Manon van Egmond – s2787377
University of Groningen - Research Master Cultural Leadership
FRAMING THE CULTURAL CITY REGIONS
1 Framing the Cultural City Regions
The Impact of Regionalization on Cultural Policy in the Netherlands Manon van Egmond – s2787377
First supervisor: Quirijn Lennert van den Hoogen Second supervisor: Johan Kolsteeg
3
SUMMARY
With the publication of the policy brief Cultuur in een open samenleving and the brochure
Cultuurbeleid 2021-2024. Stedelijke en regionale profielen, the minister of Education, Culture and
Science of the Netherlands expressed her wish to prepare for the upcoming policy cycle in collaboration with provinces and cities. She plans to do this through the policy of the cultural city regions. The cultural city regions are regional collaborations among local authorities and between local authorities and their cultural sector. Based on the arguments given by the Council for Culture, the cultural city regions are believed to have the following effects for cultural policy.
1. Local cultural policy is better at aligning with the demand and composition of the population and is better at taking into account the identity of a city and/or region and the needs of its residents.
2. The cultural city regions could offer a solution to several issues the Netherlands is facing in present day cultural policy
The goal of this research has been to determine the (possible) effects of (the policy of) the cultural city regions on cultural policy in the Netherlands, as a process of regionalization in/of cultural policy. The concept of cultural policy has been separated into three elements; the cultural policy system, the cultural policy process and cultural policy content. For the case study information was gathered about the emergence and development of the policy, its actualization and its future. Moreover, 20 interviews were conducted with stakeholders of the cultural city regions. The data extracted from these sources have been analyzed. This was done according to literature on regionalization, information about the Dutch cultural policy system and literature on experiences with
regionalization outside of the Netherlands (Denmark, Sweden, England). The research was limited in the fact is was executed during the trial phase of the policy of the cultural city regions. Because of this only preliminary data and information could be gathered.
The analysis of the case study first provided several observations:
1. The policy of the cultural city regions can both be considered a process of regionalization as well as new regionalism
2. The policy of the cultural city regions is comparable to the international examples in development and structure but differs in its objectives
3. The main objective of the policy of the cultural city regions is the alignment of national cultural policy to regional interests and needs (focus on improving national cultural policy) 4. There is an underlying belief to this objective which argues that local/regional authorities are
better at aligning to regional interests and needs as compared to the national government. Based on an analysis of the policy plans of the cultural city regions this belief holds true 5. The cultural city regions themselves are mainly aimed at the regional level and/or chain level
of cultural provision with the objective to strengthen the regional cultural infrastructure Further analysis of the case study provided the following conclusions, separated by their effects on the cultural policy system, cultural policy process or cultural policy content. For the cultural policy system on the national level no significant change has been established or observed. The structural policy elements proposed for the policy cycle of 2021-2024 only affect the cultural policy system in a very minor way. On the regional level, however, the cultural city regions have been introduced into the cultural policy system. Considering the stakeholders of most of the cultural city regions
remarked that they wanted to strengthen, elaborate on or expand their current regional
collaboration, the cultural city regions will likely become a (permanent) structural element of the cultural policy system on the regional level.
Regarding the cultural policy process the incorporation of the cultural city regions and the cultural profiles in the policy formulation process in preparation of the policy cycle of 2021-2024
4 through the national project council has been established. This has both affected the actors involved in the policy formulation process on the national level, as well as the order of the policy cycle.
In the analysis of the impact of the regional cultural policy content (through the cultural profiles) on the national cultural policy, no impact of the cultural profiles could be observed (no alignment of national cultural policy to regional cultural policy).
Based on the way the policy of the cultural city regions is currently being treated, it is more likely that no significant change or revision of cultural policy in the Netherlands will take place, only an alignment of cultural policy. The policy of the cultural city regions will probably become one policy among many, only adding to the complexity of the current policy system.
However, certain changes might not (yet) have been observed or taken place. For example, even though the structure of the BIS will not significantly change in the upcoming policy cycle, it is possible that there could be a change in the way cultural institutions are evaluated. If the cultural institutions would be evaluated based on their regional context, as requested by the stakeholders of the cultural city regions, it could be argued that this is a significant shift which could have
considerable effects on the cultural policy system in the future.
Considering these conclusions, I want to give the following recommendations to the ministry of Education, Culture and Science of the Netherlands in the continuation of the policy of the cultural city regions. First, the ministry should start thinking about the alignment in co-financing. Second, they should acknowledge the interest and priority for audience research and knowledge exchange by the cultural city regions and address these topics on the national level. Third, they should make changes in the evaluation and accountability procedures for the BIS and culture funds, aiming for more flexibility and customization to align with the differences between the cultural city regions. My last suggestion is that the cultural city regions should be given a bigger role in the cultural policy system, for example, to fill the gaps in the chain layer of cultural provision (focusing on topics such as talent development, spaces for artists, etc.).
Regarding the research topic of regionalization in/of cultural policy, I have concluded the following. Firstly, there is no singular definition of regionalization for the study of cultural policy, the only distinguishing aspect is the focus on the regional level. Added to this, there is also no consistent interpretation of the concept of the region. Second, there is very limited research on regionalization in/of cultural policy, the research that is available is mainly descriptive. Third, considering the limited amount of available research, the international comparison has aided in the development of a base of knowledge on regionalization in/of cultural policy. However, very limited information about the effects of regionalization was found. The international comparison could, thus, not aid in directly answering the research question.
For the continuation on research about the regionalization in/of cultural policy this leads me to the following recommendations. One the one hand, a framework regarding regionalization in/of (cultural) policy should be developed. One the other hand, research should be continued on the effect of regionalization in/of cultural policy with a case study in which regionalization processes have been fully implemented.
5
WORD LIST
Stedelijke cultuurregio’s = cultural city regions Culturele profielen = cultural profiles
Proeftuinen = experimental programs Beleidsperiode = policy cycle
Minister = minister
Verkenning = (cultural) scan Advies = (policy) advice Beleidsstuk = policy document
Het cultuurbestel = the cultural policy system De subsidiesystematiek = the subsidy system Werkgroep = national project group
Werkoverleg = national project council Ambtenaar = public official
Bestuurder/bestuurlijk = administrator/administrative Wethouder = alderman
Uitgangspuntenbrief = principles for cultural policy Visiebrief = policy brief
Cultuurnota = policy plan Top = top
Keten = chain Basis = base
Overheidsorgaan = governmental authority Landsdeel = Cluster of provinces
6
Summary
Word list
Table of contents:
1. Introduction
7
2. Methodology
9
3. Regionalization
12
4. Cultural policy in the Netherlands
15
5. International comparison
21
6. (The policy of) the cultural city regions
31
7. Cultural policy content of the cultural city regions
43
8. Future of (the policy of) the cultural city regions
51
9. Conclusion
64
10. Bibliography
70
Appendix 1 - Interview questions (Dutch)
76
Appendix 2 - Complete table analysis of the case study
77
Appendix 3 - Cultural policy topics per cultural city region
81
Appendix 4 - Regional characteristics and policy topics
83
Appendix 5 -
Cult
ural city regional characteristics (Dutch)
87
7
1. INTRODUCTION
With the publication of the policy brief Cultuur in een open samenleving (Culture in an open society, ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2018a) and the brochure Cultuurbeleid 2021-2024.
Stedelijke en regionale profielen (Cultural policy 2021-2024. City and regional profiles, ministry of
Education, Culture and Science 2018b), the minister of Education, Culture and Science of the Netherlands expressed her wish to prepare for the upcoming policy cycle in collaboration with provinces and cities. She plans to do this through the cultural city regions. The cultural city regions are regional collaborations among local authorities and between local authorities and their cultural sector. She requested local authorities to partake in this process by establishing their own cultural city region and developing a cultural profile. The cultural profiles include a description of the regional cultural infrastructure, regional policy concerns, needs and interests and the cultural city regions’ cultural policy plans for the upcoming policy cycle. It was specifically requested the cultural city regions would develop these profiles in collaboration with their cultural sector. There are currently 15 cultural city regions.
The introduction of the policy of the cultural city regions was based on suggestions from the Council for Culture. The Council elaborates on this in its cultural scan Cultuur voor stad, land en regio (Culture for city, country and region, Council for Culture 2017). In this document, it discusses the changing relationships between the national, regional and local authorities and proposes a revision of the cultural policy system. Its proposition focuses on an increased involvement of regional and local authorities in the policy system through the cultural city regions. The Council for Culture gives two main arguments for this:
1. Local cultural policy is better at aligning with the demand and composition of the population and is better at taking into account the identity of a city and/or region and the needs of its residents. Because of this, more customization and nuance are possible in cultural policy
2. The cultural city regions could offer a solution to several issues the Netherlands is facing in present day cultural policy (Council for Culture 2017: n.p.)
These issues include a lack of alignment in the (co-)financing of cultural institutions, a lack of collaboration between cultural policy and other policy domains and a lack of knowledge sharing among governmental authorities.
The ideas behind the concept of the cultural city regions, however, have been developed over several years. The Council for Culture remarks that ever since the subsidy cuts in 2013, the cultural policy system has been under pressure. This prompted the idea that national, regional and local authorities should collaborate to strengthen the system. This development has also been influenced by trends in cultural policy identified by the Council for Culture in 2014 (Council for Culture 2014). These trends include an increasing importance of the region and/or city as a player in cultural policy. Because of the current national and institutional orientation, the Council for Culture argues that the cultural policy system insufficiently responds to opportunities and characteristics found in cities and regions. To change this, it first introduced the cultural city regions in the Agenda Cultuur. 2017-2020
en verder (Agenda Culture. 2017-2020 and beyond Council for Culture 2016), with a more in-depth
examination of the possibilities in its cultural scan from 2017.
(The policy of) the cultural city regions can be contextualized through the concept of regionalization. Regionalization can be interpreted as shifts in policy practices and service provision toward the regional level, either from a top-down (regionalization) or a bottom-up (new regionalism) perspective.
8 The cultural city regions are not the first attempt at increasing the involvement of local and/or regional authorities in the cultural policy system of the Netherlands. Since 1993, the national government has been entering into cultural covenants with other governmental authorities. The cultural covenants were instituted as a means through which different levels of government could jointly divide the tasks and responsibilities for cultural policy. The covenants, however, have not fulfilled their intended purpose according to local and provincial stakeholders.
Another example is that of more recent regional collaborations found in the cultural and other policy domains. In their research about the sub-national mobilization of governmental authorities in the Netherlands, Groenleer and Hendriks (2018) argue that the decentralization in the policy domains of youth care and spatial planning have prompted increased sub-national collaboration, specifically between local authorities (on a regional scale). These developments have likely been the inspiration for regional collaboration in the domain of cultural policy.
Similar processes of regionalization are also found outside of the Netherlands. Three examples are Denmark, Sweden and England. Denmark and Sweden experimented with regionalization in the 1990s which saw an institutionalization in the early 2000s. Although Denmark has since had a major governmental reform removing any responsibility for arts and culture from the regional level, the Swedish regional level has remained an important actor in their cultural policy system until this day. England has undergone a temporary increase in significance of the regional level in the early 2000s. Presently they are experiencing a rise of the focus on city-regionalism. Although all three
experiences with regionalization are different, shared expectations, objectives and concerns can be identified.
Although there are several examples of regionalization in/of cultural policy in other countries, research is limited. For this reason, it is important to expand on the knowledge surrounding this topic. When examining the literature, the concept of regionalization is most often found in the analysis of nation states and/or the European Union. The research available in the field of cultural policy is predominantly descriptive and data on the (possible) effects of regionalization are almost non-existent. The goal of this research is to add to the knowledge of regionalization in/of cultural policy by answering the following research question:
What could be the effects of regionalization in/of cultural policy in the Netherlands? To answer this research question, I will analyze the (policy of the) cultural city regions as my case study. Because the process of the cultural city regions only covers a short period of time and is still ongoing, this research is based on preliminary findings and experiences. This research could aid in the continued development of the policy of the cultural city regions. Because of broad scope of the concept of cultural policy, I have distinguished three elements which guide the structure of each chapter. These elements are the cultural policy system, the cultural policy process and cultural policy content. The cultural policy system encompasses the structural elements of the organization of cultural policy. The cultural policy process concerns all aspects related to policy formulation. Cultural policy content is the cultural policy that is formulated and (eventually) implemented. The research will, thus, focus on identifying the possible effects of the cultural city regions on each of these elements.
In the next chapter I will elaborate on how I will be answering the research question put forward above by discussing my methodology.
9
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Data and methods used
To assess the possible effects of regionalization on cultural policy in the Netherlands, I carried out a qualitative research. To gather data, I used a combination of desk- and field research. For my desk research I used academic sources, policy documents and other materials. The academic sources were used to cover the topics of regionalization, cultural policy and the description of cultural policy and regionalization in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and England (not including the case study). The policy documents have been used to add to the information on this last aspect and to elaborate on the policy of the cultural city regions. By other material I am referring to the cultural profiles developed by the cultural city regions. These were used to add objective information regarding the actualization of the policy of the cultural city regions and to examine the content of regionally the formulated cultural policy content.
For the field research I conducted interviews with public officials of the cultural city regions and other relevant stakeholders. The interviews were semi-structured, covering the following topics: - The current state of the cultural policy system
- The policy of the cultural city regions
- The actualization of the policy of the cultural city regions on the regional level - The actualization of the policy of the cultural city regions on the national level - Expectations for (the policy of) the cultural city regions
- Expectations regarding the experimental programs (proeftuinen)
The full interview plan can be found in appendix 1. The interviews took place between the second half of January and the first half of March 2019 and were (on average) 50-60 minutes in length. Two of the interviews took place earlier, on the 17th and 31st of October 2018. 20 interviews were conducted with 21 relevant actors. The following table provides an overview of the division of the interviewees. This division is based on their place of employment during the development of the cultural profiles.
Number of interviewees
Cultural city regions (municipalities) 12
Provinces 3
Consultancy firms 3
Council for Culture 1
Interprovincial Council 1
Association of Dutch municipalities 1
Table 2.1 Division of interviewees based on organization or institution
The interviewees cover 13 out of 15 cultural city regions. The interviewees are predominantly public officials. One stakeholder of each of the cultural city regions was approached, although not all were available in the time period set for the interviews. One of the missing cultural city regions has been interviewed for the research Ruimte: de noordelijke regio en het cultuurbeleid (Space: the northern region and cultural policy, Kolsteeg and van den Hoogen 2018). Information from this research was used to supplement the data from the interviews. The interviews were conducted at a location of choice of the interviewees. 17 of the interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. Three of the interviews were not recorded. One was a phone-interview, the other two were not recorded because a lack of recording equipment at the time. For these interviews, notes were taken.
To maintain the privacy of the interviewees, the data is presented in an aggregated manner. This means that no quotes from the interviewees are used and no sources are indicated to given statements. The data was analyzed using the qualitative data analysis program ATLAS.ti 8. For the analysis I coded the interviews based on the distinction of the cultural policy system, the cultural
10 policy process and cultural policy content. I have also analyzed the cultural profiles using the same qualitative data analysis program, for they provide the largest amount of data on the cultural policy content.
2.2 Reading guide
The main text of the research is found in six chapters, starting from chapter three. The first and second chapter contain the introduction and the methodology. The last two chapters are the conclusion and the bibliography.
The third chapter tries to define the concept of regionalization. It contains a review of the literature from the study of cultural policy, the fields of regional studies and the study of nation states and the European Union more generally. It provides a definition of the concept for this research and
presents its application in (cultural) policy.
The fourth chapter starts by considering the concept of cultural policy. Subsequently it will give a description of cultural policy in the Netherlands based on the distinction of the cultural policy system, cultural policy process and cultural policy content. For the cultural policy content, it will focus on the current and the upcoming policy cycles (2017-2020 and 2021-2024). Lastly, this chapter elaborates on Dutch experiences with national-regional collaboration and regionalization prior to the cultural city regions. This chapter will use a combination of literature on the Dutch cultural policy system and cultural policy documents from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
In the fifth chapter experiences with regionalization in other countries are considered. This chapter will gather its information from literature and policy documents on the selected countries. These countries are Sweden, Denmark and England. This chapter follows a similar structure to the previous chapter. It examines the state of the cultural policy system in each of these countries and presents their experiences with regionalization in/of cultural policy. At the end of the chapter objectives, expectations and concerns present in the discourses are identified.
The sixth chapter elaborates on the policy of the cultural city regions. It discusses its development, current state and actualization. Regarding the actualization it will add some
perspectives from the researcher and the interviewees. The chapter will conclude with an analysis of the policy of the cultural city regions according to the literature on regionalization and new
regionalism, a comparison to the international experiences with regionalization and an analysis of its actualization according to the objectives and expectations set for the policy of the cultural city regions. This chapter will be based on policy documents surrounding the policy of the cultural city regions and data from the interviews.
The seventh chapter will provide observations about the cultural policy content of the cultural profiles. It will also compare their content to the national cultural policy and examine to what extent the regionally formulated cultural policy and nationally formulated cultural policy are in line with each other. This chapter will be based on the cultural policy documents from the ministry for the current and upcoming policy cycle and the cultural profiles developed by the cultural city regions.
The future of the cultural city regions is analyzed in the eighth chapter. This chapter examines the future of the policy of the cultural city regions as put forward by the Council for Culture and the ministry in the policy documents from 2019. It will also analyze the interviews on any further suggestions for the future of the policy and/or cultural policy in the Netherlands in general. The end of the chapter will give an analysis of these two elements based on the objectives and expectations set for the policy of the cultural city regions and its actualization. The findings of the last three chapters will be summarized in the conclusion.
2.3 Connection to the Traineeship
In my traineeship I focused my research on the experimental programs (proeftuinen) as an element of the policy of the cultural city regions. These experimental programs will be financially supported
11 by the national government of the Netherlands during the years of 2019 and 2020. The main
question in the research for my traineeship addressed the monitoring and evaluation of these programs in order to learn something about them in the context of the policy of the cultural city regions. This master’s thesis research will, in a sense, continue the research of the traineeship, focusing on the policy of the cultural city regions itself rather than the experimental programs to see what we can learn from this development in the context of regionalization in/of cultural policy.
12
3. REGIONALIZATION
When reviewing the literature on regionalization, it becomes clear that the concept is used in varying ways by authors from different fields. In addition, the concept of new regionalism is used alongside and sometimes interchangeably with that of regionalization. For my research I will use the definition given by McCallion (2008) who distinguishes the two concepts as top-down and bottom-up processes respectively. Regionalization refers to the top-down process from the perspective of the national government. New regionalism is designated as the bottom-up process, initiated by regional actors (McCallion 2008: 584-585). The structure of this chapter is the following. First, I will elaborate on the concept of regionalization after which I will explain the concept of new regionalism. At the end of the chapter I will discuss the meaning of these concepts in relation to the notions of government and governance. In chapter five and six I will use the concepts of regionalization and new regionalism to contextualize the international examples of regionalization in/of cultural policy and the case study of the cultural city regions.
3.1 Regionalization
McCallion (2008: 584) defines regionalization as a central state policy where the state consciously constructs regional centers of power. This definition regards regionalization as a top-down process which starts with the nation state. The concept, however, was originally used to the study processes on the level of the European Union in the wake of the European integration and the rise of a ‘Europe of the regions’ at the end of the 20th century (Tatham and Mbaye 2018: 656). The European Union is considered to have facilitated processes of regionalization. Through regional development policies, the creation of the committee of the regions and the increase of the EU budget for regional support, Europe has created a greater role for regional authorities in public policy from the 1990s onwards (McCallion 2008: 584).
The rise of the importance of the regional level from a European perspective also led to on-going decentralization reforms in nation states, transferring authority from the national toward the regional level (Tatham and Mbaye 2018: 656).
3.1.1 Regionalization through decentralization
Regionalization can be, as noted above, accompanied by processes of decentralization. Pollitt (2007) gives the definition of “authority being spread out from a smaller number to a larger number of actors” (Pollitt 2007: 273). This definition coincides with the transfer of authority or power described in the definition of McCallion and for the processes of regionalization on the European level.
Decentralization, however, does not necessarily signify the transfer of power or authority. For cultural policy, Kawashima (1997) distinguishes three types of decentralization: cultural, fiscal and political. Cultural decentralization is defined as creating equal opportunities regarding the provision of arts and culture. It focuses on aspects of cultural policy content. Fiscal decentralization concerns the implementation of cultural policy, specifically (financial) measures and/or inputs. Its aim is promoting a fair distribution of (financial) means from governmental authorities towards producers of culture. The last type is political decentralization. Political decentralization refers to the transfer of policy responsibilities. This can either be done with the transfer of decision-making power, or
without (Kawashima 1997: 343-344). Political decentralization is most in line with the definitions from Pollitt, although only if a transfer of decision-making power (authority) is present.
Kawashima (1997: 355) and Duelund (2001: 45) remark that in cultural policy, political decentralization often follows from cultural decentralization. However, the transfer of decision-making power as part of political decentralization has generally acquired little political support for cultural policy (Kawashima 1997: 352).
13
3.1.2 Regionalization and multi-level governance (MLG)
Regionalization (through decentralization or otherwise) can also be understood as changing relations in the organizational structure of policy practices (Johannison 2011: 127). This connects to the theory on multi-level governance (MLG), which was introduced to examine and understand the new organizational dynamics within the European Union as an effect of processes of regionalization (Piattoni 2009: 165). In this context, multi-level governance was defined as:
“A system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers – supranational, national, regional and local that was distinctive of European Union structural policy” (Hooghe and Marks 2003: 234)
This definition refers to both the actual negotiation by different actors within the European Union, as well as the negotiation regarding changes in the organizational structure and shifts in the transfer of authority and responsibilities influenced by processes of regionalization. At present the concept is used more widely, also when analyzing regionalization in nation states.
In their study of multi-level governance, Hooghe and Marks (2003) have identified three factors influencing the arrangements of a multi-level governance structure. The first factor is the economy of scale. Economies of scale influence multi-level governance structures in two ways, through capital intensive goods and labor-intensive services. For capital intensive goods, economies of scale are exploited in larger jurisdictions (or higher territorial levels of government). For labor-intensive services this is the opposite.
The second factor is the internalization of policy externalities. This influences multi-level governance structures through the question: What area does the policy affect? Policy in this case should occur on the scale or jurisdiction on which the policy affects the population.
The last factor is the heterogeneity or diversity of ecological systems. This factor is best served on a smaller scale or level of governance to better align with the diversity of needs and interests found in heterogeneous ecological systems (Hooghe and Marks 2003: 235-236). These factors can also function as arguments supporting processes of regionalization.
3.2 New Regionalism
McCallion (2008: 584-585) defines new regionalism as a phenomenon where “reginal actors ideologically construct their territory and create various forms of regional networks”. As the quote indicates, new regionalism often expresses itself through networks between several
(interdependent) parties. This also includes non-governmental actors (Hörnström 2013: 432). The origin of new regionalism also stems from the period of European integration. Keating connects the rise of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ and new regionalism to three political-economic tensions present at that time. The first concerns the perspective of a lacking national level and the shift towards the regional level as more appropriate for policy activities and service provision. An
example of this are regional development policies (MacLeod and Jones 2007: 1181; Hörnström 2013: 428). This can be connected to the factors mentioned in relation to multi-level governance. The regionalist perspective argues that the regional level is most suited for adapting to the diversity of needs and interests of ecological systems, while maintaining a large enough economy of scale and internalization of policy effects to provide services and execute policies in an effective manner (Hörnström 2013: 432).
The second tension is that of ongoing processes of decentralization (MacLeod and Jones 2007: 1181). As discussed in section 3.1.1, these processes of decentralization were a response to the regional focus of the European Union. A research on regional authority in democratic nation states has found that in the aftermath of the decentralization processes, regional authority had risen significantly (Tatham and Mbaye 2018: 662-663; Hörnström 2013: 431; Hooghe, Marks and Schakel 2010).
14 The processes of decentralization also caused a third political-economic tension, regional mobilization in the name of new regionalism (MacLeod and Jones 2007: 1181). In a study by Groenleer and Hendriks (2018), a connection between decentralization and sub-national mobilization in the Netherlands was identified. Their description of sub-national mobilization is similar to the definition of new regionalism given by McCallion. They remark that processes of decentralization in the domains of social care and spatial planning have led to increased regional collaboration for the purpose of exploiting larger economies of scale in policy activities and service provision (Groenleer and Hendriks 2018: 7-10). They also find increased collaboration of ‘regions’ within the Netherlands with other regions on a European level (Groenleer and Hendriks 2018: 2; Perrin 2012: 460).
3.3 Regionalization and new regionalism in practice
Processes of regionalization and new regionalism take place in the overlapping space between government and governance. Based on definitions given in the Encyclopedia of governance (2007), the main difference between government and governance are 1. The inclusion of and/or the collaboration with other, semi- and non-governmental actors and 2. The interdependency of the central government with these actors on the side of governance (Bevir 2007: 364, 387).
Regionalization, then, is still concerned with the spaces of government, focusing on changing relations between the national and the regional level. On the contrary, new regionalism belongs to the spaces of governance. An example of this is the interdependency that has arisen between local actors because of processes of decentralization. Subsequently, local actors started to collaborate on a regional level to exploit larger economies of scale while still retaining their ability to adapt to a diversity of needs and interests. This generally occurs through a network structure in which non-governmental actors can also be involved.
Important to note is that McCallion states that processes of regionalization without the presence new regionalism can be expected to lead to regional technocracy. Regional technocracy in this statement can be interpreted as the presence of (often national) ‘experts’ from their respective field gaining a position of power or authority on the regional level.
Additionally, he remarks that the presence of new regionalism without processes of regionalization can be expected to lead to political tensions between the central government and regional authorities (McCallion 2008: 585). Subsequently growing political tensions could become a reason for regionalization. If we use the definition of McCallion, this would mean a transfer of authority or power to the regional level. However, as noted above for the cultural policy domain, the transfer of power to the regional or local level has had little political support in the past.
15
4. CULTURAL POLICY IN THE NETHERLANDS
This chapter is aimed at providing the context in which the policy of the cultural city regions has developed. In this chapter I will start by discussing the concept of cultural policy through the perspective of Kevin V. Mulcahy. After this I will use his viewpoint to assess the current situation of cultural policy in the Dutch political system. At the end of the chapter I will also consider the prior experiences of the Netherlands with processes which can be signified as regionalization or new regionalism.
4.1 Cultural policy
In the foreword to his book Public Culture, Cultural Identity and Cultural Policy (2017) Kevin V. Mulcahy discusses the concept of cultural policy. He distinguishes four aspects which influence the definition of cultural policy within a given political system. The first is the relationship between political culture and public culture. He refers to Ridley (1987), who states that “state policies toward the arts are shaped by wider beliefs about how government ought to be conducted and what it should try to do” (Mulcahy 2017: xii). In other words, a country’s political culture influences their rationale in the support of culture. Mulcahy identified four cultural policy traditions: 1. Culture states, 2. Cultural protectionism, 3. Social-democratic culture, 4. Laissez-faire (Mulcahy 2017: xii).
Second is the relationship between public culture and public policy. According to Mulcahy (2017), cultural policy can best be considered as “the totality of a government’s activities with respect to the arts, the humanities and heritage” (Mulcahy 2017: xiii). Cultural policy, thus, not only encompasses the intended outcomes but also policy goals embedded in policy programs not directly expressed (Mulcahy 2017: xiii).
The third aspect concerns the objectives and justifications used for public culture. Mulcahy presents the four that have been most prominent in cultural policy debates: 1. Culture as
glorification (reputation or status gained from arts and culture), 2. Democratic cultural orientations (democratization of culture, spread of ‘good’ culture to the masses), 3. Cultural democracy (equal opportunities for citizens to participate in cultural activities of their own choice, broader
conceptualization of culture) and 4. Cultural utilitarianism (instrumentalization of cultural policy for other policy purposes) (Mulcahy 2017: xiv-xxi).
The fourth aspect refers to the definition of culture and how this influences the expression of cultural policy in a given political system. Culture is one of the hardest words to define. In cultural policy, the concept of culture is generally referred to as broad or narrow. The narrow definition of culture typically focuses on the canonical or high arts while the broad notion of culture also
encompasses the cultural industries and other forms of cultural expression. The definition of culture used functions as a base for what types of arts and culture are considered policy concerns and which are not (Mulcahy 2017: xxii-xxiii).
In the next section I will assess how these four aspects are situated within the Dutch political system. I will start with a brief history of cultural policy in the Netherlands. After this I will elaborate on the current situation, structuring it through the distinction of the cultural policy system, cultural policy process and cultural policy content.
4.2 Cultural policy in the Netherlands
Historically, the national government of the Netherlands was not very involved in cultural policy. For a long time, cultural policy was mainly a concern for local authorities, of which cities bore the largest weight when it came to cultural provision. Only after World War II, influenced by the Nazi system, a complete national cultural policy system was developed as a part of the welfare state. Before this the national government was only active in the preservation of cultural heritage and direct subsidies to a limited number of cultural institutions (mainly in the performing arts). During this time the arts
16 were under the responsibility of the ministry of the Interior and from 1918 under the responsibility of the ministry of Education, Arts and Science (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 11).
After World War II the national government’s position in cultural policy became increasingly prominent. In 1947 the Arts Council was established, gaining permanent status in 1955 (now the Council for Culture) (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 14-15). During this time beliefs connected to the democratization of culture were central in cultural policy. During the 1960s, and continuing into the 1970s, this changed toward a more culturally democratic viewpoint with a broader definition of culture focused on welfare (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 15-16).
The cultural policy system was provided with a legal basis in 1993, by way of the Cultural Policy Act (Wet op het Specifiek Cultuurbeleid, CPA). According to the Cultural Policy Act, the minister of Education, Culture and Science is responsible for the creation of conducive conditions in support of the maintenance, development and dissemination of cultural expression, or its expansion in any other way. The Cultural Policy Act explicates the authority of the national government
regarding the subsidization of cultural institutions and artists and codifies the roles of all parties involved in cultural policy formulation. It also contains a description of the four-year policy cycle in which every four years the government discusses the main direction of their plans for cultural policy with parliament (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 12, 18; Van der Leden 2018: 5).
In 2006 and 2009 two major changes were made to the cultural policy system. In 2006 the culture funds were introduced. Initially, their focus was on smaller cultural institutions (Van der Leden 2018: 4). In 2009 the Basic Infrastructure (Basisinfrastructuur, BIS) was instituted. Rather than focusing on cultural institutions, this structure emphasizes the functions cultural institutions fulfil. This system is concerned with cultural institutions directly funded by the ministry, as are the budgets of the culture funds (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 21).
4.2.1 Cultural policy system
If we consider the four policy traditions put forward in section 4.1, the Dutch cultural policy system currently fits within the social-democratic policy tradition. In this tradition culture is a part of the public services provided by the state. An honest division of service provision is considered a main element in this tradition. Besides this, arts and culture are considered a private matter in the Netherlands, rather than a public one, which is a characteristic of the laissez-faire tradition. This distinguishes the Netherlands from the ideal typing of the social-democratic policy tradition. The concept of culture in Dutch cultural policy encompasses three elements: 1. Arts and cultural heritage, 2. Media and entertainment and 3. Creative commercial design disciplines (creative industries/applied arts) (Van der Leden 2018: 5).
All elements of cultural policy are subdivided into three layers: the top, the chain and the base of cultural provision. According to the perspective of the Council for Culture, the top
encompasses the cultural institutions of (inter)national importance and quality. Examples are (inter)nationally renowned museums, post-academic institutions and specialized institutions for the performing arts. The top institutions are mainly financed by the national government with co-financing from other levels of government. The chain layer focuses on topics which fall between the top and base layer of cultural provision. The chain layer transcends the local level but isn’t situated at the national level (regional level). Examples are talent development, the working and living climate for artists/creatives, the labor market and city/regional museums. (Financial) support generally comes from a combination of the local and provincial authorities, with instances of
national aid when relevant. The base is concerned with arts and culture close to society. It is referred to as the ‘humuslaag’ (nutrient-rich soil layer) of the cultural infrastructure on which the other layers of the cultural policy system can build. In the base layer of cultural provision cultural education and participation, libraries and music schools can be found. The municipal authorities are responsible for the base layer of cultural provision (Council for Culture 2017: n.p.; 2019: 23-24). What type of cultural institutions or activities are considered part of the top, chain or base layer, however, does
17 differ between levels of government. For example, cultural institutions considered a chain institution from the perspective of the national level, can be viewed as a top institution from the local level.
With the budget cuts in 2013, mainly the chain layer of the cultural policy system was affected (Council for Culture 2014: 27-28). Since then, the chain layer has not been sufficiently strengthened and is still left with gaps in the current system.
As noted above, the Dutch cultural policy system (and process) has a legal basis in the Cultural Policy Act from 1993. The Cultural Policy Act determines that the minister of Education, Culture and Science carries the main responsibility for cultural policy. The national government also takes the lead in policy formulation on general policy concerns. In line with this fact, cultural policy in the Netherlands is mostly coordinated from one central ministry.
Because of historical developments, the division of tasks in the Netherlands is quite unique compared to an international context. In the Dutch system the national government is mainly responsible for production, while the local authorities are responsible for the dissemination of arts and culture (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19-20). This division of tasks was caused by a revision of the system by minister Brinkman in the 1980s. In 1981 a research executed by the Association of Dutch Municipalities showed that the lines between tasks and responsibilities between different levels of government had begone to blur because of ‘koppelsubsidies’ (matching subsidies) which involved multiple parties in the funding of cultural institutions. This was not preferable for all parties involved. The new division by Brinkman focused on both a decentralization and recentralization of specific tasks. The responsibility for cultural production was given to the national government in fear of instrumentalization on the local level. Correspondingly, the
dissemination (spaces, buildings) of arts and culture became the responsibility of the local level (Pots 200: 353-354).
The national government is directly responsible for the funding of the Basic Infrastructure (BIS). The Basic Infrastructure is concerned with the top institutions and encompasses a number of functions divided across different arts disciplines. The institutions being supported through the BIS structure must serve a certain function of national/international importance (ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016: 4-5). The table in section 8.1.3 gives an overview of the types of institutions funded in the current and upcoming policy cycles. Through the Council for Culture, distance is kept from political influence in arts and culture funding, in accordance with the arm’s length principle (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016: 4-5; Van der Leden 2018: 3, 10). This means decisions relating to artistic and cultural content are made removed from political influence
(generally by an independent body). This distance is a very important element in the Dutch political tradition stemming from Johan Rudolph Thorbecke, the founder of the Dutch constitution. His viewpoint was that the state (politics) should not make aesthetic judgements regarding cultural expressions. By way of this, the Council for Culture makes the aesthetic judgments and advices the ministry in the allocation of the budgets for the Basic Infrastructure (BIS) (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016:4-5). It uses expert committees in the evaluation of the applications of the cultural institutions (Van der Leden 2018: 10). The Council for Culture also advices the ministry on matters of cultural policy more generally.
Besides their direct responsibility for the BIS, the national government also provides the budgets allocated by the national culture funds (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19-20). The six national culture funds provide for both institutional and program funding. They are
independent administrative bodies from the national government. The six national culture funds are the Performing Arts Fund NL, the Dutch Foundation for Literature, the Mondrian Fund, the Fund for Cultural Participation, Dutch Film Fund and the Creative Industries Fund NL. The minister provides a framework and a set of criteria for the national culture funds per policy cycle. This framework should be considered when evaluating applications. The final (aesthetic) decision, however, lies with the
18 funds themselves. The funds also use expert committees in the evaluation of the applications
(Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016: 4-5; Van der Leden 2018: 10).
The provinces have a limited role in the current cultural policy system. In 2010 agreements were made between the provinces, deciding and limiting their core tasks regarding cultural policy. Their core responsibilities currently include the preservation, development and repurposing of cultural heritage, care for monuments, cultural education, archives and libraries and support for
municipalities on the areas of heritage and archaeology. Other than this, the provinces develop and implement their own policy (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19-20; IPO 2019; Poll and Tal 2015).
The local authorities are mainly responsible for the dissemination (spaces/buildings) of arts and culture. They are also responsible for what is considered the base layer of cultural provision such as cultural education, libraries, etc. (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19-20). However, besides some responsibilities that are determined by law or set in agreements, the local authorities are also free in the development and implementation of and support for cultural policy. Many local authorities use this freedom, most prominently the larger cities in the Netherlands (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19-20). Smaller municipalities sometimes have no or a very restricted cultural policy.
This division of responsibilities for arts and culture, however, is not determined by law (Van der Leden 2018: 31). The provincial and local level often have a more active role in the support of arts and culture than is required. These governmental authorities financially support arts and culture through their own budgets. Reviewing the spending on arts and culture by the different levels of government, the national government does not appear to be the biggest financer for cultural policy in the Netherlands. This position is taken by the municipalities. The following table presents the division of government spending of arts and culture for 2017. Important to note, however, is the fact that not all funds allocated to arts and culture on the local level are counted under the spending for arts and culture. The amount is, likely, much higher (Groot et. al. 2014, p. 318).
Governmental authority Amount (x million, in euros)
National government 839
Provinces 247
Municipalities 1729
Total 2815
Table 4.1 Division of funding per level of government in the Netherlands in 2017 (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science s.d.)
The current number of inhabitants of the Netherlands is 17.1 million people (2017). This means the Netherlands spends approximately 164,62 euros on arts and culture per person.
This table also indicates that the national government is very dependent on the local authorities in the support for arts and culture. Recognizing this, the national government has to be considerate towards the local authorities with regards to cultural policy.
4.2.2 Cultural policy process
The Cultural Policy Act also dictates that the minister has to present his/her directions for cultural policy to parliament for discussion. This is done through a four-year policy cycle. The whole system of policy formulation and subsidizing is based around this cycle and/or event. Accordingly, Dutch cultural policy renews itself in a cyclical manner every four years. For each policy cycle the ministry and the Council for Culture consult with cultural institutions, other relevant actors from the field and representatives from other levels of government (through the cultural covenants). This is a
19 mandatory element of the policy cycle as prescribed by the Cultural Policy Act (Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science 2016: 5-6).
4.2.3 Cultural policy objectives and focus
The general objectives of cultural policy can be found in the Cultural Policy Act. The objectives currently stated are quality and diversity (of cultural disciplines) (Van Meerkerk and Van den Hoogen 2018: 19). The following table illustrates the cultural policy themes and topics from the current (2017-20202) and the upcoming policy cycle (2021-2024).
Cultural policy cycle
Themes Cultural policy topic
Bussemaker: 2017-2020
Cultural education - cultural education
Talent development - talent development
Societal value - connections with other policy domains/themes: societal domain
- connections with other policy domains/themes: culture and science
- entrepreneurship
- cultural diversity (code cultural diversity)
Digitalization - digitalization Internationalization - internationalization - tourism Van Engelshoven: 2021-2024
Expansion and renewal - a renewal and expansion of the cultural of and of artists (also new art forms)
- festivals
- cultural offer for youth - spaces for development (BIS)
A strong cultural sector - honest reward, financial payment (labor market, fair practice code)
- support for (new ways of) financing in the cultural sector Culture from and for
everyone
- cultural participation - cultural education - immaterial heritage
Culture without borders - internationalization and international exchange
Table 4.2 - Themes and topics of cultural policy 2017-2020 and 2021-2024 (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2015; 2019)
4.3 Regionalization and new regionalism in the Netherlands
4.3.1 The importance/current status of national-regional collaboration
In a brochure from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2016), the importance of cooperation between different levels of government for cultural policy is illustrated:
“Cooperation between national government and the other tiers of government, the provinces and municipalities, deserves special attention. It is of crucial importance because all three tiers of government have the power to pursue their own autonomous cultural policy. Collaboration prevents fragmentation and bureaucracy and promotes cohesion and the effective use of available funds” (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016: 4-5) The current collaborative structure is laid down in the General Framework for Intergovernmental Relations that functions as the basis for the coordination of cultural policy between the three levels of government. As mentioned before, the division of tasks between different levels of government is not set in law, although this framework does provide for a rough division. One element of this are the cultural covenants, which will be discussed in the next section (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2016: 4-5; Van der Leden 2018: 8-9).
Another important reason for collaboration between the three levels of government (and the culture funds) is the fact that some cultural institutions receive funding from more than one of
20 these parties. Good contact and alignment in these matters is beneficial for the system and the cultural institutions involved. It also prevents fragmentation and bureaucracy and supports effective policymaking (Van der Leden 2018: 8-9).
4.3.2 Cultural Covenants
The cultural covenants are an element of the Dutch cultural policy system. They concern the collaboration between the national government and the provincial and municipal authorities. The collaborative partners involved in the cultural covenants are the three largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague) and five clusters of provinces and cities in the central (Utrecht and Flevoland), northern (Groningen, Drenthe, Friesland), eastern (Gelderland, Overijssel), southern (Zeeland, Noord-Brabant, Limburg) and western parts (Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland) of the Netherlands (Van der Leden 2018: 8-9).
The cultural covenants were instituted for the purpose of dividing tasks and responsibilities between the different levels of government. The covenants itself were instituted in 1993 by minister D’Ancona (Pots 2000: 354). The institution of the cultural covenants was connected to the revision of the cultural policy system which started with minister Brinkman in the 1980s, as described in section 4.2.1 (Pots 2000: 353-354). These covenants, however, have been found to not have an impact in the cultural policy process. In the current structure there is no real space for input from the provincial and local authorities. The cultural covenants are experienced as being directed by the ministry, which expects that the local and provincial authorities to adapt to the decisions made on the national level.
4.3.3 Regional Collaboration
As described in section 3.2 of the previous chapter, Groenleer and Hendriks (2018) argue that the regional collaborations that currently exist in the Netherlands have been influenced by processes of decentralization in the policy domains of youth care and spatial planning. They put forward that in the aftermath of these decentralization processes, local authorities collaborated on these policy domains to exploit larger economies of scale. They also remark that in various domains authority has been scaled up to the city-regional or metropolitan level. They add to this the observation that the provincial level is being bypassed in these processes because of perspectives of limited effectiveness and legitimacy of the province (Groenleer and Hendriks 2018: 7-8).
They note that regional collaborations for other policy domains were probably influenced by this. This could also be the case for previously developed regional collaborations for cultural policy such as the Metropolitan Region of Amsterdam (MRA), Brabantstad and We the North. These regional collaborations for culture have been influential in the development of the policy of the cultural city regions as will be remarked in section 6.1.2
21
5. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
The Netherlands is not the only country that has experienced processes of regionalization in/of cultural policy. Some prime European examples are Sweden, Denmark and England. Sweden and Denmark present similar cases to the Netherlands, whereas the United Kingdom presents an interesting example for comparison. Sweden and Denmark are based on a similar cultural policy tradition as the Netherlands. They are both considered to fall in the social-democratic policy
tradition, viewing cultural policy as an element of welfare policy. In contrast to the Netherlands they do view culture as a public good (Duelund 2001; Duelund and Kangas: 2003). The United Kingdom is considered to have a laissez-faire policy tradition based on the Arts Council model. As in the
Netherlands, culture is viewed as a private matter, however the structure and budget for cultural policy are different. Where in the Netherlands cultural policy is arranged starting from a central ministry, in England the Arts Council is the primary source of cultural policy activities. A more detailed description of cultural policy in each of the respective countries will be given in sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1 and 5.3.1 (Cultural policy system in Sweden, Denmark and England respectively). I will also elaborate on the experiences with regionalization in/of cultural policy for each country. At the end of the chapter I will compile the objectives, expectations and concerns present in the discourses surrounding these experiences. These objectives, expectations and concerns will present some possible effects of regionalization in/of cultural policy for the analysis of the case study.
5.1 Sweden
5.1.1 Cultural policy system
In the case of the Swedish cultural policy system, parliament is responsible for the legislation, national budget, general policies and provisions for government agencies. Parliament also
encompasses a Committee for Cultural Affairs. Parliament, thus, decides on the general framework for cultural policy (Harding 2016: 8; Johannisson 2011: 128).
The Ministry of Culture in Sweden handles the administrative and coordinating tasks of cultural policy, as compared to decision-making by parliament. The policy areas the ministry of Culture covers are the arts, cultural heritage, media, national minorities, civil society and human rights, democracy and policies against discrimination and racism. (Harding 2016: 9; Johannisson 2011: 128) (Swedish Arts Council 2019).
The current structure of the Swedish policy system does adhere to the arm’s length principle (Harding 2016: 5). The Swedish cultural policy system knows several cultural agencies that support the ministry of Culture in its administrative tasks. The most important one is the Swedish Arts Council which is responsible for the allocation of funding to theatre, dance, music, literature, arts periodicals, public libraries, the fine arts, museums and exhibitions. Together with other agencies, the Swedish Arts Council provides for the arm’s length principle by removing decisions about the content of arts and culture from the political sphere (Harding 2016: 9).
In the Swedish structure the central government determines what types of art are to be funded and the cultural agencies are responsible for allocating (a part of) the funding (Larsson 2003: 181).
The national government of Sweden spent 11.2 billion SEK in 2015 (1.2 billion euros), which is 43% of the total expenditure at approximately 25 billion SEK (2.7 billion euros) (Harding 2016: 31). This amount of money spent on arts and culture on the national level has grown over the past few years. The Swedish Arts Council distributes approximately 2.5 billion SEK for arts and culture yearly (approximately 236 million euros). A majority of this is said to be distributed to the Swedish regions (Swedish Arts Council 2019). The national government and other cultural agencies are responsible for the allocation of the rest of the funds. A part of this is used for direct funding of national institutions. The provincial and local level contribute to the expenditure of arts and culture by 15% and 42% respectively (Harding 2016: 31). The number of inhabitants of Sweden is almost 10 million (2017). This means that Sweden spends approximately 270 euros per person on arts and culture.
22 In 2007 and 2008 the Cultural Policy Commission evaluated Swedish cultural policy resulting in the New Government Bill on Cultural Policy in 2009, setting new objectives (Harding 2016: 3-6). The following objectives are stated in this bill:
“Culture should be a dynamic, challenging and independent force based on the freedom of expression. Everyone should be able to participate in cultural life. Creativity, diversity and artistic quality should mark society’s development” (Harding 2016: 6)
The New Government Bill also affected the roles of the levels of government in Sweden. This will be elaborated on in section 5.1.2.2.
5.1.2 Experiences with regionalization
5.1.2.1 Regional pilot project (1997 and onwards)
The first experience with regionalization in Sweden took place in the 1990s and early 2000s. During this period the government experimented with the regional governance of cultural policy and (regional) cultural institutions. These experiments were part of a larger regionalization process, the Regional Pilot Project. This project was aimed at improving regional development (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 339).
According to several authors, the new membership of the European Union and processes of European integration influenced developments towards regionalization in Sweden (Larsson 2003: 218; Johannisson 2011: 219; McCallion 2008; Baldersheim and Stahlberg 2002: 77). Other possible influences identified are globalization (also in reference to European integration), the decreasing relative importance of the central state, new regionalism (the EU’s strengthening of the position of the regions), privatization and kommundelsnämnder (the subdivision of municipalities that
increased local democracy) (McCallion 2008: 584). Duelund and Kangas (2003) also remark the influence of cultural decentralization stemming from the 1970s (Duelund and Kangas 2003: 385). In her text Multi-Level Governance in Sweden? Stegmann McCallion (2007) gives a description of the Regional Pilot Project (RPP) and its development. The Regional Pilot Project started on 1 July 1997. She says:
“The RPP entailed a transfer of power from the central state agency at the regional level – the County Administration Board (CAB) – to either a directly elected regional assembly, such as that of Skåne County Council or Västra Götaland County Council, or to the Regional Council, such as Kalmar County” (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 335)
The County Administration Boards functioned as the representative of the national government on the regional level. No new regional structure was instituted during regionalization processes. The responsibilities were rather transferred from representatives of the national government (the CAB’s in this case) to an indirectly or directly elected body on the regional level (the County Council or Regional Councils) (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 347).
Moreover, the Regional Pilot Project included the introduction of regional partnerships. The regional partnerships were aimed at increasing regional, local and non-public involvement in national policy (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 345). However, Hudson claims that the regional partnerships did not create a stronger role for the region/regional actors on the national level (Hörnström 2013: 428).
The desire for regionalization, Stegmann McCallion describes, came from actors on the regional and local levels (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 339). The Regional Pilot Project, thus, started as a bottom-up process, fueled by the wishes of regional and local actors to have more responsibility over policy
23 processes and more decision-making authority in their region (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 343). This is very much in line with trends of new regionalism as described in the first chapter.
Different rationales were used in the support of the Regional Pilot Project and the regional partnerships. The then minister for Interior (1996-98), Jörgen Andersson was motivated by greater democratic anchorage and more involvement of local and regional actors. In contrast, the then minister for Industry (1996-98), Anders Sundström was motivated by the efficiency associated with decentralization processes (Stegmann McCallion 2007: 336). Diverging viewpoints were thus present in the debates surrounding Swedish regionalization.
The experiments with regional governance of cultural policy and cultural institutions started in 1997 as well (Johannisson 2011: 129). As they are a part of the Regional Pilot Project, these experiments were introduced by the ministry of Interior, as opposed to the ministry of Culture. The experiments for regional cultural policy only comprised a small part of the Regional Pilot Project (Duelund and Larsson 2003: 395). The experimental trials for regional cultural policy administration started with three regions in 1997, one in 1999 and were later expanded (Larsson 2003: 231-232). The National Council for Cultural Affairs became involved in the experimental trials through regional cultural agreements (Larsson 2003: 232). Currently, only the region of Skåne and the Västra Götaland are continuing this trial (Stegmann McCallion 2008: 585; Johannison 2011: 135). The other regions fall under the new Cultural Cooperation Model discussed in the next section.
Although the desire for regionalization came from the local/regional actors (as in the case of new regionalism), they only received an improved position from processes initiated by the national government (regionalization). The regionalization processes took the form of decentralization through the transfer of authority from County Administration Boards (national actors on the regional level) to the County Councils or Regionals Councils and the regional partnerships. In reference to Stegmann McCallion in the chapter on regionalization, new regionalism without regionalization would lead to tensions between different levels of government. The rise of new regionalism in Sweden and the tensions created have also likely contributed to the regionalization of Swedish (cultural) policy.
5.1.2.2 New Government Bill on Cultural Policy & Cultural Cooperation Model (2009)
The New Government Bill on Cultural Policy, introduced in 2009, was the alternative following the Regional Pilot Project. In contrast to the Regional Pilot Project, however, this development strictly focused on cultural policy. As was already implemented with the Regional Pilot Project, responsibility for regional cultural policy stayed at the regional level. Within the Cultural Cooperation Model, the regional governments are obliged to create a regional cultural policy plan which must be approved by the Swedish Arts Council. The Swedish Arts Council acts as a representative of the national government in this matter. The plans must be approved before the transfer of the national funds to the regional authorities takes place. The regional governments are required to create the regional cultural policy plans in collaboration with the cultural sector to prevent the instrumentalization of cultural policy (Harding 2016: 4). Although regional governments only provide a small part of the finances for cultural policy, they do have a large say in cultural policy through the CulturalCooperation Model. The Cultural Cooperation Model was tested in five regions in 2011, followed by 11 more regions in 2012 (Harding 2016: 4) and is still ongoing.
Harding (2016) denotes some of the experiences with the Cultural Cooperation Model. He remarks that “as the model was implemented, representatives of artists became less critical to it. According to evaluations, financial priorities in regional cultural policy changed very little during its first years of implementation” (Harding 2016: 15).
