Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008

Abstract

This article analyses the political, economic and social contexts of Liverpool's successful bid to become European Capital of Culture, 2008. It highlights the juxtaposition in the Liverpool 2008 process of discourses of urban entrepreneurialism and a strong emphasis on community involvement. While the bid is part of a wider shift in governance in the city that has helped reverse local economic decline, it is argued that the increasingly ‘boosterist’ character of cultural policy in the city raises a number of concerns. In particular, the article highlights the tensions arising from the re-branding of Liverpool as ‘The World in One City’ and the threat that the emphasis on culture as economic development poses to ‘alternative’ culture in the city.

Keywords:

• European Capital of Culture
• Liverpool
• regeneration
• cultural policy
• inequality

Notes

We are grateful to two referees for their insightful comments on the original version of this paper.

Liverpool Vision's self-defined role is ‘to harness the entrepreneurial energies of the private sector and co-ordinate the activities and interventions of public partners … Liverpool Vision is the custodian of the “big picture”, and the guarantor of a focused and integrated approach that will deliver benefits and opportunities to all the communities of Merseyside’ (Liverpool Vision, 2003: 5).

During 2003, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside was renamed National Museums in Liverpool, which may be interpreted as part of a wider shift towards using the Liverpool ‘brand’ to promote the city-region as a whole.

An important consideration in this context surrounds who the ‘consumers’ of such cultural forms are likely to be. John Urry (1990) has argued that tourism driven by place marketing initiatives such as the ECOC engenders a form of visual consumption similar to more strictly economic transactions such as shopping, with the packaging and presentation of cities as a brand primarily directed at attracting visitors from outside the region.

It is anticipated that the façade of the building will remain the same; a truly post-modern regeneration/re-branding exercise.

It should also not be overlooked that since its inception in 1985 the ECOC initiative has had the stated objective of highlighting ‘the richness and diversity of European cultures and the features they share and to promote greater mutual acquaintance between European Union citizens’ (Europa). Another related perspective would view this cultural policy as a ‘“Trojan Horse” by which structural economic adjustment policies and funding have been diverted into arts-led regeneration’ (Evans, 2003, p. 426).