Publications and Recommendations
Reports on culture and the structural funds in some Member States
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/news/20120924-reports-structural-funds_en.htm
The European Commission asked the European Expert Network on Culture (EENC) to produce a critical analysis of how the unused potential of the cultural and creative sector might foster regional and local development in some Member States.
The countries that were covered are Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The reports contain an overview of available information on how structural funds have been used for culture, and on national and regional investment in the field, making detailed reference to existing data and studies, available mapping of Creative and Cultural Industries (CCI), existing best practices and examples of failure.
Most of them also contain a short SWOT analysis, showing for each country or group of regions within a country the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities and the threats of investment in the cultural and creative sector.
Reports on Culture and Structural Funds in
Bulgaria [879 KB] - France [689 KB] - Germany [736 KB] - Greece [985 KB] - Hungary [666 KB] - Ireland [769 KB] - Italy [2 MB] - Poland [639 KB] - Portugal [2 MB] - Romania [896 KB] - Slovakia [750 KB] - Spain [834 KB]
See as well:
Pier Luigi Sacco, (2011) „A new perspective for the EU 2014-2020 structural funds programming“. Presentation given at the European Cultural Forum, Brussels, Oct. 20 – 21, 2011
http://culture-forum-2011.ec.europa.eu/index.jsp
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/events/documents/programme-2011.pdf
Pier Luigi Sacco (2011) Culture and the Structural Funds in Italy. Paper written on behalf of the European Expert Network on Culture (EENC) for DG Culture and Education
Recommendations
Since the reports about how culture is being financed through the Structural Fund were much more geared towards helping to improve the negotiation between member states and Commission, how the 2014- 2020 programme shall be shaped by what forces having a voice will be critical. Generally speaking, the Cultural Sector has not received sufficient recognition to have a direct voice at European level.
For example, there took place a discussion about the KEA Study within the Cultural Committee in 2012. The debate was much too weak and too far removed from the real decision making process. As we know the latter involves Commission and Council but also the set-up of the managing authorities and political jurisdiction in accordance with them within the respective member states.
Thus the studies should analyse how the setting of terms for negotiation can take culture into consideration, and this should include:
-
Specifying within which context and with what responsible body culture is being negotiated e.g. in Greece it was the Ministry of Tourism and after 2011 the Ministry of Development so that culture has only an indirect voice. For Greece, it is recommended that something like an Arts Council should be the prime negotiating partner. Giving a voice to artists and cultural actors should make sure that not only public and private but likewise cultural and artistic interests are represented. All too often culture is reduced to cultural heritage in order to legitimize the state authority in terms of identifying cultural needs when in fact it amounts to determining identity according to exclusive principles.
-
The European agenda on culture should heed what has been developed over the years in and by the cultural sector, and assess accordingly to what extent the cultural sector had a real voice in setting the Agenda on Culture. At the moment, the European agenda is being redefined in accordance to what value culture has for the economy.
-
Seek such terms which allow for an evaluative framework of cultural policy at EU level even while recognizing that culture is most difficult to evaluate (Eric Antonis).
-
Since 2000-2002 and the debate about sustainable development, not much further progress has been made with regards to 'cultural sustainability'. That touches upon both cultural impact studies and the need to include cultural indicators when making decisions about future development plans.
-
Culture is about a search for truth and requires a profound knowledge in order to know what development culture has been going through in the past, recent past and is going through at the moment. As this correlates with societies and cities coming into crisis due to a loss of values, the impact of overcommercialization of culture and other threats to culture ought to be examined more carefully.
-
The time horizon for the evaluation of culture should be linked to what 'cultural adaptation process' societies need to go through before the Lisbon agenda has been realized e.g. creation of a competitive Information Society
The EU Structural Fund is geared towards establishing a new economic paradigm for the 2014-2020 period. This new paradigm is called 'economy of experience', a term which is highly controversial and equally problematic as it contradicts any criteria related to sustainable development. Consequently evaluation of how culture contributes to sustainability has to be included in any further going process of reflection and consultation. It cannot be linked to or confused a culture of consumption even if consumer confidence is an index for economic stability and growth. Given the level of sophistication especially in technological terms, a culture of consumption based on an 'economy of experience' can mean consuming ever more expensive things at at higher levels of luxury goods. But what can be considered as a success, when in such an affluent society which affords itself these luxury items has over 30% of the population in Europe living near or below poverty line? What has become of inclusive praxis and equality?
As guideline for future investments in culture and investments in general, the European Commission has proposed a new 11 thematic framework. These references for future investments in culture can be taken as departure point for a new discussion about the role of culture with regards to the economy. At the same time, investments in culture should be perceived not as subsidy but as real investments. Often the argument for such types of investments are not heard nor not developed well enough to be convincing. The latter may reflect a lack of insights into how culture works and what is needed to sustain such a process of cultural adaptation over time. The failure to invest in culture is also often due to a lack of knowledge of what it takes to to build-up culture in a consistent manner over time. There need to be distinguished bringing people together from making possible new forms of expression while the development of cultural resources over time can only be considered fruitful, if good decisions are made in time.
A good example was set by Eric Antonis and his work for Antwerp since 1993 when the city was European Capital of Culture and he its artistic director. After the year was over, the stayed with the city and continued to build up its cultural resources e.g. creation of a House of Letters with a key concept being a poet of the city to be hired for a three year time period in order to create exceptional projects.
Hatto Fischer
Athens 19.9.2012
« Brief for Studies on Culture and the Structural Funds | The case of Greece: 11 thematic objectives of the Structural Fund »