![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The European Union secured limited legal ‘competence’ to act in culture in 1992. This article examines the operational context and its complicated and countervailing tensions that make European cultural policy formulation and implementation difficult. Underlying problems originate in the failure properly to define what is meant by ‘culture’ in different contexts or to identify clear and pragmatic policy objectives, although legitimate ‘instrumental’ use of culture is common. The EU’s institutional structures (Council, Commission and Parliament) are often at cross‐purposes, while the national interests of member states can have a negative effect. The structure and internal politics of the Commission ensure that the Directorate responsible for ‘culture’ remains marginal, despite its growing ambition. An attempt to institute an ‘Agenda for Culture’ in 2007 has had some initial success, but given the definitional, legal, political and administrative problems, claims being made for significant progress seem somewhat premature.
Acknowledgements
Grateful thanks to two anonymous referees and to Theodoor Adams, former director of International Cultural Policy at the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science of The Netherlands, my co‐author of the cited ECF paper.
Notes
1. Quoted in Bosworth (Citation1998).
2. For a useful discussion of GATS and audiovisual policy issues, see Freedman (Citation2003). See also note 23 below.
3. Community Action in the Cultural Sector (Citation1977).
4. For example at A Soul for Europe conferences (Berlin, November 2004 and November 2006) and Inclusive Europe, Horizon 2020 (Budapest, November 2005), European Commission Citation2007.
5. Orientalism in European art can be traced back as far as the eighth century B.C. in the work of Greek pottery painters (Lane Fox Citation2008, p. 370).
6. See discussion in Burrow (Citation2007, p 363 ff.).
7. The Council of Europe’s In From the Margins (1997) provides a comprehensive discussion of these linked issues. See also the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe (http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/index.php).
8. For further elucidation of how culture is directly affected, see also Varbanova (Citation2007) and Mokre (Citation2007). See Gordon (Citation2007a) for a fuller summary of ‘culture’s’ place in the growth of the EU.
9. The principle of subsidiarity was first spelt out in an 1891 Papal encyclical from Leo XIII attempting to establish a basis for Roman Catholic social action, in the context of redefining powers being between the newly emerging industrial democracies/nation states alongside the rise of unrestrained capitalism. In its contemporary application, it is about territory and the functioning of democratically accountable systems. The fundamental issue is that nothing should be done by any higher level of authority (or agency) without the explicit agreement of those at lower levels that it is appropriate for them to do so (e.g. on grounds of efficiency or effectiveness). Subsidiarity is not about top‐down concessions.
10. For a perceptive discussion of decentralisation/subsidiarity trends see Heiskanen (Citation2001).
11. Williams (Citation1976) comments, ‘Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. This is so partly because of its intricate historical development, in several European languages, but mainly because it has now come to be used for important concepts in several distinct intellectual disciplines and in several distinct and incompatible systems of thought’.
12. The ‘Lisbon Process’ aims to shift EU expenditure progressively from agricultural and industrial subsidy models to more knowledge‐based economy and social investment patterns.
13. Original drafting ‘people’, subsequently amended to ‘peoples’.
14. Formerly DGX now DG Education and Culture (including Training & Youth).
15. The Europa website stated that the Commission would ‘engage in a structured dialogue with the sector in order to identify and better understand the full range of stakeholders involved in European cultural co‐operation’ specifying various stakeholders in the field of culture – ‘professional organisations, cultural institutions, non‐governmental organisations, European networks, foundations, etc’. – will therefore be able to discuss issues amongst themselves and engage in dialogue with EU institutions and Member States to support the development of new policies.
16. Noted by the Budapest Observatory on Cultural Policies in its December 2007 and January 2009 e‐Newsletters.
17. Evaluation of social value is notoriously difficult. See Merli (Citation2002), Belfiore (Citation2002), Woods et al. (Citation2004).
18. Professionals across the cultural and creative sectors are fully aware of the links and constant movement and exchange between the subsidised and commercial worlds of creation and production. Politicians and bureaucracies often appear to revert to an obsolete (industrial economy) and inappropriate distinction between what is ‘for profit’ and ‘not for profit’. EFAH, founded in 1992, represents at least 5,000 cultural organisations throughout Europe. The European Music Office, founded 1995 (Observatory instituted in 1998) claims to represent the interests of at least 600,000 professionals and 500,000 amateurs.
19. This study applied a standard definition of culture to a complete EU budget cycle (1989–1993). The remaining 10% was accounted for by research and ‘instrumental’ pilot projects with ‘culture’ being used instrumentally in other EU policy areas. Bates & Wacker, Community Support for Culture.
20. Since this article was written, a new European Commission for 2010–2014 has been appointed. Some roles have also been slightly adjusted. The Commissioner for ‘Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth’ is now Androulla Vassiliou (Cyprus) while Neelie Kroes (Netherlands) has primary responsibility for the ‘Digital Agenda’.
21. Richard Pulford, quoted in an interview in Arts Industry, 18 April 2008 (http://www.artsindustry.co.uk).
22. El Pais 10 May 2009 and The Guardian 21 May 2009.
23. CoR has occasionally tried to stimulate constructive discussion on the scope of ‘culture’ within the EU as a substantive issue.
24. The World Trade Organisation’s ‘General Agreement on Trade in Services’ (GATS) which entered into force in January 1995 was driven by the same objectives as its counterpart in merchandise trade, the ‘General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’ (GATT). These aim to institute a reliable system of fair international trade rules, ensuring equitable treatment of all participants, promoting trade and development through progressive liberalisation. Much of the debate on ‘the cultural exception’ has focused on differing views on whether ‘culture’ is a commodity in which state subsidy constitutes ‘unfair competition’ or something that cannot be so defined and regulated.
25. The International Yehudi Menuhin Foundation continues to be an EU grant recipient. Its website declares that one of its main interests is ‘to promote the values underpinning the European Union, and work towards an integrated Europe … and to enhance the idea of a common European citizenship’.
26. For detailed discussion of this issue, see Van Weringh et al. (Citation2006).
27. For a good summary of this see http://www.cultureactioneurope.org/advocate/70-cents-for-culture (Accessed 18 May 2009).
28. John Carey in What Good Are the Arts (Citation2005, p.140) observes that Hitler has been shown to have had a deep and serious interest in music, art and architecture while Bosworth (Citation1998, see Note 1 above, chap. 7) notes a similar case for Mussolini.
