended benefits of the Act to citizens. It requires service providers in the communications and telecoms industry to enhance accessibility of their services to a wide array sector of the population. The Communications Act 2003 simplified media ownership in the UK. It also liberalized media ownership regulations in Britain. The Act has a deregulatory approach to ensuring a simplified media market. There are several media outlets in the U. K promoted by the changing technology. Liberalization provides a platform for several British media outlets. British media outlets have a proper platform for competition given the market (Doyle, 2002, p. 86). This is among the key reforms in that emanated from the Communications Act 2003. British media outlets can also compete at the international level. There are diverse changes in media mergers in Britain encouraged by the provisions of the Communications Act 2003. The regulation lifts all limitations of ITV companies. The regulation, however, retains the restrictions on the ownership of ITV in the Britain. A company entitled to a national ITV license cannot engage in a merger with its counterpart holding twenty percent of the national or regional newspaper market. This provides a platform for equality and promoting competition in the newspaper market. The act abolishes restrictions to any company that dominates the market by owning twenty percent of the national newspaper in the UK from possessing channel 5. The regulation also encourages the scope of media mergers in Britain. Cross-media mergers in the UK are important in improving the media market in the Britain (Communications Act 2003, c. 21). The regulation encourages Radio mergers in the UK and, therefore, promoting competition in the media market. The media should serve in consideration of the public interest (Lunt & Livingstone, 2011, p.18). Previously, owners of media especially radio and television countries operating outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were subject to several restrictions. Non-EEA companies, under the legislation, apparently can own media companies including radio and television in Britain. Flexible foreign ownership of media companies in Britain that emanates from the act promotes competition. Lifting restrictions for foreign media companies was to promote reciprocated ease of operation of British Media companies in other countries. Besides promoting operations of British media in other non-EEA countries, the act also intends to promote efficiency and competition between local and international media firms. Equally, the act articulates proper mechanisms to regulate programming. According to Tessa Jowell, lifting restrictions for foreign media companies was not practical since it required other countries such as America to change their policy. All the reforms created by the Act bring all including consumers and citizens to the fore. References Communications Act 2003, c. 21. Schedule 4. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/schedule/14, Accessed 13 November 2013. Doyle, G 2002, Media Ownership: the economics and politics of convergence and concentration, London: Sage. Great Britain, 2006, The Office Accommodation Of The Department For Culture, Media And Sport And Its Sponsored Bodies, London, Stationery Office. Lunt, P & Livingstone, S 2011, Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers, London: Sage. Topic 4: Cultural value Question (a) Why must cultural values be a thorny issue to policy makers? Cultural value is a challenge to policymakers in diverse aspects. Policymakers have a challenge when measuring cultural value. Applying evidence-based criteria of measuring cultural value draws controversy among policymakers. Policymakers have a challenge to construct informed choices about the relative value that the public derives from funding a project that entails a cultural aspect. Policymakers often have a challenge deciding on the best and most reasonable standard to base a fair and balanced decision to fund a project aimed at promoting culture. Applying the most appropriate economic valuation system in computing the value of culture is challenging to policymakers. Prioritization of competing demands of the public that relate to culture is a challenge to policymakers. Valuation of the benefits of culture by different groups is a complex process that policymakers have a challenge to address. The cultural sector consists of diversity that policymakers find challenging to integrate in their effort to determine cultural value. Arts, heritage and galleries have are all aspects in the cultural sector. Museums and libraries also have cultural value. Supporting all the aspects of cultural value in the cultural sector is a challenge to policymakers because of the diversity. Deciding on a transparent model of valuating culture is a major challenge that policymakers face. Policymakers have a challenging task to justify investments in culture over other sectors such as health. Culture has three distinct value ideals that are challenges policymakers to ascertain. Instrumental value of art refers to the social and economic significance that citizens derive from their engagement with the culture (Hesmondhalgh, 2012, p. 87). The role of culture in addressing societal concerns such as exclusion contributes to instrumental value. Organizations also use culture to enhance value to the public. This entails the institutional value of culture. Such value includes organizations’ use of cultural experiences to enhance their operations. Instrumental and institutional values are quantifiable based on outputs and outcomes of the objectives. Intrinsic value of culture refers to experience that the public relates to it. Cultural goods have esthetic attributes. Historic and spiritual attributes of culture also have intrinsic value. Policymakers often sideline intrinsic value of culture at the expense of instrumental and institutional. Data applied in policy decisions and implementing funding of projects rely heavily on the instrumental and institutional value of culture (Throsby, 2010, p. 63). The public, however, has high preference for intrinsic value of culture over instrumental and institutional attributes. Methods applied by policy makers in determining cultural value, therefore, conflicts with the public’s interest. Policymakers’ valuation methods used in culture underpin the public interest. Differences in market behavior as depicted by the member of public are an indication of the underpinning of their interest. The public expresses hypothetical unwillingness to appreciate instrumental and institutional cultural values that policymakers tend to fund. Cultural economics, therefore, pose a challenge to policymakers in diverse contexts since cultural value is multi-dimensional (Drywa, 2011, p. 13). Proper application of cultural economics is effective in estimating cultural value. Failure to apply rigorous economic approaches in measuring cultural value is the main the cause of conflict between the public interest and policy makers’ decisions. Failure to have an objective may of defining culture is a leading cause of cultural policy’s neglect of aesthetics. Instead, cultural policies have their basis on ethnicity. Cultural policies tend to recognize arts, national heritage and values based on ethnic affiliations at the expense of aesthetics. Appreciation of the value of culture should have its justification on the public preference of the public. Aesthetic value of culture is not a factor to ignore when formulating cultural policies. Policy makers should apply widely acceptable and holistic approaches to valuating culture that the public would appreciate (Gans, 2008, p. 170). Considerations and justifications for investments in cultural projects should have their basis on acceptable cultural economic valuation mechanisms. Public preference should be a dominating factor to consider in choosing the most appropriate economic valuation method for culture. To solve the stalemate that exists in valuating culture, policy makers should adopt valuation mechanisms that integrate all the three values, intrinsic, instrumental and intrinsic. References Drywa, F. A. 2011, The Contingent Valuation Method As A Policy Instrument, Mu?Nchen, GRIN Verlag GmbH. Gans, H 2008, Popular Culture And High Culture An Analysis And Evaluation Of Taste, New York, Basic Books. Hesmondhalgh, D 2012, The Cultural Industries, London: Sage. Throsby, C. D 2010, The Economics Of Cultural Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More