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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gray called for comparative research of cultural policies to be reformulated in a way which wouldmore resemble the analysis of other public policies. He suggested possible elements important forpolicy analysis, while asking questions such as, what is the subject of that analysis and how is thesubject being analyzed. This approach could be described as an approach demanding continualinteraction between theory and administrative practice.If we look at the matrix proposed by Gray and try to apply the first approach to our topic of interestor to look at the possible impact of EU enlargement on cultural policies in transition countries,numerous obstacles immediately crop up. The first one is the lack of definition of a cultural policyof the European Union. Because of this, it is impossible either to define a `choice of scope’,or to draw a line between not only public and private responsibility, but also between nationalresponsibility in the field of culture and handing such responsibilities up to a higher ùmbrella’body, such as the EU. This is an issue which will occur again in this study.However, the second approach, the definition of structures and instruments used in creatingpublic policies, could serve as a good starting point. If we start by analyzing cultural policies atthe national level, then look at different structures and instruments on the European level relevantfor what we consider to be the scope of cultural policies nationally, we discover – perhapsunexpectedly – numerous laws that significantly affect culture but are not explicitly ordered withinthe EU’s restrictively envisioned policies on culture.The third approach, which highlights the fact that cultural policy is a shifting, even volatilephenomenon, subject to different influences, illustrates the complexity that we need to deal withas we navigate the labyrinth of conflicting understandings and interpretations of the role of culturein the European Union.In other words, the main challenge remains:■ how to define our field of study■ how to identify which instruments to consider as an integral part of Europeancultural policyor■ how to identify which factors are relevant for culture in the broader enlargementpolicy agenda.Culture: a lack of theory?A number of authors have explored possible definitions of culture. Notably Bennett, forexample, who calls for culture to be regarded primarily as an area of government intervention,akin to health, education and so on, not as a subject for abstract debate (Bennett 1992). Heargued for a restrictive definition of culture, which includes a range of ìnstitutionally conceivedprocesses’ which in turn form the main parameters of action in this area, especially those thatare characteristic of contemporary societies. These, even if they are not exclusively within agovernment’s competence, in some ways are determined by governments (Bennett 1989).20Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study
Similarly, Mercer stressed the importance of leaving aside debates about different interpretationsof the term `culture’. Instead, he advocated focussing on the development and creation of a newmethodological framework for studying culture, in which it will not be necessary to create newknowledge, but rather to create new links between existing knowledge and research results incultural studies, anthropology, political theory, economy, sociology and practical experiencesderived from cultural policies. Mercer believes that it is important to connect cultural theory andpolicy, an approach which is embraced in other policy areas such as social or economic policy,but which has, for various reasons, still not been embraced in cultural policy (Mercer 2002).Mercer is correct in pointing out that the hitherto inadequate connections between cultural theoryand cultural policy are to blame for the fact that research on cultural policies is lagging behindother public policy research (Mercer ibid). This must change if we are to avoid a situation whereother public policies will have greater influence on culture simply because cultural policies fail totransform and respond to the challenges of modern development.As the main focus of this study is cultural policy in the context of European enlargement, afterreading many studies about European cultural policy a logical question presents itself. Is the lackof a formulated European cultural policy really a result of a profound conviction that there is noneed for such a policy, or does it flow from the fact that so many conflicting understandings ofthe definition, main scope and goals of cultural policy inhibit a consensus on shared goals and,even more importantly, shared policies for achieving those goals? This is why, before proceedingto a possible formulation of common cultural policy, it would first be necessary to assess thecompatibility of existing cultural policies and identify all those policy areas in which some sort ofcoordination would be possible and desirable.Probably the most relevant source of data for such a comparison of cultural policies in Europein the past two decades is the Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews, national reportsproduced within the Council of Europe.11 Even if this study focusses on the European Union,it is valuable to be reminded of findings derived from this exercise, as they are relevant andillustrative for the debate on European cultural policies.Another reason for starting with the Council of Europe’s reviews is because, for the purpose ofthis study, I use the definition of cultural policy similar to the one used by the Council of Europenational cultural policy reviews, which includes all public policies and government measures whichhave a direct or indirect impact on the field of culture and cultural expressions.Comparative cultural policy research in Europe21
Page 1 and 2: Why we need European cultural polic
Page 3: 06081116171822252829313737404343454
Page 6 and 7: Prologue When I decided to research
Page 8 and 9: If I had the opportunity of startin
Page 10 and 11: Measures directly referring to cult
Page 12 and 13: obstacles encountered during the pe
Page 14 and 15: Part 1Theconceptualframe ofthe stud
Page 16 and 17: argument referred to identifying ex
Page 20 and 21: The Council of Europe and comparati
Page 22 and 23: a broader understanding of culture,
Page 24 and 25: The first one is a `macro’ dimens
Page 26 and 27: Part 2European Union,culture andcul
Page 28 and 29: narrow sense - still remains exclud
Page 30 and 31: Niedobitek (see page 29) drew atten
Page 32 and 33: Even though the author thought that
Page 34 and 35: In spring 2005 two founding members
Page 36 and 37: I am focussing more on the technica
Page 38 and 39: while enlargement negotiations were
Page 40 and 41: ights.56 Since the mid-1990s, the E
Page 42 and 43: This included information about Cha
Page 44 and 45: Gradual development and introductio
Page 46 and 47: of the background presented earlier
Page 48 and 49: Èventually, a solution was found,
Page 50 and 51: In regard to other taxes, opinions
Page 52 and 53: meet the recently introduced regula
Page 54 and 55: introduces the possibility of makin
Page 56 and 57: One of the recommendations in the F
Page 58 and 59: IPR legislation into line with Worl
Page 60 and 61: Preliminary assessmentof the impact
Page 62 and 63: Changes in taxation policies were n
Page 64 and 65: policy areas and the ensuing transf
Page 66 and 67: Part 3What willthe futurebring?68 P
Page 68 and 69:
Manuel Barroso, President of the Eu
Page 70 and 71:
has been embraced by the European m
Page 73 and 74:
Instead of a conclusionThe aim of t
Page 75 and 76:
1 The French term acquis communauta
Page 77 and 78:
14 When deciding on the methodology
Page 79 and 80:
30 OJ C 336, 19/12/1992.31 1st Repo
Page 81 and 82:
45 After the signing and entry into
Page 83 and 84:
65 See Annex 1 for a copy of theque
Page 85 and 86:
81 32001G0731(01) Council Resolutio
Page 87 and 88:
culture, which needs to be exempt f
Page 89 and 90:
Aubry P, (2000)The `Television with
Page 91 and 92:
Draus F, (2001)Èst-Ouest, le dit e
Page 93 and 94:
Futo P, Cuculić J, et al (2002)Met
Page 95 and 96:
Laher L, (2001)Trapped in the notio
Page 97 and 98:
Puchala D J, (1971)Òf blind men, e
Page 99 and 100:
Weidenfeld W, Wessels W, (1997)Euro
Page 101 and 102:
2. In your opinion, have the cultur
Page 103 and 104:
13. Have there been any changes in
Page 105 and 106:
Annex 3List of CPRA jury membersMil
Page 107 and 108:
Political Economy Cultural Economic
Page 109 and 110:
Annex 4GlossaryAcquis communautaire
Page 111 and 112:
Cultural marketsA term used to desc
Page 113 and 114:
Third countriesEU documents sometim
Page 115:
Author: Nina ObuljenEditor: Janet H
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?