Source: http://docplayer.net/125728-Why-we-need-european-cultural-policies.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 05:42:50
Document Index: 782530532

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Why we need European cultural policies - PDF
Download "Why we need European cultural policies"
1 european cultural foundation Why we need European cultural policies by Nina Obuljen the impact of EU enlargement on cultural policies in transition countries
3 Why we need European cultural policies: the impact of EU enlargement on cultural policies in transition countries by Nina Obuljen edited by Janet Hadley Cultural Policy Research Award Granted by the European Cultural Foundation and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation CPRA edition 2004 Research completed September 2005 european cultural foundation Lopende voetregel 3
4 Contents 4 Contents
5 Foreword by Isabelle Schwarz Prologue Introduction Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study Policy analysis Comparative cultural policy research in Europe The Council of Europe and comparative research of cultural policies The impact of EU enlargement on public policies Part 2 European Union, culture and cultural policy: the impact of EU enlargement European Union policy towards culture A brief history of cultural policy-making in the European Community Cultural issues in the process of EU enlargement The background to the 2004 enlargement Culture in the Treaty and acquis communautaire The impact of EU enlargement: results of the survey of researchers and policy-makers Methodology General assessment Harmonization with the acquis communautaire Audio-visual policy Taxation policy Competition policy and state aid Status of the artist: free movement of people, social security Free movement of goods: relevance for movable cultural heritage Statistics Other issues Preliminary assessment of the impact of EU enlargement Part 3 What will the future bring? Instead of a conclusion Notes References Annex 1: Questionnaire on the impact of EU enlargement on cultural policies Annex 2: Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam Annex 3: List of CPRA jury members Annex 4: Glossary Biography Nina Obuljen Contents 5
7 Foreword The Cultural Policy Research Award (CPRA) was launched in 2004 with three main aims in mind: to support and promote young talents in cultural policy research, to strengthen cultural policy research as an academic discipline, and to contribute to a knowledge-base of issues related to European cultural integration. The two organisations behind the award the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation (Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond) recognized the importance for young cultural policy researchers of having proper frameworks for their research projects frameworks which would enable them to carry out their projects, which would guide them through this process, and which would later promote the results of their research. The CPRA encourages the analysis of contemporary cultural issues from a European perspective, using a comparative approach and considering the issues from a cultural policy point of view. Research projects are evaluated and selected with regard to their intrinsic quality as well as their potential contribution to cultural policy thinking and design. The first CPRA winner was Ms Nina Obuljen, a junior research fellow at the Institute for International Relations (IMO) in Zagreb and now Assistant Minister of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. Her research project on the influence of EU enlargement on cultural policies in transition countries was selected because of the importance of its subject-matter, its sound research methodology, and the potential use of its conclusions in public policies. We congratulate Nina Obuljen for her academic endeavour and professional rigour. The completed research project is an achievement indeed, and we hope it will contribute to a better understanding of the impact of Community policies on culture and the possibility of streamlining these effects positively. It should certainly inform debates on a European agenda for cultural policies. We also thank the CPRA jury, which was chaired by Prof. Dr. Milena Dragicevic-Sesic of the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade, for its continued and committed involvement in the project s pilot phase ( ). The jury members advice and selection are greatly valued by both the ECF and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. This is the first in a series of publications which will present the completed CPRA research projects. We hope it will serve the field of cultural policy research and that of cultural practice. We also hope that the CPRA series will help talented young researchers to gain a greater profile within their own academic disciplines and within the academic circles of Europe and possibly beyond. Isabelle Schwarz Cultural Policy Development Manager, European Cultural Foundation Foreword 7
8 Prologue When I decided to research the role and possible impact of the 2004 European enlargement on culture, I tested the idea with several colleagues. Some tried to dissuade me from pursuing this research claiming, in a friendly manner, but with firm conviction, that European Union (EU) enlargement had very little to do with culture. This reflects a common belief that, simply because culture does not figure prominently in the acquis communautaire1 the umbrella term which covers all the EU s current laws and policies it is only marginally affected by the EU enlargement. In some ways this is true. If we think about the impact of EU enlargement as meaning solely those changes that have resulted from harmonizing legislation which was explicitly related to the cultural field (such as audio-visual policy), it would be very difficult to justify this research. However, I have always understood EU enlargement as a process that goes beyond the technical adjustment of policies and laws in any policy field. This is just the surface. The European Union is a complex sphere of interlinked rules and interests, policies, recommendations and directives. When entering this universe, it is difficult to imagine that any sector or any segment of life can be ignored. Even if the European Commission has not been directly regulating some fields, societies have been going through profound changes and everyone who lives and works in that environment is being affected. This is particularly evident in the transition countries a term which broadly covers the post-socialist nations which have been going through many changes and reforms. In my research I have tried to look at this sphere and to identify some of those policies, developments or events that have had an impact on culture. While trying to assess the current situation and developments, I have tried to look at possible future scenarios for EU involvement in the field of culture. One of my main assumptions was that in the future, the regulation of cultural markets will be one of the key, if not the most important, element of cultural policies. I wanted to find out how Europe has been responding to trends of commodification in all aspects of culture in order to see if the EU s often publicly declared priority of promoting cultural diversity and `unity in diversity was really accompanied by the most effective policy instruments. Has Europe found a way to integrate adequately both cultural and economic aspects of cultural goods and services in its policies? In that context, the study tried to identify those `other common, (in other words, shared) EU policies that affect cultural policies as well as to assess such influences can they be considered as positive or negative? How have new EU member states been responding to change? Are there some policies that should be adopted at the EU level in order to counterbalance the impact of cross-cutting measures, such as taxation, for instance, on cultural policies? I have been much encouraged by the global movements for the protection of cultural diversity and the role of the EU during the negotiations in 2005 on the UNESCO Convention on the protection 8 Prologue
9 and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions as well as some other developments within the EU, such as `Stop Bolkenstein the strong opposition to the proposed `Bolkenstein Directive on liberalization of services in the internal market. This is partly why exploring the impact of EU enlargement on cultural policies in transition countries has turned out to be much more a reflection on cultural policy in the European Union. When analyzing existing literature, I found an interesting quote from Maja Breznik, a Slovenian researcher: European cultural policies foster two goals that produce conflicting effects: through state interventions in the name of `democratization they want to broaden access to cultural goods, but through liberalization, once again in the name of `democratization they destroy the effects of their own measures and impose limits on the access to culture. (Breznik 2004) It is impossible to know which one of these two `democratizations is going to prevail. This dilemma is particularly pertinent for the post-socialist countries, which have in the past 15 years been faced with two processes democratization and globalization and are still searching for the most effective strategies to overcome the difficulties of this transition. Some ideas, as well as parts of this study, have been published in my post-graduate thesis, defended at the University of Zagreb 2 and in an article published in the Culturelink Review in 2004,3 which was completed during the study period in preparation for the Cultural Policy Research Award grant scheme.4 Prologue 9
10 If I had the opportunity of starting again the integration process from scratch, perhaps it would be more efficient if it was started by cultural integration. The unification of Europe and the integration of culture together. (Erhard Busek s speech, concluding the conference, bigger better beautiful? the impact of EU enlargement on cultural opportunities across Europe, Budapest, February 2002.) 10 Introduction
11 Introduction Quotes like this are often used as to ornament texts about European integration, but the fact is that, from the very beginning, culture as a field has been marginalized in a majority of studies about European integration as well as in the eyes of those determining priorities at the European level. In most current debates about European integration, culture remains an abstract term, often used to illustrate how European integration brings more than economic benefits. It is commonplace to read or hear statements declaring that an economically, monetarily and politically integrated European space will confirm a centuries-old European identity, respect for common values and common European cultural heritage, which have all been foundations for the development of modern European states. The significance of cultural policy-making Even though culture is said to be so fundamentally important, the European Union has never explicitly formulated its cultural policy. Culture and cultural policies were not considered priorities during the first period of European integration and were discussed only in the later phases. Even though most member states still reject the idea of formulating `common cultural policy and insist on respect for the principle of `subsidiarity,5 there has also been a consensus in favour of establishing a certain degree of cooperation in the cultural field, because many issues require European-level coordination. While debates still focus mainly on the need for European cultural policy, at the same time it is possible to claim that a de facto European cultural policy already exists, even if it is not yet clearly articulated. Provisions from various common policies have an impact on culture, including both policies that refer specifically to culture and those that have a more indirect impact on culture. A number of published studies have shown that cultural policies depend on, and are influenced by, provisions and rules arising from other spheres of public policies.6 Topics in this category include: obstacles to the mobility of artists cultural industries analysis of employment opportunities across Europe tax systems copyright the liberalization of marketplaces. Introduction 11
12 Measures directly referring to culture make up only a small portion of the acquis communautaire. Therefore, any assessment of the impact of EU enlargement on culture means exploring the effects that EU regulations for example, for the harmonization of fiscal, social or tax policies, competition policies, free circulation of goods, people and services, and so on may have had on cultural policies. Despite the principle of subsidiarity or numerous, `exceptions of culture from general rules, the space for intervention by national governments in the cultural field has been narrowing. Traditional divisions between different policy areas are changing and it is sometimes difficult for national governments to determine what is internal and what constitutes foreign policy. It is also very important to acknowledge the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. That court has occasionally has been called upon to interpret ambiguous rules affecting culture. These have not only included cases about state aid in the audio-visual sector, particularly affecting public service broadcasters (Pauwels 2003), but also cases about interpretation of the fixed book price rules or social security regulations, which can be important for the mobility of artists. As European law has been growing and becoming more complex, it is logical to expect that there will be more cultural disputes requiring judgment in this court. Ambiguous attitudes In spite of these developments, the position of the EU towards cultural policies can still be described as the protection of the status quo and a rather defensive approach to policymaking. As there is no articulated common cultural policy, culture has found itself in a rather ambiguous position. On one hand, there has been continuous lobbying from cultural activists and policy-makers to recognize the special role and the importance of culture and to give culture a more prominent place; on the other hand, EU member states have been unable to achieve a consensus on how to make policies about culture at the EU level. Culture has been generally evoked only when it needs to be `exempt from certain regulations, but it is not likely that culture will achieve a more prominent place in the EU agenda unless it is included in mainstream policy-making at EU level. This ambiguous position of culture is even more evident in the new EU member states and candidate countries.7 Because, with a few exceptions cultural matters are not an explicit part of the EU agenda, and because defining policy priorities in the new member countries has been profoundly influenced by those priorities set already by Brussels, culture is lagging behind other sectors. These factors tend to mean that national governments cultural policy-making, where and 12 Introduction
13 when it does occur in the EU, not only lacks innovation, but also that it tends to be a fairly low priority. At the same time, in these countries it has often been difficult to determine if reforms are a consequence of what is colloquially labelled as impact of globalization, European integration, the transition from one system to another, or simply as a natural transformation of public policies that comes with development, often inspired by policy solutions in other countries or other policy areas.8 One result of the way culture is dealt with within the EU is that there is still very little research on the impact of EU enlargement on culture in transition countries other than in those aspects explicitly covered by the acquis communautaire, such as audio-visual policy 9 or copyright. It is therefore difficult for governments to monitor the potential consequences of enlargement on cultural policies and eventually decide what laws they should adopt to counteract some potentially negative effects and to adapt cultural policies to changing realities. Background to this research This is why the primary goal of this study is to identify those elements of cultural policies that might be directly or indirectly affected by the EU enlargement. From the information gathered so far, one can identify at least three reasons for the lack of interest and research about this topic. First, in Europe (in new and old EU member states as well as potential future members), there are continuing debates concerning the EU and culture, primarily about whether or not it is necessary to move towards the adoption of shared cultural policies. This has shifted the focus of debate from the possible impact of EU policies on culture to the validity of even having a European cultural policy. In line with one of the basic principles of researching public policies that public policy comprises not only a government s action but also its inaction in a specific field (Dye 1976; Parsons 1999; Heidenheimer et al 1990) this research has looked at numerous laws and regulations which directly or indirectly affect culture, and has tried to show how, implicitly, a European cultural policy already exists. For culture, it would simply be much better if this policy were more explicitly articulated (as is stated frequently in the report known as the Ruffolo Report [Ruffolo, 2001] see page 30 and 35). Another reason for the lack of research has been the absence of basic comparable information and statistics on the European level a problem already identified, analyzed and explained during the process of the assessment of the Council of Europe s project on National reports on cultural policy, (Gordon, in Gordon and Mundy, 2001). This research has shown that many of the Introduction 13
14 obstacles encountered during the period of evaluation of the results of the Council of Europe s project also apply when trying to understand the confusion in the approach to culture at EU level. The third reason for the lack of comprehensive research is the sheer range of policy approaches within the cultural sector itself. Some believe that this means it is better to simply stick to studying specific policy fields, such as book policy, audio-visual policy or copyright issues. However, some topics, such as mobility of artists and cultural professionals, or regulation of markets for cultural goods and services, require a more holistic approach that goes across more than one sector. I have used many of those valuable studies on specific sectors for this research because it would have been totally impracticable to try to gather original information on each of these issues. Focus of the research Following on from these preliminary reflections, this study focusses on three main topics. The first focusses on methodological problems relevant for comparative research of cultural policies in Europe. In my view, these methodological problems and debates have contributed to the rather confusing treatment of culture and cultural policies in the European Union. Some of these issues include reflections on the existence or non-existence of European cultural policy, debates about the need to have a European cultural policy or, for example, the consequences of the way in which policies on culture in general and policies about audio-visual matters are administratively kept apart by the European Commission. Even though there have been many valuable studies of these topics, it was necessary to repeat some of the findings of those studies here, as they are crucial for understanding the position of culture in the process of European integration. The second part of the study gives an overview of different policies and policy areas that have already had an impact on culture, or might do so in the future. My aim was to identify in particular those policies, shared by different countries, which have been establishing links between cultural and economic aspects of production and distribution of cultural goods and services. In order to find out more about researchers and policy-makers perception of the importance of EU enlargement for cultural policies in post-socialist countries, I surveyed a small number of respondents in ten selected countries to see if these policy areas, which I had identified as relevant for culture, have been perceived as such and if there was any evidence of direct or indirect impact on policy-making. The results of this survey, as well as the results of several related 14 Introduction
15 comparative studies were analyzed together in an attempt to describe a framework in which cultural policies in transition countries are being redefined and reformulated. This is by no means an exhaustive list of issues. It is simply an indication of selected policy areas that, in my view, should be monitored as they might have increasing impact on cultural policy-making. Thirdly, in final reflections, while referring to some examples of contemporary policy-making at the global and the EU levels, I have tried to explain why I believe that there is a need for more proactive policy-making at EU level. This should not be about harmonizing cultural policies unnecessarily, but rather to ensure that current and future policy measures adopted at national level remain compatible with the European and international regulatory framework that is having more and more of an impact on culture. Although this last part of the study might not seem particularly relevant for the new EU member states or current candidate countries, I believe that their cultural markets and cultural policies are particularly vulnerable due to challenges of the transition and that there is a need to establish closer links between cultural policies and other sectors. During the transition, new topics were included to the cultural policy agenda of these transition (and candidate) countries, such as investing in culture, privatization, media ownership or exploring the job potential of the cultural sector but the results of this study show that little attention if any was given to these specific topics during the most recent accession process. This study has also tried to discover the ostensible logic behind the general consensus that it was better to exclude culture from these processes. It questions whether the decisions to leave culture out was indeed beneficial for the cultural sector. Introduction 15
16 Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study 16 Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study
17 The main goal of this study is to find out how enlargement of the European Union influences or might influence the development of cultural policies in transition countries. It seems logical to start with some of the methodological problems in comparative research of cultural policies in Europe. In my view, these have contributed to the rather confusing assessment of culture and cultural policies in the European Union. These methodological challenges include the basic definitions of culture and cultural policy as well as methodological choices. Policy analysis The most appropriate methodology to approach this complex problem seems to be policy analysis. The chief goal of policy analysis is to understand what governments do, how they do it and what they achieve from it (Dye, 1976; Heidenheimer et al 1990; Petak, 2001). According to Heidenheimer there are four elements that are important for research (Heidenheimer et al ibid). The study of what governments do includes, primarily, an analysis of the scope of government intervention. Secondly, says Heidenheimer, it is equally difficult to answer the question of why governments do certain things as it is important to ask this particular question. Answers often include historical reasons or particular features of certain states, which are very difficult to analyze and explain in an objective way. The third element important for research of public policies is to analyze the consequences of governments actions; this is usually the most obvious one and is what counts for citizens/voters who will, in the end, decide if they will renew their government s mandate. The fourth element is the decision of whether a certain policy area will be regulated at all, in other words, an analysis of a government action or inaction in a specific policy field. This general framework is extremely pertinent to our topic both for looking at specific governments choices at the national level and also for analyzing the policy-making process at the EU level. There is still much confusion about the approach to culture and it is not always clear why a certain decision has been taken or why certain policy areas have been included on the EU policy agenda while others have been left aside. It is in fact difficult to analyze any of the four elements identified by Heidenheimer et al, if we apply this conceptual framework to the policy decisions about culture which are made by the European Union. Looking across borders The explanation by Heidenheimer et al as to why it is important to undertake comparative analysis of public policies is also particularly relevant for this study (Heidenheimer et al, ibid). The first Policy analysis 17
18 argument referred to identifying examples of good practice and good ideas for the development of public policies so that they can be put into effect in other countries. Another goal of the comparison of public policies is to reach an understanding of the process of decision-making and the functioning of government institutions in solving specific problems. Thirdly, there is the global context, where certain challenges `spill over national borders, and where a number of internationally legally binding instruments directing and limiting the formulation of national policies grow, making it impossible to analyze public policies at a national level without taking account of the broader context that affects them. This third reason is particularly pertinent for the discussion about the need for a more coordinated European policy towards culture. Even if one can understand the legal, political and ideological obstacles that have hitherto prevented EU member states from deciding on a European-level cultural policy, it is questionable if the most rational choice was to leave culture aside. It is obviously difficult for nation states to cope with some global problems if they rely solely on measures and policies conceived and introduced at the national level. Comparative cultural policy research in Europe Even though there are many theoretical approaches to comparative research of public policies, there is no model that can claim to be universal for all areas of public policies and that would be self-sufficient in a way that it could apply to the entire field. In any case, the choice of methodology tends to be very much influenced by the definition of a specific area of public policy. While it is fair to say that each area of policy economic, social and so on has its own unique aspects, additional problems arise in cultural policy, because its content and scope is defined differently in specific states or traditions, often a consequence of the numerous definitions of the term `culture itself.10 Ministers of culture are managing a field which is constantly changing and is often considered marginal compared with other areas of government interest (Landry and Matarasso 1999). While ministers of health or education have thousands of hospitals and schools as well as millions of employees, ministers of culture manage directly only a very small number of institutions. The development and managing of cultural policies remains one of the most complex issues for today s governments, a sort of balancing act, not so much among competing priorities as in other policy areas, but rather among differing visions of the role that culture plays in the society. 18 Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study
19 Defining this role of culture in society is also linked with the fact that the word culture is difficult to define (Williams 1976), and thus it is difficult to define the field of cultural policy. One possible approach to defining cultural policy is to accept that each government s decisions about what matters is what will be covered by its cultural policy. Along these lines, Vestheim defined cultural policy, `as an area where certain activities are taking place, a randomly defined category into which certain activities are placed and called culture, while other activities are kept away and are, therefore, not considered culture or cultural (Vestheim 1995). Three possible frameworks Even though such definitions can be useful when describing the differences of scope of cultural policies between different countries, they do not help us analyze the reasons behind those differences nor can they explain why some governments may decide to have policies about specific areas while others leave such areas well alone. In this context, Gray had an interesting suggestion for reformulation of comparative research of cultural policy: he stressed that the definition of culture has a fundamental impact on the choice of methods for analyzing policy areas which ensue from that definition. He argued for a multidimensional approach that can be adapted depending on what needs to be studied or compared (Gray 1996). Gray identified three approaches that, in many aspects, follow the model of Heidenheimer et al (Heidenheimer et al, ibid). Gray s first approach included defining the scope of cultural policy or rather, what is and what is not included in the definition of cultural policy of particular governments or `transnational [ie international] integration regions, such as the European Community. For Heidenheimer et al, the first of `four choices in defining public policy was also `a choice of scope, a definition of the borderline between private and public responsibility. Gray s second possible approach compared policy processes, or rather structures and instruments used to create public policies. There have certainly been many studies, models, theories and so on, developed within this framework, as it focusses on analysis of different phases of the policy process as well as the actors and activities engaged to achieve the specific policy goals. Gray s second approach corresponded to the second and third choices of Heidenheimer et al, which are the choice of policy instruments and the choice of distribution (Heidenheimer et al, ibid). These varied possible approaches are particularly relevant when it is necessary to decide whether or not to continue putting a certain policy into practice, to stop it or to adjust it. Again, this can be compared with Gray s stress on the fact that cultural policy is not a static phenomenon, it is subject to different influences which have an impact on the scope, management and administration as well as the choice of instruments applied. In that sense, changes of policies can be initiated either by someone involved with the policy itself or by changes occurring in other policy areas which are connected with, or have an impact on, the processes in the cultural sector (Gray ibid). Comparative cultural policy research in Europe 19
20 Gray called for comparative research of cultural policies to be reformulated in a way which would more resemble the analysis of other public policies. He suggested possible elements important for policy analysis, while asking questions such as, what is the subject of that analysis and how is the subject being analyzed. This approach could be described as an approach demanding continual interaction 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 interest or 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 policy of 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 national responsibility in the field of culture and handing such responsibilities up to a higher `umbrella 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 creating public policies, could serve as a good starting point. If we start by analyzing cultural policies at the national level, then look at different structures and instruments on the European level relevant for what we consider to be the scope of cultural policies nationally, we discover perhaps unexpectedly numerous laws that significantly affect culture but are not explicitly ordered within the EU s restrictively envisioned policies on culture. The third approach, which highlights the fact that cultural policy is a shifting, even volatile phenomenon, subject to different influences, illustrates the complexity that we need to deal with as we navigate the labyrinth of conflicting understandings and interpretations of the role of culture in 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 European cultural policy or how to identify which factors are relevant for culture in the broader enlargement policy agenda. Culture: a lack of theory? A number of authors have explored possible definitions of culture. Notably Bennett, for example, 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). He argued for a restrictive definition of culture, which includes a range of `institutionally conceived processes which in turn form the main parameters of action in this area, especially those that are characteristic of contemporary societies. These, even if they are not exclusively within a government s competence, in some ways are determined by governments (Bennett 1989). 20 Part 1 The conceptual frame of the study