The governance of culture:

approaches to integrated cultural

planning and policies

by Anthony Everitt

Cultural Policies Research

and Development Unit

Policy Note No. 5

Council of Europe Publishing

French edition:

Vers une gestion culturelle intégrée : pratiques et politiques

ISBN 92-871-4066-9

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and donot necessarily engage the responsibility of the Council of Europe.

Cover © Jean Raty: photograph of a wall mosaic

Council of Europe Publishing

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

ISBN 92-871-4067-7

© Council of Europe, September 1999

Printed in Belgium

3

Contents

Preface................................................................... 5

1. The case for co-ordination.............................. 7

2. Attempts at reform......................................... 25

3. A scenario for the future ................................ 43

Notes .................................................................... 51

5

Preface

This is an attempt to examine new ways of integrating cultureinto the fabric of public administration. Over recent yearsthere has been much discussion of holistic government andthe cross-sectoral co-ordination of public policy in generaland cultural policy in particular. But good, or (more mod-estly) workable, practice is relatively rare. During an age ofwidespread institutional reform across Europe, both in theemerging democracies of Eastern and Central Europe andthe European Union, it is important that more governmentsseize the opportunity of adopting a co-ordinated approachto the governance of culture.

This essay does not aim to offer a comprehensive survey ofwhat is or is not being done across the continent. Rather, itsets out the case for what could be achieved.

By analysing a few selected instances and paying attentionto failures as well as to successes, I hope to offer guidancewhich policy makers may find useful. My object is to contrib-ute to a debate, certainly not to have the last word.

Finally, some readers will find my account rather NorthernEuropean in its bias. This is best interpreted as reflecting thelimits of my knowledge rather than as impugning the south-ern and eastern parts of our common continent for want ofreforming zeal.

6

I am grateful to those who kindly read drafts of the PolicyNote; Franco Bianchini of the University of Leicester, RodFisher of the International Arts Bureau, Augustin Girard ofthe Comité d’Histoire at the French Ministry of CulturalAffairs, Mary Cloake of the Irish Arts Council; JonathanDrake of Kirklees Metropolitan Council; and, last but notleast, Kathrin Merkle of the Council of Europe, who providedinvaluable editorial guidance.

Anthony Everitt

7

1. The case for co-ordination

1.1. There is an unexplained contradiction that lies at the heartof governance in many European countries. It is a critical dis-junction between rhetoric and reality. States are increasinglyasserting the importance of cultural policy, but this is notalways translated into effective action. Ministries or arts fund-ing agencies, even when generously financed, find it hardto influence public priorities. Despite the best of intentions,cultural achievements are sometimes fragmented, partiallyaccomplished or uneven in the quality of implementation. Cit-izens may be unclear what their governments are really tryingto achieve through their cultural policies.

1.2. At the European level, where culture has been climbingthe political agenda, a serious attempt is under way to ensurethe co-ordination of cultural policy also across the full rangeof the European Commission’s work. The Treaties of Maas-tricht (Article 128, Clause 4) and more recently of Amster-dam require the Commission to take into account thecultural dimension of its actions: in due course this will havesubstantial implications for each Directorate General in Brus-sels whose policies and programmes impinge on the arts andculture. But it is proving difficult to convince busy depart-ments, preoccupied as they quite properly are with their ownurgent concerns, to assume new burdens.

1.3. Some will argue that these problems derive from a fail-ure of political will. This may be so in certain cases, but it is

8

certainly not in others. The purpose of this Policy Note is tosuggest an alternative explanation. It seeks to show that cul-tural policy cannot be fully realised unless a holistic, or inte-grated, approach to governance is adopted and to suggestpractical ways forward. Its thesis is that culture and the artsdo not fit well into the traditional structures which states useto manage their affairs – namely, a series of separate depart-ments, which provide specialist services and devote little time orenergy to co-operation with one another over shared con-cerns. Cultural policy, properly understood, cuts across thisbundle of free-standing administrative compartments.

1.4. So, of course, do many other policy areas. Almost eve-rywhere states today face complex problems with far-reach-ing and often interlocking ramifications. They will find themhard to solve if they maintain discrete and uncoordinatedactivities which react fruitlessly to one facet or another of theissues being addressed. If specialist “vertical” functions weremoderated by “horizontal” structures, governments wouldperhaps be able to act in a corporate or collective mannerthat was more in key with the times. Designing a matricalapproach of this kind requires careful thought if it is to besuccessful.

1.5. The argument cannot readily be pursued without beingclear what certain key terms mean. So, for example, cultureis a concept, or rather a nexus of related concepts, which,not unlike a snowball tumbling down a slope, has gatheredmultiple accretions of significance. The cultural historian,Raymond Williams, traced the development of the term overthe past two centuries. It had originally “meant, primarily,the ‘tending of natural growth’, and then, by analogy, a

9

process of human training. But this latter use, which hadusually been a culture

of

something, was changed, in theeighteenth and early nineteenth century, to

culture

as such,a thing in itself. It came to mean, first, ‘a general state orhabit of mind’, having close relations with the idea of humanperfection. Second, it came to mean ‘the general state ofintellectual development in society as a whole’. Third, itcame to mean ‘the general body of the arts’. Fourth, later inthe century, it came to mean ‘a whole way of life, material,intellectual and spiritual’.”

1

This offers a helpful context foranalysis, but it may be worth trying to identify a formulationappropriate to today’s circumstances and of practical use topolicy-makers. A definition which speaks of the search forperfection and “values which can be seen to compose atimeless order” (as Williams wrote later

2

) is an explanation,in that it expresses a philosophical assumption, rather than afunctional description. When he referred to the arts, he didnot attach the significance to popular culture and the crea-tive industries which are an increasingly important compo-nent of cultural policies today. What follows, then, sets outa hierarchy of definitions, which are indebted to Williams,but part company with him in the sense that they aredescriptive and avoid value-loaded preferences.

1.6.

In from the Margins

, the Council of Europe’s report onEuropean culture and development offers one all-embracingdefinition. Culture, at its most extensive, encompasses thetotality of a community’s learned experience – its conven-tions and values – economic, legal, political, religious, moral,familial, technological, scientific and aesthetic. It is welldescribed in the Declaration of Mondiacult (World Confer-ence on Cultural Policies, organised under the auspices of

10

UNESCO in 1982 at Mexico City): “In its widest sense,culture may now be said to be the whole complex of distinc-tive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional featureswhich characterise a society or social group. It includes, notonly the arts and letters, but also modes of life, the funda-mental rights of the human being, value systems, traditionsand habits...”

3

1.7. In this sense, culture is a leading source of intellectualrenewal and human growth. The Mondiacult text continues:“...it is culture that gives man the ability to reflect upon him-self. It is culture that makes specifically human, rationalbeings, endowed with a critical judgement and a sense ofmoral commitment. It is through culture that man expresseshimself, becomes aware of himself, recognises his incom-pleteness, questions his own achievements, seeks untiringlyfor new meanings and creates works through which he tran-scends his limitations.”

4

For the purposes of the present dis-cussion, this definition will be labelled as A-Culture.

1.8. There is a second usage, which embraces all kinds ofcreative production, especially those developed in the lastcentury or so which exploit mechanical or electronic forms ofreproduction and enable distribution to mass audiences ormarkets. It is often preceded by the clarificatory (if patronis-ing) adjective – popular. This kind of culture is synonymouswith a comprehensive definition of the arts which appears inPublic Law 209 of the 89th United States Congress. “Theterm ‘the arts’ includes, but is not limited to, music (instru-mental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing,architecture and allied field, painting, sculpture, photography,graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion

11

design, motion pictures, television, radio, tape and soundrecording, the arts related to the presentation, performance,execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, and thestudy and application of the arts to the human environ-ment.” In the pages that follow, this will go by the name ofB-Culture.

1.9. Thirdly, according to another perspective, culture isbroadly equivalent to what are sometimes called the “higharts”. That is to say it denotes, as the 19th century critic andpoet, Matthew Arnold, put it, “acquainting ourselves withthe best that has been known and said in the world, and thuswith the history of the human spirit.”

5

This field of activityis referred to here as C-Culture.

1.10. These distinctions are more than merely terminologi-cal, for they offer a model of the interconnections betweensociety and the world of the imagination that may be ofpractical value to the policy maker. It is immediately evidentthat they fit inside each other like a set of Russian Babushkadolls of descending size.

1.11. The arts are a sub-set or a particular expression ofwider values. They are a source of creativity, moral commentand social criticism. They are not simply a rational instru-ment, but also a potential seedbed of contradictions, con-flicts and irrationalities which more often than notcharacterise all reflective and creative processes. Reflection isan important concept here, for it distinguishes some culturalactivities from others – namely, the arts, sciences and religionfrom the everyday practices of “lived culture.” In a word, B-

12

and C-Cultures are perhaps the essential means of discussingA-Culture.

1.12. Whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not, West-ern democracies implement cultural strategies (in the broadanthropological definition) which are increasingly, althoughby no means exclusively, based on four generally sharedprinciples. These A-Culture policies include the provision ofopportunities for all citizens to participate in social, creativeand political activity, the promotion of cultural identity(sometimes mono-cultural, but in many cases multicultural),the recognition and encouragement of diversity in contem-porary society and the fostering of creativity, not only in thearts but in other fields of endeavour.

1.13. Governments are not always as clear in their minds asthey should be as to why they subsidise the arts (by whichmany of them used to mean C-Culture, but increasinglythese days B-Culture). Some do it because they believe thatit contributes to a civilised society. Others have seen the artsas a method of enforcing official values. In certain Europeancountries, a concern to renew tradition has led to a heavyemphasis on the high arts and the heritage as against partic-ipation and creativity for and by all.

1.14. The rational course for policy makers would be toapply to the arts the principles they apply routinely in otheraspects of cultural activity – namely, the promotion of par-ticipation, identity, diversity and creativity (for a moreextended discussion of this topic, readers are advised to referto

In from the Margins

).

13

1.15. It follows from this that the arts, media and heritageshould not be regarded as an isolated sphere of activity, butas a set of interactions which reach from their creative andreflective core into most aspects of people’s everyday lives.They connect us to our cultural heritage and establish linksbetween the generations; they offer, at least in principle, aforum for continuous dialogue with other forms of reflectiveculture, especially science and technology.

1.16. To speak metaphorically, culture is a house with manyrooms in it. One contains the legal system, another the prin-ciples of governance, a third the institutions of religion andso forth. Many traditional family homes also have a play-room or games room. That is the place for the arts, wheresocial and individual values can be tested, debated some-times light-heartedly, but often seriously, and imaginedwithout fear of the consequences that follow from real-lifeactions. In another way of making the point, art is a way oftelling the truth without having to use facts.

1.17. Most European countries recognise the value of cul-tural development in as much as they have a Ministry of Cul-ture, in one form or another and under one title or another.However, such ministries can be relatively weak and ineffec-tive. This is in part because they have small budgets for cul-ture – when compared (say) with ministries responsible forthe provision of social services or defence or education.

1.18. However, the main reason they face difficulties is thatthey are not in full control of their territory, because theinter-connection of culture with other areas of the publicservice is not acknowledged.

14

1.19. Thus, the regulation of broadcasting is sometimes inthe hands of the ministry of the interior. With the develop-ment of satellite television, real threats are presentingthemselves to national, regional and local broadcasters,with potentially severe consequences for film and videomakers. It is possible simply to see the danger as an eco-nomic one and to regard broadcasting as an industry likeany other.

1.20. However, the images of a society which appear on TVor cinema screens are crucial to its cultural identity andindeed to questions of participation and diversity. They canembody notions of creativity. The mass electronic media arealso the conduits through which most people experience artas well as employing large numbers of artists of every kind.So it is clear that any decisions about broadcasting and filmhave cultural and artistic dimensions and should not simplybe taken in the context of industrial policy.

1.21. Many of the activities of the cultural industries – forexample, print and music publishing and film – are overseenby industrial or economic development ministries. However,they often generate some of the most radical or “cuttingedge” artistry. The development of music videos to promoteor to accompany pop and rock songs, which are the staplefare of TV channels such as MTV and VH1, is a case in point.The growth of computer games is usually regarded as afaintly disreputable aspect of commercialised youth culture.However, some of the most sophisticated products for PCsand for game-consoles are permeated with cultural imagery.Their manufacture gives employment to artists and artsworkers of various kinds. Computer games provide largely

15

untested opportunities for original creation by writers, visualartists and film or video makers.

1.22. Ministries of culture seldom have a significant say in townand country planning. Carl-Johan Kleberg notes: “European cit-ies ... have too many examples of bad planning, bad architec-ture and lack of equipment necessary for cultural activities ...Cultural committees and authorities cannot be blamed as theyare often not involved or, if involved, lack the necessary author-ity. The mistake is that in decision-making, state and municipalauthorities have neglected the cultural dimension of town plan-ning, a neglect that will cost a lot in the form of maladjustedinhabitants, especially young people.”

6

1.23. The relationship between the protection of the herit-age and the development of the contemporary arts andarchitecture is seldom explicitly acknowledged. Even lessconsideration is given to the potential synergy between envi-ronmental concerns and the practice of contemporary arts.According to

In from the Margins

: “Policy makers shouldtake into account the strong bonds between cultural andphysical environments and the historical and geopolitical fac-tors which make up today’s cultural context. It is regrettablethat, although individual agencies and campaigning groupshave co-operated in various ways from time to time, theirshared interests have rarely persuaded cultural and environ-mental movements to join forces.”

7

By the same token,there is little synergy between ministries of culture and min-istries of the environment.

1.24. A country’s most substantial builder is its governmentand normally every department of state will have its own

16

construction budgets; they often spend very large sums ofmoney without reference to aesthetic architectural criteriaagreed with the Ministry of culture.

1.25. In the social services, many public sector institutionsand voluntary agencies are making use of the arts to delivertheir policies. Thus prisons find that creativity is an effectivetool of rehabilitation. Hospitals are beginning to acknowl-edge that performing arts programmes and displays of visualarts in wards and corridors have a good effect on morale andon patient anxiety. Charitable organisations concerned withthe care of the old and elderly or with the young devote sub-stantial resources to artistic activity of all kinds. Much of thiswork is scarcely visible to the outside world and policy mak-ers in government accord it low priority.

1.26. Perhaps the most crucial interconnection is thatbetween the arts and education. It is at school and collegethat young citizens are induced into their society’s identity,where their imaginations are stimulated, where they learnabout the world’s and their own society’s diversity andwhere they acquire the skills of social and civic participation.The classroom is a laboratory of culture.

1.27. Many governments only pay lip service to the role thearts can play in the national curriculum, but a form of crea-tivity which enables debate without the consequences of reallife and which enhances a full range of life skills is essentialto the educational process. In a number of European coun-tries, artists have recognised this and public arts fundingagencies have financed artists-in-schools programmes; theatrecompanies have formed theatre-in-education teams; orches-

17

tras are increasingly encouraging their players to developimprovisatory skills and work in community settings; andeven great opera houses have appointed education officersand sought ways of introducing the most elaborate, artificialand expensive of art forms to wider audiences. But except inthose countries where education and culture share the sameministerial portfolio joint planning is rare, and even when asingle Ministry exists, it is often the case that the cultural andeducation functions are separated administratively.

1.28. It is evident, then, that the arts broadly defined (B-Culture) cannot easily be assimilated into a single govern-ment department. While it is true that a Ministry of Cultureor its equivalent will be necessary to ensure the delivery ofparticular services (e.g. grants to arts organisations) andto be the

locus

of policy generation, some kind of cross-governmental arrangement will be necessary to ensure thatin cultural matters, the state takes due account of the cul-tural impact of all its decisions.

1.29. In fact, this is seldom the case. Public bureaucracies areaddicted to turf wars. Their systems of budgeting are frag-mented, tend to be historically based and reinforce a depart-ment’s sense of itself as an independent kingdom which hasto look after its own interests at the expense of everyoneelse’s. There are never sufficient resources to satisfy its ownneeds let alone help to finance those of another department.Also, it is hard enough to undertake the complex business ofjudging among competing demands inside a departmentwithout the additional complication of allowing externalinterests to have a say in prioritisation.

18

1.30. However, political thinkers, research groups and agrowing number of politicians are beginning to tackle theseobstacles, not simply in relation to culture but across theboard of public administration. The nature of governancehas come under increasingly close scrutiny in recent years.The discussion began with the libertarian and neo-liberalproject to reduce the role of the state, but, with debate andexperiment, a more sophisticated model has been developedin recent years. The argument goes that “big” governmenttries to do everything, providing services that are designed torespond to all perceived problems. This is the state as a uni-versal hospital dispensing cures of every description (fromplacebos to the most punitive surgery) for citizens’ ills.

1.31. “Small” government claims to reduce the role of thestate, but it has been recognised that it often does this bygetting other people to do things on its behalf. This mayentail an intellectual sleight of hand, if interventions are asnumerous as ever, but are simply privatised. More thought-ful and honest politicians are coming to regard their task aspreventive, so that problems will not arise in the first placeand the sum of their interventions can be genuinely reduced.This means taking a radically different attitude to aims andmeasurements. Plans have to be much more long term, indi-cators less tangible and more subjective.

1.32. So, for example, a violence-ridden and impoverishedhousing estate generates a great deal of crime and pettydelinquency, especially among the young. A curative solu-tion would be to increase levels of policing. A preventive onewould address (among other things) cultural conditions – thequality of architectural design, say, educational opportunity

19

or participation in creative activity. It would also bring intoplay environmental factors. The object of introducing pre-ventive strategies would be that through improvements inthese areas, “problem” estates would not come into being inthe first place.

1.33. Unfortunately, at this point, decision-making becomesalmost impossibly complex. In a conventional model of par-liamentary democracy, the electorate appoints leaders onthe basis of a programme of practical, relatively easy-to-understand nostrums, which they then proceed to put intoeffect. Success or failure ensues and at a subsequent electionthe voters either dismiss them or renew their mandate. Thismechanism can only be operated with reactive and curativepolicies and, even then, has severe, intrinsic limitations.

1.34. As an important recent study of holistic governmentpoints out: “Co-ordination problems resulting from thefunctional principle of organisation have been numerous: theright kinds of service get delivered but ineffectively, inflexi-bly and slowly; the wrong kinds of service altogether getdelivered; people get ‘dumped’ without service. One exam-ple is the effect of the change in how schools’ performanceis measured [in the United Kingdom] and rewarded. Thedesign of league table competition has contributed to risinglevels of exclusions of difficult-to-teach children. Theseexcluded pupils are disproportionately involved in youthcrime, putting more pressure on the police and the criminaljustice system.”

8

1.35. What is becoming clear is that the problems of contem-porary life are not susceptible to simple solutions that are

20

readily measured by quantitative indicators. This is not sosurprising, for most of the things we really care for in lifeare qualitative and are no more to be pinned down than anaesthetic judgement on a work of art or the moral evalua-tion of someone’s behaviour. The challenge for the state isthat the two interact. So, to revert to the housing estate, achild’s

objective

behaviour (say, throwing a brick througha window) may well be most effectively modified by his orher

subjective

sense of well-being or optimism about thefuture.

1.36. Preventive government will only succeed if it is conductedaccording to objectives rather than service functions. Arecent research pamphlet,

Holistic Government – Optionsfor a Devolved Scotland,

makes the point well. “Govern-ment by policy goals is less about changing this departmen-tal machinery than changing the way in which it used. Firstthe goals set, the objectives, should be those defined by cit-izens themselves. Holistic government is judged by theresults it achieves and what it looks like to those on thereceiving end. Second, the goals should be broadlyexpressed in order to encourage working across depart-ments and across organisations within government ...Third, and flowing from the first two points, the goalsshould be shared and understood by all the actors in theprocess of delivering them ... Government by outcomes, orby policy goals, thus has far wider implications for howgovernment operates and how it perceives its role in awider system. Ideally it will refocus government away fromthe measurement of activity to the measurement of results,away from the palliative and the curative to preventiveaction.”

9

21

1.37. So a more sophisticated view of measurement isrequired. Reformers during the last twenty years have triedto ensure value-for-money from public investment. This is aworthwhile aim, but in practice the result has too often beenthe pursuit of efficiency rather than effectiveness. Manage-rial leanness is not the end-purpose of investment neither ina health service nor, for that matter, in an army. Measuringbed occupancy in a hospital at a given budget level or thenumber of men under arms has little significance when whatis really at stake is a nation’s health or its victories.

1.38. There has also been a tendency only to value what canbe measured. This is one reason why governments haveunder-rated the contribution which the arts can offer manysocial policies. Efforts have been made to devise perform-ance indicators which would provide verifiable statements ofartistic value, but, unsurprisingly, they have failed. Few willdoubt the impact that art can have on an individual or acommunity, but the nature of that impact will have some-thing to do with an emotional experience and the growth ofcritical understanding and will only be truly accessible tothose to whom these things have happened. It is not easilytested according to exclusively quantitative criteria.

1.39. More weight needs to be given to immeasurableactivities, or at least they should not be ruled out of consid-eration before careful thought. There is some evidence thatthis is beginning to happen. In the on-going debate on thenature of sustainable economic development, it is widelyaccepted that “the notion of development [has] broadenedas people realised that economic criteria alone could notprovide a programme for human dignity and well-being.

22

The search for other criteria had led United Nations Devel-opment Programme to elaborate the notion of humandevelopment – ‘a process of enlarging people’s choices’ –that measures development in a broad array of capabilities,ranging from political, economic and social freedom to indi-vidual opportunities for being healthy, educated, produc-tive, creative and enjoying self-respect and humanrights.”

10

This theme attracted extended discussion in thereport,

Our Creative Diversity

, published by UNESCO’sWorld Commission on Culture and Development, and inthe Council of Europe’s contribution to the same debate,

Infrom the Margins

. According to the two reports, a key chal-lenge facing governments was to find an effective correla-tion between the claims of economic growth and the needfor access to culture.

1.40. What is now required is a concerted effort to establishmore sensitive means of measuring the outcomes of policy –and, in particular, the “establishment of causal efficacy ofservices in bringing about change in quality of life” and“more composite measures that integrate objective indicesof observable behaviour with reported dimensions of well-being.”

11

In other words, two steps need to be taken. First,there should be more attention paid to what citizens say theyfeel about the services government offer and, even more so,about their own lives. Secondly, we should try to relate thoseobjective consequences of policy implementation that can bemeasured to people’s statements about their sense of well-being or otherwise. If that could be convincingly achieved, itwould be possible to install a mechanism for paying dueweight to the subjective dimension of citizens’ reactions tostate intervention in their affairs.

23

1.41. To recapitulate, this Policy Note argues for the matricalco-ordination of preventive policies across the full extent ofpublic administration and the adoption of “soft” as well as“hard” measures of outcome. Culture can make a valuablecontribution to these policies. Reforms of this kind will havea radical impact on the nature and practice of governance. Itwill become more decentralised, more collaborative bothwithin the structures of state and with the world of civil societyoutside.

1.42. The following vision of 21st century America gives aplausible, if impressionistic, idea of what this might mean inthe future. “Imagine then a twenty-first century Washing-ton, D.C. ... The city would still serve as the central node ofthe federal network. But the government over which it pre-sides would be dramatically decentralised, deregulated,devolved, and distributed. It would have a federal work forceat a fraction of its current levels. At the same time, it wouldbe inextricably interconnected with the private and non-profit sectors as well as with state and local governments.Such a system, thriving amid the chaos and uncertainty ofmodern twenty-first century society and fuelled by a tidalwave of information, would make the 1990s placid by com-parison. It would be a system that has finally surrendered tothe paradox of complexity theory: that more control is less,that attempts by brute force to impose rule-based order andrigid structure on an inherently chaotic system make the sit-uation worse. Government would ride the wave instead oftrying to control it, abandoning the blunt instruments ofbureaucratic power for more subtle tools to serve the pub-lic’s interests. In this uncertainty, government would be anexercise in finding order and guiding it.”

12

24

1.43. It is sometimes easier to imagine the distant futurethan to foresee what lies immediately ahead. Governmentsand other public authorities which have experimented withholistic or integrated systems of governance have found ithard to eliminate ingrained habits of administrative envy andisolationism. Ambitious schemes of cross-sectoral co-ordina-tion have tended to come adrift. It is as well, then, when rec-ommending change, to be realistic about the obstacleswhich impede its implementation.

25

2. Attempts at reform

2.1. The concept of a form of governance with verticaldepartments transversed by horizontal functions runningright across state’s administrative structures is daunting,because it is not easy to divine how conflicts can be resolved.This concern is understandable, but the result is that, for alltheir rhetoric about the high importance of culture and thearts (and indeed the reality of that importance), govern-ments disable themselves from handling them in a coherentand rational way. Crucial issues slip unnoticed through theinterstices of power.

2.2. This situation is not necessarily a product of neglect orinadvertence. Politicians and civil servants across the conti-nent are working hard to improve systems of co-ordination.The realisation is growing that the issue of cross-sectoral co-ordination is not going to disappear and that old ways ofdoing business will have to be reformed. This was one of themessages which emerged at the Intergovernmental Confer-ence on Cultural Policies for Development, which wasconvened in Stockholm in March/April 1998 to discuss thethemes raised in the World Commission Report on cultureand development,

Our Creative Diversity

. The Action Planwhich was agreed at the conference noted: “Cultural policy,as one of the main components of endogenous and sustain-able development policy, should be implemented in co-ordination with policy in other social areas, on the basis of anintegrated approach.”

13

The conference also supported the

26

concept of preventive rather than curative government.“Cultural policies in the coming century must be anticipa-tory, responding to persistent problems as well as to newneeds.”

14

2.3. There have been a number of experiments in “joined-up”government – among them, fixed-term commissions, mega-ministries, joint co-ordinating committees and so forth. No sin-gle approach has as yet been entirely successful and indeed itwould be surprising if there were one model which could beuniversally applied irrespective of the particular circumstancesand traditions of individual countries. This chapter explores var-ious ways in which some European ministries of culture and artscouncils have sought to address the issue.

2.4. It was no accident that the Intergovernmental Confer-ence took place in Sweden, for it is one of those countrieswhich is accustomed to working through consensus and isdoing its best to take the discussion forward. Carl-JohanKleberg reports on a Swedish initiative which suggests that aproject-based approach can sometimes be more successfulthan attempts to create permanent structures: “To find solu-tions to counteract the tensions, a joint effort betweenauthorities responsible for immigration, culture, education,and youth is one of the ways that is being tried in Swedenwith some success in a project sponsored by the Govern-ment. This is an example of how cultural activities can play arole in a broader social context. How to arrange a permanentsolution to this type of co-ordinated activity is under consid-eration in a working group involving seven ministries.”

15

These words were written three years ago and, in the event,no such permanent solution has yet been found.

27

2.5. An interesting recent initiative will be worth watching asit develops. In the spring of 1998 the Swedish Riksdagapproved a bill entitled “Regional Growth – for Employmentand Welfare”. It proposes a regional industrial policy whichwill “build on close co-operation between different actorsand sectors of society, for example, the business community,the parties of the labour market, the educational sphereetc.”

16

It is expected that culture will have a part to play inthis endeavour. No additional central government fundsaccompany the initiative, for the idea is to encourage thespending of existing budgets in more integrated and flexibleways.

2.6. It is hoped that “encouraging a cross-sectoral approachto regional growth and development means that multi-sectorial collaboration should also be intensified betweenvarious Swedish Ministries.”

17

2.7. Another timely initiative concerns architecture. TheSwedish parliament has approved a bill introducing an “aes-thetic clause” into legislation on architecture and design. Thelaw was based on the work of a Working Group for Archi-tecture and Design which included representatives fromeight government departments – the Ministries of Culture,Foreign Affairs, Finance, the Interior, Transport and Commu-nications, Education and Science, Industry and Trade and theEnvironment.

2.8. A distinguishing feature of the Dutch system of govern-ment lies in its long historical tradition of consultation andconsensus-building. Like other sectors of public life, the artscommunity spends much of its time discussing, debating and

28

commenting on ministerial proposals for cultural develop-ment. Every four years the government submits to parlia-ment a cultural policy document covering heritage, the arts,libraries and the media. The process of drawing it up takes atleast one year and it was intended from the outset that itshould take account of the full scope of culture, includingrelationships with sectors outside the mandate of the Minis-try of Education, Culture and Science. By the time each four-year plan is finalised all interested parties have had their sayand been able to exert their influence on its contents.

2.9. In the current four-year cultural plan, 1997-2000,

Armour or Backbone

, the arts are firmly set in a broad context.The plan is guided by nine central themes: the stimulation ofintercultural activities; cultural education; promoting culturallife in the city; the international dimension of culture in TheNetherlands; the promotion of the Dutch language; theimprovement of the position of artists and creators; thecontinuation of support for heritage monuments; the use ofnew technologies and amateur arts. They give an unmistake-able indication of the wider social motives which underpinDutch policy for the arts. The Minister notes: “Since the late1980s I have worked in close co-operation with the Ministryof Economic Affairs to develop closer links between cultureand tourism and to help each sector to benefit from the othermore effectively … I am also consulting with the Minister forEconomic Affairs and the Minister of Finance in order todevelop initiatives to encourage private investment in filmproduction.”

18

2.10. In the field of architecture, the Minister in partnershipwith the Minister of Economic Affairs has given approval for

29

a series of model projects designed at raising “the knowl-edge and appreciation of architectural quality to a wideaudience.”

19

2.11. One of the most impressive documents on the impactsof cultural policy to be published anywhere in Europe is the

Social and Cultural Report

, which the Dutch Social and CulturalPlanning Office produces every two years; it gives anexhaustive, integrated picture of the state of society and culturein the Netherlands. One of its purposes is to “seek informa-tion on the way in which interdepartmental policy on socialand cultural welfare is implemented with a view to assessingits implementation.”

20

It provides a rich information base onwhich future planning proposals can be built.

2.12. While Sweden and The Netherlands apply the principleof co-ordination to particular projects or through the plan-ning system, France has sought to modify the institutions ofpublic administration themselves. The experience of theFrench government provides an early example of structuralinnovation, which, although in many ways effective, mayhave been a little ahead of its time and was partly discontin-ued.

2.13. The concept of

développement culturel

, which canperhaps be best translated as cultural democratisation and isoften concerned with cross-artform activities, has long beenat the heart of French cultural policy. As Kim Eling notes:“The generic term

développement culturel

refers ... to awide and disparate range of policies expressly aimed not atstimulating cultural production, but at what is generally, andcrudely, termed the ‘democratisation’ of culture. Officially,

30

cultural democratisation – which might take the form offacilitating access to established cultural institutions, or ofimproving art-related education, or of encouraging amateurarts – has been a central, indeed the central, policy objectiveof the Ministry of Culture.”

21

2.14. In the late 1950s when André Malraux created theMinistry for Cultural Affairs, he largely had in mind the moreeffective dissemination of the “high”, or (as Raymond Wil-liams called them) the “old”, arts. But with the passage oftime, French cultural policy took on a wider remit; by 1984the Socialist Minister, Jack Lang, extended his responsibilitiesto embrace rock and

varietés

.

2.15. In 1971 an institution called the

Fonds d’interventionculturelle

(FIC) was formed to foster the holistic concept of

développement culturel

. It was an interdepartmental andinterministerial funding mechanism based in the Prime Min-ister’s Office outside the remit of the Ministry for CulturalAffairs. Significantly, the FIC was not an initiative of the Min-istry for Cultural Affairs, but was a project devised by theCultural Committee of Commissariat général du Plan demodernisation économique et sociale, which the govern-ment had created to produce both an overall “state of thenation” analysis and a series of five-year plans. The FIC’stask was to foster innovatory or experimental two-yearcultural projects; the development, implementation andfunding of which were sponsored by two or more ministriesand operated simultaneously at state and local communitylevels. The FIC worked under the authority of an interminis-terial committee in the Prime Minister’s Office and met threetimes a year. Its permanent Secretary-General was a senior

31

civil servant from the Ministry for Cultural Affairs, who man-aged a small independent staff. As one expert observer com-mented it functioned “with a commando-type form ofspirit and action”. Over a ten-year period it supported1,200 projects and received FF1 billions of public funds, witha pump-priming budget of FF126 millions from the Ministryfor Cultural Affairs.

2.16. In 1985 the FIC was abruptly abolished when JackLang’s Ministry of Culture failed to renew its contribution toits budget. A senior civil servant commented that “the disap-pearance of a mechanism so obviously adapted to the min-istry’s new strategy, and whose operation had so recentlybeen perfected, was a murky business.” 22

2.17. There were three main reasons for what took place.The first was that the FIC was unpopular with the Ministryof Finance, which saw it as an inevitably inflationary mecha-nism; as in a card game, one player could always raise thefinancial stakes and drive other departments to increase theirinvestments.

2.18. Secondly, inside the Ministry of Culture, departmentalheads were irritated by the FIC’s interventions when theycrossed their own specialist priorities.

2.19. Thirdly, the Ministry had its own idea for a cross-sectoral agency, but this time restricted to the Ministry itself.This was the Department for Cultural Development (Direc-tion du Développement Culturel (DDC)), founded in 1982.It was designed to ensure “horizontal” co-ordination amongthe different sections of the Ministry and the DDC was notrestricted to the promotion of democratisation. It was also

32

responsible for negotiating a series of funding agreementswith towns, departments and regions. It supported the greatnetwork of regional arts centres, the maisons de la culture.More practically, the department acted as a temporary“bank” where Jack Lang could park the huge increase infunds which he won from President Mitterrand and the newSocialist government which had come to power in 1981,until there had been time to decide their final destination. Itsbudget soon began to decline.

2.20. Although it supplanted the FIC, the position of theDDC was insecure. This was partly because it had few clientsin the form of regularly funded arts organisations and theconsequence was that without strong political commitmentits budget was subject to raiding. More importantly, the tra-ditional “vertical” sections in the Ministry resisted efforts bythe DDC to enter into partnerships with them. So, for exam-ple, the drama department (direction du théâtre) resisted theDDC’s wish to co-fund theatre projects with an “ethnic”or minority dimension. A drama department official com-mented: “In the end, one was tempted to say, ‘Oh good,you are working in theatre, you are Armenian or Basque –run along to the DDC, they’re the people who have moneyfor that kind of thing’. Now that was completely abnormal ina country where there was a single, overall management oftheatre funding.” 23 In other words, the DDC had lost its hor-izontal grip and been manoeuvred into becoming a little ver-tical department of its own.

2.21. After the general election of 1986, a right-wingadministration succeeded the Socialists and the new Minis-ter, François Leotard, immediately closed down the already

33

weakened DDC. When Jack Lang returned to office in 1988he re-instated it, apparently without enthusiasm, as thedirection du Développement et Formations. It has remainedinstitutionally and financially fragile.

2.22. One needs to be careful when drawing general conclu-sions from events which are inevitably largely fashioned bytheir particular contexts. But the French experience with theFIC and the DDC is instructive. In many respects the twoagencies were successful at delivering a holistic cultural pol-icy. But there are lessons to be learned from the fact that oneof them was dissolved and the other weakened in its poten-tial impact. Perhaps the most important is that cross-departmental administrative structures should be designed ina way that does not make them rivals of existing departments.

2.23. This is the principle which underlies the innovative andholistic approach adopted by a major local authority in theUnited Kingdom. In 1989 an energetic new Chief Executive,Robert Hughes, took up post at Kirklees Metropolitan Coun-cil in Yorkshire, England. He had a novel idea for the restruc-turing of his council – or, at least, novel in the British context.When he arrived, he found a situation where he presidedover a loosely-tied bundle of departments whose basicconcern was to fulfil their specialist remits in education,social services, planning and the like.

2.24. In effect, he was the only official who was in a positionto take a corporate view of the council’s activities. Everyoneelse had their noses pressed to their own individual grind-stones. This did not accord with the interdependent realitiesof life in Kirklees and meant that there were important issues

34

which the authority was failing to address, not through lackof will but because of structural failure.

2.25. In an attempt to address this systemic problem, theChief Executive persuaded the council to agree a set of highlevel “policy themes”, reflecting concerns among the gen-eral public. Today there are seven priorities: “making ourcommunities safer; “caring for the places where we live andwork”; “caring about local people”; “building futures withyoung people”; “work and skills for Kirklees people”; “ena-bling people to enjoy their recreation”; and “managing theauthority”.

2.26. The authority has a fully-articulated cultural policy,explicitly relating an anthropological, or A-Culture, definitionto B- and C-Cultures: “It is a common belief that culture iswhat takes place on the stage of the Royal Opera House, orin galleries, museums and libraries. Well yes, it is – but it isalso much more than this. Culture is ordinary, everyday andhumdrum – it is the fabric of our lives. Culture is the sumtotal of the values and social conventions and economic andcommunity structures which we have built.” 24

2.27. A tier of five (now four) Executive Directors wasappointed. Each of them had three different kinds of respon-sibility – corporate, specialist and area-based. So, for exam-ple, one of the Executive Directors was given charge ofeconomic regeneration across the full extent of the council’swork; of particular services such as highways, street clean-ing, transport and economic regeneration (defined as a spe-cialist duty); and finally of a geographical district of Kirkleescalled the Valleys. In effect, the arrangement was like a sand-

35

wich, with two cross-sectoral slices of bread (one in terms ofpolicy and the other of geography) with a group of serviceactivities as the filling.

2.28. The Executive Directors achieve their cross-sectoralaims partly through persuasion, but also because they com-mand budgets which operate on a challenge basis and withwhich they are usually able to attract compliance. Cross-sectoral disputes are usually resolved by the two ExecutiveDirectors concerned meeting with the relevant heads ofservice who report to them. In the rare cases where agree-ment cannot be reached, the Chief Executive is the final arbi-ter.

2.29. It is interesting to note that what the Council calls“cultural services” and “leisure and recreation” does notappear as a cross-sectoral responsibility for an ExecutiveDirector and is treated as a specialist service activity. Whyshould this be so? The answer would appear to be thatculture, while retaining its place among the high level policygoals, does not present pressing social or economic problemsthat call for early address. Also, the council has investedheavily in culture in past years and the further developmentof that sector is less of an issue than it used to be.

2.30. However, the cultural services department does enterinto numerous practical or day-to-day alliances across thecouncil concerning specific projects. The Head of CulturalServices in Kirklees spends a good deal of time on multi-department collaborations which serve the council’s corpo-rate objectives. Current projects include work with the Plan-ning Department on a canal restoration scheme; with

36

Housing on the use of artists in the community to assist com-munity regeneration; and with Economic Development onurban centre initiatives.

2.31. It is instructive to witness this struggle to redefine alocal authority’s central purposes in the complex and shiftingconditions of today’s world. The arrangements at Kirklees haveworked well; in 1996 they were reviewed and confirmed, withsome alterations to the list of corporate responsibilities. Theyhave even survived the arrival of a new Chief Executive.While it is true that governments and local authorities havelong consulted and co-operated across departments as andwhen necessary, often through cross-sectoral committees,they have seldom done so in such a systematic, overall man-ner as in Kirklees.

2.32. The Kirklees example confirms that holistic govern-ment needs to be driven by objectives, as the Scottish Holis-tic Government pamphlet argues. Also it is clear that sharpdistinctions need to be drawn between a top-level policygoal or priority, a corporate strategy or responsibility and aservice if a cross-sectoral matrix is to have a chance of work-ing in practice and attracting the consent of those who oper-ate it. Finally, the precise status of culture at any given timedepends on the wider condition of society and the relativeurgency or otherwise of the sector’s needs.

2.33. So far the discussion has concentrated on countrieswhere national or local government plays the leading role inthe development of cultural policy. Ireland offers an interest-ing experiment in inter-sectoral co-ordination at arts councillevel. As in The Netherlands the emphasis rests on planning.

37

While being sensitive to the dangers of “instrumentalisa-tion” of the arts, the Irish Arts Council understands it will beunable to achieve its objectives without entering into alli-ances with other sectors of government.

2.34. In 1995 it produced its first Arts Plan to run from 1995to 1997. The Plan proposed from the Department of Arts,Culture and the Gaeltacht more effective liaison with othergovernment departments. It sought co-operation with theDepartment of Education to enhance arts provision for chil-dren and young people; with the Department of the Envi-ronment to stimulate local authorities to include artsprovision among their basic services; and with the Depart-ment of Foreign Affairs to promote Irish arts abroad. TheArts Council is now working on a second Plan, which will bepublished later in 1999.

2.35. An unpublished draft working paper indicates the ArtsCouncil’s understanding of the need for a holistic approachto its work: “Allied to the broadening of the agenda of artspolicy to include the concept of universal provision, the artshave increasingly been used as instruments of policy in thearea of social and economic development. This has meant defacto funding to the arts from agencies concerned with thepursuit of these objectives. Much expenditure by the statetherefore may not be directly related to the arts, but shapesthe nature of the arts environment … The promotion of thearts is, therefore, of concern to a wide range of statutory andvoluntary services which see the arts as ways of addressingalienation from society by offering people a new means ofexpressing themselves and gaining a fuller sense of theiridentity… However, the arts cannot carry the weight of

38

social and economic policies unless they are part of the wideragenda of agencies within the working and the welfareeconomy… In the spirit of a public policy climate which sup-ports a cross-sectoral approach to development, the Councilwill evolve a number of alliances to meet the developmentchallenges of the next three years.”

2.36. The Irish Arts Council’s commitment to collaborationbetween the arts and social welfare sectors has not alwaysbeen as fruitful as was originally hoped and it acknowledgesthat it is engaged on a long-term process which will not fullydeliver results in the short term.

2.37. Thus, the Council supported an “artistic embellishmentscheme” which entailed collaboration between the Depart-ment of the Environment, the Office of Public Works, theDepartment of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and a privatesector property company, working with local authorities.Council officials suspect that, while the scheme led usefullyto a number of public commissions, only a slight change inattitude by local authorities to public art could be detected.Other conclusions drawn included: “Arts organisations andprofessionals have not been able to demonstrate their skillfully in managing commissions. As a result, standards havesuffered.” 25 Also: “Artists are generally not brought in earlyenough to projects. However, a more holistic approach isrequired rather than a simple demand that artists be in at theinception of projects, which is not always appropriate.” 26

2.38. The Council’s collaboration with other agencies toaddress social issues such as poverty and rural unemploy-ment were successful in that they resulted in a number of

39

arts outcomes in the general field of exclusion. However, astubborn and as yet unresolved difficulty emerged. This isthat the outcomes have been perceived to be of variableartistic quality. This may be due to the fact that insufficientfinancing for the projects was available. One might also sur-mise that any ambitious new development tends to sufferfrom teething problems in its early stages.

2.39. However, there is a deeper explanation. A report onpoverty and the arts considered the attitudes and policies ofthose in the arts community and those working in the field ofpoverty. It noted the lack of specific arts policies “which relatedirectly to people on low incomes. Furthermore, [the survey]has pointed to the broad range of definitions of access andparticipation in use.” 27 According to an experienced observerof the Irish arts scene, projects in which the arts are used in thebattle against poverty are marked by a telling if depressingcharacteristic: “The arts representatives are able and distin-guished, but they find themselves disempowered by the rhet-oric of poverty. That is to say, the poverty people have a muchclearer idea of aims, targets and desired outcomes.” 28

2.40. This is not the result of any vagueness or intellectualdereliction inherent in the artistic process or in ideas aboutart. Artists can be as precise as anyone else: indeed, theirvalue is that they are often much more precise than the restof us. Perhaps this uniqueness of expression makes theirwork difficult to incorporate into the necessarily generalisinginterventions of public policy.

2.41. An additional factor is that the artistic community isnervous that the free exercise of creativity will be compro-

40

mised by its submission to other social or economic pur-poses. Some artists argue that their work should not beinstrumentalised. If it is, they say, the result will usually bebad art. Students of the history of aesthetics will recognisethis attitude as one commonly held during the last two cen-turies. However, it does not comfortably fit the facts of muchcreative practice. So, for example, European art is strewnwith paintings and sculptures produced from non-aestheticmotives, many having been commissioned for the greaterglory of the state or of the church. In modern times, artsfunding systems increasingly encourage artists to work toeducational or instructional purposes. Community-basedpractice has sought to empower its inexperienced and disad-vantaged practitioners.

2.42. The former Irish culture minister, Michael D. Higgins,has placed himself firmly on this side of the argument: “Thetrite old mercantile image of the artist as a parasite, living offthe surplus of more developed societies, needs to berejected. Every artist, however humble, is a useful producerand many great artists help to create the environments inwhich men and women of the future will live. A figure suchas W.B.Yeats did not define creativity in solely personalterms: his project was a search for a unified culture, offeringa ‘fit’ between socially defined goods and the expressivefreedom of the individual.” 29

2.43. This is not the place to discuss these matters in detail.What should be noted, though, is that there is an unresolveddebate and that when the artists enter into partnership withagencies whose primary purposes are not artistic, great careshould be taken to agree aims, even while agreeing to differ

41

on ends. It may be best to use “soft” rather than “hard”indicators. In the playroom of creativity, free expression isessential and external constraints, inexpertly applied, willonly cripple the imagination.

2.44. There is, after all, little novel in the fact that partnersengaged in joint enterprises often come together for a vari-ety of motives. That they may apply different criteria for asuccessful outcome and expect different benefits is of littlesignificance – provided that everyone concerned under-stands each other’s position.

43

3. A scenario for the future

3.1. What general applications can be drawn from theattempts described in this Policy Note to adapt the structuresof government to the complexities of cultural policy, andindeed to those of life at large? First, even a cursory glanceat the challenges facing European democracies indicates thatthe old systems of governance are seriously flawed. The casefor cross-sectoral co-ordination in the cultural field is rationaland convincing – in fact, irresistible. It is beyond seriousargument that popular culture (B-Culture) and, even, thehigh arts (C-Culture) contribute usefully to a society’s valuesin general and the institutions that express them (A-Culture).Governments will not be able to realise their aims unless theycreate the necessary bureaucratic networks which match thereality of the way culture works in society. This will entail anexplicit acknowledgement of the synergy between the artsand education, the arts and economic development and thearts and social welfare.

3.2. It is possible to sketch a scenario for the institution ofcross-sectoral co-ordination of cultural policy. This will notbe a template to be super-imposed on every situation; holis-tic policies and the administrative structures to deliver themare unlikely to win acceptance if they are not recognised asbeing consistent with the particular circumstances of individ-ual countries and their traditions of governance. Neverthe-less, some principles can be adduced which may have ageneral relevance.

44

3.3. First, co-ordination will not be practicable and win thenecessary support of the public officials who will have toimplement holistic policies without the establishment of acomprehensive planning regime.

3.4. What is required over and above everything else is acommitment at the highest level to govern by objectivesand not by classes of activity, or sectors of administration,or even zones of policy. The emphasis should be on thesolving of problems, on the attainment of pre-set outcomesand, as far as possible, on prevention rather than cure. Thiscalls for a high degree of explicit political commitment, notso much to protect the cause of cross-sectoral co-ordina-tion from administrative die-hards, as to ensure that objec-tives are both clearly defined and constantly reviewed andupdated as necessary. New and sophisticated methods ofmeasuring the delivery of objectives will also be required,entailing a recognition that subjective factors such as citi-zens’ sense of well-being are as important as purely quan-titative criteria.

3.5. A distinction should be drawn between the principleswhich underpin democratic government in Europe and thehandful of key priorities which define the day-to-daywork of governments at a given time. The former can besummarised as the promotion of identity, diversity, partic-ipation and creativity and they should colour every aspectof public policy. The latter will reflect the expressedwishes of citizens and are likely to centre on the “impor-tant ‘wicked’ problems that most concern electors: how tocut crime, to create jobs, to improve educational perform-ance and health.” 30

45

3.6. Corporate action plans of one kind or another should bedevised in order to realise the principles and address the pri-orities. Only in this way will it be possible to make effective,sustained and collaborative use of the service departmentswhich carry out the specialist business of government (say,in trade or education or transport).

3.7. It is essential that these action plans are dynamic andrise above the routine administrative activity which the serv-ice departments exist to fulfill. Those who will be affected bythem in the community at large must be fully consulted. Thecrucial truth is that, while there will be some exceptions (e.g.technical services of various kinds), these plans will be mainlyconcerned with change and development. The task of thosecharged with their implementation is to cajole, persuade oreven pay the service departments to work together system-atically in delivering these development strategies and ulti-mately the authority’s high policy goals.

3.8. Secondly, cultural policy, and (as a sub-section of it) artspolicy, should recognise and embody both the four principlesand the priorities of the day. In this way they will be able tofit inside the larger governmental framework.

3.9. It should be understood that the arts might very well notappear explicitly among high level priorities (although theywill often be one of a number of ways of addressing them).Indeed it would be somewhat surprising if they did, for theydo not usually represent a problem on the same scale ascrime or health. Whether or not they do so will depend on agiven society’s state of cultural development. It is interestingto note, though, how many of Europe’s great cities, from

46

Barcelona to Glasgow, from Paris to Amsterdam, haveinvested heavily in the arts as a central feature of overall pro-grammes of civic regeneration.

3.10. This is not to downgrade the importance of the arts.The fact that they have a universal impact means that theyare able to articulate a crucial horizontal dimension of gov-ernment. After all, the arts broadly defined (B- and C-Cultures)create a context where a government’s principles and prior-ities can be debated, whether directly or indirectly. The artsand culture are not so much a goal as a way of thinking ortalking about goals.

3.11. Thirdly, governments will need to decide whether ornot to implement cultural policy by means of a project-basedapproach or through the reform of administrative structures.There are advantages and disadvantages either way. TheSwedish experience, cited above, suggests that fixed-termschemes of co-operation are comparatively easy to manageand can produce extremely useful results. As in the Nether-lands, where the habit of in-depth consultation on all mat-ters of public interest is ingrained, ad hoc interministerialpartnerships may not need structural strengthening. Allthose likely to be affected are comprehensively involved inthe process of producing the Dutch four-year arts plan,which forms the basis of policy and funding. In this context,it is worth recalling that the biannual report of the Social andCultural Planning Office is a valuable device for promoting aholistic overview.

3.12. However, without such a profoundly collaborative pre-disposition as the Dutch possess or, failing that, a substantial

47

and sustained input of political will, project-based exercisesin co-ordination may fail to ensure that cultural policy isimplemented throughout government in a consistent,continuous and comprehensive manner.

3.13. In that case, permanent administrative arrangementsmay be necessary. The flaw in many institutionalised cross-sectoral models is that they generate excessive complicationsfor those administering them and muddy lines of manage-ment. To maintain loyalty to two masters is a tricky feat andit is not always clear how disputes can be satisfactorilyresolved. The way out of the conundrum is by drawing aclear distinction between the responsibility for managingobjectives and that for delivering a service. The decline andfall of the FIC and the chequered career of the DDC in Franceshows that conflicts will arise if the horizontal and the verticalin an administrative matrix both try to provide competingservices of the same kind and (so to speak) occupy the sameterritory. These conflicts are only likely to be resolved eitherby the winding-up of the horizontal function or by its trans-formation into some kind of vertical one.

3.14. The example of Kirklees suggests some practical waysforward. Two key principles should be taken into account.First, those given cross-sectoral duties should also havecharge of a service area or group of service areas. They will,therefore, be seen as part of an existing team with estab-lished power bases and not as separate figures brought infrom the outside, who can be all the more easily demonised.Secondly, those who have the authority to pursue aimsacross a government (whether national, regional or local)should be largely free from direct administrative duties.

48

While being responsible for them, they should not actuallyrun their service areas themselves and so will avoid over-dominant sectoral allegiances.

3.15. These distinctions will help to separate different kindsof power and enable the axes of the matrix to co-exist with-out colliding.

3.16. Fourthly, the delivery of an arts strategy will depend inlarge part on the good will of the artistic community. It fol-lows that during the process of planning consultation shouldbe thorough. Also the authorities should recognise that free-dom of creative expression must be protected and that,unless it is, the value of artists’ contributions to the achieve-ment of social or economic goals will be greatly diminished.

3.17. Artists are fearful for their freedoms and resist beingdriven out of the cultural “playroom” into the world of realconsequences. This is rather more than an outmoded asser-tion of a romantic conception of the artist, although thatmay be involved. The fact is that there is always a dangerwhen the state directs artists, however benevolent its inten-tions. Politicians should accept that intervention is almostcertain to be counter-productive and that their interests willbe best served if they stand back.

3.18. As In from the Margins acknowledges: “Both govern-ments and the cultural sector face an uncomfortable paradoxif a higher priority is accorded to culture. Looking for aneffective instrument of policy, governments may try tocontrol or manage it. In the search for resources, the culturalsector may consent to justifications of support on non-culturalgrounds (for example, economics, job creation, tourism etc.).

49

However, experience suggests that the utilitarian exploita-tion of culture will only succeed if, at the level of individualcreativity, it is allowed to function outside state control ...There is a need for a consistent theory of cultural policywhich accepts that culture has its instrumental uses, but alsorecognises the limits to which this can be applied withoutendangering it.” 31

3.19. That said, just as an individual can accommodate with-out trouble a number of overlapping and sometimes evencontradictory cultural identities, so it is possible to argue thatartistic creativity may serve conflicting purposes and that anyover-assiduous effort to reconcile them will lead to dissatis-faction on all sides. It was an attempt of this kind that helpedturn the Soviet arts scene into so barren a landscape.

3.20. As the Irish instance suggests, artists can be ill-pre-pared when they seek to do business in the wider world andthere are few countries where the artistic community hasexplicitly debated these issues and sought to agree ways ofharmonising individual artistry with its wider social exploita-tion. What is needed is more effective training which willenable artists in the field and those who commission them tounderstand the necessary discriminations, the skills and,above all, the tact which will ensure successful outcomes forprojects which combine social and economic with aestheticaims. These questions should also be squarely addressed inhigher and further education where young women and menlearn their professional crafts.

3.21. If, as was argued above, culture is a house with roomswhich serve specialist needs, but is also equipped with

50

common spaces and, above all, with a playroom or gamesarea, then decisive measures need to be taken to make iteasier to live in than it is at present. Too many of the con-necting doors are locked, the staircase is blocked up and thelift only works intermittently. At times the house even givesthe impression of being a multi-occupational dwellingdivided into small flats and bed-sits occupied by strangers.

3.22. The partitions must be dismantled and the keys distrib-uted to everyone. Only then will the citizens of Europe beable to enjoy to the full their creative, critical, and reflectivebirthright.

51

Notes

1 Williams, Raymond, Culture and Society 1780-1950. London: PenguinBooks, 1961, p. 16.2 Williams, Raymond, The Long Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus,1961; Reprinted, London: Hogarth Press, 1992, p. 41.3 In from the Margins, A contribution to the debate on culture and devel-opment in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1997, p. 28.4 Ibid., p. 28.5 Arnold, Matthew, Literature and Dogma. London: 1877, preface.6 Kleberg, Carl-Johan, The need of development of interministerial andintersectorial co-operation to promote the cultural dimension. Unpub-lished paper for the World Commission of Culture and Development, May1995, pp. 13-14.7 In from the Margins, op.cit., p. 255.8 Perri 6, Holistic Government. London: Demos, 1997. This section of thetext is indebted to this report.9 Leicester, Graham, and Mackay, Peter, Holistic Government – Options fora devolved Scotland. Scottish Council Foundation. Edinburgh, 1998, p. 22.10 Our Creative Diversity – Report of the World Commission on Cultureand Development. Paris: UNESCO, 1995, p. 8.11 Perri 6, Holistic Government op.cit., p. 67.12 Kettl, Donald, Ingraham, Patricia, Sanders, Ronald, and Homer, Con-stance, Civil Service Reform: Building a Government that Works, Brook-ings Institute, Washington, 1996. Cited in: Holistic Government – Optionsfor a Devolved Scotland, op.cit., p. 25.13 Action Plan on Cultural Policies for Development decided by the Inter-governmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, 2 April1998. Paris: UNESCO, 1998, p. 3.14 Ibid.

52

15 Kleberg, op.cit., p. 15.16 Regional Growth, Summary paper. Stockholm: Ministry of Industry, Em-ployment and Communications, 1998 [cited 11 August 1999].Available from World Wide Web:<http://www.tillvaxtavtal.gov.se/eng-lish/index.htm>17 Ibid.18 Armour or Backbone: Cultural Policy 1997-2000. Zoetermeer: Ministryof Education, Culture and Science, 1996, Chapter III, p. 2 and chapter VIII,p. 2 [cited 11 August 1999]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.minocw.nl/por/uk/inhoud.htm>19 Armour or Backbone: Cultural Policy 1997-2000. Op.cit., chapter I, p. 3.20 Social and Cultural Report 1996. Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbu-reau, June 1997, p. v.21 Eling, Kim, Politics of Cultural Policy in France: Government, Profession-als and Networks, 1981-1993. Draft thesis. Chapter 8, p. 1-2. This sectionas a whole is indebted to Kim Eling’s thesis.22 Ibid, p. 12. The quoted remark has been translated into English by An-thony Everitt.23 Eling, Kim, op. cit., p. 12.24 Made in Kirklees – celebrating diversity, maintaining distinctiveness,harnessing creativity: a Cultural Policy for Kirklees. Huddersfield: KirkleesMetropolitan Council, 1994.25 Public Art Research Project: Steering Group to Government. Dublin:Stationery Office, 1996, p. 3.26 Ibid., p. 3.27 Moore, Jeanne, Poverty: Access and Participation in the Arts. Dublin:Combat Poverty Agency and the Arts Council, 1997, pp. 68-69.28 Mary Cloake, Development Director, Arts Council, Dublin, in conversa-tion with the author.29 Higgins, Michael D., Cultural Policy – The need for a new approach. Un-published keynote speech at “Move Culture to Centre Stage”, EuropeanSymposium, Stockholm, 17-18 September 1997.30 Perri 6, Holistic Government, op.cit., p. 9.31 In from the Margins, op.cit., p. 10.

53

References

Action Plan on Cultural Policies for Development decided by the Intergov-ernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, 2 April 1998.Paris: UNESCO, 1998.

Armour or Backbone: Cultural Policy 1997-2000. Zoetermeer: Ministry ofEducation, Culture and Science, 1996 [cited 11 August 1999]. Availablefrom World Wide Web: <http://www.minocw.nl/por/uk/inhoud.htm>

Arnold, Matthew, Literature and Dogma. London: 1877.

Eling, Kim, Politics of Cultural Policy in France: Government, Professionalsand Networks, 1981-1993. Draft thesis.

In from the Margins, A contribution to the debate on culture and develop-ment in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1997.

Kettl, Donald, Ingraham, Patricia, Sanders, Ronald, and Homer, Constance,Civil Service Reform: Building a Government that Works. Washington:Brookings Institute, 1996. Cited in: Leicester et al., Holistic Government –Options for a Devolved Scotland.

Kleberg, Carl-Johan, The need of development of interministerial and in-tersectorial co-operation to promote the cultural dimension. Unpublishedpaper for the World Commission of Culture and Development, May 1995.

Leicester, Graham, and Mackay, Peter, Holistic Government – Options fora devolved Scotland. Scottish Council Foundation. Edinburgh: 1998.

Made in Kirklees – celebrating diversity, maintaining distinctiveness, har-nessing creativity: a Cultural Policy for Kirklees. Huddersfield: KirkleesMetropolitan Council, 1994.

Moore, Jeanne, Poverty: Access and Participation in the Arts. Dublin:Combat Poverty Agency and the Arts Council, 1997.

Our Creative Diversity – Report of the World Commission on Culture andDevelopment. Paris: UNESCO, 1995.

Perri 6, Holistic Government. London: Demos, 1997.

54

Public Art Research Project: Steering Group to Government. Dublin: Sta-tionery Office, 1996.

Regional Growth, Summary paper. Stockholm: Ministry of Industry, Em-ployment and Communications, 1998 [cited 11 August 1999]. Availablefrom World Wide Web:<http://www.tillvaxtavtal.gov.se/english/index.htm>

Social and Cultural Report 1996. Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau,June 1997.

Williams, Raymond, Culture and Society 1780-1950. London: PenguinBooks, 1961.

Williams, Raymond, The Long Revolution. London: Chatto and Windus,1961; reprinted, London: Hogarth Press, 1992.

55

The Research and Development Unit of the Cultural Policy and ActionDivision has launched a new series of publications – the Policy Notes.These are synoptic and/or comparative reports on topical issues in thefields of cultural policy.

Publications:

• VAT and book policy: impacts and issues• Culture, creativity and the young: developing public policy• Culture – a way forward (Culture and neighbourhoods: an ac-

tion-research project in urban Europe)• Balancing act: 21 strategic dilemmas in cultural policy• Culture and civil society: new partnerships with the third sector

(forthcoming)• National cultural institutions in transition: “désétatisation” and

privatisation (forthcoming)• Cultural employment (forthcoming)• Intercultural communication (forthcoming)

For any further information, please contact:the Cultural Policies Research and Development Unit Cultural Policy and Action DivisionCouncil of EuropeF – 67075 Strasbourg CedexE-mail : decsrdu@coe.intTel. : +33 (0)3 88 41 36 48Fax : +33 (0)3 88 41 37 82

Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe

Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIEHunter Publications, 58A, Gipps StreetAUS-3066 COLLINGWOOD, VictoriaFax: (61) 33 9 419 7154E-mail: Robd@mentis.com.au

AUSTRIA/AUTRICHEGerold und Co., Graben 31A-1011 WIEN 1Fax: (43) 1512 47 31 29E-mail: buch@gerold.telecom.at

BELGIUM/BELGIQUELa Librairie européenne SA50, avenue A. JonnartB-1200 BRUXELLES 20Fax: (32) 27 35 08 60E-mail: info@libeurop.be

Jean de Lannoy202, avenue du RoiB-1060 BRUXELLESFax: (32) 25 38 08 41E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@euronet.be

CANADARenouf Publishing Company Limited5369 Chemin Canotek RoadCDN-OTTAWA, Ontario, K1J 9J3Fax: (1) 613 745 76 60

CZECH REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUEUSIS, Publication ServiceHavelkova 22CZ-130 00 Praha 3Fax: (420) 2 242 21 484

DENMARK/DANEMARKMunksgaardØstergade 26A – Postbox 173DK-1005 KØBENHAVN KFax: (45) 77 33 33 77E-mail: direct@munksgaarddirect.dk

FINLAND/FINLANDEAkateeminen KirjakauppaKeskuskatu 1, PO Box 218FIN-00381 HELSINKIFax: (358) 9 121 44 50E-mail: akatilaus@stockmann.fi

FRANCEC.I.D.131 boulevard Saint-MichelF-75005 ParisFax: (33) 01 43 54 80 73E-mail: lecarrer@msh-paris.fr

GERMANY/ALLEMAGNEUNO VerlagProppelsdorfer Allee 55D-53115 BONNFax: (49) 228 21 74 92E-mail: unoverlag@aol.com

GREECE/GRÈCELibrairie KauffmannMavrokordatou 9GR-ATHINAI 106 78Fax: (30) 13 23 03 20

HUNGARY/HONGRIEEuro Info Service/MagyarországMargitsziget (Európa Ház),H-1138 BUDAPESTFax: (361) 302 50 35E-mail: euroinfo@mail.matav.hu

IRELAND/IRLANDEGovernment Stationery Office4-5 Harcourt RoadIRL-DUBLIN 2Fax: (353) 14 75 27 60

ISRAEL/ISRAËLROY International41 Mishmar Hayarden StreetPO Box 13056IL-69865 TEL AVIVFax: (972) 3 648 60 39E-mail: royil@netvision.net.il

ITALY/ITALIELibreria Commissionaria SansoniVia Duca di Calabria 1/1, CP 552I-50125 FIRENZEFax: (39) 0 55 64 12 57E-mail: licosa@ftbcc.it

Council of Europe Publishing/Editions du Conseil de l’EuropeF-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax +33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: publishing@coe.intWeb site: http://book.coe.fr

MALTA/MALTEL. Sapienza & Sons Ltd26 Republic Street, PO Box 36VALLETTA CMR 01Fax: (356) 233 621

NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BASDe Lindeboom Internationale PublikatiesPO Box 202NL-7480 AE HAAKSBERGENFax: (31) 53 572 92 96E-mail: lindeboo@worldonline.nl

NORWAY/NORVÈGEAkademika, A/S UniversitetsbokhandelPO Box 84, BlindernN-0314 OSLOFax: (47) 23 12 24 10

POLAND/POLOGNEG/lowna Ksiegarnia Naukowa im. B. PrusaKrakowskie Przedmiescie 7PL-00-068 WARSZAWAFax: (48) 22 26 64 49

PORTUGALLivraria PortugalRua do Carmo, 70P-1200 LISBOAFax: (351) 13 47 02 64

SPAIN/ESPAGNEMundi-Prensa Libros SACastelló 37E-28001 MADRIDFax: (34) 915 75 39 98E-mail: libreria@mundiprensa.es

SWITZERLAND/SUISSEBuchhandlung Heinimann & Co.Kirchgasse 17CH-8001 ZÜRICHFax: (41) 12 51 14 81

BERSYRoute d’Uvrier 15CH-1958 LIVRIER/SIONFax: (41) 27 203 73 32

UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNITSO (formerly HMSO)51 Nine Elms LaneGB-LONDON SW8 5DRFax: (44) 171 873 82 00E-mail: denise.perkins@theso.co.uk

UNITED STATES and CANADA/ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADAManhattan Publishing Company468 Albany Post Road, PO Box 850CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NY 10520, USAFax: (1) 914 271 58 56E-mail: Info@manhattanpublishing.com

__________

STRASBOURGLibrairie KléberPalais de l’EuropeF-67075 STRASBOURG CedexFax: +33 (0)3 88 52 91 21