Introduction
For over two decades, a combination of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development “modernising government” agenda and the adoption of the New Public Management by many Western countries focused attention on the links between policy, funding, accountability and measurement.
The New Public Management model often pitted policy and funding bureaucracies against the public agencies delivering programmes. Tension between the “instrumental” policies of governments and their adoption of econometric measurement systems and advocates within the cultural sector, who argued for more holistic systems of measurement encompassing “intrinsic” values and admitting qualitative data, gained momentum in the early years of this millennium. The debates ultimately served to force wider acknowledgement of the legitimacy of intrinsic benefits of culture and the need to develop measures in conversation with the cultural sectors and the public who use their services.
Out of these debates, a new trend is emerging. National approaches to measuring cultural value are the subject of projects in several countries. Their initiators vary – arts and cultural ministries, bureaux of statistics and academia – among others. In some countries, there has been a long and uneven history of previous attempts to measure cultural value and a more recent consultative phase preceding decisions on which approach to adopt. The drivers for these projects vary, but strong economic imperatives are discernible in models focusing on publically funded culture. Acknowledgement of the intrinsic dimensions of culture is part of the conversation, though not necessarily, part of the solution.
Importantly, though, the national canvass allows one to ask the big questions; What do we mean by “culture”? How do we describe cultural experiences? What difference does culture make to our national identity, our economic productivity and the social health and the well-being of our nations?
This dedicated issue of Cultural Trends takes stock of this emerging trend. It looks at what these projects have achieved so far, how they got there, what challenges they faced and what uses are being made of the evidence.
Content
The “journey” to develop a measurement framework is an underlying theme in the article by Leigh Tabrett, who describes the challenges involved in negotiating a draft set of national cultural indicators in a country with a three-tier system of government. Unlike other examples in this volume, the Australian project, Vital Signs, originated at state level and arose from concerns surrounding the equitable distribution of cultural funding in a country with a small population occupying a vast geographical area.
This example demonstrates that these national measurement projects are evolutionary. Although the proposal was originally motivated by local concerns, it was quickly realised that the issues under consideration had implications for national structures, procedures and policy. The project was subsequently adopted by the Statistical Working Group of the federal and state Cultural Ministers' Council where it became a catalyst for driving a wider conversation about what the combined states, territories and Commonwealth needed to know about the outcomes of public investment in culture.
A key message from this Australian case study is the “particularity of local conditions” as a contributing factor in the development of approaches to cultural measurement. Motivational drivers differ as do the unique national circumstances shaping approaches in each country. Tabrett explores the influences of identity and place, the degree of importance placed on delivering value for publicly funded services, the extent to which funding allocation is an issue and the complexities involved in decisions about what evidence is needed and why.
Place and identity emerge as key factors in the model adopted by New Zealand where discussions to develop a national framework for measuring cultural value began with consideration of what culture means in terms of national identity. The decision in this country was that a national culture had to recognise biculturalism, with an emphasis on the “strong and living” cultures of both Māori and Pakeha. Bi-culturalism is embedded into the Cultural Indicators for New Zealand Project measurement framework, which seeks evidence of the extent to which all New Zealanders value their common culture and heritage. This includes identifying with aspects of Māori culture such as Māori language and cultural practices.
The Cultural Indicators for New Zealand Project has been the subject of two survey waves conducted in 2006 and 2009. These respectively placed New Zealand in the relatively unique position of having some experience with the uses to which evidence can be put. This provides Bev Hong with a basis from which to offer critical reflections on the degree to which the evidence has been able to reinforce the value of the cultural sector in economic and social terms, provide an initial benchmark for monitoring its health and performance, measure the effectiveness of policy interventions and connect culture with other sectors.
A feature common to both the Australian and New Zealand approaches is a focus on multiple forms of social impacts, in addition to economic outcomes. Out of five categories in the Cultural Indicators for New Zealand Project, four (engagement, identity, social cohesion and diversity) have social implications. Similarly, two of three categories (engagement and social well-being; cultural value) in Australia's Vital Signs draft framework seek evidence of culture's contribution to social value.
Unlike Australia and New Zealand, “local conditions” in Canada have been heavily influenced by economic concerns, resulting in the adoption of a different model for measuring cultural value. The primary drivers are found in the preoccupation of the current federal government with the global economic situation and its impact on domestic growth. Recognising culture as “an important component in the government's strategy to both recover and foster Canada's economic vitality”, the national approach to measuring culture in Canada has been to opt for the establishment of a Culture Satellite Account (CSA).
Within this model, the focus is on the commodity side of culture and those aspects that produce goods and services. Key questions underlying the development of Canada's CSA are what constitutes these cultural goods and services, how much public funding is invested in them and what return is produced for the economy?
Nancy Duxbury, Claire McCaughey and Adam Meisner find that the CSA has provided a unifying conceptual and measurement framework for other economic impact studies, and that the data are being used by a variety of agencies and for a range of purposes. They argue, however, that a CSA is only part of a “constellation of tools” needed to measure cultural value. Their opinion is that complementary systems of measurement are required to capture other important cultural outcomes, including social impacts.
The national approaches presented in the first three articles have all emerged from public agencies (Manatū Taonga Ministry of Culture and Heritage and Statistics New Zealand; Arts Queensland, the Statistical Working Group of the Cultural Ministers Council and the Australia Bureau of Statistics and Canadian Heritage and Statistics Canada). They all address the economic and social benefits flowing from investment in publically funded culture. Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska's article about the UK's Cultural Value Project presents a very different approach.
Firstly, the Cultural Value Project has its origins in academia and is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Secondly, its definition of culture goes beyond publically subsidised activity. The Cultural Value Project has opened itself to admit a universe of cultural activity embracing the commercial, subsidised, amateur and participatory sectors. Thirdly, in contrast to the first three articles, which have focused on culture's social and economic outcomes intertwined with government policy and public funding, this project begins with people's actual experiences, the meaning of those experiences and the difference they make to individuals and society.
“Difference” underlies the research proposition. The authors argue that “arts and culture can produce a range of outcomes in a manner which cannot be replicated by other methods” and that capturing the meaning of these experiences will provide a clearer understanding of culture's unique value. By starting with this phenomenology of culture rather than with its ancillary effects, the project seeks to produce taxonomies of value that more accurately reflect what is uniquely produced by cultural engagement as a basis on which to build measurement frameworks.
If there are common threads linking all four of these approaches, it is that they are iterative in process and that the national stage provides authority to the conversations and the consultations, the theories and the evidence. We hope that these will serve to further the place of culture, its role and its value in our twenty-first century societies.