The impacts of cultural event on networking: Liverpool’s cultural sector in the aftermath of 2008

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss how the construct of networking and social capital can be used to understand the effect events can have on the cultural sector. Based on case study, this research sought the views of those working in the cultural sector on Liverpool’s year as the European Capital of Culture (ECOC). Methodologically, this study involves literature review to prompt theoretical sensitivity, the collection of primary data via online survey (n = 42) and follow-up telephone interviews (n = 8) to explore the emerging findings in more detail. The findings point to a number of ways in which the ECOC constitutes a boost for networking and its effects on the city’s cultural sector, including organisational learning, aspiration and leadership. The contributions of this study are twofold: (1) evaluating the long-term effects on network formation in the cultural sector following a major event; (2) conceptualising the impact assessment of organisational social capital for future ECOC or similar events.

Keywords:

• Network
• social capital
• cultural impact
• cultural event
• European Capital of Culture

1. Introduction

Social capital is a networking process that translates into organisational effectiveness in the community and workplace, and a resource that ties communities together (Griswold & Nichols 2006). Events are believed to be suitable mechanisms for increasing social capital, whether by increasing interaction, stimulating greater levels of identification or supporting social networks and structures (Schulenkorf et al. 2011; Richards et al. 2013). The broader event literature already points to the ways in which events are implicated in network and relationship building. Events therefore provide an important basis for the development of social capital. Social capital construct can be used to examine the social dimensions of events at the individual or community level, and may include the chance to incorporate economic aspects in social networks (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011).

In the context of cultural events, there is a wide range of stakeholders involved in the development, production and consumption of event. The cultural sector is usually responsible for organising the event and the event normally has a direct impact on the cultural sector (Richards & Palmer 2010). The cultural sector is an integral part of the norms and networks of civic engagement, which Putnam (1995, 2000) identified as fundamental to increasing stocks of social capital (Daly 2005). Event is therefore a potential platform of social capital generation for the cultural sector. Palmer-Rae (2004) also argues that the degree of collaboration within the cultural sector can have significant implications for event planning, such as a growth in visitor numbers, increasing attention generated by the event and being able to benefit economically. However, the analysis of the relationship between event and the development of social capital in the cultural sector is at a relatively early stage of development.

The European Capital of Culture (ECOC) is an initiative launched by the European Union in 1985, with the title awarded every year and on a rotating basis to respective European Union member states. Since then, more than 40 cities have been designated as the ECOC. Several researchers (e.g. Palmer-Rae 2004; Richards & Palmer 2010; O’Brien 2011) stress that the ECOC event has been a key catalyst for urban development and had a generally positive impact on the city overall. As argued by Sjøholt (1999), the lasting value of ECOC lay in the international contacts and networks created in the course of the year. The 2008 ECOC Liverpool is thus selected as the case studied, where cultural sector has been well integrated into the administrative and decision-making network for the city (O’Brien 2011).

The cultural impacts of event and the case of 2008 ECOC Liverpool have been assessed by some studies (e.g. Shaw et al. 2009; O’Brien 2010, 2011; Campbell 2011; Cox & O’Brien 2012; Connolly 2013 etc.). For instance, Shaw et al. (2009) examine the linkage between culture, regeneration and urban renaissance. The impacts of culture on city image, identity, space, entertainment and economy are portrayed. The aim of this paper is to assess further the impacts of 2008 ECOC on long-term development of Liverpool’s cultural sector, and the construct of networking and social capital is applied. In order to achieve this, the study examines first the relationship between networking, social capital and major event. Based on case study, this research sought the views of those working in the cultural sector on Liverpool’s year as ECOC and aimed to identify where impacts had been experienced, both positively and negatively, and what legacy the Liverpool ECOC might leave for the future of the cultural sector.

2. Literature review

2.1. Social capital, network and events

At the outset, it must be acknowledged that is a complicated and contested concept with differing interpretations of its meaning and usefulness (Quinn & Wilks 2013). Despite this variety of existing definitions of social capital, scholars generally agree that the term refers to resources that are accessible through social contacts, social networks, reciprocity, norms and trust, which facilitate coordination and cooperation in order to obtain a mutual benefit (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011). The premise behind the notion of social capital is relatively straightforward: investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace. Portes (1998, p. 7) simplifies this as: ‘whereas economic capital is in people’s bank accounts and human capital is inside their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships’. Namely, to possess social capital, a person must be related to others, and it is others, not himself, who are the actual source of his or her advantage.

Field (2003) argues that Pierre Bordieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam are three leading scholars in the study of social capital. Bourdieu (1986) is one of the first to introduce the concept of social capital relating it to the processes underpinning the reproduction of unequal access to resources (Hendriks & Toepoel 2013). In contrast, Coleman (1988, 1990) does not view social capital as class-specific, but relates it instead to aspects of social structures and social relationships, which facilitate actions. Coleman’s work marks an important change of emphasis from the results social capital has for individuals, as underlined by Bourdieu, to the results for groups, organisations or institutions. He also considers social capital to be linked to the access or acquisition of resources, which can be used to achieve personal goals. Also, for Coleman, social capital embedded in networks is a collective effort, a transferable public good and freely accessible by all members of a community.

While Bourdieu and Coleman focus on personal resources, Putnam (1995, 2000) addresses the ability of social capital to bind communities together and serve the public good. Putnam emphasises networks, norms and social trust, which enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. Furthermore, Putnam distinguishes two principal components of social capital related to social network forming: bonding social capital, which connects members of socially homogenous cultural groups and is more inward-looking, while bridging social capital, which creates ties between heterogeneous groups, is more outward-looking (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Later on, Woolcock (2001) adds a third dimension – linking social capital, which makes ties with those who have financial influence and political power. However, commentators acknowledge that, where social capital exists, it is not always used beneficially, particularly when bonding social capital excludes outsiders and does little to create bridging capital, also known as the dark side of social capital (Putnam 2000; Kleinhans et al. 2007; Muir 2011).

Recently, an increasing interest in social capital and event is evident. The role of social capital in events has been examined from a wide variety of disciplines. Event researchers are drawing on ideas from different social capital theorists and the focus is widening to incorporate the formation and development of social capital within and across event actors or stakeholder groups (Quinn & Wilks 2013). For instance, Moscardo (2007) argues that social capital, in combination with other elements, is likely to empower regional development when events are held. Similarly, according to Derrett (2009), events are collaborative phenomena and partnerships are recognised as essential for their sustainability. Most events take advantage of trusting relationships between multiple enterprises that generally exist independently of one another. For Richards and Palmer (2010), events take on a more important role in the contemporary society, in which networks can be formed and relational capital can be built. Furthermore, event planning requires a combination of resources, which create professional knowledge or abilities during planning stages as well as resources to reinforce collective identity. The interaction of both kinds of resources reinforces the organisations’ social capital (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011).

A number of case studies (e.g. Misener & Mason 2006; Arcodia & Whitford 2007; Moscardo 2007; Mykletun 2009; Finkel 2010; Hendriks & Toepoel 2013; Kania 2013; Quinn & Wilks 2013) exist to explore the relationships between events and social capital development. However, the focus of these studies is on event attendees or local residents. To date, there has been relatively little research on how events can be used to strengthen network and social capital, and this study tends to fill this research gap.

2.2. Organisational social capital

In the context of this article, the focus is organisational social capital, which provides a structural view illustrating the ability of organisations both to appropriate (e.g. a resource-exchange network may be used for the purpose of gathering information and resources) (Coleman 1988) and to convert social capital (e.g. a specific network position can be converted into economic advantage) (Bourdieu 1986). The following dimensions in the literature address the question of how the benefits of structural social capital are distributed among organisations.

Granovetter (2005) introduces the concepts of strong ties and weak ties in social networks. Both strong ties and weak ties are important to innovation. Strong ties include a common language and high level of trust, whereas weak ties enable the flow of novel information to the system. In the light of these arguments, the concepts of bonding and bridging social capital are highly relevant. Bridging social capital creates bonds of connectedness formed across diverse horizontal groups (weak ties), whereas bonding social capital connects only the members of homogeneous groups (strong ties) (Granovetter 1985; Putnam 1995). Kallio et al. (2009) argue that although bonding social capital can be seen fruitful for innovation, the dominance of bonding strong ties could lead to the introspectiveness of the innovation network. Bridging social capital is seen as more positive because it brings individual innovation networks into interaction, which enables the increase in absorptive capacity.

Internally, social network can help organisational members to acquire new skills and knowledge, enhance innovation, growth and firm’s competitiveness (Chuang et al. 2013). Social network may also improve information flow, quality and its timeliness (Adler & Kwon 2002; Granovetter 2005). Event organisers, performers and other participants can gain learning opportunities from events. This opportunity to learn new skills and enhance existing skills can be seen as part of building community capacity, referring to the skills, knowledge and mechanisms that support innovation, change and problem-solving (Moscardo 2007). All of these are seen as relying in part on social capital. Moreover, social capital enhances economic rewards, conformity to norms and information acquisition, all of these are likely to result in morale by raising the individual’s positive or socially desirable strengths (Hayashi & Yamagishi 1998). Essentially, morale means confidence in optimism, enthusiasm and self-efficacy (Cheung & Chan 2010).

Externally, social capital is an asset that provides opportunities for organisations to access or exchange information, knowledge and resources extant in their social networks (Ellinger et al. 2011). Events are excellent arenas for studying these types of relationships, since the nature of collective participation leads to new connections between institutions and local businesses, which would never have reached out to each other if the event were not being held (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011). First, the organisers of the event must interact with the local business and community to make arrangements about the event. This interaction may raise awareness of community resources and expertise, produce social links between previously unrelated groups and identify possibilities for joint development of community’s resources. Second, events favour shared management and a more efficient use of community resources, particularly for those events held on a repeating basis. Moreover, when strong ties exist, the social network develops a high degree of trust and it encourages partners to make greater resource commitments to the relationships (Pérez-Luño et al. 2011).

Finally, the relationship between social capital and leadership has been theoretically developed from business literature. Leadership constitutes the key factor of social capital. In the case of events, insightful leaders contribute to create and use competitive advantages and to develop effective collaborative relationships, simultaneously strengthening cohesion among different groups (internal social capital) and introducing new visions coming from outside the group itself (external social capital) (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011). Furthermore, leadership may increase the visibility and connect the event to external networks and innovation sources. As such, those groups with leaders who are strong enough to generate outside connections and efficiently share them with their own group will be in a better position to innovate and consequently increase public interest in the event. Finally, leadership contributes to incorporate new skills, knowledge and mechanisms that strengthen the capacity of community building, and in turn, encourages the organisations to innovate, adapt to changes and to solve problems (Moscardo 2007).

3. Methodology

While a growing interest in studying the links between events and social capital is becoming clear, much remains to be done in terms of the social capital at the personal level, such as attendees, residents or volunteers. To broaden the conceptual framework and to incorporate the breadth of actors involved, this paper explores the application of case study as a tool for investigating inductively the relationship between cultural event and organisational social capital. The study begins with literature review to prompt theoretical sensitivity, the collection of primary data via online survey and follow-up telephone interviews to explore the emerging findings in more detail. Additional information was also sought to support the primary data and for background reference. This information came from a variety of published and unpublished documents, and the statistics yielded by the Impacts 08 research project.

To construct the online survey, the dimensions and the questions were collected from previous research and documents related to ECOC and social capital, especially Ecotec (2009), Impacts 08 (2009), Quinn (2009), Bergsgard et al. (2010), Garcia and Cox (2013), and González-Reverté and Miralbell-Izard (2011). Then, the content of the survey was constructed with four parts pertaining to: (1) the organisation’s profile; (2) the types of network, the ways and effects of collaboration; (3) the impacts on organisation; and (4) the impacts of leadership. The first two set of questions related to the organisation’s profile and the types of network built were multiple-choice question. Then, open-ended questions were used to detect the way and effects of collaboration, the impacts of social capital on the organisation and the impacts of leadership. The respondents could also add open-ended comment in each question. To stimulate maximum response, some prompted options derived from the literature were also provided.

The online survey was carried out between September and December 2014 to 42 informants from Liverpool’s cultural sector. The time frame indicates that the results are mid- to long-term effects of the 2008 ECOC. A selection of respondents was made on the basis of those who had connection with the 2008 ECOC events and members of the two major cultural networks, i.e. Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium (LARC) and Small and Medium Arts Collective (SMAC). LARC emerged from an early alliance of the ‘Big Four/Five’ cultural institutions, which occasionally met together in the late 1990s. Since 2006, LARC encompasses the largest eight arts organisations in Liverpool, including Bluecoat, Foundation for Arts and Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool Biennial, Liverpool Everyman and Playhouse, National Museums Liverpool, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Tate Liverpool and Unity Theatre. Now, LARC has developed its position as a leading organisation for carrying forward the cultural agenda in Liverpool, and contributed to the repositioning of culture as more central to cross-sectoral agendas (Impacts 08 2010; O’Brien 2010, 2011; Cox & O’Brien 2012). Second, SMAC was set up in 2007 and comprises around 43 small- and medium-sized arts organisations from Merseyside (Impacts 08 2009).

Prior to the data collection phase, the instrument was tested with two pilot organisations for comprehension and ease of completion. In order to guarantee maximum response, targeted organisations were contacted first by email introducing the research purpose and the link to the online survey. Follow-up phone calls were made if the survey was not completed within 4 weeks. In total, 42 organisations responded to the survey, representing 82% of the 51 cultural organisations from the two major cultural networks. Table 1 summarises the key features of the sample. As can be seen, the majority of organisations belong to the SMAC, more than half of the organisations have 30–49 employees and have been established between 10 and 20 years. Since one of the most innovative elements of survey findings is to present some negative sides of social capital, the author decided to conduct follow-up telephone interviews with the key informants (8 from the sampled organisations) to obtain a deeper contrasted analysis. The aim of the interview was to explore some synthetic reasons of negative impacts. Based on purposive sampling, the telephone interview was conducted in December 2015, focusing on the respondents who revealed the most negative sides of social capital in the survey. The interviewees were all from the SMAC. As requested by the interviewees, the results will be presented anonymously to ensure confidentiality of respondent identities.

Table 1. Sampled cultural organisations (N = 42).

Type of organisation	n	(%)	Number of employees	n	(%)
Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium (LARC)	6	(14)	29 or fewer	8	(19)
			30–49	21	(50)
Small and Medium Arts Collective (SMAC)	36	(86)	50 or more	13	(31)
			Age of organisation (years)	n	(%)
			10 or younger	12	(29)
			11–20	23	(55)
			21 or more	7	(17)

4. Research findings

The findings point to a number of ways in which the ECOC had an impact on inter-industrial and intra-industrial cooperation, network and cross-fertilisation within the cultural sector. The ECOC event provided also evidence of significant benefits in terms of organisational learning (innovation and skills) and aspiration (enhanced profile, confidence and morale). So as to the links between leadership and social capital, the governance of Liverpool Culture Company (LCC) had both positive and negative impacts.

4.1. Types of network

At the beginning of the survey, when cultural organisations were asked if the 2008 ECOC had contributed to the establishment of networks, nearly all the organisations (n = 37) reported ‘somewhat’ or ‘to a large extent’, with only three respondents stating that levels of networking and collaboration have stayed the same. As shown in Table 2, the networks built were expressed in a variety of ways, including intra-sectoral (e.g. work with similar arts/cultural production types), inter-sectoral (e.g. cross-fertilisation with other arts/cultural production genre), links with public sector (e.g. opportunity to funding and commission work) and links with private sector (e.g. sponsorship and investment). Geographically, there is a tendency that the effect is limited locally. Only three respondents obtained new international contacts or worked with international artists and organisations. The attitude to those nationwide relations was a bit more positive. On average, 18 respondents believed that forging nationwide networking is much easier due to the ECOC, especially with those funding institutions.

Table 2. Types of network (N = 42).

	Locally	Nationally	Internationally	Average
Intra-sectoral	39	16	5	20
Inter-sectoral	35	20	5	20
Links with public sector	37	16	0	18
Links with private sector	33	18	2	18
Average	36	18	3

4.2. Networks within the cultural sector

Improving networks across the cultural sector was generally seen as a key ambition and one of the most positive outcomes of the Liverpool ECOC (Impacts 08 2010). In the survey, the informants were asked how the Liverpool ECOC contributed to the network within the cultural sector and its effects. As shown in Table 4, the respondents commented that the Liverpool ECOC provided an opportunity to accelerate existing development (n = 32), made the relationships more solid (n = 25), added value to existing trends (n = 15) and resulted in new collaboration in the culture sector (n = 11). Table 3 outlines also the dimensions of collaboration mentioned, including links with individual artists (n = 22), increased opportunities for national collaboration (n = 17), information sharing (n = 15), hosting joint exhibitions (n = 11), working with new art forms (n = 10) and increased opportunities for international collaboration (n = 6).

Table 3. Networks within the cultural sector (N = 42).

The ways of collaboration	n	The effects of collaboration	n
Accelerate existing development	32	Links with individual artists	22
Make the relationships more solid	25	Opportunities for national collaboration	17
Add value to existing trends	15	Information sharing	15
New collaboration in the culture sector	11	Host joint exhibitions	11
		Work with new art forms	10
		Opportunities for international collaboration	6

Note: n = the number of aggregate responses.

4.3. Interactions with the public and private sectors

Apart from the networks within the cultural sector, there was also significant amount of interactions with the public and private sectors. According to Impacts 08 (2010), Liverpool City Council increased its funding of the local arts and cultural sector by 84% between 2002/2003 and 2008/2009, supporting not only development and delivery of activity during the ECOC but also the ongoing sustainability of Liverpool’s cultural sector. The group of organisations receiving the funding range from larger organisations to smaller arts organisations. Over 50 organisations received this funding during the six-year period, with 27 receiving a three-year funding agreement. In addition, Liverpool City Council introduced an additional grants process in late 2008, for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 financial years, which included significant infrastructural investment in a number of arts and cultural organisations. Some arts organisations received also additional programme and project funding from Arts Council England (Cox & O’Brien 2012). So as to the connections with the private sector, the Liverpool ECOC generated the highest amount of sponsorship and earned income of any ECOC, with a total of £22.3 million of sponsorship and £4.1 million of earned income (Impacts 08 2010). In the survey, two questions explored these issues. Respondents were asked what were the effects of the interactions with the public and private sectors, respectively.

Regarding the links with public sector, a high number of informants mentioned that they had seen improved exposure to potential opportunities (n = 25), followed by additional programme and project funding (n = 21) and an increase in public sector liaison and contracts (n = 18) (see Table 4). In terms of working with the private sector, attracting sponsorship or investment was regarded as the key effects (n = 22), followed by improving the quality of the cultural offers (n = 17), providing new ideas (n = 11) and introducing entrepreneurial spirit (n = 6).

Table 4. Interactions with the public and private sectors (N = 42).

Links with the public sector	n	Links with the private sector	n
Exposure to potential opportunities	25	Attract sponsorship/investment	22
Additional programme/project funding	21	Improve the quality of cultural offers	17
Increase in public sector liaison/contract	18	Provide new idea	11
		Introduce entrepreneurial spirit	6

Note: n = the number of aggregate responses.

4.4. Organisational learning and aspiration

The next part of the survey turns to assess the effects of networking upon the development of organisation. Respondents were asked whether they thought the ECOC had created opportunities for learning. Basically, the increased collaborations and new networks resulted from the ECOC year led to two ways of organisation learning: innovation and competence enhancement. As shown in Table 5, innovation includes bringing new knowledge/ideas (n = 16), innovative ways of arts production (n = 9) and understanding/working with new art forms (n = 7). Respondents spoke also of developing a range of skills in areas that include: project planning skills (n = 23), delivering more than just one-off programmes (n = 21), increased professionalism (n = 17), launching new events (n = 13), working with larger organisation (n = 13) and enhanced negotiation/communication skills (n = 9).

Table 5. Effects on organisational learning (N = 42).

Innovation	n	Skills	n
Bring new knowledge/ideas	16	Project planning skills	23
Innovative ways of arts production	9	Deliver more than just one-off programmes	32
Understand/work with new art forms	7	Increased professionalism	17
		Launch new events	13
		Work with larger organisation	13
		Enhanced negotiation/communication skills	9

Note: n = the number of aggregate responses.

Apart from these tangible effects, there is a broad consensus that the Liverpool ECOC had a range of more intangible/emotional effects. ‘Profile’, ‘credibility’ and ‘morale’ are the most significant and widely reported outcomes (see Table 6). References were made to the change of external perceptions of Liverpool (n = 31), better known in the region/nationally (n = 22) and improved press coverage (n = 17). A minority of respondents (n = 8) also attributed an increase in the international profile. Furthermore, there was a sense that the ECOC had seen an increase in the perceived credibility of the cultural sector. It resulted in, for instance, a growing client base (n = 21), reaching new target groups (n = 17), and a positive shift in people’s attitudes towards their work (n = 5). Presumably, morale has been raised significantly as a result, including: improving staff morale (n = 27), increased enthusiasm (n = 23), changing attitudes towards the organisation (n = 13) and a sense of expectation (n = 7) were widely cited by the informants as a positive impacts.

Table 6. Effects on organisational aspiration (N = 42).

Profile	n	Credibility	n
Change of external perceptions of Liverpool	31	Growing client base	21
Better known in the region/nationally	22	Reaching new target groups	17
Improved press coverage	17	People’s attitudes towards their work	5
Increased international profile	8
Morale	n		n
Improving staff morale	27	Changing attitudes towards the organisation	13
Increased enthusiasm	23	Sense of expectation	7

Note: n = the number of aggregate responses.

4.5. Leadership

The final part of survey investigates the relationship between social capital and leadership. LCC was set up by Liverpool City Council to coordinate the bid for ECOC 2008 and subsequently to deliver the ECOC activities. The functions of LCC include: artistic programming; events delivery; investment in the arts infrastructure; tourism development; marketing; and sponsorship. According to O’Brien (2010), the role of LCC can also be seen as positive development to promote partnership between statutory agencies and the cultural sector. LARC and the LCC became also a very loose public–private partnership for the provision of 2008 and then the subsequent shaping of cultural plans in Liverpool (O’Brien 2011). Table 7 shows the comments on LCC’s leadership. There were three positive comments and four negative.

Table 7. Leadership and social capital (N = 42).

Positive aspects	n	Negative aspects	n
Collective approach in programming/management	23	Excluded from the allocation of funding	11
		Use of external contractors	8
Accelerate the decision-making process	17	Lack of transparency/communication	7
Greater involvement of cultural sector	15	Limited impact on innovation	3

Note: n = the number of aggregate responses.

According to the number of responses, the general perception shared by the respondents was that the relationship that developed with the LCC was good. The governance of LCC has contributed to a more collective approach in programming and cultural management of the city (n = 23), accelerated the decision-making process (n = 17) and played a role as catalyst for greater involvement in cultural sector (n = 15). However, a minority of informants criticised the leadership of LCC. Eleven respondents mentioned that the allocation of funding could have been more carefully structured so as to actively encourage greater collaboration between organisations. Certain respondents drew attention to use of external contractors when the opportunities could benefit more locally based artists (n = 8) and lack of communication and transparency in terms of accessing opportunities to fund projects (n = 7). The findings demonstrate that leadership constitutes both positive and negative impacts. Moreover, since several negative aspects of leadership were reported, qualitative evidence was therefore collected from telephone interviews to provide further information and implications for the survey findings.

4.6. Negative sides of networking

According to the survey results, one special finding different from previous studies is to demonstrate some negative sides of social capital in a cultural event. First, whilst the majority of respondents claimed to have used a wide range of networks to find out about new resources and opportunities for involvement in bigger projects, certain survey respondents felt somewhat excluded. As the LCC attempted to knit with the existing art and cultural networks within the city, there was therefore a general narrative highlighting the perceived exclusion of certain groups, especially smaller organisations with lesser funding. One telephone interviewee said: ‘As a small company, I don’t think we are on their (the LCC) radar’. Another interviewee said: ‘We felt a bit marginalised. They didn’t try to engage with us’. There existed even a criticism that ‘there is no strong sense of direction, and no strong leadership … They keep people out of the loop!’ One informant ended with a comment that ‘the ECOC event resulted in new differentiations within the cultural sector’.

Interviewees also drew attention to the use of external contractors. One informant expressed that: ‘They (the LCC) were too engaged with prestigious organisations … They brought in outsiders but we were pushed aside!’ This is consistent with the overall attitude of several interviewees. There was also criticism of the lack of transparency in terms of accessing opportunities to fund projects (n = 7). It also led to communication difficulties. For instance, one interviewee said: ‘There needs to be much more clarity about funding and more awareness in the cultural sector about who to go to for funding and support’. Finally, a minority of interviewees also saw the leadership of LCC to have limited impacts in new ways of cultural production, namely innovation. One interviewee from a medium-sized company stated that: ‘The ECOC gave us the possibility to do more of what we were already doing’. It demonstrated that there was not a change in paradigm.

The other main challenge revealed during the interviews is about the sustainability of future funding. In the survey, almost all informants identified a need to continue the networking, but only 31 of the respondents claimed to be very positive about the future, while 10 were quite or very negative about future prospects. Lack of funding to maintain the links was mentioned by 14 respondents. Once again, size is important. Small- to medium-sized organisations are less optimistic than those larger institutions. Two out of the five interviewees complained that either public funding or private sponsorship supported only the ‘big one’. One informant explained further that: ‘the ECOC sponsors had very few links to cultural organisations in the city and it is unlikely that their ECOC sponsorship will change this’. Namely, there is little evidence that major sponsors would become patrons of culture for those less-established organisations. So as to the public funding, in fact, a number of smaller cultural organisations have been designated as Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) by the local authority. Also, there were plans to extend the legacy of the ECOC through other events such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad project and the Titanic centenary in 2012 (Ecotec 2009).

5. Conclusion

This study follows an interpretive mode of inquiry where findings are derived from the analysis of 42 online surveys and 8 follow-up telephone interviews. Findings of this study attempt to explore the relationship between social capital and cultural event, and to assist policy-makers and cultural institutions in creating or enhancing networks via event organisation. Two contributions were made as a result: (1) evaluating the long-term effects on network formation in the cultural sector following major event; (2) conceptualising the impact assessment of organisational social capital for future ECOC or similar events.

To conclude, the key findings are first summarised as follows. Regarding the network formation, the results reflect basically the argument of Arcodia and Whitford (2007), that is, events can both revitalise existing and develop new partnership, and the partnerships built up through the organisation of events have the potential of being maintained far beyond the short life of event. So as to the effects of collaboration, the ECOC increased significantly the interactions within social network (Richards et al. 2013) and tied communities together (Griswold & Nichols 2006). The event contributed also to information sharing (Ellinger et al. 2011), shared management and more efficient use of community resources (Pérez-Luño et al. 2011), and translated into organisational effectiveness in the community (Griswold & Nichols 2006). So as to the interactions with the public and private sectors, the findings coincide with the notion of ‘linking social capital’ proposed by Woolcock (2001), which makes ties with those who have financial influence and political power. It provided opportunities for organisations to access to new resources (Ellinger et al. 2011) and incorporated economic aspects in their social networks (González-Reverté & Miralbell-Izard 2011), especially the acquisition of public funding and private sponsorship.

The literature broadly discusses the positive effect of inter-organisational collaboration on innovation, such as facilitating knowledge-sharing and interactive learning processes among participating firms (Capaldo 2007; Pérez-Luño et al. 2011). The findings evidence that social network helped mainly the cultural sector to acquire new skills, knowledge and increased competitiveness (Chuang et al. 2013). The enhanced capacity also supported innovation and change (Moscardo 2007). As argued by Purdue (2001), social capital consisting of trust relationships between a community and engagement with partnerships can generate vital new resources for the community. The findings reveal that when strong ties exist, the social network develops a high degree of profile and credibility, and it resulted in increased morale by raising the individual’s positive or socially desirable strengths (Hayashi & Yamagishi 1998).

As proposed by González-Reverté and Miralbell-Izard (2011), the leadership of LCC contributed to develop effective collaborative relationships and strengthen cohesion among different groups (internal social capital). However, the phenomenon of unequal access to resources is still evident. Furthermore, all events and programmes for the subsequent years are definitely at a lower level as funding is reduced, and some networks cannot be expected to continue. Changes in funding and shifts in policy priorities may also occur both at local and national levels, and across different scales of cultural organisations. These explain why collaborations decay over the years, and highlight the tension between temporary interventions of major event and long-term cultural networking. To sum up, it was generally felt that the LARC, working much more closely with the LCC and the local authority, has been strengthened significantly. Obviously, networks and increased collaboration seem to be significant, but size makes a difference among producers. Larger and well-established institutions were supported with more funding and commissioned jointly with new projects. In fact, according to the research of Ecotec (2009), it reflects the argument of Bourdieu (1986) who relates social capital to the phenomenon of unequal access to resources.

This study advances an understanding of both impact assessment and planning for future ECOC or similar events, which will be of importance for policy-makers and practitioners in the cultural sector. First, the ECOC status has helped to facilitate greater collaboration and strengthen partnership working between organisations, thereby stimulating a more effective multi-agency approach towards thinking and operating in the longer term. Liverpool’s major cultural networks are reported to have grown in innovation and skills, which will arguably provide a solid platform for the improvement of cultural production in the future. The increased level of networking has undoubtedly increased the profile and credibility of Liverpool’s cultural sector, and in turn, injected enthusiasm and confidence to deliver large-scale and high-profile events in the future. Second, a strong leadership, with a certain level of autonomy from political processes, is critical in any major event. Although the comments on the leadership of LCC were mixed and it has now been dissolved, the LCC did help to forge a stronger relationship between the local authority and cultural organisations, not only larger member organisations such LARC, but also those smaller cultural organisations who benefited from public funding (Ecotec 2009).

Although increased collaborations seem to be an effect across the cultural sector of Liverpool, there were some indications that more institutionalised actors have both the opportunity and potential to get a lasting effect. With a major event, while many new projects and huge amounts of funding are introduced, social capital is not necessarily a win-win game. Participation in established networks involves an increase in social capital for some actors, while others might be left outside (Bergsgard & Vassenden 2010). To avoid locally based artists, independent practitioners or small organisations being pushed aside, it is important to ensure that smaller local cultural organisations should be involved during a major event, for example, through commissioning process, programme development or capacity building projects. As proposed by Bergsgard and Vassenden (2010, p. 18): ‘if the total amount of social capital or the total number of nodes in cultural networks increases, the increase in one actor’s capital does not necessarily occur at the expense of another’s’. In this case, the increased social capital of the dominating may not at the expense of the dominated.

Although current study helps to move forward our understanding about the linkage between event and social capital, it is important to be aware of the limitations of this research. First, the small sample defeats any claim for statistical rigour. Also, subjective judgements were required while categorising the emergent themes. Consequently, it is unlikely to adopt statistical tests to unfold influential factors embraced in the theory, for instance, whether there are significant differences due to the profiles of organisations (e.g. types, size and age). Second, the organisations sampled were all those who at least involved in or benefited from the 2008 ECOC, and thus, more inclined to give positive answers. Did those non-funded organisations experience also a growth in social capital? This is a question to which current findings do not permit a conclusive answer. In the future, referring to current findings for scale construction, for example, research could be done deductively. Future research could also address the issue of social capital in various contexts surrounding cultural events. Potential areas of investigation include participants’, residents’ or organisers’ perceptions of social capital, and the relationship between social capital and economic/social impacts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding

This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [grant number MOST103-2410-H- 003-093-MY2].

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and insightful suggestions. Special thanks should also go to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan for the grant, numbered MOST103-2410-H- 003-093-MY2.