Contribution of Culture for Economic Development and Societal

Contribution of Culture for Economic Development and Societal Cohesion: in Search of the Theory of Change Darius Žeruolis Eglė Saudargaitė International Evaluation Conference Cohesion Policy 2014 -2020: Towards Evidence Based Programming and Evaluation 4 -5 July 2013, Vilnius, Lithuania

Outline 1. The context � The new programming and evaluation approach � Culture 3. 0 as emerging new paradigm � EU 2020 and EU SF for culture 2. The evidence from spending on culture and the social impact � Theory (P. Bourdieu, R. Putnam) � From EU SF 2007 -2013 (EENC reports on Hungary, Poland, Spain, Greece and Italy) � EU member states OMC working group on access to culture � ESSnet-Culture report on cultural practices and social aspects � Emerging research on the impact of culture (P. L. Sacco) 3. Programming of interventions for culture for 2014 -2020 in Lithuania and the logic of intervention 4. Conclusions

Centrality of theory of change � For 2014 -2020 EU programming period, more emphasis on causal linkages between desired results and operations designed to achieve them � Selection of operations should be grounded in theory of change, which becomes central. It: � should explain why and how the intervention works and how it produces intended (and unintended) effects � provides (technological) insights and a narrative � is not necessarily purely statistical or quantifiable � Sources to setup the logic of intervention (=operations to aim at desired results) � � Literature reviews, administrative data analysis, case studies; Empirical evidence, for example, the results of pilot projects; Evaluation and experience gained during the previous programming periods Experience gained from implementation of other (national) programmes European Commission The Programming Period 2014 -2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. Guidance Document

The (new) logic of intervention

Policy context and emerging new paradigm: towards Culture 3. 0 � Policy context is in transition from Culture 2. 0 to Culture 3. 0 (conceptualised by Prof. Pier Luigi Sacco, IULM University, Milan) � Culture 2. 0: � Mass consumption of culture, but production is limited by high entry barriers into the artistic professions � Move towards recognition of the economic value generated by culture (especially by the cultural and creative industries) � Main policy goal is about increased accessibility of culture, especially among disadvantaged social groups � Culture 3. 0: � Digital shift and availability of new technologies result in innovations of cultural production, � � � dense interaction Blurring boundaries between producers and consumers of cultural offerings Culture moves from leisure into everyday opportunity Creativity becomes important not only as an economic skill, but also as a enabling individual skill in easing adjustment to rapidly changing environment The policy goal is changing: it lays emphasis on recognising structural interdependencies of various sectors/policies and taking benefit of them Cultural policy should assist the move to Culture 3. 0 and to enable active participation in culture becoming a social norm and thus ensure ‘cultural welfare’ Recognition that development of expressive and creative skills and capacities is no longer a function of individual capabilities but will be increasingly driven by the social medium

What does the ‘classical’ theories tell us about the impact of culture? � Pierre Bourdieu – cultural capital is implicated in reproduction of class differences (through what he calls ‘habitus’ and tension between high an low culture) � Subsequent research suggests the elites turning into cultures ‘omnivores’, i. e. developing the taste for ‘low’ (popular) culture, but that the challenge remains for lower classes to consume high culture � Robert Putnam on the role of social networks: bonding (maintaining and reinforcing existing social relations) and bridging (facilitation of creation of new networks); � However, the building of such ‘bridging’ capacity so far has been attributed to participation in various civic activities (and not cultural practices) = Culture matters for social capital

Culture, EU level action and EU structural funds � Culture and EU 2020 strategy – � no separate thematic objective, but part of up to eight other objectives, which, if designed well, seemingly fits the new paradigm of culture � Fits well national policy environments where structural interdependencies between culture and other sectors are already captured and acted upon; in dominant vertical (sectoral) concepts of culture, the risk of marginalisation remains � Culture in disbursement of the EU structural funds : � 1999 -2006 – mostly to heritage to promote tourism � 2007 -2013 - support to CCI (cultural and creative industries) � 2014 -2020 – continuation/increase of support to CCI and digital culture, support to communal cohesion through regional (local) development initiatives (inspired by success of Leader type programmes of rural development); support to heritage and tourism only ‘on the case by case’ basis

Evidence from SF (Hungary, EENC report) � Benefited solidly from 2004 -2006 and 2007 -2013 EU budgetary programming frameworks, albeit in traditional fashion (heritage/tourism, social/cultural infrastructure) � Strong and solid investment during 2007 -2013 not only into heritage/tourism, but cultural institutions, especially the cultural ‘houses’ � But benefits to culture as a self-contained sector, which: � � is well organized with sufficiently good skills and well networked internationally (especially museums), but is less ready yet to give up the self-contained role and to explore (contribute to) economic and social benefits � CCI oriented approach has not yet taken root in Hungary – suggested focus for 2014 -2020. � Digitisation has been going well only in film (industry), the case of museums and archives is less clear; the impact of digitization of culture and production of digital contents on development is not clear � Participation in culture (conceived as traditional attendance of cultural institutions) is declining but the potential of new media has been untapped yet. � Proposals for 2014 -2020: � � � adaptation to Commission’s thematic objectives; continuation of established good record (heritage, libraries, linkages between culture and education), new elements – eg digital content; in many cases, just a preference for projects which produce cultural added value (often unspecified in concrete terms).

Evidence from SF (Poland, EENC report) � The biggest beneficiary in terms of culture in the EU during 2007 -2013 (1 billion EUR) � 40 % of total EU funds dedicated to culture were channeled through the national OP (infrastructure and Environment, priority ‘Culture and Heritage). All regional OPs also dedicated amounts to culture, although within their own specific contexts (mostly to heritage protection, tourism, urban development and recreation ). � Special programme of the Ministry of Culture was set up to guarantee co-financing on competitive basis (‘Promise of the Minister of Culture’). � The problem is solid evidence – Poland has no system for monitoring and evaluating of culture financing (including the use of EU funds for that purpose) � Good practices (four cases): a) new investment in cultural infrastructure on regional level, b) heritage renovation within the context of urban development (conversion), c) fusion of heritage and modern technologies, d) new investment (Copernicus science centre) on an enormous scale. � Impact: � � � � Availability of EU funds changed perception of culture and cultural investment among organisations: operators are now more inclined to talk about result orientation, efficiency and planning in general Awareness of culture as agent of socio-economic change is rising Still weak management and long term planning abilities rigid frameworks of annual budgetary calendars is a problem Lack of long term financial perspective and budgetary cuts because of crisis contributes to the lack of developmental visions and strategic planning Worries about underachievement of various planned indicators (for EU funding) as crisis resulted in cuts of operational expenditure 115 mio EUR spent on cultural activities and investment by NGOs, though 80% of this went to religious organisations. � Overall, culture as a sector was strengthened significantly during 2007 -2013 and is ready to take on the next one – 2014 -2020 � Polish views on the EC proposal for 2014 -2020: � � inadequate and argues for continuation of investment into cultural heritage and infrastructure (as well as digitalization). This is justified by an ‘exceptional situation’ in Poland not certain about Commission’s proposals towards CCI, because CCI situation and potential in Poland should be researched first

Evidence from SF (Spain, EENC report) � Pattern in Spain is very similar to Hungary and to an extent, in Poland � Spent on culture as a distinct sector; mostly for infrastructure, but little to supporting activities (‘connectivity to society’ measures) � Attitude of regional governments towards culture (policy) is problematic � Fragmented links between cultural sectors and civil society � Indicators for success are problematic to achieve � Fragmented policy planning for culture across all levels of governance � Culture based development is lacking in the National Reform Strategy � Partnership contract between EC and member states (Spain) can change the dominant paradigm of old culture and inject new energy into the system � Proposals for 2014 -2020 � Move from preservation of culture to the support of entrepreneurship of culture

Evidence from SF (Greece, EENC report) � Interesting examples of heritage preservation � Contradiction between the need to justify projects in economic terms and the absent requirement for cultural sustainability � Strengths of the Greek system – heritage, training in culture in special (higher education) schools, � Weaknesses – lack of cultural contents in education; regional concentration of EU spending on culture which reinforces regional inequalities; weak impact on audience development � Opportunities – young talent (mentioned in Spain too), potential of culture for socio-economic development � Threats- justification of spending only in economic terms, no reference to culture in EU 2020, renationalization of EU programmes weakens the role of culture

Evidence from SF (Italy, EENC report) � No coherent national strategy for strategic development of its cultural and creative sectors � Culture is still seen as renewable asset, therefore existing cultural vibrancy results only from (diminishing) historical rent � On the other hand, Italian cultural operators are flexible and imaginative people able to make most of any opportunity (resilient and therefore used to uncomfortable professional lives) � Little concern for international good practices and benchmarks � Too much emphasis on manufacturing of culture (core sectors) and not enough for creative � Only 0. 19% of public expenditure in Italy nowadays is devoted to culture, while even during and after the WWII Italy used to spend 0. 8% � Structural funds of EU may help bring culture back on track, especially by supporting non-market mediated forms of culture � SF 2014 -2020 should increasingly be spent on entrepreneurship, digitization of heritage and digital content

Evidence from the EU MS OMC WG � A big array of projects, but material descriptive and not enough analytical, little emphasis on impact � ‘any agenda for audience building is legitimate if the purpose is clearly stated’ � Cultural education within formal schooling is the key for acquired taste and demand for culture (this conclusion is supported by research in the Nordic countries , eg experiments with cultural “vouchers” in Norway) – this is the only firm conclusion on how to reach out to the disadvantaged � Demand side is a new focus, as cultural policies so far have been focused more on supply Policies and good practices in the public arts and in cultural institutions to promote better access to and wider participation in culture (Report produced by the working group of EU member states experts (open method of coordination) on better access and wider participation in culture, October 2012)

Evidence from ESSnet-Culture � “Social impact of cultural practices is still ‘terra incognita’ because hardly any empirical research has been done to compare the social impact of cultural participation to that of other voluntary social activities. The empirical evidence for the alleged contribution of culture to inclusive growth is missing until now”. ‘Task force 4. Cultural practices and social aspects of culture’, in ESSnet. Culture Final Report, 2012 � Move towards evidence based cultural policy making by co-ordinated EU level action is very recent (Council Conclusions under the Cypriot EU presidency in 2012 and EESnet-Culture expert proposals on a unified set of indicators and methodology )

P. L. Sacco and his approach to the indirect effects of cultural participation � Innovation � Welfare � Sustainability � Social cohesion � New entrepreneurship � Soft power � Local identity � Knowledge economy Still, more robust evidence building is needed, as well as contextual validation

Programming of interventions for culture in Lithuania: insights from LT 2030 strategy and NPP 2014 -2020 Lithuania is viewed as a relatively closed society with insufficient conditions for the development and expression of creativity: � 26 th among the EU member states in the index of (economic, social and political) globalisation, � 17 th - by creativity, 24 th – by climate for creativity � Low engagement in life-long learning – 21 st place in the EU (only 5% of those aged 25 -74 were engaged in 2012) � Relatively few dropouts from secondary schools and high involvement in the tertiary education (48% in 2012 in the age category of 30 -34 year olds), but the highest skills mismatch in the EU � Few students (15 year olds, OECD survey) achieving top performance in reading, mathematics and natural sciences (0. 1%, 1. 3% and 0. 4% of the age cohort respectively) � Rural-urban divide is still widespread and it affects educational attainment, the risk of being in social exclusion

Lithuania - civic engagement, tolerance and postmaterialist values � Modestly growing but still low civic engagement – the Civic Empowerment Index in Lithuania is only 35. 5 points out of 100, participation rate in NGO activities is only 11%, only 34% participate in activities of local communities (youth (16 -24 years of age) participation rate is by 11 pp higher and LEADER method in rural areas is a success). � Tolerance, solidarity and self-expression are considered important values by as few as 16% of the Lithuanian population � ‘Green’ attitudes and behavior still well beyond EU levels: only half of EU average purchase organic products or avoid disposable items (Eurobarometer, 2007) � Therefore, civic culture is still ‘parochial’

Lithuania - perceptions of cultural and political identity, solidarity � Only 23% (twice as low as the EU average) are very proud of the citizenship of Lithuania (2008 European values’ survey), though the Eurobarometer surveys return similar results to those in other EU member states (Germany is an outlier) � 60% feel unnecessary in the society (2011) � 50% would emigrate given a chance (2011) Trust in political institutions (except the President’s Office) is very low: � Only 4. 2% trust political parties, 8. 2% - Parliament and 23. 3% - the Government (February 2013, Vilmorus) � Only 6. 2% believe that politicians act in accordance to public interest (73% think that they are driven by self-interest, 2011, Kaunas Technological University) Likewise, only 23% think that other people can be trusted (February 2013, Vilmorus) NB 1 part of this is accounted by socio-tropic reasons (i. e. perception of economic outlook) NB 2 trust is back into the OECD post-economic crisis development policy debate. It is the centre-piece of its new approach to economic and social policy and the new social contract between governments and citizens.

Lithuania - cultural gap Cultural-artistic activities are not yet important for most Lithuanians: � 56% do not participate in any activities related to culture (38% in the EU on average), engagement in each and every artistic activity is lower than on average in the EU (Eurobarometer No. 67. 1, 2007) � only 2. 7% of the total household income are allocated to culture (far behind the EU average) � only 30% visited a site of cultural or natural heritage during last year (EU average was 45% in 2007) � Interest in national (49%), European (36%) and world (35%) culture – the lowest in the EU and the difference is significant (2007) � Overall media literacy is below EU average (75%), media accessibility is very low (68%) (2011, assessment by the European Association for Viewer’s Interests (EAVI) and Danish Institute of Technology) � Only 3% use e-heritage services � On the other hand, consumption patterns of culture are close to the EU average (except cinema)

Is it an outlier or part of some broader pattern? � While the gap between new EU member states and other postcommunist countries is widening, there are some cultural policy and cultural participation areas where these countries are different from Western Europe � People feel that they don’t lives as fulfilling � On the whole, do not participate in culture as intensively � Associate culture more with literature, manners and life style than civilisation Background paper on culture and development 20 years after the fall of communism in Europe (by Peter Inkei, Budapest regional observatory on financing culture in East Central Europe)

Culture as horizontal priority of NPP 2014 -2020: the logic of intervention

Conclusions � Culture matters, but the social impacts of culture have not yet been adequately researched in the EU member states; only some serious evidence exists, therefore, not much to learn from the ‘theory of change’ � EU funding is an important cultural policy stabiliser and driver in cohesion EU member states � It is important to go beyond established EU investments in culture (heritage, CCI and digitisation); focusing on demand is the key � The need to boost societal cohesion and trust is obvious in Lithuania � No ready recipes for programming interventions for culture in 2014 -2020; piloting and research is important � The challenge is to avoid an offer of more for existing consumers and participants in culture � It is an experiment worth pursuing, the issues are important not for Lithuania alone

Thank you � For more on the impact of culture as an agent of social and economic transformation, revisit Vilnius in October (Lithuanian EU presidency expert level conference ‘Ready for tomorrow? Culture as an agent for social and economic transformation’, 1 -2 October 2013)