Banovac_Culture and local development

2 downloads 0 Views 409KB Size Report
*CITERES-‐CNRS and Polytech Tours, University François Rabelais, Tours, France ... focuses on the traditional or 'high' arts, such as opera, classical music, dance, and so .... Analysis of culture as the instrument to meet the social, economic and .... arts, such as galleries, museums and concert halls (i.e. Bilbao bounce for a ...
Workshop  AttractVil   28-­‐29  November  2012,  Albi,  France    

CULTURE  AS  A  DRIVER  OF  THE  LOCAL  DEVELOPMENT?  GENERAL  LANDMARKS   AND  OPPORTUNITIES  FOR  SMALL  AND  MEDIUM-­‐SIZED  TOWNS    

Abdelillah  Hamdouch*,  Ksenija  Banovac*,  Christophe  Demazière*     and  Marc-­‐Hubert  Depret**   *CITERES-­‐CNRS  and  Polytech  Tours,  University  François  Rabelais,  Tours,  France   **CRIEF  and  University  of  Poitiers,  Niort,  France     Corresponding  Author:  Abdelillah  Hamdouch  (abdelillah.hamdouch@univ-­‐tours.fr)       INTRODUCTION     At  the  beginning  of  2000s,  the  role  of  culture  in  the  economy  was  widely  regarded  in  terms  of  its   potential  contribution  to  tourism.  However,  this  standpoint  has  begun  to  be  reviewed,  especially   after  the  appearance  of  Florida’s  publications  on  creative  class  (2002).  Culture  has  thus,  gained   increasing   recognition   as   a   factor   of   development   (Bayliss,   2004).   In   fact,   for   cities   to   enhance   their   competitiveness,   the   use   of   culture   as   a   driver   for   urban   growth   has   become   a   feature  of   the   policy   agenda   (Bayliss,   2007).   Nevertheless,   “there   are   still   many   who   are   sceptical   or   are   simply  unaware  of  its  potential  and  importance”  (CSES  and  ERICarts,  2010:  2).     “Definitions  of  culture  vary  along  a  continuum.  At  one  extreme,  a  narrow  conception  of  culture   focuses  on  the  traditional  or  ‘high’  arts,  such  as  opera,  classical  music,  dance,  and  so  on.  At  the   other   extreme,   broad   definitions   of   the   term  define   culture   as   a   ‘way   of   life’   which   embraces   the   way  we  eat,  live,  socialise,  holiday  and  so  on”  (Darlow,  1996:  293).         Group   of   urban   planners   and   urban   sociologists   gathered   around   the   project   “Empowering   territorial   development:   cultural   drivers   for   social   cohesion   -­‐   INSINTRIC”,   defined   two   basic   approaches   existing   in   the   scientific   literature   that   observes   the   relation   between   culture   and   territorial  development.  The  first  instrumental  approach  is  focused  on  the  competition  and  the   market   position.   The   key   elements   of   this   extrovert   standpoint   are   culture   tourism,   creative   clusters,  and  more  precisely,  creative  and  cultural  industries.  The  second  intrinsic  approach,  on   the  other  hand,  focuses  more  on  the  social  transformation  and  it  is  introvert  in  character.  Its  key   elements  are  educational,  traditional,  democratic  and  social  components  of  culture  (INSINTRIC   project  proposal,  2010).     In   analysing   the   culture   economy   across   Europe,   KEA   project   (2009)   defined   three   angles   through  which  culture  as  a  concept  can  be  approached:  (i)  culture  as  ‘art’:  “this  definition  uses   the  agrarian  metaphor  to  describe  the  work  completed  with  the  ‘mind’.  This  definition  is  highly   subjective  as  it  includes  a  quality  evaluation  of  what  art  is  or  is  not”  (p.  44);  (ii)  culture  as  a  set  of   attitudes,   beliefs,   customs,   values   and   practices   which   are   commonly   shared   by   a   group;   (iii)   culture   as   a   tool   to   qualify   a   sector   of   activity:   the   cultural   sector.   Here   culture   comprises   activities   that   involve   some   form   of   creativity   in   their   production,   that   are   concerned   with   the   1    

generation   and   communication   of   symbolic   means,   and   whose   output   potentially   embodies   at   least  some  form  of  intellectual  property  (p.  44).     In  terms  of  the  contribution  of  culture  to  the  economy,  “it  has  gradually  been  acknowledged,  in   particular,   with   the   development   of   the   cultural   industries.   Culture   contributes   directly   to   the   economy   as   it   provides   products   for   consumption,   namely   the   cultural   goods   and   services   embodied  in  books,  films,  music  sound  recordings,  concerts,  etc.”  (KEA,  2009:  31).     Is  cultural  diversity  a  competitive  asset  for  the  local  development?  Are  small  and  medium-­‐sized   towns  capable  to  pull  benefits  from  development  of  cultural  sector?  Are  there  opportunities  to   position  themselves  for  the  competition  on  the  broader  market?  What  are  the  weaknesses  and   strengths  of  the  cultural  sector  for  the  local  development?       The   aim   of   the   paper   is   observe   the   growing   role   of   culture   within   the   local   socio-­‐economic   development,  with  a  special  look  in  small  and  medium-­‐sized  towns  in  Europe.  The  first  part  of   the  paper  presents  evolution  of  instrumental  and  intrinsic  approaches  to  the  conceptualization   of   culture-­‐relating   notions.   Both   approaches   are   complementary   and   need   to   be   taken   into   account   while   analysing   the   cultural   contribution   to   the   local   development.   The   second   part   observes  more  in  detail  culture  as  catalyst  of  urban  regeneration  and  sustainable  development,   on  one  hand,  and  economic  benefits  of  cultural  and  creative  sectors  for  the  local  economy,  on  the   other.   Finally,   we   observe   the   articulation   of   culture   on   two   spatial   levels,   the   one   of   the   European   Union   and   the   other   of   the   small   and   medium-­‐sized   towns.   We   finish   our   paper   by   presenting   the   case   of   Obidos   in   Portugal   which   is   considered   to   be   a   successful   model   of   implementation   of   cultural   strategies.   The   other   case   of   Halle   an   der   Saale   in   Germany   is   to   present   the   mistakes   and   problems   which   may   occur   when   policy-­‐makers   try   to   force   local   development   of   some   cultural   sector   without   consideration   of   lacks   of   relevant   development   factors.       1. EVOLUTION  OF  CULTURE-­‐RELATING  CONCEPTS     It  seems  that  the  intrinsic  approach  has  its  origin  in  the  vision  of  culture  as  a  tool  for  personal   development  allowing  the  man  to  become  more  “human”.  In  that  respect,  culture  is  seen  as  a  tool   for  development  of  societies  as  to  improve  social  cohesion,  reduce  crime  and  set  some  common   social   frameworks.   On   the   other   hand,   instrumentalist   approach   is   much   more   related   to   the   economic   literature   that   sees   culture   as   an   opportunity   for   growth   and   better   socio-­‐economic   performance.  However,  we  stress  that  contemporary  definitions  of  culture  in  scientific  literature   are  far  more  complex  than  this  dual  standpoints.       In   order   to   better   understand   the   emergence   of   the   contemporary   scientific   debate   between   intrinsic  and  instrumental  approaches  to  culture,  it  is  necessary  to  look  for  evolution  of  thoughts   on  the  concept.       1.1. Early  anthropological  and  economic  literature     The   earliest   anthropological   literature   defines   culture   in   its   larger   sense   as   a   phenomenon   including   knowledge,   beliefs,   art,   moral,   laws,   customs   and   any   other   capabilities   and   habits   2    

acquired   by   a   man   as   a   member   of   society   (Tylor,   1881).   More   recent   anthropologists   such   as   Alfred   Kroeber   and   Clyde   Kluckhohn   (1952)   concentrate   their   work   around   listing   the   main   features   of   culture.   Thus,   the   list   encompasses   more   than   160   elements   among   which   are   religion,  law,  culinary  practices,  habits,  aesthetic,  etc.  Jean  Pierre  Martinon  (1997)  continues  in   the  same  direction  saying  that  in  fact  all  segments  and  aspects  of  social  life  are  culture,  as  well  as   everything   that   is   considered   as   an   organisation   and   a   symbolic   regulation   of   social   life   (Martinon,  1997).  For  André  Siegfried  (1953)  culture  is  also  a  concept  that  has  to  be  observed   from   the   individual,   personal   aspect.   In   that   sense,   being   cultivated   does   not   necessary   mean   being  educated,  but  embracing  whatever  the  tradition  of  previous  centuries  has  given  to  a  man   (Siegfried,  1953).       In   the   early   economic   science   literature,   cultural   activities   were   seen   as   non-­‐productive   occupations   (Smith,   1776)   and   as   non-­‐economic   activities   since   their   consummation   does   not   apply   the   law   of   decrease   of   marginal   utility   (Marshall,   1890).   However,   at   the   beginning   of   1960s,   John   Kenneth   Galbraith   (1960)   gave   a   new   insight   by   saying   that   artists   are   important   and  need  to  be  integrated  in  the  production  process.  The  reason  for  such  statement  came  from   the  observation  of  consumer’s  behaviour  in  poor  and  rich  societies:  in  poor  societies,  consumers   prefer   practical   quality   of   product   in   order   to   satisfy   their   basic   needs,   while   in   rich   societies,   they   also   want   the   product   to   be   beautiful.   And   exactly   at   that   last   point,   Galbraith   saw   the   important   role   of   artists.   Cultural   economy   was   introduced   by   William   Baumol   and   William   Bowen  (1966)  and  their  cost  disease  concept.    What  started  as  a  basic  model  for  understanding   the  economics  of  the  performing  arts  and  its  relation  to  other  service-­‐intensive  industries,  soon   developed  and  upgraded  to  more  efficient  tools  of  analysing  and  forecasting  the  interrelatedness   of   the   entire   economy   and   the   evaluation   of   cultural   impact,   i.e.   aggregate   and   sectorial   multipliers  or  input-­‐output  model  (Besharov,  2005;  Sparviero  and  Preston,  2010).       1.2. Recent  development  of  some  concepts     In  their  observation  of  evolution  of  arts  and  cultural  planning  in  the  UK,  Evans  and  Foord  (2008)   list  main  dominant  concepts  and  their  main  representatives  since  1900s:     • City  as  work  of  art  (1900s-­‐1910s):       Authors  Burnham  and  Howard;     Models  of  Paris,  Vienna,  Garden  City     • Cultural  zoning  (1910s-­‐1950s):       Authors  Bartholomew  and  Abercrombie;     Civic  cultural  centres,  city  functional  and  post-­‐war  master-­‐plans     • Cultures  of  communities  (1960s-­‐1970s):       Authors  Jane  Jacobs  and  Jennie  Lee;   Community  arts  facilities,  heritage  movement,  community  planning     • Flagship  facilities  (1970s):       Authors  Moses  and  Lane;    

3    







Lincoln  and  JFK  centres,  Sydney  Opera  House,  Quicy  Market  Boston,  Arts  Centres   movement.     Culture  in  development  and  regeneration  (1980-­‐1990s):       Author  Zukin  (culture  of  cities)   Progressive  cities/mayors;  Barcelona,  Baltimore,  Glasgow;     Culture  and  regeneration,  cultural  industries  strategies,  festival  marketplaces,   European  cities  of  culture     Creative  city  (1990-­‐2000s):     Authors  Landry,  Bianchini,  Florida,  Scott  and  Mercer;     Capitals  of  culture,  cultural  resources  planning,  creative  class,  creative  quarters     Sustainable  communities  (2001  to  date):     Compact  city,  high  density,  new  urbanism,  design  quality;  culture  and  quality  of   life,  liveability,  place-­‐shaping,  creative  clusters,  living  places.  

    The   above   mentioned   group   of   INSINTRIC   researchers   (2010)   bring   together   some   concepts   from  spatial  planning  and  development  analysis,  sociology  and  anthropology  used  in  the  study   of  territorial  development  in  order  to  identify  the  cultural  key  drivers  of  territorial  development.   They  highlight  five  domains  of  scientific  work  relating  culture  to  territorial  development:     • Analysis  of  culture  as  the  instrument  to  meet  the  social,  economic  and  political  objectives   of   the   city.   Urban   cultures   are   seen   as   ways   of   life   and   expression   of   social   and   institutional  relations  and  values,  social  citizenship  and  social  cohesion.     • Economic   instrumentality   of   culture.   The   role   of   culture   in   competitiveness   strategies,   but   with   an   accent   on   the   social   relations,   institutions,   social   groups   and   agencies   that   feed   this   ‘marketization’   of   urban   societies:   relation   of   place   competitiveness   to   social   cohesion.     • Besides  the  relation  of  creativity  and  innovation  for  the  economic  development  of  cities,   some   works   point   at   the   importance   of   cultural-­‐creative   dynamics   within   fragile   neighbourhood  and  minority  communities.  Thus,  there  are  some  analyses  on  social  and   institutional  innovation  to  overcome  fragmentation.     • Relation   of   culture   to   acts   of   citizenships,   more   precisely,   creation   of   new   spaces   for   public  debates.     • Traditional   forms   of   social   organization   have   been   replaced   by   transnational   forms   of   socio-­‐spatial   citizenship.   This   includes   activities   and   policies   to   cope   with   diversity   in   socio-­‐economically  marginalized  parts  of  the  town.     On   the   basis   of   these   identified   theoretic   framework,   the   group   identified   and   conceptualize   several  socio-­‐spatial  types  referring  to  place-­‐building  and  territorial  development  using  features   4    

of   economic   development,   social   organization,   socio-­‐political   governance,   cultural   processes,   citizen   practices,   place   building   practices   and   imaginaries,   institutional   frameworks   and   politics.   Some   of   those   socio-­‐spatial   types   are   driven   by   competitiveness   and   knowledge,   while   others   are  driven  by  solidarity  and  identity  building  (Table  1).     Table   1:   Profiles   of   socio-­‐spatial   types   referring   to   place-­‐building   and   territorial   development     Driven  by  competitiveness  and  knowledge   integration  of  institutional  organization  and   Industrial  districts/Learning  regions   governance;  social  learning  and  flexible   (Prato  and  Bilbao)   production  systems   link  of  localities,  quarters  or  clusters  to  wider-­‐ The  Knowledge  City  (Barcelona  and   scale  spatial  networks  (i.e.  boosting  knowledge   Sofia)   economy  activities  or  building  a  wider   knowledge  society)     Driven  by  solidarity  and  identity  building   small  sized-­‐bottom  up  initiatives  challenge  real   The  Social  Region  and  Integrated  Area   estate  redevelopment  strategies  that  are  threat   Development   to  the  social  cohesion,  or  turning  a  minority  or   sub-­‐cultural  identity  into  a  community  pride   bottom  linked  way  to  build  region-­‐wide   Socially  cohesive  territories  and  Socially   institutions  and  provide  resources  that  boost   cohesive  spatial  networks   initiatives  in  various  sectors  of  their  regional   communities   building  bridges  between  identity-­‐seeking   Polis  of  Citizens   groups  within  metropolises  of  diversity   seeking  cohesion  through  making  creative   The  Socially  Creative  Milieu   communities  through  arts  and  culture     Source:   Project   “Empowering   territorial   development:   cultural   drivers   for   social   cohesion   –   INSINTRIC”,   2010.  

    2. CULTURE  AND  LOCAL  DEVELOPMENT       Scientific   literature   on   cultural   contribution   to   local   development   largely   covers   the   subject   of   gentrification  of  an  area  via  cultural  renaissance  of  territories.  Culture  has  become  a  key  factor   in  development  strategies  after  the  recognition  of  “a  fundamental  problem  of  consumption-­‐led   strategies   [which]   has   also   been   an   apparent   incompatibility   between   economic   and   social   objectives,   leading   to   conflicts   between   city   centre   and   periphery,   tourists   and   residents,   economic  development  and  quality  of  life  goals”  (Bayliss,  2004:  819).       Moreover,   the   European   Commission   has   defined   very   clearly   three   key   roles   of   culture   for   local   development:     5    







Cultural   activities   have   the   potential   to   attract   tourists,   so   their   impact   on   the   local   economy   can   be   direct   (creation   of   income   and   employment)   and   indirect   (through   tourist  spending  on  hotels,  restaurants,  as  well  as  quality  of  life  that  attract  tourists  and   investors);   Cultural   goods   and   services   are   local   products   that   can   be   exported   and   consumed   outside   the   area   of   production.   For   example   cultural   and   creative   industry   can   do   particularly  well  at  the  local  level  and  benefit  from  clustering;   Cultural   activities   also   have   a   social   impact,   such   as   via   different   social   regeneration   projects  to  include  marginalized  groups,  or  projects  to  ensure  better  cohesion  between   the   rich   and   poor   areas,   or   via   projects   with   the   objective   of   improving   the   communication  between  different  ethnic  groups  (KEA,  2006).  

  In   the   following   chapters,   we   analyse   two   main   aspects   of   cultural   contribution   to   local   development   that   have   been   widely   observed   in   literature.   Firstly,   we   are   interested   in   the   presence   of   culture-­‐led   strategies   in   the   processes   of   urban   regeneration   and   sustainable   development,   where   in   fact   culture   has   been   seen   as   their   catalyst.   Here,   culture   is   not   only   a   tool   to   redesign   or   remake   urban   areas   in   order   to   change   their   look   or   even   to   make   them   attractive  to    population  or  businesses,  but  also  as  an  important  tool  in  service  of  empowerment   and  social  cohesion.  Secondly,  we  focus  on  economic  benefits  as  outcomes  of  cultural  activities.   In   that   respect,   we   continue   with   the   presentation   of   the   main   characteristics   of   cultural   economy  and  cultural  and  creative  industries  (CCI).       2.1. Approach   to   urban   regeneration   and   sustainable   development:   culture   as   catalyst     Many   recent   works   (Darlow,   1996;   Scott,   1997;   Montgomery,   2003;   McCarthy,   2005;   Cameron   and   Coaffee,   2005;   Cohendet,   Grandadam   and   Simon,   2009;   Marling,   Jensen,   and   Kiib,   2009)   stress  above  all,  the  benefits  that  culture  can  offer  to  local  development.  More  in  particular,  there   is  a  great  interest  in  the  contribution  of  culture  to  revitalisation  of  urban  areas  and  creation  of   sustainable   communities.   Cameron   and   Coaffee   (2005)   list   three   models   of   gentrification   that   are  based  entirely  on  culture:  (i)  the  creation  by  artists  of  a  milieu  for  the  production  of  art;  (ii)   the   commodification   and   private   consumption   of   this   artistic   milieu;   (iii)   public-­‐policy   engagement  and  link  to  regeneration,  is  on  the  public  consumption  of  art,  through  public  art  and   artistic  events,  and  particularly  through  the  creation  of  landmark  physical  infrastructure  for  the   arts,   such   as   galleries,   museums   and   concert   halls   (i.e.   Bilbao   bounce   for   a   declining   industrial   city)  (Cameron  and  Coaffee,  2005).     It   is   generally   accepted   that   the   implementation   of   culture   within   strategies   for   development   will   result   in   positive   outcomes   such   as:   (i)   greater   opportunities   for   socialization   and   contact   across   different   sections   of   the   population,   and   encouraging   greater   understanding   between   groups   and   increased   social   cohesion;   (ii)   participatory   arts   activities   can   reposition   both   the   external   and   internal   identity   of   places;   (iii)   local   cultural   activities   can   also   contribute   to   community   empowerment,   planning   such   activities   can   counteract   the   exclusion   of   the   local   residents   from   the   decision-­‐making   process,   whilst   strengthening   community   institutions   and   voluntary   groups   by   developing   their   funding,   managerial,   administrative   and   organisation  

6    

skills;  (iv)  personal  growth  through  the  use  of  local  cultural  activities:  benefits  for  children  and   young  adults  (Bayliss,  2004).     In   observing   the   potential   link   between   culture   and   planning   for   sustainable   development,   Darlow  (1996)  identifies  quality  of  life  in  the  broader  sense  (that  is,  taking  non-­‐economic  factors   into  account,  such  as  air  quality,  accessibility  and  social  interaction)  as  their  bridging  principle.   Darlow’s   conclusions   go   in   line   with   Bayliss’s   arguing   how   arts   programmes   “enhance   social   cohesion,   improve   local   image,   promote   interest   in   the   local   environment,   build   private   and   public  sector  partnerships,  enhance  organisational  capacity,  and  explore  visions  of  the  future,  all   of  which  may  also  be  central  goals  for  a  more  sustainable  society”  (p.  296).  Finally,  “the  culture   and  attitudes  of  the  inhabitants  and  key  players  within  a  city  will  have  a  profound  effect  on  the   level   of   creativity   that   is   allowed   to   develop.   Therefore,   creativity   is   necessary   for   sustainable   development   because   it   allows   cities   to   respond   to   changing   circumstances   and   to   develop   innovative  solutions  to  urban  and  environmental  problems”  (Darlow,  1996:  296).     “Culture-­‐led   approaches   to   regeneration   can   lead   to   economic   diversification,   involving   stimulation   of   innovation   and   creativity,   high-­‐quality   employment,   retention   of   income   in   a   locality   and   promotion   of   partnership   working.   They   can   also   contribute   to   ‘place   marketing’   through   image   enhancement,   which   in   turn   encourages   inward   investment   within   a   context   of   globalised   competition.   In   addition,   such   approaches   can   bring   increased   participation   in   the   arts   and   cultural   activity   which   can   encourage   cooperation,   cultural   understanding,   and   social   integration   and   cohesion,   particularly   in   cities   where   the   population   is   relatively   diverse   and   fragmented.   Such   effects   may   also   be   linked   to   reduction   in   crime   and   more   sustainable   development”  (McCarthy,  2005:  298)     Nevertheless,   some   authors   warn   about   the   negative   outcomes   that   might   appear   such   as   the   mentioned   incompatibility   between   economic   and   social   priorities   in   the   strategy   creation.   Firstly,   unskilled   workers   have   no   access   to   increased   employment   in   the   sunrise   sectors,   employment   in   the   traditional   sectors   doesn’t   grow,   and   jobs   created   in   the   consumer   service   sector   are   often   characterized   by   part-­‐time   work,   low   pay   and   poor   level   of   job   satisfaction.   Secondly,   the   use   of   culture   to   sell   places   can   marginalize   indigenous   local   and   regional   cultures   and   identities   because   of   the   preference   for   safe   art   and   big   names   that   attract   commercial   sponsors   and   large   audiences   (Bayliss,   2004).   Thirdly,   gentrification   of   an   area   because   of   its   cultural   reputation   can   displace   indigenous   communities   and   businesses.   Regeneration   strategies  based  around  the  cultural  renaissance  of  city  centres  can  exclude  low-­‐income  groups   living  in  marginalized  inner-­‐city  areas  and  peripheral  housing  estates.  In  fact,  a  potential  conflict   arises   in   terms   of   the   tendency   for   cultural   policies   to   focus   on   the   need   to   revitalise   the   city   centre,  so  the  centre  becomes  a  focal  point  for  cultural  renewal,  at  the  cost  of  peripheral  areas.   Last  but  not  least,  one  of  the  key  problems  of  urban  renewal  through  the  arts  and  culture  is  the   danger   of   gentrification   of   certain   areas,   “pricing   out   many   groups   and   effectively   becoming   a   cultural  ghetto  which  is  off  limits  to  the  use  of  the  local  community”  (Darlow,  1996:  299).       2.2. Pushing  culture  further:  economic  benefits  of  cultural  and  creative  sectors     Publications  on  the  economy  of  culture  using  the  variety  of  terminology  are  astonishing.  These   include  notions  such  as  cultural  industries,  copyright  industries,  content  industries,  experience   7    

economy,   creative   business   sector,   art   centric   businesses,   cultural   and   communication   industries,   media   industries   and   knowledge   economy   (KEA,   2009).   However,   the   framework   that   has   been   accepted   widely   in   Europe   and   that   takes   into   account   different   approached   in   European  countries  is  distinguishing  “a  cultural  sector  as  constituted  of  traditional  art  fields,  and   cultural   industries,   whose   outputs   are   exclusively   ‘cultural’   and   the   creative   sector   which   gathers  the  remaining  industries  and  activities  that  use  as  an  added-­‐value  for  the  production  of   non-­‐cultural  products”  (KEA,  2009:  53).     i. Cultural   activities   are   encouraged   at   a   local   level   because   of   their   ability   to   attract   tourists.  On  one  hand,  culture  generates  the  revenues  and  employment  for  the  territory.   “The   organisation   of   a   festival   or   an   art   fair,   the   running   of   a   museum   or   an   opera,   entail   expenditure  in  a  local  area  (administrative  and  creative  staff,  technicians,  media  services,   insurance  services,  etc.  )  that  are  directly  linked  to  these  activities”  (KEA,  2009:  145).  On   the   other   hand,   culture   generated   revenues   through   cultural   tourism   (such   as   tourists’   spending   on   hotels,   restaurants,   transport,   etc.).   “More   intangible   impacts   are   the   reinforcement  of  the  image  of  a  city  and  the  improvement  of  its  quality  of  life  that  trigger   interest  from  tourists  and  investors  (soft  location  factor)”  (KEA,  2009:  145).     ii. Culture   goods   and   services   are   produced   at   a   local   level   even   when   exported   and   consumed   outside   their   territory   of   production.   “Cultural   industries   constitute   a   sector   which   is   performing   particularly   well   at   a   local   level.   The   economic   function   of   culture   is   even   more   relevant   at   this   level   since   the   nature   of   cultural   goods’   and   works   of   art’s   production   benefits   from   operating   through   cultural   clusters   on   a   limited   territory”   (KEA,  2009:  145).                                                 8    

Figure  1:  Delineation  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sector   Source:  KEA,  2009,  p.  56   “Many   complex   interactions   between   the   cultural   and   the   economic   are   set   in   motion”   (Scott,   1997:  325).  Culture  is  now  both  an  economic  sector  embedded  in  diverse  growth  industries  that   can  contribute  to  increased  employment  and  area  regeneration,  and  a  resource  crucial  to  the  re-­‐ imaging   of   cities   and   regions   as   places   for   tourists,   investment   and   mobile   skilled   labour   (Bayliss,  2007).     Report  made  by  KEA  (2009)  distinguishes  two  roles  of  culture  in  local  economic  development:   9    

  As   summarized   by   Scott   (1997),   the   three   main   economic   goals   of   cultural   policies   are:   (i)   creation  of  employment  and  encouragement  of  economic  activities  via  consummation  of  cultural   infrastructure;  (ii)  territorial  regeneration   meaning   the   improvement   of   image   and   reputation;   (iii)  attractiveness  of  the  territory  to  business,  inhabitants  and  tourists  (Scott,  1996).     As   mentioned,   the   concept   of   cultural   economy   was   introduced   through   works   of   Baumol   and   Bowen  (1966).  They  illustrate  the  cost  disease  with  a  two-­‐sector  model  economy.  In  one  sector   there   is   annual   productivity   growth   and   in   the   other   sector   productivity   is   stagnant.   The   growth   sector  can  be  through  to  represent  a  manufacturing  industry  in  which  labour-­‐saving  technology   is   constantly   being   improved:   the   no-­‐growth   sector   represents   an   arts   activity   in   which   technology   is   constant,   the   classic   example   being   a   string   quartet   that   always   requires   four   musicians.  The  two  sectors  share  a  common  market  for  labour.  With  wages  based  on  output,  the   rising  productivity  in  the  growth  sector  results  in  a  rising  wage  in  both  sectors.  Since  the  wage   goes   up   and   productivity   remains   constant   in   the   arts   sector,   its   cost   of   production   rises   relative   to   the   manufacturing   sector.   With   the   further   assumption   of   process   proportional   to   costs,   the   relative   price   of   output   in   the   arts   sector   will   increase   relative   to   the   other,   which   is   a   cost   disease  (Besharov,  2005).     In  more  recent  works,  cultural  economy  overgrew  its  basic  definition  introduced  by  Baumol  and   Bowen   and   it   refers   to   a   diverse   collection   of   sectors   displaying   many   different   kinds   of   technologies,   transactional   arrangements,   employment   profiles   and   products.   However,   there   are  some  common  characteristics:     • The  technologies  and  labour  processes  usually  involve  considerable  amounts  of  human   handiwork  (clothing  industry)  and  advanced  flexible  computer  technologies  (multimedia   industry);   • Production  is  organised  in  dense  networks  of  small  and  medium-­‐sized  establishments;   • These  networks  tend  to  exert  huge  demands  on  local  labour  markets  and  to  require  an   enormous  variety  of  worker  skills;   • Agglomeration  gives  them  rise  above  all  in  the  mutual  learning  and  cultural  synergies;   • Agglomeration  facilitates  the  emergence  of  institutional  infrastructures  that  ease  the   functioning  of  the  local  economy  (Scott,  1997).     Success   of   the   cultural   economy   depends   not   only   upon   the   ability   to   “tap   deeply   into   local   sources   of   value-­‐adding   externalities   and   innovative   energy”   (Scott,   1997),   but   also   to   be   able   to   reach  and  stay  on  wider  national  and  international  markets.     The  most  visible  aspect  of  the  contribution  of  culture  to  local  development  is  the  link  between   culture   and   tourism   (KEA,   2009).   Firstly,   the   existence   of   historic   buildings   and   authentic   heritage  sites  are  important  to  tourist  when  they  make  a  decision  to  visit  a  destination.  Efforts  to   restore   and   preserve   heritage   represents   “a   key   competitive   tool   to   promote   attractiveness   to   certain   locations   to   people   from   all   over   the   world”   (p.   147).   Secondly,   cultural   diversity   combined   with   the   attractive   landscapes   and   gastronomy   is   “a   strong   advantage   in   the   competition   with   other   tourist   destinations”   (p.   147).   Finally,   well   developed   tourism   infrastructure   (i.e.   roads,   transport,   communication,   accommodation)   are   also   among   the   important  factors  of  better  attractiveness  of  certain  territories  (p.  147).     10    

Quinn   (2005)   demonstrates   the   inter-­‐relatedness   of   culture   and   economy   through   festival   tourism.   She   observes   three   main   dynamics.   Firstly,   festivals   emerge   as   a   social   tool   through   which  people  can  express  their  identities,  connect  with  their  place  and  communicate  with  each   other.  Secondly,  sustainable  tourism  relays  on  the  assurance  of  renewable  economic,  social  and   cultural  benefits  to  the  community,  and  thus  social,  cultural  and  economic  well-­‐being  of  people.   “By  extension,  a  key  principle  underpinning  the  development  of  festivals  for  tourism  purposes   must   be   to   consolidate   and   enhance   the   role   that   festival   practice   play   in   sustaining   communities”   (p.   290).   Finally,   festivals   can   create   and   intensify   awareness   of   particular   art   forms,  and  thus  enhance  an  expanding  venue  infrastructure  and  create  demand  for  new  services   and  products  (Quinn,  2005).         3. ARTICULATION  ON  DIFFERENT  SPATIAL  LEVELS     Scott  (1997)  makes  a  comparison  arguing  how  “the  geography  of  culture,  like  the  geography  of   economic   activity,   is   stretched   across   a   tense   force   field   of   local   and   global   linkages,   with   production  occurring  predominantly  in  localized  clusters,  while  final  outputs  are  channelled  into   ever   more   spatially   extended   networks   of   consumption.   Accordingly,   if   some   local/regional   cultures  are  under  serious  threat  at  the  present  time,  others  are  finding  widening  and  receptive   audiences”  (Scott,  1997).       3.1. The  European  Union     The  European  Agenda  for  Culture  (2007)  is  the  basic  document  addressing  the  issue  of  culture   in  the  European  context.  The  Agenda  is  highlighting  three  strategic  objectives  as  follows:  (i)  the   promotion  of  (inter-­‐)cultural  diversity,  (ii)  promotion  of  culture  as  a  catalyse  for  creativity  in  the   framework  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  for  growth,  employment,  innovation  and  competitiveness,  (iii)   the   promotion   of   culture   as   a   vital   element   in   relations   within   the   EU   (European   Council,   2007).   It   is   particularly   significant   that   the   Agenda   emphasizes   the   need   to   “promote   the   establishment   of   training   facilities   management,   trade,   and   entrepreneurship,   specifically   adapted   to   professionals   in   cultural   and   creative   industries”.   As   well   as   “to   promote   an   environment   that   enhances  the  development  of  cultural  and  creative  industries,  especially  those  of  SMEs,  through   better  use  of  existing  programs  and  initiatives  and  by  stimulating  creative  partnerships  between   cultural   sector   and   other   sectors,   taking   into   consideration   the   context   of   local   and   regional   development”  (European  Council,  2007).     Published  in  2010,  Green  Paper  on  the  CCI  aims  at  collecting  opinions  on  the  preconditions  for  the   cultural   and   creative   industry   in   Europe.   In   the   document,   the   cultural   diversity,   the   technological   shift  and  globalization  are  identified  as  the  main  drivers  of  the  development.  In  addition,  the  clear   recognition   is   given   to   the   importance   of   local   and   regional   development   and   to   exploitation   of   local  potentials,  especially  creative  clusters  that  are  seen  as  a  tool  for  a  stronger  global  presence,   increase   of   exchange   and   mobility.   The   Green   Paper   also   stresses   that   “the   CCI   often   contribute   to   stimulation  of  local  economies  in  decline,  to  favour  the  emergence  of  new  economic  activities,  to   create  new  and  sustainable  jobs  and  increase  the  attractiveness  of  regions  and  cities  in  Europe”   (COM  2010,  183:3:  16).     11    

In   that   context,   it   is   necessary   to   mention   different   programs   and   actions   within   the   EU,   which   have   the   objectives   of   promoting   cultural   heritage   and   diversity.   The   EU’s   Culture   programme   (2007-­‐2013)   includes   projects   and   initiatives   for   the   enhancement   of   shared   cultural   heritage   through   the   development   of   cross-­‐border   cooperation   between   cultural   actors   and   institutions.   The   European   Capitals   of   Culture   is   an   initiative   that   highlights   the   richness   and   diversity   of   European   cultures,   but   also   it   is   an   opportunity   to   regenerate   cities,   to   raise   their   international   profile,   to   enhance   their   international   visibility,   to   boost   tourism   and   to   enhance   their   image   in   the   eyes   of   their   own   inhabitants.   The   Culture   Programme   also   awards   prizes   in   cultural   heritage,   architecture,  literature  and  music;  but  also  the  European  Heritage  Label  that  highlights  sites  that   symbolise  and  celebrate  the  integration;  deals  and  history  of  the  EU.       Nevertheless,  one  of  the  biggest  initiatives  at  the  European  level  are  the  Structural  Funds  which   are   an   important   mechanism   of   the   EU   to   financially   support   social   and   economic   development.   According  to  the  study  CSES  and  ERICarts  (2010)  in  the  programming  period  2007-­‐2013,  out  of   total   amount   of   347   billion   EUR,   6   billion   EUR   (1.7%)   have   been   allocated   for   culture   based   project.  The  programs  supported  by  the  Structural  Funds  focus  on  three  priorities:  (i)  improving   the   attractiveness   of   Member   States,   regions   and   cities;   (ii)   encouraging   innovation,   entrepreneurship  and  the  growth  of  the  knowledge  economy;  (iii)  the  employment  creation  (CSES   and  ERICarts,  2010).     More  precisely,  in  the  Structural  Funds  programming,  the  culture  is  considered  as  essential  for  the   attractiveness   of   Europe   and   its   regions   to   investment,   business   and   high-­‐skilled   population.   Cultural  activities  and  equipment  play  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  cities,  especially  in   terms  of  the  rehabilitation  of  old  industrial  areas.  Moreover,  cultural  heritage  is  seen  as  important   in  the  development  of  rural  areas,  including  rural  tourism.  Finally,  the  contribution  of  culture  to   sustainable,   high   quality   and   integrated-­‐to-­‐other-­‐sector   tourism   has   been   recognized   (CSES   and   ERICarts,  2010).       According   to   the   Green   Paper   (2010),   the   CCIs   “develop   at   the   local   and   regional   levels,   where   networking   and   clustering   function.   […]   CCIs   often   contribute   to   boosting   local   economies   in   decline,  contributing  to  the  emergence  of  new  economic  activities,  creating  new  and  sustainable   jobs   and   enhancing   the   attractiveness   of   European   regions   and   cities.   Indeed,   regional   and   local   development   strategies   have   successfully   integrated   CCIs   in   many   areas:   promotion   of   cultural   heritage   for   business   use;   development   of   cultural   infrastructure   and   service   to   support   sustainable   tourism;   clustering   of   local   businesses   and   partnership   between   CCIs   and   industry,   research,   education   and   other   sectors;   setting   up   of   innovation   labs;   development   of   cross-­‐border   integrated   strategies   to   manage   natural   and   cultural   resources   and   revitalize   local   economies,   sustainable  urban  development”  (COM  2010,  183:3:16,  p.  13).       At  the  European  level,  there  is  no  reliable  and  comparable  statistics  to  analyse  precise  results  of   the  contribution  of  the  CCIs  to  economic  and  social  development.  However,  the  network  ESSnet-­‐ Culture  is  in  process  of  gathering  results  across  the  EU  that  will  enable  a  comparison  between  the   Member  States.       In  2006,  the  KEA  European  Affars,  Media  Group  and  MKW  Wirtschaftsforschung  GmbH  conducted   the   first   study   of   direct   and   indirect   contribution   of   CCIs   to   Lisbon   Agenda   at   the   national   level,   which  can  be  summarized  as  follows:     12    

  • The   cultural   and   creative   sector   generated   a   turnover   of   more   than   654   billion   EUR    in   2003  (more  than  automobile  industry  in  2001  or  ITC  industry  in  2003);   • The   cultural   and   creative   sector   contributed   to   2.6%   of   the   EU   GDP   in   2003  (more   than   real  estate,  textile  industry  or  rubber  industry  the  sale  year);   • The  added-­‐value  of  the  sector  increased  by  19.7%  from  1999  to  2003;   • The   growth   of   the   cultural   and   creative   sector   in   Europe   from   1999   to   2003   was   12.3%   higher  than  the  growth  of  the  general  economy  (KEA,  2009).     In   2011,   Eurostat   published   a   “Pocketbook”   on   cultural   statistics   in   Europe   that   presented   a   statistical   overview   of   the   economy   and   cultural   activities   in   the   EU.   According   to   that   analysis,   in   2009   at   the   level   of   the   EU-­‐27,   about   3.6   million   people   worked   in   the   cultural   sector,   which   is   1.7%  of  the  total  employment.  The  percentage  of  employment  in  cultural  sector  was  particularly   high  in  the  Nordic  countries  and  particularly  low  in  Portugal,  Romania  and  Turkey  (Table  2).         Table  2:  Number  of  jobs  in  the  cultural  sector  and  its  share  in  total  employment  in  selected   countries  in  2009       COUNTRIES  

TOTAL   EMPLOYMENT  

CCI     EMPLOYMENT  

SHARE  OF  CCI  IN   TOTAL  EMPLOYMENT  

EU-­‐27   FRANCE   UNITED  KINGDOM   GERMANY   SPAIN   SWEDEN  

217.828.000   25.704.000   28.923.000   38.797.000   18.888.000   4.499.000  

3.638.500   437.3000   597.100   847.200   243.400   105.300  

1,7%   1,7%   2,1%   2,2%   1,3%   2,3%  

  Source  :  Eurostat  (2011),  Cultural  statistics,  p.  68.  

  In  addition  to  national  statistics,  in  the  EU  there  are  regions  and  cities  where  the  share  of  the  CCI   in   total   employment   and   the   growth   dynamics   are   higher   and   differ   significantly   from   their   national  average.  For  example,  according  to  the  study  of  CSES  and  ERICarts  (2010)  that  refers  to   the  results  of  the  GLA  London  on  creative  sector,  in  2002  London  had  over  15%  of  its  workforce   employed   in   the   ICC.   Thus,   the   employment   in   the   creative   sector   was   higher   than   in   the   financial   sector,   which   puts   London   among   one   of   the   biggest   creative   clusters   in   the   world.   There   are   also   other   examples   across   the   EU.   In   2006,   Berlin   had   10%   of   the   active   population   in   the   creative   sector,  while  Milan,  Rome  and  Madrid  have  reached  the  figure  of  10%  already  at  the  beginning  of   2000s  (CSES  and  ERICarts,  2010).  Different  dynamics  in  the  ICCs  are  illustrated  in  the  map  of  the   European   Cluster   Observatory   in   2009   that   compares   the   share   of   jobs   in   the   creative   industry   clusters  (Figure  2).               13    

    Figure   2:   Share   of   the   employment   in   the   creative   clusters   in   total   employment   of   the   EU   in   2009     Source:  European  Cluster  Observatory  (2009)  in  the  Centre  for  Strategy  and  Evaluation  Services  LLP  (CES)   and  ERICarts  Institute  for  the  European  Commission’s  DG  Education  and  Culture  (2010),  The  contribution  of   culture  to  local  and  regional  development  –  Evidence  from  the  structural  funds,  Kent:  UK,  p.  19.  

  Among   the   results   of   KEA   European   Affairs   on   various   aspects   of   the   economics   of   culture,   particularly   interesting   appears   to   be   figures   on   productivity   and   profitability1   .   At   the   national   level,   results   show   that   the   creative   and   cultural   sector   in   Europe   is   as   competitive   as   other   industry  sectors  –  in  some  cases  even  more  (Table  3).                  

                                                                                                                          1   “Productivity   is   the   ration   between   value-­‐added   and   employment   costs.   This   indicator   shows   how   much  

value   is   created   for   every   Euro   spent   on   employment   costs   (wages,   salaries   and   social   costs).   Profitability   is   measured   by   the   operating   margin   of   companies   active   in   the   cultural   and   creative   economy.   This   indicator  shows  what  percentage  of  the  turnover  is  left  after  the  deduction  of  operating  costs”  (KEA,  2009:   103).  

14    

Table   3:   The   evolution   of   the   productivity   and   profitability   of   the   CCIs   in   EU   selected   countries  for  the  period  2000-­‐2003.     Evolution  of  productivity   (2000-­‐2003)  

COUNTRY     EU-­‐25   FRANCE   UNITED  KINGDOM   GERMANY   SPAIN   SWEDEN  

2000   1,45   1,62   1,47   1,40   1,5   1,56  

2001   1,45   1,56   1,36   1,54   1,44   1,51  

2002   1,48   1,59   1,29   1,52   1,43   1,37  

Evolution  of  profitability   (2000-­‐2003)   2003   1,52   1,59   1,38   1,55   1,43   1,49  

2000   9,3%   11,7%   8,7%   9,6%   9,2%   10,9%  

2001   8,9%   10,8%   8,9%   9,6%   8,3%   10,1%  

2002   10%   11,1%   8,7%   7,2%   8,5%   9,5%  

2003   9%   10,8%   8,7%   8,7%   8%   9,9%  

  Remark:  “Productivity  is  the  ration  between   value-­‐added  and  employment  costs.  This  indicator  shows  how   much   value   is   created   for   every   Euro   spent   on   employment   costs   (wages,   salaries   and   social   costs).   Profitability   is   measured   by   the   operating   margin   of   companies   active   in   the   cultural   and   creative   economy.   This  indicator  shows  what  percentage  of  the  turnover  is  left  after  the  deduction  of  operating  costs”  (KEA,   2009:  103).     Source:  KEA  European  Affars,  Media  Group  and  MKW  Wirtschaftsforschung  GmbH  (2009),  The  economy  of   culture  in  Europe,  p.  104,  online  [URL]:  http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-­‐documents/doc873_en.htm  

    Regarding  the  trade  of  cultural  goods,  Eurostat’s  statistics  present  the  import  and  export  of  books,   newspapers,  musical  instruments,  works  of  art  and  collection  items.  In  2009,  the  EU-­‐27  exported   more   cultural   goods   to   the   rest   of   the   world   than   it   imported,   recording   a   trade   surplus   of   around   EUR  1.9  billion.  The  main  products  exported  and  imported  were  books  and  works  of  art  (mainly   paintings).   Countries   with   the   highest   ratio   of   exports   compared   to   imports   were   in   Poland,   Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Germany.  The  biggest  export  destination  countries   were  Switzerland  and   the  United  States  (Eurostat,  2011).       3.2. Opportunity  for  small  and  medium-­‐sized  towns     The   approach   to   culture   as   a   driver   of   local   development   of   small   and   medium-­‐sized   towns   in   the  scientific  literature  is  treated  as  ambiguously  as  the  conceptualization  of  the  notion  from  the   beginning  of  this  paper.  In  general,  the  importance  of  culture  for  the  development  of  small  and   medium-­‐sized  towns  has  been  recognized  (Knox  and  Mayer,  2009;  Selada  et  al,  2011,  URBACT,   2011).   However,   the   most   appropriate   approach   for   the   practical   implementation   of   activities   varies  from  one  case  to  another.       In   presenting   the   variety   of   successful   cases   in   Europe   and   United   States,   Know   and   Mayer   (2009)   conclude   that   culture   in   small   towns   create   important   opportunities   for   engagement   among   citizens,   visitors,   neighbours,   friends   and   families.   It   also   enhances   the   ways   in   which   citizens  collaborate  and  create  community  solutions  through  diverse  leadership.  It  helps  shaping   a   community’s   identity   and   finally,   it   contributes   to   the   development   of   a   new   economy   (Knox   and   Mayer,   2009).   In   addition,   “the   attraction   and   retention   of   talent,   namely   of   the   creative   15    

class,  to  small  urban  centres  and  rural  areas  could  be  a  solution  for  their  economic  revitalization,   reversing  de-­‐population  and  desertification  trends”  (Selada  et  al,  2011).     Following  the  division  of  approaches  to  instrumental  and  intrinsic  perspectives,  Knox  and  Mayer   conclude   that   intrinsic   approach   based   on   community   theories   and   social   transformation   is   more  suitable  for  small  and  medium-­‐sized  towns  (Knox  and  Mayer,  2009).     On   the   other   hand,   in   their   observations   of   culture   to   unleash   the   potentials   of   smaller   towns,   instrumentalists   put   an   accent   on   the   creative   industries   that   go   beyond   the   economy   of   culture,   that   are   not   limited   to   arts   and   culture,   but   they   extend   to   fields   where   “creative   individuals,   managers  and  technologists  meet  together,  i.e.  ICT,  fashion,  design,  video,  photography,  cinema,   computer   games,   architecture,   visual   arts,   advanced   services,   etc.”   (URBACT,   2011:   6).   In   fact,   “creative  issues  in  local  economic  development  are  also  a  functional  pattern  outside  the  context   of  the  main  urban  hubs  and  core  cities.  Consequently,  creativity  as  source  of  innovation  should   act   as   a   cross-­‐cutting   approach   to   re-­‐think   economic   and   social   development   of   medium-­‐sized   and  small  towns  given  the  new  opportunities  related  to  accessibility,  community  life,  culture  and   creativity-­‐based  business  models”  (URBACT,  2011:  6).     The  findings  of  URBACT  (2011)  on  the  potential  of  creative  clustering  show  how  creativity  can   lead   to   a   significant   jump   in   terms   of   social   and   economic   development   of   small   and   midsize   towns.   The   reason   behind   it   is   the   standpoint   that   one   of   the   important   drivers   for   towns   is   pulling   optimal   benefits   for   their   development   from   globalization   processes.   “In   a   globalised   era   size  is  not  the  key  question  but  the  capacity  to  absorb  (by  a  local  economy)  global  innovations”   (URBACT,  2011:  28).  Thus,  creative  clusters  are  seen  as  spatial  articulations  where  “talent  and   individual  creativity  are  the  key  factors  of  production,  and  where  the  idea  of  business  is  crucial   to.   […]   Finally,   if   industry   (which   can   simultaneously   be   art,   science   and   business)   [becomes   a   cluster],  it  can  reveal  a  growing  pattern  faster  the  industrial  average”  (URBACT,  2011:  19).       Having   all   that   in   mind,   the   appearance   of   various   public   policies   promoting   the   creation   of   creative   clusters   is   not   surprising.   Selada,   da   Cuhna   and   Tomas   (2011)   describe   two   basic   approaches   to   public   policy   of   creative   clusters:   “Public   policy   initiatives   oriented   towards   the   promotion  of  creative  clusters  can  be  based  on  a  business-­‐oriented  approach  or/and  a  people-­‐ oriented   approach.   On   one   hand,   a   business-­‐oriented   approach   focuses   on   the   creative   production   milieu,   proposing   measures   and   conditions   favourable   for   the   development   of   creative  businesses  as  generators  of  jobs  and  wealth,  such  as  subsidies  or  tax  incentives.  On  the   other   hand,   a   people-­‐oriented   approach   is   centred   on   the   creative   consumption   milieu,   being   oriented   towards   improving   the   qualities   of   the   cities   as   a   way   of   attracting   creative   talent   which,   in   turn,   induces   additional   investment   by   companies   and   the   emergence   of   start-­‐ups   enhancing  job  growth  and  rising  income”  (Selada  et  al,  2011:  5).     Implementing   it   at   the   level   of   small   and   medium-­‐sized   towns,   the   presence   of   amenities   becomes  one  of  the  key  factors  to  attract  creative  population  seeking  for  an  original  atmosphere.   Selada  et  al  (2011)  list  four  categories  of  such  endogenous  assets:  (i)  natural  amenities  (warm   climate,   distinctive   and   picturesque   countryside   with   topographical   diversity   such   as   valleys,   rivers,   lakes,   mountains   and   forests),   (ii)   historical   and   cultural   amenities   (architectonic   and   archaeological  heritage  such  as  castles,  churches,  aqueducts  and  bridges,  and  intangible  heritage   such   as   memories,   testimonies   and   legends),   (iii)   symbolic   amenities   (community   spirit,   16    

neighbourliness  and  sociability,  identity,  authenticity,  civic  associations)  and  (iv)  built  amenities   (health   and   social   services,   hotels,   restaurants,   bars,   meeting   spaces,   museums,   art   galleries,   studios,  events,  etc.)  (Selada  et  al,  2011:  7).     Secondly,   local   development   policies   are   important   to   assure   favourable   conditions,   infrastructures   or   support   programmes   (i.e.   specific   financing,   land   and   services   availability).   “Low   density   urban   areas   attract   mostly   talented   young   families,   midlife   career   changers   and   active   retired   people.   […]   Nevertheless,   younger   people   are   also   increasingly   seeking   rural   areas   due   to   the   low   cost   of   housing,   the   better   quality   of   life   and   the   presence   of   quality   schools,   which  is  clearly  facilitated  by  the  use  of  ICT  (Selada  et  al,  2011:  7).  Furthermore,  there  is  a  strong   tendency   for   persons   with   artistic   and   creative   skills   to   look   for   places   for   their   work,   which   can   also   become   an   opportunity   for   towns   to   offer   to   such   person   better   conditions   than   larger   urban  areas  (Selada  et  al,  2011).     Finally,  the  potential  for  development  of  towns  lays  in  the  embeddedness  and  connectedness  of   creative   industries   to   the   existing   economic   tissue.   “Creative   industries   provide   innovative   inputs   for   other   areas   of   activity   in   local   economies   such   as   agriculture,   handicrafts,   furniture,   textiles,   tourism   and   gastronomy,   promoting   their   development   and   prosperity”   (Selada   et   al,   2011:   8).   In   addition   to   this,   “several   sub-­‐sectors   of   creative   industries,   such   as   architecture,   design,   advertising   or   software   sell   the   majority   of   their   products   and   services   to   other   businesses”  (Selada  et  al,  2011:  9).     In  terms  of  successful  stories,  the  most  of  professionals  and  scholars  are  using  the  case  of  Bilbao   in  Spain  and  its  Guggenheim  effect  to  present  how  culture  can  become  the  main  driver  of  local   economy  at  the  small  spatial  scale.  However,  across  Europe  there  are  many  other  towns  that  are   also   pursue   their   own   paths   by   using   culture   as   one   of   the   key   drivers.   The   URBACT   study   (2011)   list   several   examples   of   smaller   towns   across   Europe   that   successfully   implemented   various  cultural  aspects  into  their  local  development  strategies:   • Obidos,  Portugal  (concept  of  modern  rurality);     • Reggio  Emilia,  Italy  (a  new  media  cluster);     • Mizil,  Romania  (re-­‐thinking  mature  industry  and  fix  people  in  town);     • Barnsley,  UK  (re-­‐using  old  industrial  sites  for  creative  activities,  creative-­‐based  models);     • Enguera,  Spain  (eco-­‐tourism,  social  inclusion,  place  branding),     • Hodmezovasarhely,   Hungary   (revitalization   of   ceramics   industry   and   creative   education);     • Viareggio,  Italy  (cultural  heritage  and  creativity);     • Jyvaskyla,  Finland  (concept  of  the  human  technology  city).     The  lessons  that  have  been  drawn  from  those  cases  are  summarized  by  Selada  et  al  (2011:  21)   as  follows:   • Creativity  can  function  as  a  driving  force  for  the  development  of  small  and  medium-­‐sized   urban  centres  and  even  of  rural  areas;   • This   assumption   is   not   generically   applicable   to   all   low   density   areas.   These   places   are   characterised   by   the   presence   of   endogenous   natural,   historical,   cultural   and   symbolic   amenities,  where  a  high  quality  of  life  and  a  strong  community  spirit  prevail;  

17    

• •

• •

Public  policies  have  an  important  role  to  perform,  through  effective  leadership  and  the   launching  of  development  strategies  with  strong  civic  participation;   It  is  necessary  to  create  a  set  of  constructed  amenities  not  only  oriented  to  tourism  and   cultural  consumption,  but  essentially  to  cultural  production  (i.e.  cultural  infrastructure,   urban  regeneration  operations,  innovative  education  and  training  programmes);   Important   pre-­‐conditions   proximity   to   an   important   urban   centre,   good   physical   accessibility,  development  of  ICT;   Development   of   creative   strategies   needs   to   be   anchored   in   historic   precedents   (path   dependency),   in   the   symbolic   value   of   place   and   space   and   in   cultural   heritage   and   there   is   a   need   to   build   on   competitive   advantage   based   on   distinction/niche   markets   and   a   diversity   of   creative   clusters,   the   links   between   ideas/design   and   manufacturing,   as   well   as  the  diverse  histories/heritage.  

  In  the  following  chapter,  we  present  the  case  of  Obidos  in  Italy  as  the  successful  model  of  a  town   engaged  in  cultural  strategies  as  drivers  of  local  economy.  Then,  we  confront  the  case  of  Halle  an   der  Saale  in  Germany  as  a  town  that  seems  to  fail  in  attracting  cultural  businesses.       3.2.1. Obidos,  Portugal     Located   in   the   north   of   Lisbon,   Obidos   is   a   town   of   10.900   inhabitants   whose   economy   has   been   traditionally   based   on   agriculture   and   tourism.   Today,   it   is   an   example   of   creative,   eco   and   healthy  town  due  to  an  implementation  of  a  development  strategy  focused  on  tourism,  culture   and   economy   that   has   taken   place   since   2002.   The   aim   was   to   improve   the   regeneration   and   diversification  of  the  local  economy,  anchored  in  a  powerful  marketing  strategy  –  the  ‘Creative   Obidos’   brand.   The   most   visible   part   of   this   approach   is   the   organization   of   public   events   that   attract   a   significant   number   of   visitors   and   tourists   to   the   historical   town.   “These   events   have   drastically   changed   the   perception   of   the   ‘museum   town’   and   have   reflected   a   strong   organization   capacity   along   with   the   involvement   of   the   local   community   and   associations”   (Selada   et   al,   2011:   12).   The   organization   of   these   events   implied   a   set   of   different   areas   that   embrace   creativity:   content   production,   entertainment   and   acting,   music,   graphic   design,   marketing   and   advertising,   multimedia,   artistic   creation   and   cultural   research.   Overall,   the   town   is   pursuing   its   strategy   “Obidos   Criativa”   that   comprises   several   landmarks   such   as   the   Technology   Park,   ABC   incubator   focused   on   creative   entrepreneurs,   new   school   programme,   impressive  cultural  agenda  and  a  re-­‐branding  of  its  history  (URBAC,  2011).     Selada   et   al   (2011)   analyse   characteristics   of   the   development   strategies   of   Obidos   within   five   main  axes:     1. Governance:     • Strong  leadership;   • Creative  strategy  driven  by  the  local  authority;   • Cultural  thematic  events  in  the  historic  centre;   • Clear  strategic  vision  and  a  target  plan;   • Management  model  based  on  municipal  companies;   • Support  infrastructures  and  specific  schemes  for  creative  companies  and  talents;   • Promotion  of  public-­‐private  partnerships;   18    

2.

3.

4.

5.

• Limited  inter-­‐municipal  cooperation;   • Participation  in  national  and  international  networks.   Natural  and  built  environment:   • Distinctive  and  diversified  landscape;   • Predominantly  rural  region  with  small  rural  villages  and  a  major  urban  centre;   • Unique  natural  landscape  that  includes  beaches  and  a  lagoon;   • Remarkable   historic,   cultural   and   religious   heritage   from   different   eras   and   styles;   • Traditional  architecture  alongside  contemporary  projects.   Social  and  symbolic  capital:   • Renowned  iconic  image  as  a  medieval  walled  town;   • Local  identity  rooted  on  its  historic  past,  secular  traditions  and  rural  lifestyles;   • Consecrated  intangible  and  symbolic  heritage;   • Diverse  civil  and  commercial  associations;   • Improvement  of  wellbeing  and  quality  of  life.   Economic  activities  and  cultural  facilities:   • Tourism  and  related  services  as  the  main  economic  activities;   • Very  relevant  agriculture  sector;   • Significant  industry  of  food  processing,  construction  and  furniture;   • New   infrastructures   for   creative   entrepreneurship   and   technology   based   businesses;   • Several  cultural  infrastructures  and  an  intense  cultural  agenda;   • An   assortment   of   knowledge   infrastructures,   namely   specialized   schools   and   training  centres.   Connectivity:   • Town  in  an  intermediate  region;   • Located  in  Portugal’s  Central  Region  and  near  important  urban  centres;   • Well  connected  with  the  major  metropolitan  areas;   • Good  physical  connectivity  mainly  by  car;   • Short  distance  from  one  International  Airport;   • Increased  digital  connectivity.  

    3.2.2. Halle  an  der  Saale,  Germany     Halle   is   a   medium-­‐sized   town   in   East   Germany,   located   close   to   Leipzig   and   that   until   the   German   reunification   had   a   strongly   developed   traditional   industries   such   as   machine   engineering,   chemical   industry   and   mining.   Since   the   reunification,   the   town   declined   in   its   population  from  300.000  in  1990s  to  240.000  today.  Nevertheless,  Halle  has  a  long  tradition  as  a   cultural  city  and  is  offering  a  wide  range  of  activities  such  as  several  theatres  and  museums  of   national  importance,  opera,  or  Handel  music  festival  (in  honour  of  G.F.  Handel  who  was  born  in   Halle).   It   has   two   universities   as   well   as   the   tradition   in   the   print   media   (mainly   newspapers)   which  influenced  the  choice  of  Media  City  as  a  strategy  for  local  re-­‐development  at  the  beginning   of   2000s   (Rosenfeld   and   Hornych,   2010).   The   objective   was   to   enhance   number   of   firm   and   employees   in   new   media   industries   of   the   town   through   the   combination   of   various   policy   measures.  During  the  first  period  from  1999  to  2004,  more  than  50%  of  the  existing  media  firms   19    

were  set  up  and  about  1.900  persons  were  employed.  However,  in  the  years  after  2003,  a  decline   began,  leading  to  decrease  in  turnovers  and  defragmentation  of  firms  to  less  than  10  persons.     In  presenting  the  case  of  Halle  an  der  Saale,  Rosenfeld  and  Hornych  (2010)  give  insights  into  the   difficulties   and   problems   which   may   occur   when   policy-­‐makers   try   to   support   the   local   development   of   media   industry   without   being   able   to   compensate   the   shortages   of   relevant   location  factors.  The  reasons  for  failure  of  media  industry  in  Halle,  according  to  authors  are  as   follows:   i. The  development  remained  highly  dependent  on  public  support  and  has  stagnated.   ii. The  competition  on  local  subsidies  has  increased,  the  volume  of  production  contracts   was  not  further  enlarged,  and  the  business  incubator  was  fully  occupied  by  already   existing  firms.   iii. Local  networking  had  small  impact.   iv. The  supply  with  human  capital  from  universities  was  oversized  and  thus  fragmentary.   v. The  potential  of  local  customers  in  the  region  was  small  from  the  beginning,  and  there   was  no  strong  sector  existing  in  the  area.   vi. The  biggest  firms  were  not  interested  to  cooperate  with  local  partners  and  did  not  rely   on  their  surrounding  environment.       CONCLUSION     Through  the  analysis  of  some  theoretical  and  empirical  studies,  we  explored  the  contribution  of   culture   and   its   potentials   for   local   development   at   smaller   spatial   levels,   namely   small   and   medium-­‐sized  towns.  We  presented  the  evolution  of  two  main  approaches  to  conceptualization   of  culture  (instrumental  and  intrinsic)  that  influence  the  way  of  creation  of  cultural  policies  and   activities.       In  terms  of  local  development,  on  the  one  hand,  cultural  activities  have  been  seen  an  important   social  factor  that  through  social  regeneration  projects  includes  marginalized  groups,  it  ensures   social   cohesion   between   the   rich   and   the   poor   areas   and   it   improves   the   communication   between   various   groups   of   the   society,   especially   when   it   comes   to   empowerment   and   citizenship.       On   the   other   hand,   culture   has   been   approached   as   a   potential   for   local   economy   due   to   its   ability   to   attract   tourists.   Thus,   its   direct   benefits   are   the   generation   of   revenues   and   employment  for  the  town  in  the  case  when  cultural  events  entail  expenditure  that  are  connected   to   these   activities   (i.e.   provision   of   various   services).     Also,   culture   generates   indirect   benefits   in   terms   of   revenues   coming   from   cultural   tourism   in   the   case   when   tourists   spend   on   hotels,   restaurants  or  transport.       Another   cultural   opportunity   for   local   development   that   has   been   covered   in   the   scientific   literature  is  the  fact  that  cultural  industries  constitute  a  sector  which  is  performing  particularly   well  at  the  local  level.  Thus,  cultural  goods  and  services  are  locally  produced  and  consumed  but   can  also  be  exported  for  consummation  outside  the  area  of  production.    

20    

Nevertheless,   as   demonstrated   in   two   cases   of   Obidos   in   Portugal   and   Halle   an   der   Saale   in   Germany,  the  implementation  of  cultural  strategies  needs  to  take  into  consideration  several  key   factors.    Firstly,  the  presence  of  endogenous  natural,  historical,  cultural  and  symbolic  amenities   is   crucial   for   the   maintenance   of   a   high   quality   of   life   and   community   identity.   Geographic   position,   proximity   to   larger   urban   centres   and   good   infrastructure   and   service   provision   are   part   of   this   set   of   pre-­‐conditions   as   well.   Secondly,   public   policies   have   an   important   role   to   perform,  namely  through  leadership  and  encouragement  of  participation.  Initiatives  for  identity   building   and   fight   against   social   inequalities   and   exclusion   would   assure   the   long-­‐term   perspectives.   Thirdly,   entrepreneurship   oriented   not   only   to   traditional   tourism   and   cultural   consumption,  but  also  to  cultural  and  creative  production  is  a  key  element  of  the  successful  link   between  culture  and  economy.  Finally,  the  development  of  CCIs  and  creative  clusters  should  be   anchored   in   historic   precedents,   so-­‐called   path-­‐dependent,   in   order   to   avoid   the   common   mistake   to   force   replication   that   is   not   suitable.   As   argued   by   Selada,   da   Cuhna   and   Tomas   (2011),   towns   need   to   build   on   competitive   advantage   based   on   niche   markets,   diversity,   link   between  ideas  and  production  and  heritage  (Selada  et  al,  2011).       REFERENCES     Baumol,   W.   and   Bowen,   W.   (1966)   Performing   Arts.   The   economic   dilemna,   Cambridge,   MIT   Press.   Bayliss,   D.   (2004),   Ireland’s   Creative   Development  :   Local   Authority   Strategies   for   Culture-­‐led   Development,  Regional  Studies,  vol.  38,  n.  7,  p.  817-­‐831.   Bayliss,   D.   (2007),   The   Rise   of   the   Creative   City:   Culture   and   Creativity   in   Copenhagen,   European   Planning  Studies,  vol.  15,  n.  7,  pp.  889-­‐902.   Besharov,   G.   (2005),   The   Outbreak   of   the   Cost   Disease:   Baumol   and   Bowen’s   Founding   of   Cultural  Economics,  History  of  Political  Economy,  vol.  37,  n.  3,  p.  413  –  430.   Cameron,   S.   and   Coaffee,   J.   (2005),   Art,   Gentrification   and   Regeneration   –   From   Artist   as   Pioneer   to  Public  Arts,  European  Journal  of  Housing  Policy,  vol.  5,  n.  1,  pp.  39-­‐58.   Centre   for   Strategy   and   Evaluation   Services   LLP   (CES)   and   ERICarts   Institute   for   the   European   Commission’s  DG  Education  and  Culture  (2010),  The  contribution  of  culture  to  local  and  regional   development  –  Evidence  from  the  structural  funds,  Kent:  UK.   Cohendet,   P.,   Grandadam,   D.   and   Simon,   L.   (2009),   Economics   and   the   ecology   of   creativity:   evidence  from  the  popular  music  industry,  International  Review  of  Applied  Economics,  vol.  23,  n.   6,  pp.  709-­‐722.   Commission  européenne  (2007),  Résolution  du  Conseil  du  16  novembre  2007  relative  à  un  agenda   européen   de   la   culture,   2007/C 287/01, online   [URL]  :   http://eur-­‐ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:287:0001:0004:FR:PDF Commission   européenne   (2010),   Livre   vert,   libérer   le   potentiel   des   industries   culturelles   et   créatives,   COM(2010) 183/3, online   [URL]  :   http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/greenpaper_creative_industries_fr.pdf   Darlow,   A.   (1996),   Cultural   Policy   and   Urban   Sustainability:   making   a   missing   link?   Planning   Practice  and  Research,  vol.  11,  n.  3,  pp.  291-­‐301.   Eurostat  (2011),  The  cultural  statistics  in  Europe  pocketbook,  Bruxelles.   Evans,  G.  and  Foord,  J.  (2008),  Cultural  mapping  and  sustainable  communities:  planning  for  the   arts  revisited,  Cultural  Trends,  Vol.  17,  No.  2,  pp.  65-­‐96.     21    

Galbraith,  J.  K.  (1960),  The  Liberal  Hour,  Houghton  Mifflin,  Boston.   KEA  European  Affars,  Media  Group  and  MKW  Wirtschaftsforschung  GmbH  (2006),  The  economy  of   culture  in  Europe,  Bruxelles.   Kroeber,   A.   and   Kluckhohn,   C.   (1952),   Culture:   A   Critical   Review   of   concepts   and   definitions,   Poabody  Museum  of  Archeology  and  Ethnology,  Cambridge.   Marling,   G.,   Jensen,   B.O.   and   Kiib,   H.   (2009),   The   Experience   City:   Planning   of   Hybrid   Cultural   Projects,  European  Planning  Studies,  v.  17,  n.  6,  pp.  863-­‐885.   Marshall,   A.   (1890),   Principles   of   Economics:   an   introductory   volume,   book   4,   ch.6,   version   numérique,  McMaster  University,  Archive  for  the  History  of  Economic  Thought.   Martinon,  J.  P.  (1997),  Sociologie  de  la  Culture,  Encyclopaedia  Universalis,  édition  1998,  Paris.   McCarthy,  J.  (2005),  Cultural  Quarters  and  Regeneration  :  The  Case  of  Wolverhamton,  Planning,   Practice  &  Research,  vol.  20,  n.  3,  pp.  297-­‐311;   McCarthy,   J.   (2006),   The   Application   of   Policy   for   Cultural   Clustering:   Current   Practice   in   Scotland,  European  Planning  Studies,  vol.  14,  n.  3,  pp.  397-­‐408.   Montgomery,   J.   (2003),   Cultural   Quarters   as   Mechanisms   for   Urban   Regeneration.   Part   1:   Conceptualising  Cultural  Quarters,  Planning,  Practice  &  Research,  vol.  18,  n.  4,  p.  293-­‐306.   Plaza,   B.,   Tironi,   M.   and   Haarich,   S.N.   (2009),   Bilbao’s   Art   Scene   and   the   “Guggenheim   effect”   Revisited,  European  Planning  Studies,  vol.  17,  n.  11,  pp.  1711-­‐1729.   Quinn,   B.   (2006),   Problematising   ‘Festival   Tourism’  :   Arts   Festivals   and   Sustainable   Development  in  Ireland,  Journal  of  Sustainable  Tourism,  vol.  14,  n.  3,  pp.  288-­‐306.   Rosenfeld,   M.   T.   W.     and   Hornych,   C.   (2010),   Could   Cities   in   De-­‐Industrialized   Regions   Become   Hot  Spots  for  Attracting  Cultural  Businesses?  The  Case  of  Media  Industry  in  Halle  an  der  Saale   (Germany),  European  Planning  Studies,  vol.  18,  n.  3,  pp.  371-­‐384.   Sparviero,  S.  and  Preston,  P.  (2010),  Creativity  and  the  positive  reading  of  Baumol  cost  disease,   The  Service  Industries  Journal,  vol.  30,  n.  11,  p.  1903  –  1917.   Scott,   A.J.   (1997):   The   Cultural   Economy   of   Cities,   International   Journal   of   Urban   and   Regional   Research.  vol.  21,  n.  2,  pp  323-­‐339.   Selada,   C.,   da   Cuhna,   I.   V.   and   Tomas,   E.   (2011),   Creative   Clusters   in   Low   Density   Urban   Areas:   A   Case  Study  Approach,  paper  for  INTELI,  Lisboa,  Portugal.   Siegfried,   A.   (1953),   Qu’est   ce   que   la   culture?   Encyclopédie   de   l’Agora,   online   (URL)  :   http://agora.qc.ca/encyclopedie.nsf   Smith,  A.  (1776),  Recherche  sur  la  nature  et  les  causes  de  la  richesse  des  nations,  Livre   2,  Chapitre  3,  version  numérique  pour  la  collection  «  Les  classiques  des  sciences  sociales  »,   Université  du  Québec,  Chicoutimi   http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/index.html   Tylor,   E.   B.   (1881),   Anthropology:   an   introduction   to   the   study   of   man   and   civilization,   Routledge/Thoemmes,  London.   URBACT   Creative   Clusters   (2011),   From   creative   industries   to   the   creative   place:   Refreshing   the   local   development   agenda   in   small   and   medium-­‐sized   towns,   report   by   Miguel   Rivas,   European   Programme  for  Sustainable  Urban  Development.    

22