Management benchmarks of cultural policy

Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 2009

The field of "cultural policy" has acquired sufficient purchase internationally to warrant a comparative global survey. This article examines questions that arise preliminary to such an endeavour. It looks first at the problems posed by the divided nature of "cultural policy" research: on the one hand policy advisory work that is essentially pragmatic, and on the other so-called "theoretical" analysis which has little or no purchase on policy-making. In both cases, key elements are missed. A way out of the quandary would be to privilege a line of inquiry that analyzes the "arts and heritage" both in relation to the institutional terms and objectives of these fields but also as components of a broader "cultural system" whose dynamics can only be properly grasped in terms of the social science or "ways of life" paradigm. Such a line of inquiry would address: the ways in which subsidized cultural practice interacts with or is impacted by social, economic and political forces; the domains of public intervention where the cultural in the broader social science sense elicits policy stances and policy action; the nature of public intervention in both categories; whether and how the objects and practices of intervention are conceptualised in a holistic way. A second set of interrogations concerns axes for the comparison of "cultural policy" trans-nationally. One possible axis is provided by different state stances with respect to Raymond Williams' categories of national aggrandizement, economic reductionism, public patronage of the arts, media regulation and the negotiated construction of cultural identity. Another avenue would be to unpack interpretations of two leading current agendas, namely "cultural diversity" and the "cultural and/or creative industries". "Cultural policy" has acquired sufficient purchase internationally for a comparative global survey of different "cultural policy" stances and measures to appear both feasible and timely. The reflections that follow are prolegomena to such an endeavour, some of the necessary preliminaries to a systematic inquiry into "cultural policy" worldwide. At the outset, or even before the outset, two sets of issues should concern us. Both deeply influence the pertinence and usability of the literature one might have recourse to in carrying out such an ambitious project, short of carrying out an ethnographical inquiry in x number of selected or representative countries. First, the divided nature of research on "cultural policy": on the one hand policy advisory work that concerns itself little with higher ends and values, and on the other socalled "theoretical" analysis which has little or no purchase on policy-making. Could a third party deploy conceptual tools that could bridge the divide and if so how? The second set of interrogations concerns ways of comparing "cultural policy" trans-nationally. I shall suggest several axes of differentiation that appear relevant, but only tentatively, as I have yet to settle on an overarching analytical framework.

2014

This paper aims to reflect on the special character of the cultural field in relation to politics, policies and the political system. We usually talk about the notion of “autonomy” as one decisive ...

Post-Apartheid South Africa’s government has officially adopted a national cultural policy in 1996 as a primary or overarching guide for cultural considerations. Within seventeen (17) years since its approval, the policy, labelled the “White Paper of Arts, Culture and Heritage”, has been subjected to a series of reviews and many strategies and action documents have developed out of it. This panel examines the review processes with the view to ascertain to what extent the exercises succeed in meeting the objectives for which they are set, as well as to evaluate them against international trends. The panel observes that, internationally, cultural policy is generally regarded as central to the development and reconstruction of cities and rural areas, as well as crucial in promoting social cohesion and economic growth. Thus, the panel advocates a legislative review approach that positions culture as a pivotal part of the country’s overall development framework that incorporates the construction of infrastructure, the creation of economic opportunities, and the building of social cohesion. The panel therefore aims to brainstorm and debate on the following key questions with regards to cultural policy implementation in South Africa: • What informs the cultural policy framework apparatus in South Africa post-1994? • How many reviews of the cultural policy have been done and to what extent did the reviews correspond with global imperatives and best practices? • How successful have the South African Cultural Policy instrument(s) been so far in the different creative sectors and in activation of national development? • Are there lessons offshoots from existing implementation praxis and community engagement? • Is South Africa’s Cultural Policy review critical to economic development as well as rural and urban development or regeneration? It is the overall objective of this panel to enter into this significant debate with a view to generate further understanding of cultural policy framing not only from a global base but from localised responses.

Citeseer

2004

2015

The article studies UNESCO's program that, from the late 1960s onward, aimed at spreading globally the concept of cultural policy. An essential part of the program, UNESCO invited member states from different regions of the world to prepare reports on national cultural policy. That was successful in spreading cultural policy as a concept and as a governmental structure. Except for only Australia, Canada and the United States, in which cultural policy is handled at a sub-state level, all countries that produced a national report have established a ministry of culture, typically synchronously with the report. The analysis suggests that UNESCO's success was due to two factors: the process of domestication and peer pressure. This means that, for one thing, the UNESCO materials stressed differences rather than similarities, and therefore the program was not seen as a threat to national sovereignty. Rather than mentioning the program's contribution to structural isomorphism, the documents stressed that developing and reporting on a national cultural policy are means to support and promote national art and cultural heritage. Secondly, diffusion of the concept of cultural policy benefitted from international comparisons enabled by the national reports and the tendency of countries to emulate others, especially those belonging to the same reference group. These two factors were results of strategic planning on UNESCO's part. Experienced in seeking to guide national policies, the UNESCO staff members could anticipate the challenges that the program could face and the processes that different moves could trigger.

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, 2022