Why we need European cultural policies: the impact of EU ...

Defining this role of culture in society is also linked with the fact that the word culture is difficult todefine (Williams 1976), and thus it is difficult to define the field of cultural policy.One possible approach to defining cultural policy is to accept that each government’s decisionsabout what matters is what will be covered by its cultural policy. Along these lines, Vestheimdefined cultural policy, `as an area where certain activities are taking place, a randomly definedcategory into which certain activities are placed and called culture, while other activities are keptaway and are, therefore, not considered culture or cultural’ (Vestheim 1995).Three possible frameworksEven though such definitions can be useful when describing the differences of scope of culturalpolicies between different countries, they do not help us analyze the reasons behind thosedifferences nor can they explain why some governments may decide to have policies aboutspecific areas while others leave such areas well alone. In this context, Gray had an interestingsuggestion for reformulation of comparative research of cultural policy: he stressed that thedefinition of culture has a fundamental impact on the choice of methods for analyzing policy areaswhich ensue from that definition. He argued for a multidimensional approach that can be adapteddepending on what needs to be studied or compared (Gray 1996).Gray identified three approaches that, in many aspects, follow the model of Heidenheimer et al(Heidenheimer et al, ibid). Gray’s first approach included defining the scope of cultural policy orrather, what is and what is not included in the definition of cultural policy of particular governmentsor `transnational [ie international] integration regions’, such as the European Community. ForHeidenheimer et al, the first of `four choices’ in defining public policy was also `a choice of scope’,a definition of the borderline between private and public responsibility.Gray’s second possible approach compared policy processes, or rather structures andinstruments used to create public policies. There have certainly been many studies, models,theories and so on, developed within this framework, as it focusses on analysis of differentphases of the policy process as well as the actors and activities engaged to achieve the specificpolicy goals.Gray’s second approach corresponded to the second and third choices of Heidenheimer et al,which are the choice of policy instruments and the choice of distribution (Heidenheimer et al, ibid).These varied possible approaches are particularly relevant when it is necessary to decide whetheror not to continue putting a certain policy into practice, to stop it or to adjust it. Again, this canbe compared with Gray’s stress on the fact that cultural policy is not a static phenomenon, it issubject to different influences which have an impact on the scope, management and administrationas well as the choice of instruments applied. In that sense, changes of policies can be initiatedeither by someone involved with the policy itself or by changes occurring in other policy areaswhich are connected with, or have an impact on, the processes in the cultural sector (Gray ibid).Comparative cultural policy research in Europe19