Archive for: Comparative Situation Analyses

As a result of transition from capitalist to post-capitalist societies and from economy of goods to service economy, the development of cultural and creative industries is becoming the focus of a growing number of countries. As there is no internationally accepted definition of the sector or tools for its analysis, understanding of the sector and instruments of cultural policies used for its development vary significantly from country to country. Through comparative analysis of the cultural policies of Great Britain, Spain, Serbia and Croatia this paper aims at giving an insight into the different stages of development and support measures related to cultural and creative industries and offers recommendations for further development of this sector in each country. Comparative analysis is based on statistical reports, laws, policies and strategic plans of these countries, and organized in eleven topics that are emerging as key issues for cultural and creative industries: the definition of sector and state policies and objectives related to it; mapping and data analysis; regionalization; inter-sectorial cooperation; education and training; diversity and tolerance; ICT; tax policy; copyright and intellectual property rights; support to small and medium enterprises; and internationalization. Great Britain is an example of a state that seriously analyzes the sector, strategically plans its development and cultural policy measures that encourage it. Spain is a country that has recently redefined cultural and creative industries as a national priority and has largely drawn regulations, measures and models from the experience of the UK. Serbia and Croatia are examples of countries that have not yet recognized the potential of cultural and creative industries and continue to have very traditional measures and regulations related to culture and its development, which causes the underdevelopment of the creative sector. 

The subject of this paper is a strategic dilemma of cultural policy concerning the issue of direct control or isolation from the political process (a dilemma regarding the implementation of cultural policies); whether cultural management must be fully integrated into the established system of budget financing from the state budget or if it is needed to reduce state control of the means of cultural production and distribution. The aim of this study is to arrive at possible measures and recommendations that need to be implemented in order to reduce political influence and excessive government intervention in cultural and artistic fields. The state is the most important factor in defining cultural policy and government intervention (except when it comes to the liberal model of cultural policy, which means a state policy of non-interference in cultural development) is of crucial importance to establish a continuous cultural development in a particular community. Complete state control leads to the risk of political interference as a result of different interests that do not correspond to the strategic objectives of cultural policy, while neutral stances and a lack of control can lead to the commercialization of culture.

Analyses of objectives, priorities and instruments of the state model of cultural policy in France, the para-state model of cultural policy in the Netherlands and the transition model of cultural policy in Croatia and Serbia, as well as the analysis of activities undertaken in the field of practical politics, leads to conclusions which reflect advantages and disadvantages of direct state control and intervention in the field of cultural policy, as well as the ways the detachment from the political process by using various instruments of cultural policy and the transfer of competencies to the para-state bodies can contribute to cultural development of the community and democratization of culture.

“A vibrant, diverse and inspiring cultural life to which citizens of all local communities and subcultures have access and can connect with, makes up a substantial part of the social fabric that determines functioning and attractive living localities-the quality of life that a place offers“. The topic of this paper is the insight in the field of cultural participation and consumption; more concretely it focuses on the levels of participation and consumption development in four countries: Serbia, Croatia, Sweden and the Netherlands. The first two countries have achieved rather similar stages throughout history, and consequently, many areas of cultural policy are structured in the same way and these countries share rather low level of development due to a long-standing and severe economic and political turbulences they have been facing. As a result, participation and consumption of culture have been put aside, as peoples of both countries were concentrated on bare survival. Today, conditions are slightly changed, but there are still many obstacles that these countries must try to overcome. Intersectorial connections, integration of culture and arts in regular education, programmes aimed at developing the audiences are only some of the tasks that these countries should carry out in times to come. On the other hand, Sweden and the Netherlands are known for high standards of life, welfare and prosperity, and thus their cultural practices have been supreme. In terms of the area of cultural policy in focus of this paper, Sweden and the Netherlands are at the top of European countries, and thus their methods are used as examples for the previously mentioned countries to look up to. The only identified issue is relatively low interest of young population in traditional forms. Still, the possibility of interconnecting multimedia with traditional culture might be solution to this problem.

This paper explores the development of the public art policies and legal and financial mechanisms in the domain. The research is conducted in a form of a comparative analysis of three different public art policy approaches – the United States, France and the United Kingdom. In the text is presented the historical development of the 1% for art regulation from its origination in the early 1930s to the most recent time when this kind of regulation is usually maintained on the local or the regional level. Furthermore, modifications of the typical percent for art regulation introduced in recent times are also explored. Besides the 1% for art regulation, some other ways of supporting public art projects are analyzed. They could be classified in two groups:projects supported through the special public commission programs and projects supported through the public-private partnerships.